(PART 918)


I just received a copy of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". Having read the first fifty pages, I can state that book promises to become the One-Stop Shop for everyone tired of the incessant yammering of agenda-driven conspiracy peddlers.


Thank you, Ronald, very much.


A detailed critique of the book by Martin Hay:

http://ctka.net/"Beyond Reasonable Doubt" Book Review


What a surprise --- a conspiracy theorist (Martin Hay) disagrees with LNers.


And it's no surprise to see Martin Hay doing what all Internet CTers do every day---trying to explain away all the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald.

Martin believes all the evidence is fake and phony. If he didn't believe that, then Oswald's guilty. And Martin doesn't like that idea at all. So, the evidence is ALL fraudulent---from the rifle to the paper bag to Howard Brennan and everything in-between.

And I'm wondering why Mr. Hay is telling this false tale in his BRD book review at CTKA?.....

"Although the precise location of the back wound was not recorded by Kennedy's pathologists..." -- Martin Hay

Hay is dead wrong about that statement. The autopsy Face Sheet records the exact location of the upper-back wound. It's the precise location of the throat wound which wasn't recorded by Humes, Boswell, and Finck. Maybe Hay meant to say "throat wound" instead of "back wound" above. ~shrug~

But, in any event, Martin knows full well that no bullets were found inside JFK's body, and there was very little damage inside Kennedy's upper back and neck that could have stopped a rifle bullet, let alone stopping TWO such bullets, which is the number of missiles (two) that Hay needs to disappear into thin air if he thinks the bullet that struck JFK's back did not transit the President's body.

But common sense was never a strong suit of JFK conspiracy theorists. Their constant refusal to accept the truth of the Single-Bullet Theory has been proving that fact for fifty years.


That's it, David? You found a typo error? You can't refute anything else he wrote? No, all we get is more bold assertions and hyperbole.

Howard Brennan? Most LNers on the internet gave up using Brennan a long time ago.



I've seen all of the silly excuses for ignoring all of the Oswald-Did-It evidence before. Nothing Martin Hay had to say in his review surprised me. I expected it. Hay's review is merely the most recent excuse for conspiracists like him to raise their Internet voices so they can (once again) pretend that Oswald never ordered the rifle and never took the rifle into the TSBD and never shot at General Walker, etc., etc. to absurdity.

If you want to see each foolish claim made by CTers debunked, I've got pages on my websites that accomplish that task fairly well (IMO). But I'm not going to type out 5,000 words on these [Amazon.com] forums to refute Hay's fairy tale beliefs. That's why I've archived everything at my own sites, so I don't have to type it all out again every time these things come up (which they constantly do).

Regarding Howard Brennan....

Do you think LNers like myself (and Mel Ayton) should just completely IGNORE Mr. Brennan, is that it? We should just toss Howard under the wheels of SS-100-X and pretend he never told the Warren Commission that the man he saw shoot JFK was, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald? Is that it?

And do you think the whole case against Oswald rests on the shoulders of only Howard Brennan? Why would anyone think that? Even without Brennan, Oswald is still guilty as ever. And the evidence proves it. Brennan's testimony merely corroborates and buttresses what all reasonable people can already figure out for themselves based on the physical evidence and Oswald's own actions---i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy.


Truth is not determined by opinion poll, especially since most people have never studied this case in depth (and that includes your average supporter of the Warren Commission, as well as many conspiracy believers, such as Alex Jones, who just makes up stuff).


I agree with Tracy on this point about "polls". Most people who are polled probably have no idea who J.D. Tippit was. And while it's true that I have brought up the fact (with some delight) that the public opinion polls have shown that the number of conspiracy believers in the JFK case is dwindling in recent years, I have heard many CTers prop up the type of statement simulated below. In fact, I'm confronted with this very argument all the time on the Internet....

"David, the majority of Americans think there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. Do you really think that 85% or 90% or 95% [and the CTer will ALWAYS inflate the percentage to a figure that has never really been that high] of the public is wrong or are liars?"

But, as Tracy suggested, it's very likely that the vast majority of that "80 to 90%" has no detailed knowledge of the evidence in the case at all. They've watched Oliver Stone's movie or saw something online or watched a documentary for the 50th anniversary, and drew their conclusions based on just those few things.

Yes, there are a lot of conspiracy authors telling Americans not to believe anything in the Warren Report. But I have found over the last few years that whenever I have decided to check out some "conspiracy claim" in some detail, that pro-conspiracy story invariably turns out to be bogus and nothing but a long-believed myth with no basis in actual fact. One conspiracy author from the "early days" (the 1960s) says something and that story (i.e., myth) gets passed on from one author to the next and to the next. I see that thing occurring on a regular basis when discussing the JFK case.

A very good example of this is something that author and LNer Jean Davison pointed out in an online post in 2011 concerning whether or not Oswald's rifle and revolver purchases should have required certain paperwork. As it turns out, the CTers who insist on repeating this myth are the ones who are very likely incorrect (as usual) --- CLICK HERE.

And a year before Jean's post linked above, I was arguing with CTers about the postal regulations too. And as I prove HERE, Mark Lane is probably one of the very last people on this planet you should trust when it comes to this matter.


No other county in America -- and almost no state, for that matter -- has freed more innocent people from prison in recent years than Dallas County, where [Henry] Wade was DA from 1951 through 1986.


The "Henry Wade's convictions are being overturned in record numbers" excuse that conspiracy theorists now commonly utilize in order to pretend all the evidence against Oswald was fake and planted is just another convenient cop-out. Henry Wade didn't collect any of the evidence that proves Oswald's guilt. He would have merely presented that evidence at Oswald's trial (had LHO not been killed).

Now yes, it's also true that Wade HIMSELF very likely didn't initially collect any of the evidence in those cases where guilty verdicts were overturned. But the JFK case is not at all similar to those "other" cases, and that's because in THIS case (the JFK case), we---the public---could practically watch the evidence unfold before our very eyes as the events were playing themselves out on live television and radio on 11/22/63.

Do the conspiracy theorists really think that Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade was pulling the strings of all those DPD officers, along with the strings of Captain Fritz and Chief Curry, during those early hours immediately after the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit?

Do the CTers think Henry Wade HIMSELF was somehow able to manipulate all of the first-day evidence so that it all would point to a so-called "patsy" named Lee Oswald? (Not counting the "Mauser" mistake made by some of the officers. But with respect to the "Mauser" error -- do CTers think Henry Wade was somehow responsible for turning the "Mauser" into a Carcano? And did Henry Wade himself somehow alter the Alyea Film, which is a film that many rifle experts have said definitely shows a CARCANO---not a MAUSER---being picked up off of the sixth floor of the TSBD by DPD Lieutenant J.C. Day?)

In short, the CTers who like to accuse Henry Wade of sinister and underhanded activity in the JFK murder case are just as silly as the CTers who engage in that same type of tortured reasoning when it comes to the Warren Commission too. Many CTers falsely claim that the JFK evidence is the "Warren Commission's evidence" -- as if the WC collected and processed and tested all the evidence THEMSELVES. They didn't do anything of the kind, of course. The WC merely evaluated and assessed the evidence that had been gathered long before the Commission was ever created. The evidence existed in this case many days before the WC was even born. And it existed prior to Henry Wade ever becoming aware of that evidence too.

And I wonder how the "Wade Haters" can deal with Lee Oswald's VERY OWN ACTIONS on both November 21 and 22? Will the Wade haters simply pretend that Oswald's actions on those two days are actions that lead more toward Oswald's complete INNOCENCE rather than his guilt? (How could any rational person possibly go down that rocky road? And why would they even want to?)

Most juries get it right. If they convict a defendant, I'd wager to say that 99% of the time that person who is on trial is guilty. Otherwise the defendant wouldn't have been charged with the crime in the first place, because there would have been no EVIDENCE to suggest to the authorities that that person had committed the crime.

But CTers will pick out and highlight the 1% of criminal cases where it's been shown that a jury reached the wrong verdict, with those CTers ignoring the fact that 99% of the time the juries in the United States reach the proper verdict.

Of course, there is a high-profile example of a jury reaching the incorrect verdict---the O.J. Simpson trial. But Tracy Riddle should at least be happy that that wasn't a case where an innocent person was wrongly convicted. In O.J.'s case, it was just the opposite---an obviously guilty man was set free.


The autopsy doctors absolutely did not record the precise location of the back wound. You know it, I know it, and so does every first-year student of the assassination. This is a fact for which the pathologists were specifically criticized by the HSCA forensic pathology panel. In its report to the committee, the panel noted that "The measures essential to a thorough medicolegal autopsy that the pathologists failed to take" included "Recording precisely the locations of the wounds according to anatomical landmarks routinely used in forensic pathology. The medical panel of the committee stated that the reference points used to document the location of the wound in the upper back--the mastoid process and the acromion--are moveable points and should not have been used." (7HSCA17)


Yeah, sure, Martin. I guess this Face Sheet is just a figment of my imagination. And so is this writing on that Face Sheet --- "14 cm. below tip of rt. mastoid process".

But apparently Martin Hay doesn't think that that particular measurement is precise enough to even come anywhere close to denoting the true location of JFK's upper-back wound. Is that correct, Martin? Therefore, Martin will only accept a DIFFERENT exacting measurement and totally disregard the "mastoid" and "acromion" measurements, even though Dr. Humes specifically said this to the ARRB in 1996:

QUESTION -- When you recorded it a being from the right mastoid process, was it your understanding that the right mastoid process was a fixed body landmark?

DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- Oh, sure. It doesn't move around in most people. You're really in trouble if it does.

QUESTION -- Well, is it a fixed landmark, fixed body landmark with respect to the thoracic cavity?

DR. HUMES -- It's fixed with regard to respect anything you want it respected to.


Nowhere in my review do I state or even suggest that "all the evidence is fake and phony". .... I never suggested that there was anything "fraudulent" about the rifle.


Good. Then Oswald is guilty. He has to be guilty if the evidence is not "fake" or "phony" or "fraudulent". Right? Because how could he possibly be innocent if the evidence is truly legitimate?

So, it's good to have that cleared up. You've just admitted that Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 is not "fraudulent". And you've admitted that you DON'T think "all the evidence is fake and phony". Which I assume would indicate that you think at least SOME of the evidence is real and legitimate and worthy of being utilized to try and solve the JFK murder case. Correct?

At this rate, you'll be an LNer before you know it, Martin. Because there are very few Internet conspiracists who are willing to stipulate that ANY of the evidence against Oswald is legit.


I've said it before and I'll say it again: You, David Von Pein, are living proof that Mark Twain was correct when he said that common sense is something uneducated people attribute to themselves.


I've said it before and I'll say it again....

Internet conspiracy theorists are unquestionably the very last people on the face of the globe who should be looking into the assassination of America's 35th President. If they suddenly become capable of properly evaluating anything relating to JFK's demise, please notify CNN at once! Because that will surely be worthy of a "Breaking News" bulletin!


Jesus, David. I've never seen anybody talk so much without actually saying anything. You have a skill. Of sorts.

Anyway, I'll skip all the tripe and go straight to the only significant part of your post, which is your laughable attempt to pass off "14 cm below tip of rt. mastoid process" as a precise measurement for a wound in the back. Firstly, I'll just say I find it very interesting that you cut off your quote from Humes's ARRB deposition where you did. Here's the rest of that discussion:

GUNN: Well, if your head turns to the right or the left, does the mastoid process distance vary with relationship to--

HUMES: Well, maybe a millimeter or two. Not significantly. Are we getting into a big debate as to whether I did anything properly here or not? It's not a debate I want to get involved in. (p. 140)

Humes was certainly getting defensive there, wasn't he? Why is that? It must be because Jeremy Gunn was pointing out what all sensible people know to be true: The mastoid process is NOT a fixed anatomic landmark for a wound in the thoracic cavity.

For those who don't know, the mastoid process is the small, bony bump behind the ear. Depending on the position of the head, 14 cm below that bump could be in any number of locations. If the head is tilted forward it could be on the neck. If the head is pulled back, it could be well below the shoulders. This is precisely why the nine highly experienced forensic pathologists on the HSCA panel criticized Humes for using that measurement, saying that it "should not have been used."

Even Dr. Pierre Finck, Humes's colleague at the autopsy (and the only member of the autopsy team who was actually considered an expert in gunshot wounds), said it was not appropriate to use the mastoid process to identify the location of a back wound:

GUNN: When one is attempting to determine the location of a wound, we'll say, in the thoracic cavity, would it be appropriate to use as a fixed body landmark a mastoid process?


GUNN: For purposes of identifying the wound in the back, the thoracic cavity.

FINCK: An immobile body structure is a fixed body landmark.

GUNN: Well, for the identification of the location of the wound in the thoracic cavity--

FINCK: Thoracic cavity.

GUNN: --is a mastoid process a standard and understood fixed body landmark?

FINCK: For the thoracic cavity, no. Because it is part of the head, and the head is moving, could move.

GUNN: So that the mastoid process would not be a standard fixed body landmark for the purposes of identifying the location of a wound in the thoracic region, is that fair to say?

FINCK: Yes. (Finck ARRB deposition, p. 45)

The autopsy doctors did not record the precise location of the back wound. That is, was, and always will be a FACT no matter what David Von Pein says.


You're funny, Martin. The truth is, of course, that ANY "body landmark" is going to be FIXED (i.e., immobile) during a post-mortem examination---because wounds are being located from landmarks while the body is in the anatomic ("autopsy") position---rigid and straight. And that's true for the mastoid process or any other body landmark.

Do you, Martin, think that President Kennedy's mastoid process was moving all over the place while it was being used as a measuring landmark while JFK was lying flat on a table in an anatomic position? (And I have no reason to believe that the autopsy doctors were so stupid that they chose to measure distances on JFK's body while his body was in some position OTHER than the standard "autopsy" position. If the doctors started measuring distances while Kennedy's body was in some contorted or "bent over" position, then those doctors would, of course, deserve all the criticism I could blast them with. But I have no reason to believe they were THAT idiotic. Do you, Martin?)

While most pathologists might very well have measured the wounds from different body landmarks than those utilized by Dr. Humes in November 1963, it makes very little difference, because we DO have a SPECIFIC and PRECISE measurement for the back wound as it relates to a known body landmark on John F. Kennedy's body. You know it. I know it. The HSCA knew it.

So, once again, a huge useless mountain is being made out of total nothingness by a conspiracy theorist. And Martin Hay is dead wrong when he said this:

"The autopsy doctors did not record the precise location of the back wound. That is, was, and always will be a FACT no matter what David Von Pein says."

The above statement is a blatant falsehood and always will be for as long as Hay continues to spout such tommyrot. The precise location of JFK's back wound was most certainly located and all sensible people know it.


You're hilarious, David.

You want everyone to buy the notion that somehow you know better than the 10 forensic pathologists I cited, despite the fact that you don't even know that the "anatomic position" is a standing position! ROFL Brilliant.

You're like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail who has his arms and legs chopped off but still won't admit he's been defeated. But you've been proven wrong whether you want to admit it or not. The wound's precise location on the back cannot be determined by its distance from the mastoid process. That's a cold, hard fact. The HSCA knew it. Finck knew it. Humes knew it. And you know it.

Keep on trollin', David.


Dr. Cyril Wecht has always maintained that measurements at an autopsy should be taken from "the mid-point of the body" and "from the top of the head".

OK, that sounds totally reasonable to me. But given those standards, it would still elicit the same basic concerns that a measurement from the "mastoid" would elicit. Why? Because the head is a movable part of the body. Therefore, the "TOP of the head" can be moved. It's not really "fixed", is it?

So the same concerns about the starting point for measurements can still easily be debated even when utilizing Dr. Wecht's "from the top of the head" recommendation. Unless, that is, the body is placed in a standard position, such as the autopsy or "anatomical" position. And the last time I checked, it's not possible for a dead body to STAND UP, and yet we still hear about the "anatomical position" being described in relation to autopsies on human bodies. (Go figure.)

And if the body is in the anatomical (autopsy) position, then a measurement from the mastoid process is probably just as reliable and accurate as measuring downward "from the top of the head".



Is the Black Knight still babbling?

This argument ended ages ago. All the information the reader needs in order to prove Von Pein wrong is contained in my previous posts. To know precisely where the back wound was located on the thoracic cavity one needs to know where it was in relation to the thoracic vertebrae. Knowing it was 14 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process does not tell us that. This fact is proven by the ARRB depositions of the three autopsy doctors. When Jeremy Gunn asked them each where the wound was located in relation to the thoracic vertebrae, Humes and Finck refused to be pinned down and Boswell (apparently trying to be a little more helpful) had to ESTIMATE that it was around T2. He had to ESTIMATE its location on the back. That tells you everything you need to know about the measurement they used.

As detailed above, forensic pathologists - including one of those who conducted Kennedy's post mortem - agree that the mastoid process is NOT a suitable body landmark for identifying the location of a wound in the back. One can either believe those pathologists who between them have conducted many thousands of autopsies, or they can believe KFC employee David Von Pein.

Not exactly a difficult choice, is it?


Or they can do something even simpler----they can look at the photo showing where the back wound is located:


Indeed they can, whilst bearing in mind that this very photo was used by the HSCA forensic pathology panel who still reported that the failure of the autopsy doctors to localize the wound according to correct body landmarks precluded "reconstruction of the exact entrance point." (7HSCA87)

And with the photos and X-rays in hand, the panel still admitted that "Neither the autopsy surgeons nor the panel, at this time, can determine the exact pathway and angle of this missile track in the President..." (Ibid, 80)

More real facts about the SBT here.


This game of ping-pong featuring HSCA quotations is fun. A conspiracy theorist gets to post a quote from the House Select Committee that he likes. Then I get to post one that I like even better. (Which only goes to prove that once you start playing ping-pong with virtually ANYTHING relating to quotes and conclusions reached by ANYBODY---whether it be the Warren Commission, the HSCA, or anybody else---you can probably find support for your own position somewhere within the text of those official reports.)

My turn....

"The forensic pathology panel concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each of which entered from the rear. The panel further concluded that the President was struck by one bullet that entered in the upper right of the back and exited from the front of the throat, and one bullet that entered in the right rear of the head near the cowlick area and exited from the right side of the head, toward the front. .... There is no medical evidence that the President was struck by a bullet entering the front of the head, and the possibility that a bullet could have struck the President and yet left no evidence is extremely remote. .... Based on the evidence available to it, the panel concluded that a single bullet passing through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally would support a fundamental conclusion that the President was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each fired from behind. Thus, the forensic pathology panel's conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory advanced by the Warren Commission." -- HSCA Final Report; Pages 43-44


And a bonus quote (for good measure):

"Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President." -- HSCA Final Report; Page 3

Your turn, Martin.

Your next one should be the HSCA's ridiculous conclusion [at 7 HSCA 100 and
1 HSCA 377 and 6 HSCA 43] that JFK's throat wound was anatomically HIGHER than the upper-back wound, despite the Clark Panel's specific measurements to the contrary, with the Clark Panel determining that the throat wound was located approximately 3.5 centimeters LOWER than the bullet hole in President Kennedy's upper back.

Related "SBT" stuff for conspiracy theorists to completely ignore:


My turn for what, David?

I'm not interested in playing games with you.

This exchange began when you falsely claimed that the autopsy doctors had precisely located the back wound. I proved you wrong. Nothing you've written since has changed that in any way.


The autopsy doctors did locate it precisely---the wound was "precisely" 14 centimeters below the tip of the right mastoid process. You (and others) don't think that's nearly "precise" enough. Okay, that's fine. But I think it's rather silly to take that position, particularly in light of these comments that I made on the subject on April 14, 2015:

"Dr. Cyril Wecht has always maintained that measurements at an autopsy should be taken from "the mid-point of the body" and "from the top of the head". .... But given those standards, it would still elicit the same basic concerns that a measurement from the "mastoid" would elicit. Why? Because the head is a movable part of the body. Therefore, the "TOP of the head" can be moved. It's not really "fixed", is it? .... And if the body is in the anatomical (autopsy) position, then a measurement from the mastoid process is probably just as reliable and accurate as measuring downward "from the top of the head"." -- DVP

And while it's true that I'm certainly no forensic pathologist and it's also true that I've performed ZERO autopsies in my lifetime, I can't see how anyone (even the nine members of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel) could possibly argue with the logic of my remarks above.



This is hysterical. Von Pein is swimming, rather drowning, in his own BS.

He won't even admit that there was a long, long--years long--debate about the location of the back wound in JFK. For the central reason that the WC said it was in one place, but much other evidence, like the face sheet made up by Boswell, said it was in another place.

Therefore, someone was lying. Creating a fraud actually.

I advise everyone to read Martin's review. It really shows what a joke
this book is.


Oh, good. Another crock of a post by DiEugenio. Nothing he just said above is pertinent to the discussion I was having with Martin Hay.

Martin and I haven't been talking about the decades-long controversy about whether the wound was in the "neck" or in the "back", nor have we been discussing Gerald Ford's alleged "moving" of the wound, nor have we been discussing the "dot" on Boswell's Face Sheet.

Instead, we've been talking ONLY about whether a measurement taken from the mastoid process is a "precise" enough measurement. Martin and the HSCA don't think it is. But as I have already pointed out multiple times now, even if we go by Cyril Wecht's recommendation of utilizing "the top of the head" as a starting point for all of the wounds in JFK's body, the very same debate and controversy is going to exist. And I know a lot of CTers just love Dr. Cyril H. Wecht. They take his word for about everything. But the "top of the head" is essentially the same as measuring from the mastoid---because they both involve a movable object---the human head.

Why not go back to the Deep Politics Forum and whine about me some more over there, Jimbo? You'll get a much more receptive audience if you do. No "LNers" can get within sixty miles of DPF's front stoop.


More baloney. Because if the wound had been located properly, there would be little debate about it at all. Jeremy Gunn pointed this out with Humes. The mastoid process is not a good marker at all, as it varies with the position of the head. And when Gunn pointed this out, Humes got antsy. Just like he did when Gunn pointed out the lack of the particle fragment path in the skull where he mentioned it in his autopsy report.

Secondly, to show again how untrustworthy DVP is, he actually says that if there is no debate about the rifle in evidence, then Oswald did it!


Why is that funny? Because the rifle in evidence is not the rifle that the WC says Oswald ordered. That is a proven fact. And DVP knows that!!!

Therefore, that rifle is not incriminating at all. It's exculpatory. Because there is no explanation in the WC volumes as to why there is [a] discrepancy. But further, there is evidence that David Belin knew it was the wrong rifle and wanted to keep that fact out of the record. That is a fraud on the record that was created by the WC.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt eh? Only at DVP's blog.


The above comment by DiEugenio concerning the rifle is just one more example (among hundreds) that illustrates DiEugenio's complete inability to properly evaluate the totality of evidence connected to John F. Kennedy's assassination. If there's ever been a person who has gotten more things wrong about the JFK case than Jim DiEugenio has, I'd love to know who that person is.

DiEugenio knows full well that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle but was shipped a 40-inch model. But Jimbo will never acknowledge the existence of that reasonable explanation, and that's because of his complete inability to properly (and fairly) evaluate the evidence in this case. He just can't (or won't) do it. Why? I have no idea.

HERE'S the reasonable explanation regarding the rifle that conspiracy clown DiEugenio will pretend is not reasonable at all.


Pure and unmitigated DVP.

First, he says that I got it wrong.

Then he admits it's the wrong rifle!! In other words, I was right.

LOL (BTW, why use the click link? Bring your argument out here in the open. Please sir.)

Then he tries to explain it away! Just like he tries to explain away the other hundred or so pieces of evidence that do not fit his case. Like it being the wrong bullet also, as John Hunt has proved.

Wrong rifle, wrong bullet, wrong standard of proof...doesn't mean a lick to Ayton and DVP.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt? Nothing but doubt.


Jimbo loves proving me right with every silly post he writes. JD isn't the slightest bit embarrassed when he places on full display his nonexistent skill of being able to reasonably assess the sum total of the JFK evidence. And the "wrong rifle" red herring is just one such gut-busting example.

As I said before, DiEugenio knows very well what the sensible explanation is regarding the "wrong rifle" topic. But he won't admit it---ever. And that's because he's totally enamored with the really dumb idea that Lee Harvey Oswald never took possession of Rifle C2766 in 1963. Even a picture of Oswald holding that exact rifle doesn't convince Jimmy that LHO ever had that weapon in his hands.....

"A comparison of the relative lengths of parts of the alleged assassination rifle that is in the National Archives with corresponding parts of what purports to be that rifle as shown in various photographs taken in 1963 indicates that the dimensions of the rifle(s) depicted are entirely consistent. .... A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66

But the above words mean zilch to a conspiracy clown like Jimmy D.

David Von Pein
March 19, 2015
April 2-9, 2015
April 13-17, 2015