JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1187)

SOMEONE NAMED BILL WROTE
TO ME VIA E-MAIL AND SAID:

The bullet which caused the neck wound in Kennedy was fired from the front and never left the body. His back wound and neck wound are separate wounds.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, come now, Bill. That would mean we'd have TWO mysterious "disappearing" bullets, instead of just Wecht's one vanishing missile that exited JFK's throat.

TWO bullets going into JFK but not exiting---and then NEITHER bullet is found or recovered?? That's even more ridiculous than Dr. Cyril Wecht's theory.

And, in fact, the "2 Vanishing Bullets In JFK" theory is something I wish Vincent Bugliosi would have mentioned more often in his many 2007 radio interviews, because it would have served his purposes even better than just highlighting Wecht's theory.

But Vince kept thinking that most conspiracy theorists are like Dr. Wecht (i.e., believing in just ONE disappearing bullet), when in fact most CTers are just like you, Bill -- they believe in a theory that's even more improbable than Wecht's silliness.




BILL SAID:

Why is it silly or improbable? .... Nothing mysterious at all about these two bullets. No one is saying they were NEVER recovered. Hidden? Maybe.

All the doctors at Parkland claimed that the throat wound was one of entry.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

JFK's entire body was X-rayed at autopsy, and no bullets were found in his body. The only reasonable conclusion is that the bullet that hit his upper back exited his throat. And that's exactly what the three autopsy doctors concluded (at
2 H 364):


ARLEN SPECTER -- "Did you search the body to determine if there was any bullet inside the body?"

DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- "Before the arrival of Colonel Finck, we had made X-rays of the head, neck, and torso of the President, and the upper portions of his major extremities, or both his upper and lower extremities. At Colonel Finck's suggestion, we then completed the X-ray examination by X-raying the President's body in toto, and those X-rays are available."

MR. SPECTER -- "What did those X-rays disclose with respect to the possible presence of a missile in the President's body?"

DR. HUMES -- "They showed no evidence of a missile in the President's body at any point. And these were examined by ourselves and by the radiologist, who assisted us in this endeavor."

MR. SPECTER -- "What conclusion, if any, did you reach as to whether point "D" on [Commission Exhibit] 385 was the point of entrance or exit?"

DR. HUMES -- "We concluded that this missile depicted in 385 "C", which entered the President's body, traversed the President's body and made its exit through the wound observed by the physicians at Parkland Hospital and later extended as a tracheotomy wound."

[End Quotes.]

---------------

BTW, the fibers on the front side of JFK's shirt were pointed OUTWARD, compatible with an exiting bullet, not an entrance wound.

And Dr. Malcolm Perry said that the throat wound could be "either" an entry or an exit (at 3 H 373).


BILL SAID:

I'd love to read where you read that the fibers were pointed "outward" on Kennedy's clothing.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's common knowledge, Bill.

Here's a passage concerning the subject from Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book:

[Quote On:]

"Not seen by the three pathologists until they testified to the Warren Commission in 1964, the president's clothing would have confirmed that the bullet had exited at the throat. In a 1965 memorandum describing his examination of the clothing, Finck wrote..."immediately below the upper button of the front [of the president's shirt] is a bullet hole perforating both flaps of the shirt, right and left. There is dry blood on the margins of both holes. The innermost hole reveals fibers directed outward, which indicates an exit perforation. The outermost hole also shows this outward orientation of the bloody shirt fibers, but to a lesser extent." [end Finck quote]

In the FBI's laboratory examination of the hole in the shirt shortly after the assassination, investigators too found that the "fibers of the cloth" were "protruding outward," characteristic of an exit hole for a projectile." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 400-401 of "Reclaiming History"

[End Quote.]

---------------

Bugliosi's sources for the above information are as follows:

AFIP [Armed Forces Institute of Pathology] Record 205-10001-10002, Memorandum, Finck to Blumberg, p.7.

5 H 60-61, WCT Robert A. Frazier; CD 205, p.154; FBI Record 124-10024-10173.

---------------

To expand upon Robert Frazier's Warren Commission testimony regarding President Kennedy's clothing, we also find this on page 61 of WC Volume 5:


ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "In each instance for these holes, the one through the button line and the one through the buttonhole line, the hole amounts to a ragged slit approximately one-half inch in height. It is oriented vertically, and the fibers of the cloth are protruding outward; that is, have been pushed from the inside out. I could not actually determine from the characteristics of the hole whether or not it was caused by a bullet. However, I can say that it was caused by a projectile of some type which exited from the shirt at that point and that is again assuming that when I first examined the shirt it had not been altered from the condition it was in at the time the hole was made."

[End Quote.]

---------------

Many conspiracy theorists are more than willing to assume, however, that Bob Frazier of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was lying his ass off when he said what he said to the Warren Commission above -- or, as an alternative to advance the notion that the Single-Bullet Theory is a crock of shit, those same conspiracy theorists are willing to theorize that the fibers of JFK's shirt were altered by someone before Mr. Frazier of the FBI examined the shirt, in order to make it look like a bullet had exited from the President's throat.

But regardless of what the conspiracists want to believe, Robert Frazier's testimony about the fibers of Kennedy's shirt "protruding outward" is still going to be in the official record for all time.


BILL SAID:

If you watched the video I sent the link on, Connally's attending surgeon basically, and without knowing it, admits that CE 399 was planted on the stretcher that Tomlinson found it on in Parkland.

If a surgeon removes a bullet from a patient's thigh, it would be passed on to the authorities as evidence. It could not have ended up underneath a mattress on a random stretcher.

At best, we have an extra bullet in the equation which would also prove a conspiracy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're right about one thing -- if a bullet had been recovered from Governor Connally's thigh, it most certainly WOULD have made it into the hands of the authorities on November 22, 1963. Which is one of the best reasons we have to know that NO BULLET at all was removed from Connally's leg at Parkland Hospital.

The only bullet in the official record of this case that can be connected in any way to the wounding of John Connally is CE399, which was found on a stretcher by Darrell Tomlinson prior to 2:00 PM CST on 11/22/63 (at a time, btw, when no conspirators who might have been bent on planting a bullet in the hospital could have possibly known if JFK or Connally still had bullets in their bodies, making the idea of planting ANY bullet on ANY stretcher at Parkland simply too foolish to consider--unless they WANTED their plot to possibly be exposed almost immediately).

We can be confident that no bullet at all was found inside Governor Connally's body by any of the doctors or nurses at Parkland Hospital, and the reason we can be confident of that fact is because one of Connally's own surgeons, Dr. Charles F. Gregory, told us so (at 4 H 125):


DR. GREGORY -- "We were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all. Here was our patient with three discernible wounds, and no missile within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas where he had been to see if it could be identified or found, rather."

[End Quote.]

---------------

Plus: I always like to point out to conspiracy promoters the following testimony of Darrell C. Tomlinson, the person who found CE399 on the stretcher at Parkland. In his WC testimony, it couldn't be any clearer that Tomlinson just simply was not sure which of the two stretchers in question he had taken off of the elevator shortly before he found a bullet on one of those stretchers.

And Tomlinson emphasizes his uncertainty not just once--he does so FIVE SEPARATE TIMES during this brief section of his Warren Commission questioning (which can be found at 6 H 132):


ARLEN SPECTER -- "What did you tell the Secret Service man about which stretcher you took off of the elevator?"

DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "I told him that I was not sure, and I am not--I'm not sure of it, but as I said, I would be going against the oath which I took a while ago, because I am definitely not sure."

MR. SPECTER -- "Do you remember if you told the Secret Service man which stretcher you thought you took off of the elevator?"

MR. TOMLINSON -- "Well, we talked about taking a stretcher off of the elevator, but then when it comes down on an oath, I wouldn't say for sure, I really don't remember."

[...]

MR. SPECTER -- "You say you can't really take an oath today to be sure whether it was stretcher A or stretcher B that you took off the elevator?"

MR. TOMLINSON -- "Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of it, whether it was A or B that I took off."

[End Quotes.]

---------------

The Single-Bullet Theory is as true and logical today as it was in 1963 and 1964. Any other theory that conspiracy believers use to try and knock the SBT out of contention only makes the SBT look stronger and stronger as time goes on. Such as the alternate idea that TWO separate bullets went into JFK's upper back and throat and never exited, with both of those bullets then going AWOL.

Is that type of alternative theory REALLY supposed to be more reasonable than the single-bullet conclusion? If so, then we're living in a crazy, mixed-up world.

David Von Pein
June 8, 2010

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1186)

ON MAY 27, 2010, JOHN McADAMS SAID:

David Von Pein Offers To Debate With Jim DiEugenio on
Black Op Radio .... CLICK HERE.


BUD SAID:

I see DiEugenio takes exception that DVP calls Black Op Radio "retard radio". I think I might have coined that phrase. Nice to see David putting it to good use stinging the kooks.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Bud, I think you're possibly right there re: the origins of the phrase "Retard Radio". I think I might very well have swiped that from you. (Just like I did with the "K" word [Kook] in 2006.) So I want to give you the credit right now. ;)

I will say, however, that after utilizing the "R" word a few times (maybe more than a few) in recent months, I have cut back on my use of that word after hearing people at various forums tell me that they are personally offended by my use of it, because it is perceived by them that I am making fun of the (literally) mentally handicapped. But I can assure my critics that whenever I use that "R" word, it is not done with the intent to belittle anyone with any real mental deficiency.


BUD SAID:

Am I the only one who finds the idea of debating the assassination strange? I mean, all the issues have rote CTer and LNer viewpoints. Isn't it just a case of restating the viewpoint on each issue?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Bud, I think essentially you are exactly correct there.

But, for that matter, that is what we do every day at this JFK forum too -- i.e., restate our LN vs. CT issues ad nauseam, day after day. And how much good does it do? How many people are turned around by anyone else's written words, or spoken words?

Answer: Very few (at most).

But my main interest in debating the JFK assassination with Jim DiEugenio is so that I could confront him with EACH AND EVERY piece of evidence that he has decided is NO GOOD or FAKE or MANUFACTURED regarding BOTH the Kennedy murder and the J.D. Tippit murder too.

And that's why I want to be able to use my own questions on Jim. And, to be totally fair, as I have emphasized when conversing with Jim on multiple occasions recently, DiEugenio too would be able to ask his own questions. And I don't give a damn what those questions are, because Jim will never be able to tear down, piece by piece, my huge wall of physical evidence that I want to throw at him.

Via such a debate format, I can guarantee that Jim will not be able to slip and slide around the vast amount of evidence that easily convicts the person who DiEugenio, incredibly, thinks was totally innocent of shooting anyone on November 22, 1963. (And I also think that DiEugenio believes that Oswald is innocent of the assassination attempt against General Walker too, which is yet another item on my long list of questions for Jim, should he decide to accept my debate format in the future--which I'm doubting he ever will accept.)

[2016 Edit -- I was right. He never accepted it.]

In a more "conventional" type of debate format, DiEugenio would likely be able to sidestep or ignore several individual pieces of evidence connected with Oswald's guilt. But he will not be able to do so if he debates me via the format I have proposed. He will be forced to tell the audience exactly why he thinks EVERY LAST PIECE OF EVIDENCE against his favorite patsy is fake, fraudulent, or tainted.

And as author and ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan said:

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan

James DiEugenio obviously completely disagrees with Mr. Sturdivan's above comments. In fact, to a person like Jim, it seems the MORE evidence and corroboration there is of Oswald committing his crimes, the more INNOCENT Mr. Oswald becomes.

And that's a very strange and illogical policy to live by, isn't it?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

DVP is [a] piece of work that not even Central Casting could dream up for a villian [sic] in a Cecil B. DeMille extravaganza. .... Last year, at the request of a forum member at Black Op, I extended a debate challenge to Gary Mack, DVP, [Dave] Reitzes and John McAdams. .... DVP chickened out. .... So now, months after the initial challenge to him was turned down, he began to email me about a debate. Except there was a qualifier. Please sit down before you read this. He wanted to set the ground rules! Yep. It's true. He did not want a scripted debate in which both sides knew the questions in advance. He wanted an off-the-cuff debate, where you could create your own questions willy nilly.

[...]

I told him that the decision is not mine, but Len's [Osanic]. But that I would not agree to an unscripted debate for a simple reason: if McAdams made stuff up for a scripted debate, I can imagine what a fabricator like Von Pein could do when he could create his own questions.

[...]

Bottom Line: When DVP had the opportunity to debate me fair and square, he chickened out. Now he wants to debate me in a format where he can make stuff up.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

DiEugenio is full of crap here.

And here's why:

It's true that I declined to debate Jim D. in 2009 when I most certainly could have done so. But after preparing over 30 questions for Jimbo in the months since the 2009 debate between Jim and John McAdams, I decided to step up and challenge DiEugenio to a different kind of JFK debate--one that would have the debaters asking the questions, instead of relying on other people for the questions.

And that type of format regarding the questions, as I've said numerous times since my initial challenge to Jim in early May of 2010, is a format that I simply cannot believe DiEugenio would be AGAINST. Because he could ask me any questions he wanted, and as many as he wanted.

And DiEugenio's excuse of not wanting me to ask my own questions because he's concerned that I will simply "make stuff up" is just nuts.

Why?

Here's why:

Because from Jim's utterly crazy "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody" point-of-view, it's quite obvious that my own CORE BELIEFS about the whole JFK case (including J.D. Tippit's murder) are beliefs that DiEugenio, in effect, thinks were just "MADE UP" in the first place.

The facts about Lee Oswald's guilt weren't "made up" by me personally, of course, but they certainly are core "Oswald Is Guilty" facts that Jimbo believes are dead wrong and were literally MADE UP by somebody along the way. Heck, Jim thinks this whole case is "made up" against poor Patsy Oswald. The entire case, per Jim D., is nothing but one great big lie and cover-up and "made up" fact after another.

Plus: Again from DiEugenio's POV, what difference would it make to him if I did just "make stuff up"? He would simply tell the listening audience during our debate that I was making nonsense up, right? And Jim would go on to explain the reasons he knows that I was making stuff up. Isn't that kinda what a DEBATE is all about--to tell the audience why your opponent is wrong and why you're right (even if it means having to tell the audience why your opponent just MADE SOMETHING UP out of thin air)?

Good heavens, if the shoe were on the other foot, and I were to back out of a debate with James DiEugenio (or any of the many "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy kooks who regularly post on the Internet) merely due to the fact that I was of the opinion that my opponent would be inclined to "make stuff up" concerning JFK's assassination during a radio debate with that person -- good gosh, then I'd never be able to debate anyone like DiEugenio....because I KNOW he's going to simply "make stuff up" himself! That's a given.

A great example being: Jim's current belief that Lee Oswald carried NO LARGE PACKAGE WHATSOEVER into the Book Depository Building on November 22, 1963. Jimbo, you see, now believes that BOTH Buell Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Mae Randle lied their asses off when they each said they saw LHO carrying a long brown paper parcel on the morning of November 22nd, with Buell and Linnie being strong-armed by the evil Dallas Police Department into making up from whole cloth their individual stories about having seen Sweet Lee with a large package.

Now, if that wholly unsupportable and (frankly) pathetic theory about Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle doesn't qualify as "making stuff up", then I don't know what would qualify.

In short, James DiEugenio doesn't want to be forced to answer specific questions written by a Lone Assassin advocate like myself in a public debate. And that's because those questions about the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE which proves Lee Harvey Oswald to be the murderer of both John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit will be far too much to handle from Jim DiEugenio's "Oswald Shot Nobody" viewpoint.

Jim would be made to look so silly and foolish when answering my dozens of questions focusing on every last piece of evidence that hangs Oswald, he has decided it would be best to reject my proposed debate format, and stick with the questions coming from other people instead (even though many of those questions aren't very challenging at all, which was precisely one of Jim's complaints about the first half of his Black Op Radio debate against John McAdams from last September 24th).

But when given the opportunity to write his own questions (which could potentially make me crawl under my computer desk in fear, from Jim's POV), Mr. DiEugenio says, 'No thanks'.

I can't say I blame Jim, though. If I knew I was going to have to admit to the four Black Op listeners that I believed that every single piece of evidence against Lee Oswald was fake, phony, manipulated, planted, or otherwise worthless, I think I might have a few reservations about doing so in a public place too.

David Von Pein
May 29, 2010
July 5, 2010





================================

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1185)

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

1. Why did he [Lt. J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department] not photograph it [the palmprint on Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766] before lifting?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In hindsight, he probably wished he had photographed the palmprint before lifting it. But in the FBI report seen in CE3145 [linked below in blown-up form], Lt. Day said this to Vincent Drain of the FBI:

"Lt. Day stated he had no reason for not photographing this palm print first before attempting to lift it other than in the interest of time."



You can say the above reason that Day gave to Drain in Sept. '64 is a pretty weak reason, but that's what Lt. Day said nonetheless.

Plus, there's also this from Day's Warren Commission session:

Mr. DAY --- "On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete."

[End Quote.]

Do you REALLY think J.C. Day was lying in the above testimony? If so, why do you think he'd tell such a tall tale about lifting a print off of the assassination rifle if he had really done no such thing?

IOW---What motive did Lt. Carl Day have to want to start framing Lee Oswald for the murder of an American President?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

2. Why was the lift not sent to the FBI along with the other evidence on 11/22?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That is also explained by Lt. Day (via Vince Drain's words in Drain's written report in CE3145). Drain states that Day told him that the palmprint was not sent to Washington until November 26th because "he [Day] wanted to make further comparisons of this palm print with the known palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald."

You'll now want to know this, I would guess:

Well, Dave, since Lt. Day was ordered by Chief Curry to turn over everything to the FBI at 11:45 PM on 11/22, then why would Day take it upon himself to NOT do that with the palmprint he said he lifted off of the rifle? After all, wasn't that print part of the overall package of evidence that was supposed to be relinquished to the Feds in Washington on the night of November 22nd, 1963 AD?

Not a bad question you just asked there, Garry/Dave. :-) And I have no definitive answer to it....other than to say that Lt. Day was certainly of the opinion that a palm print was STILL on the gun after he did his initial lift. He thought the FBI would be able to lift the print AGAIN (evidently). That's what he told the WC at any rate. And that's something I've never quite understood at all. If Day had already used tape to lift the print, how could he expect the FBI to be able to lift it a second time?

But I'm not a "fingerprint" expert. Lt. Day was. So he'd know more about those things than I would. And I'm guessing that Lt. Day even surpasses the great Garry Puffer in "print lifting knowledge" too.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

3. Why did Day claim he kept the lift because he was still working on it and why was he still working on it (as per his WC testimony) when Henry Wade announced on 11/24 that prints on the rifle had been identified as Oswald's?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You've got me stumped on that one, Garry. I haven't a clue.

(Does this mean I now have to believe Carl Day was a rotten, evil liar?)

~strokes chin, wondering~


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

4. If Day's "explanations" were sound, why was the FBI still doubting him in 1964?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just to cover all the bases, I guess. And it appears to me as if those bases were all touched via that FBI report found in CE3145. In fact, you'll notice how Drain keeps repeating the same stuff over and over again in the report.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

5. Why would Day have to lie at all?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

He didn't.

I see no reason whatsoever to paint Lieutenant J.C. Day as a liar. Nothing I've read makes me think Lt. Day was anything but forthright and honest regarding his handling of the evidence associated with JFK's murder.

Many conspiracy theorists who have made it their life's work (or their #1 hobby) to try and exonerate the double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald will (naturally) disagree with my last remark above.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Why did Lt. Day refuse to sign an affidavit concerning his lifting of the palm print?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's also explained in CE3145. Didn't you even bother to read it?

Lt. Day told the FBI's Vincent Drain in CE3145 that since he (Day) had already written a fairly detailed report about the finding of the palmprint on January 8, 1964, he thought that report would suffice for the September '64 inquiry. And that January '64 report of Lt. Day's is even included (verbatim) in Drain's report that appears in CE3145.

But I guess conspiracy theorists like Garry Puffer must be of the odd opinion that Lieutenant Carl Day lied multiple times when he said he lifted a palmprint off of Rifle C2766 (even lying under oath to the Warren Commission) -- but he didn't want to fill out an official affidavit in September of 1964 because he felt he just couldn't lie one more time about the palmprint. He lied and lied and lied UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER--but he just wouldn't lie again.

Is that about the size of it, Garry?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

First of all, thanks for answering all the questions I asked. I appreciate it. I am fully aware of Day's explanations and find them wanting in several ways. I wanted to know if you simply accept them at face value, and you obviously do.

That you refuse to acknowledge any lying on his part is not surprising, but if he wasn't lying at all, I don't think you'd be stroking your chin at question #3.

Both the WC and FBI thought he was lying as well, and the request to have him sign an affidavit shows that. Day was not stupid. He stood by his report, which was not given under oath, and refused to confirm his report, which would have been under oath. I find that suspicious. You don't. No surprises there.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But Day's testimony in front of the Warren Commission in April of '64 was certainly "under oath". And you think Lt. Day lied in that testimony, right? So why in the world would he be hesitant to tell the same lies again in a September affidavit?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

"Lifting" a print does not mean it is moved from one place to another. Day claims the print could still be seen. The FBI claims it couldn't. Someone was not telling the truth. I'll pick Day on this one.

The "interest of time" excuse is not only weak, it makes no sense. Day didn't know the FBI was taking the evidence until after the print was lifted. He had as much time as he needed, as far as he knew.

I don't contend that Day lied about lifting the print, but I do contend he lied in just about everything after that involving this print. Would it be your contention that NO DPD employee lied about anything in this case? Just curious.

Secondly, the subtle dig at "conspiracy theorists who have made it their life's work (or their #1 hobby) to try and exonerate the double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald" is kind of odd, considering that you have made it such a mission to see that LHO remains convicted. I daresay you spend far more time in your pursuit than any of us here, or even most people who have written books.

Thirdly, I find it difficult to believe that you are actually David Von Pein. Your posts here are way short of the nastiness I have previously encountered with you. Calling me "Einstein" in an ironic manner, or referring to "the great Garry Puffer" in a similar manner are kind of soft, really. I guess you could be taking something for your condition that has mellowed you out. I hope this continues. It's far better than stuff like "Your post makes me want to vomit." I appreciate the kinder, gentler DVP.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't have any reason to suspect anyone at the Dallas Police Department of "lying" about anything in this case.

About the closest to a lie I can think of (regarding any DPD members specifically) would possibly be associated with Patrick Dean's Warren Commission testimony. Dean could possibly have "fudged" (I'll put it that way, instead of saying the word "lied") about some of his testimony as it related to the security precautions that the Dallas Police, led by Pat Dean, supposedly took in the DPD basement just prior to Lee Oswald being shot by Jack Ruby.

But even there, I certainly can't prove that Dean told any outright "lies". But I think at least a small amout of "CYA" could have possibly been going on with respect to the testimony of some of the DPD officers and their activities in the DPD basement on November 24th, 1963. For I doubt that any DPD officer who was near that basement on 11/24/63 would have had a desire to come out and admit the following:

"Yep, Chief Justice Warren, we blew it. We let our guard down and Ruby managed to slip into the basement because all of us here at the DPD are a bunch of boobs who couldn't even guard a simple ramp or keep a door locked."

The same kind of after-the-fact CYA stuff was most certainly going on with the FBI too, regarding the destroying of the Hosty note (which involved the "CYA" activities of both James Hosty and Gordon Shanklin, at Shanklin's request).

But, in my opinion, any CYA that did occur with respect to the FBI or the Dallas Police Department was not being done to hide their culpability in the murders of either John Kennedy or Lee Harvey Oswald. They were merely trying to shield themselves from the lifelong embarrassment and shame at having two such terrible murders occurring while they were supposed to be on guard to prevent such events from taking place.

BTW, Garry, when I was "stroking my chin" in a previous post, I was doing so in a tongue-in-cheek manner. (You apparently missed the humor that existed in my chin-stroking.)


RELATED LINK:


BEN HOLMES SAID:

If you held a gun to the head of a Warren Commission believer, he'd be forced to admit that the FBI didn't see the palmprint on the rifle. They'll admit easily enough that Lt. Day saw one.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And that is undoubtedly due to the fact that there was MUCH MORE TO SEE when Lt. Day lifted the print. There was a lot more THERE to see (and lift).

By the time Day had lifted Oswald's print off the barrel, very little in the way of a visible print remained (although, yes, Day said he thought enough of a remaining print was still present on the barrel for the FBI to find). And, yes, it is strange that Lt. Day didn't say something like this to Vince Drain (or somebody at the FBI), or at least pin a note to the rifle saying this:

"I've lifted a partial palmprint off of the barrel of this gun. You FBI guys should be able to lift some more of the print."

Lieutenant Day told the WC this:

MR. DAY -- "The gun was being sent in to them [the FBI] for process of prints. Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing." [4 H 261-262]

-------

Interestingly, Lt. Day did, in effect, tell the FBI about the partial prints on the trigger guard of the rifle by the fact he placed some cellophane over the prints to protect them during transit. Here's what the FBI's Sebastian Latona told the Warren Commission about that:

MR. LATONA -- "There had been placed over that area a piece of cellophane material. My attention had been directed to it, to the effect that a prior examination had been made of that area, and that there were apparently certain latent prints available—visible under that area." [4 H 20]

-------

But I see nothing in the record to indicate that anything like that was done with regard to the palmprint on the barrel. But, however, it must also be understood that Lt. Day put the gun back together again after he lifted the palmprint, which would have, in effect, served as some "protection" by having the wooden stock covering the print entirely (or almost entirely).

I'll also add this testimony given by FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona:

MR. LATONA -- "We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such—even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle." [4 H 24]


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

The palm print, even if real, does not incriminate LHO in the shooting on 11/22. If it does anything it actually absolves him. An old and dry print makes it more likely that the rifle was not brought in disassembled in the famous "paper bag."


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But that print most certainly connects Lee Harvey Oswald to the weapon that killed President Kennedy.

And that particular fact is something that a whole lot of conspiracists will not admit if their lives hung in the balance. They, instead, like to pretend that Oswald never once touched Rifle C2766. And that, Garry, is called living in a fantasy world.

And it's also called: Ignoring The Evidence. Which is something the CTers do very well.


RELATED LINK:


BEN HOLMES SAID:

It's a FACT that Lt. Day claims he could still see what the FBI states that they could not.

You either provide a credible explanation for this ... or you admit that someone was lying. Which is it?

DVP whines piteously... but fails to answer the question...

Tell us DVP... why the cowardice?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Holmes should know by now that Lt. J.C. Day told the FBI's Nat Pinkston on 11/22/63 (the day of the assassination) that he (Day) had been "successful in raising a partial latent print" off of Rifle C2766. [See Pinkston's FBI report below.]



Also see this post.

So the people who like to claim that there's no record whatsoever of Lt. Day ever telling anybody that he found a print on Oswald's rifle PRIOR to the rifle being returned by the FBI to Dallas on 11/24/63 are just flat wrong--as the FBI document shown above readily establishes.

As for Lt. Day being able to see some faint ridges of a partial palmprint on the rifle after he had lifted the print with Scotch tape, while the FBI apparently saw no such traces of the palmprint, all I can do is refer Holmes and everyone else to Lt. Day's own testimony on this matter. If Ben Holmes wants to think Carl Day is lying here--well, I can't stop him from believing that, now can I?....

MR. DAY -- "The gun was being sent in to them [FBI] for process of prints. Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing."

MR. BELIN -- "You mean the remaining traces of the powder you had when you got the lift, Exhibit 637, is that what you mean by the lift of the remaining print on the gun?"

MR. DAY -- "Yes, sir. Actually it was dried ridges on there. There were traces of ridges still on the gun barrel."

-------

LIEUTENANT DAY ADDENDUM....

QUOTING VINCE BUGLIOSI:

"At 11:45 p.m. [CST on 11/22/63], the rifle and film negatives of the prints were turned over to the FBI's Vince Drain. In a 1984 interview, Day said that he pointed out to the FBI man the area where the palm print was, adding that he "cautioned Drain to be sure the area was not disturbed."

Though Drain denied that Day showed him the palm print, crime-lab detective R.W. "Rusty" Livingston, who was standing nearby, recalled that another FBI agent was there pressuring Drain to leave. "Drain was half listening to Lieutenant Day and half to the other FBI man and evidently didn't get the word about the palm print at that time."

[...]

Also, Day told me that technically he didn't "show" Drain where the print was because "you couldn't see it. It was under the stock. But I told him where it was."

[...]

Lieutenant Day, in looking back on the event, told me [in a telephone conversation on August 29, 2002], "I don't fault the FBI for not being able to find the palm print. It was already faint when I lifted it, and it's even more difficult to lift the same print a second time because some of the detail has been removed from the first lifting of the print."

For the great numbers of conspiracy theorists who maintain that the Carcano did not belong to Oswald and was planted on the sixth floor, how do they then explain Oswald's right palm print being found on the weapon? How did it get there if he wasn't in possession of it?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 800-802 of "Reclaiming History"


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Some evidence that the "Oswald weapon" was not even fired that day [11/22/63] was given by our old friend Robert Frazier, not exactly a guy we expect to be giving testimony that favors Oswald.

From: http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle.htm ....

"Frazier KNEW when he visually inspected the rifle that rust in the barrel meant that the rifle had not been fired, because just one round fired through it would have removed all rust. The fact that he visually saw rust in the barrel made it clear to him that there was no need to conduct a "swab test" to test for metal shavings and fouling in the barrel." -- Gil Jesus


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As usual, a conspiracy theorist (in the above case, Gil J. Jesus), has misrepresented the facts.

Robert A. Frazier never once said in his Warren Commission testimony that he found "rust" in the barrel of Oswald's CE139 Carcano rifle. Frazier said the barrel showed some "wear" and "corrosion", but nowhere did he say the barrel had "rust" in it. He said "IF a barrel is allowed to rust..." [DVP's emphasis], but he was not implying that Oswald's rifle had rust in it.

Maybe Gil Jesus should learn how to read better---and how to comprehend better too.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Of course he was implying that. Why would he [Bob Frazier] mention rust if it had nothing to do with what he was being asked?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I can see your point on this. But since I firmly believe that Oswald's rifle WAS definitely fired on 11/22/63 (and the front-seat bullet fragments which were traced back to LHO's gun provide the proof that it was fired that day), obviously I cannot believe that that same gun could have had rust in its barrel when Bob Frazier examined it the very next day, particularly if this statement by Frazier is 100% accurate:

"If a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel." -- Robert A. Frazier; March 31, 1964 [at 3 H 395]

I think Frazier was speaking in terms of general rifle barrel characteristics when he used the word "rust" in his above WC testimony.

In other words, given Frazier's "50 to 1" ratio regarding a rusty barrel vs. a clean barrel, Frazier therefore can't possibly say for sure how many rounds were fired through LHO's rifle (or ANY rifle really, when you come to think about it), because Frazier can't possibly know if the gun had been allowed to become rusty at some previous time (possibly many years earlier), with the gun then being cleaned free of all rust by the owner, and then the "rusty then clean" cycle could be repeated numerous times over a period of years.

And CE139 was made in 1940, so for all Bob Frazier knew, 23 years worth of "rusty then clean" cycles could have taken place prior to the assassination in 1963.

David Von Pein
January 8-10, 2014

[Note -- The Amazon.com link above is no longer available. All of the Amazon forums were discontinued and completely deleted on October 6, 2017.]


================================


BEN HOLMES SAID:

The report, of course, only states that Lt. Day "...had been successful in raising a partial latent print." And, as it was "dictated" on the 24th, the rifle was already back in Dallas on that date.

David knows quite well that it's the *PALMPRINT* that allegedly connects Oswald to the rifle. This FBI document does not refer to a palmprint, nor does the date help the believer's faith if one were to assume that it did refer to the palmprint.

David's a liar.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ben Holmes can't read. The Pinkston FBI report clearly indicates the DATE when Lieutenant J.C. Day was successful in "raising a partial latent print" -- that date being "November 22, 1963". And that same date (11/22/63) is indicated in the lower left corner of the report as well, after the word "On" --- meaning: Nat Pinkston is referring to something he did (interview Lt. Day) ON NOVEMBER 22.

Therefore, the top date of 11/24/63 and the "Date dictated" in the lower right (also 11/24/63) mean nothing when it comes to determining WHEN things were being done that are referred to in the report. It's always the LOWER-LEFT date that is the KEY date on all of the FBI's FD-302 reports.

I guess Holmes didn't know this basic fact. Now he does. (You're welcome, Ben.)


BEN HOLMES SAID:

And only a moron would think I didn't know that...

The problem, AS I STATED, was that this was actually documented AFTER the rifle had been returned to DPD control.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ben wants to theorize that just because the Pinkston report was "dictated" on Nov. 24, this indicates the POSSIBILITY of some kind of foul play on the part of somebody in connection to the print on the rifle.

But I will point out to Ben that Pinkston's FD-302 report was actually dated a day AFTER his original "memorandum" on this matter was filed. The "memo" version of that report was dated "11/23/63" at the top, which was still a day PRIOR to the rifle ever being sent back to Dallas. And the INK STAMP in the lower right part of Pinkston's memo is dated "Nov. 22, 1963".

So Ben's argument about the "Nov. 24" date is rendered worthless when we compare the FD-302 report to Pinkston's original memo, which is identical in its verbiage with the later FD-302 version.

David Von Pein
March 29, 2017

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1184)

BUD SAID:

If someone can't figure out that Oswald killed Kennedy, this shows to me a willful disregard for reality. It isn't a matter of not having enough information, they just don't want to come to the obvious conclusion.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bingo. Precisely. Exactly.

I've been getting a few comments on my YouTube videos lately, with some people asking:

How could the police have come to the conclusion so quickly--in less than one day--that Oswald was guilty?

My response to that question is:

Given the evidence that the police had collected (which all led straight to Oswald), plus factoring in Oswald's own incriminating actions in the movie theater where he was arrested, how would it be possible for the Dallas Police to NOT have arrived at an "Oswald Is Guilty" determination within 24 hours of JFK's murder?

Was the Dallas Police Department supposed to just ignore the rifle, the revolver in Oswald's hands, the shells on Tenth Street, the shells in the Depository Sniper's Nest, the paper bag with Oswald's prints on it, Oswald's own guilty-like actions, and the eyewitnesses who fingered Oswald?

And the above list doesn't even include Bullet CE399 or the bullet fragments found in the President's limousine -- because the DPD didn't even see those bullets on Day 1.

The conspiracy promoters will usually counter with: Well Dave, all of that stuff you just mentioned was planted, and the witnesses were coerced into IDing Oswald.

But to that CT response, I say: Hogwash (with a capital H). And I also say to the CTers: Prove it!

To date, no CTer has ever proven that ANY of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases was planted or faked -- let alone ALL of it.

David Von Pein
January 5, 2014

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1183)

PAUL MAY SAID:

The inability of the WC to determine any motive whatsoever imo was the downfall of the WC in the minds of most if not all Americans.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Lee Harvey Oswald's possible motives are discussed in the Warren Report (Chapter VII). Perhaps not as definitively as Paul May would like, but I think Chapter 7 does a pretty decent job at describing the kind of person Oswald was and his potential motive(s) for the murder of President Kennedy.

Essentially, I'd say the Warren Commission, within Chapter 7, is letting America (and the world) make up its own mind regarding Oswald's motive.

But the evidence presented in the Warren Report prior to Chapter 7 certainly establishes Oswald as the murderer of both JFK and Officer Tippit, beyond a reasonable person's reasonable doubt (note the way I worded that there). ;)

Therefore, since Oswald's guilt has been established in Chapters 1 through 6 of the Warren Report, the subject of motive is really secondary. Plus, any single motive ascribed to Oswald for Kennedy's murder can never really be "definitive", since Oswald was killed two days after the assassination. It will always be a subject of debate and guesswork--from now till the end of time.

But let me ask Paul May this related question:

Do you think the Warren Commission should have simply GUESSED as to what Oswald's motive was, and written about this GUESS in the WC's final report as if it were the ONLY possibility regarding this key "motive" topic?

Or, alternately, are you of the opinion that the WC just simply didn't look hard enough to establish a clear and concrete motive on the part of Oswald?

IMO, I think the WC was wise when they didn't place a final stamp of FINALITY on some of the things that are part of the Warren Report--and Oswald's specific and forever unknowable "motive" is one of those things.

And another one is: the Single-Bullet Theory timeline. I think the Warren Commission was smart to not get themselves pinned down to picking out one specific frame of the Zapruder Film and label that exact frame as the "SBT Frame".

Instead, the Commission, based on the on-site re-creation that was done at Dealey Plaza on 5/24/64, placed the SBT within a bracketed series of Z-Film frames (Z210-Z225). And I happen to think that the SBT is, indeed, occurring within that 16-frame bracket.

So, I think the Commission did a good job by not trying to pretend they had all the answers to every single question about the assassination--or the assassin.

Another instance of this is the topic of "Which Shot Missed?"

The Warren Commission readily admitted it really didn't know with 100% certainty which one of Oswald's three shots missed the President's limousine entirely. The WC speculated and guessed to some degree (as we all have when it comes to certain things connected to this case), and the Commission's conclusions that are found at the end of Chapter 3 of the Warren Report, on Page 117, include words like "probably" (twice), "preponderance", and "approximately". And, in my opinion, that's a good thing, not a bad thing:

"The Commission has concluded that the shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth-floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building. Two bullets probably caused all the wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds." -- From The Warren Commission Final Report; Page 117

David Von Pein
May 26, 2010

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1182)

AT YouTube, "HOTT BAJE" SAID:

The people who have the one-assassin theory are so full of shit that they refuse to answer a lot of the basic conspiracy questions.

How can Bug [Vincent Bugliosi] rely on [the] Warren Commission when they refused to interview a lot of the credible witnesses? The two most important pieces of evidence were hidden from investigators, namely the body and the car.

Let him answer those questions then I'll believe what he has to say.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Investigators and researchers have had full access to almost everything for many years---including access to the autopsy photos of President Kennedy's body and to the gory color photographs of the inside of the limousine that were taken at the White House garage on the morning of 11/23/63.

Yes, it's true that the two bullet fragments weren't photographed lying in the limo, but the damage to the limousine was fully documented in reports and photos--including the dent in the chrome molding and the crack in the windshield.

Those limo photos, in fact, have been available since 1964, because they're in Warren Commission Volume 16, starting with CE349. And even the bloody back-seat photos are included in Volume 16, published in black-and-white, so the blood isn't readily noticeable, but they were published [CE352 and CE353].

The WC made a mistake (IMO) by not relying on the actual autopsy photos of JFK. The Rydberg drawings are a mess and only serve to dredge up more thoughts of "cover-up" and "conspiracy", which is a shame, because all of that could have been avoided by simply making the autopsy pictures a part of the Warren Commission record. But it's understandable why Earl Warren didn't want those pictures published in the WC volumes. It's a matter of taste (and deference to the Kennedys).

And the HSCA didn't publish the autopsy photos either. But we're still able to see them (via the bootleg copies). And what they show is undeniable: JFK was shot twice from behind--just exactly what the autopsy doctors said in their report--which is a report that virtually no hardline conspiracy theorist believes.

And that is, IMO, one of the silliest things about the CTers -- they want so badly to believe that JFK was shot from the front that they will go to absurd lengths to try and back up their claims....even going so far as to say that ALL THREE of JFK's autopsy surgeons were rotten liars when they each signed the official autopsy report, which says that Kennedy was struck by only two bullets that entered his body from the rear.

That autopsy report, incredibly, has been almost totally ignored (to a large extent) by most conspiracy believers. The CTers almost HAVE to ignore it (or say that the three autopsists are liars) -- because if the conspiracists don't do that, then JFK was killed by ONLY shots from behind. Simple as that.


MOVING TO ANOTHER TOPIC....

SOMEBODY AT YouTube SAID:

The bus can't go anywhere, but the taxi can? Wow, a miracle just happened. Block after block of stuck traffic, yet the taxi has a straight run to the 500 block [of Beckley Avenue]?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Use your head. Cecil McWatters' bus was on Elm Street, the same street that the assassination occurred on. Obviously, THAT street is going to be clogged more than other surrounding streets.

Bill Whaley's cab, however, was free to take ANY street he chose to take to get his passenger [Lee Harvey Oswald] to Oak Cliff. But McWatters was on a strict unchanging bus route. He couldn't start driving down side streets to avoid the Elm Street traffic jam.

Isn't this obvious?


THE ANONYMOUS YouTuber CAME BACK AND SAID:

Unless you can provide pictures of the bus route and how clogged it was, and that the taxis can get you where you need to go, then other people would have got off due to the traffic jam as well. Use your head. It's just common sense.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Other people DID get off. At least one other woman got off the bus just before Oswald got off.

Anyway, what are you trying to prove with this type of second-guessing? Do you think the bus driver (Cecil McWatters) was part of the plot? He lied when he said his bus got stalled in the traffic on Elm?

And do you think cab driver William Whaley was also a liar when he said he did, indeed, take Oswald to Beckley in Oak Cliff without getting bogged down in traffic?

Do you think the whole world--including ordinary cab and bus drivers in the city of Dallas--were trying to frame Lee Oswald for some reason?

Where are you GOING with this kind of skepticism?

David Von Pein
November 29, 2013

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1181)

GREG LADNER SAID:

Hi Dave,

This email is in response to your writings about Oswald and JFK [at the website below].



First, thank you for your input, I know it took a lot of time to write.

Prior to about two months ago, I thought that Oswald was the only culprit and acted alone. I rationalized that it is kind of far-fetched to think the government had anything to do with it. I finally got a chance to visit Dallas and decided to visit Dealey Plaza.

After I got done viewing the area, I moved to the conspiracy booth and watched the presentation. What really hit me is that someone believed in the conspiracy theory so much, they would put up a free exhibit and man it, 50 years after it happened.

I decided they, as well as myself, deserved an objective analysis on the subject. I am clearly not an expert. After I finished viewing the presentation, I walked away thinking "What is the catch? For someone to think that this was not a conspiracy, there must be a push back."

I then went home and did an internet search. To me, there was not a reliable push back, anywhere. For some reason, I have only just run into your points for Oswald. I did not get through most of them, due to a time constraint. Please let me give you some constructive suggestions on getting your points across:

Most people thought Oswald was into it up to his eyeballs in this deal, hence they call it a conspiracy. If you believe the CIA organized the killing, it makes sense that they would employ a fall guy like Oswald. Hence, proof that the gun belonged to him, that he was bringing a gun and not curtain rods, that him shooting the cop adds to your point, should be taken out as it does not prove one way or the other that he committed the crime.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's no way in the world I would ever want to sever the Tippit murder from my laundry list of points leading to Oswald's guilt in the Kennedy murder. To do such severing would be to cut out a very critical murder, which occurred just 45 minutes after SOMEBODY WITH OSWALD'S GUN shot President Kennedy FROM OSWALD'S WORKPLACE.

The tie-ins are numerous and inescapable (and obvious). The two murders go hand-in-hand, without question. Nobody should sever one from the other, IMO, because Oswald's murder of J.D. Tippit shows "flight" from the scene of the murder that had just been committed in front of Oswald's own working establishment.

I understand why conspiracy promoters like to sever the Tippit crime from the JFK murder -- because to admit that Oswald killed Tippit is to admit that he was very likely involved in shooting Kennedy too. And most "Internet" conspiracists don't care for the idea that Oswald shot ANYBODY on November 22, 1963. That's the type of craziness I deal with online.


GREG LADNER SAID:

Another issue I caught right away is the eyewitness [issue]. The total time the shooter was in the window in sight of the eyewitness could not [have] been any more than eight seconds. Most of that time, the shooter had a gun butt to his frontal. People understand the lack of reliability of witnesses and even if the witness is fairly sure, he can be completely off.

The second point is if the CIA was trying to put the blame on Oswald, they most likely would pick a shooter that looked a bit like Oswald. This point you have made should be removed.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It should not be removed because it buttresses and tends to support all of my OTHER points that lead inexorably to Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt.

And you need to read Howard Brennan's testimony again. Brennan not only saw the shooter (whom he later assured the Warren Commission was, indeed, Lee H. Oswald) while he was firing a gun at Kennedy, but Brennan also saw the SAME man in the window (sans any gun) several minutes prior to the assassination, which is very likely how he was able to estimate the shooter's height and weight in later statements and affidavits.

Brennan had a perfect spot to view the sixth-floor gunman. And he did observe that gunman both before and during the shooting.

The other witnesses who saw the man in the corner window, with the exception of Amos Euins, saw a man whose general description did fit that of Lee Oswald (white male, slender, in his early 20s).

Yes, eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable. But given the OTHER physical evidence left behind by that killer on the sixth floor, coupled with the witness statements of people like Brennan, Fischer, and Edwards, the chances that the gunman WASN'T Lee Oswald are mighty small indeed.

And I do not believe that any of the evidence was planted by anyone. Too many conspiracy theorists use the "Planted Evidence" theory as their fallback position. They HAVE to argue that ALL of the evidence was planted or tampered with to frame "Patsy" Oswald. Because if they don't, then Oswald is almost certainly guilty and they have lost their innocent "patsy".

In short, there is NO proof that any evidence was planted in this murder case. None.


GREG LADNER SAID:

The odds that everything would come together for Oswald to obtain his goal would be huge. He would have had to get a job in the exact location he needed, which does not mean this could not have happened. He would have had to have been so committed to his goal as to research the exact route of the limousine and a close proximity to the time Kennedy would have been there. He would have had the weather going for him. He would have had to have Kennedy ride in a convertible.

All of these things would have had to come together--which is astronomical. All other assassinations or assassination attempts have been made by the killer going to the victim and performing the act, not just per chance. The plan Oswald had, acting alone, would have to most likely been spontaneous and does not fit the profile.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And just because Oswald does not fit into a niche or "profile" of other pre-1963 assassins, this is supposed to mean Oswald is innocent?

Sorry, but that's not a reasonable position at all--especially in light of all of that evidence I discuss at my websites (more links below, if you'd like to view them; and tons of additional articles can be found HERE on why Oswald was 100% guilty of the two murders he was charged with)....

Six Things Made To Order For Lee Harvey Oswald

Everything Oswald Did Says "I'm Guilty"


GREG LADNER SAID:

Your point that in 90 seconds he could have stashed a gun and went down 4 floors and be casually sitting there like nothing happened does not seem reasonable, but I guess it could have been done.

What you did not address is how he got by two eyewitnesses, especially in that time limit. So, now you have a guy who has planned an assassination in a reasonably short period of time, had it all come together, been able to stash a gun and move 4 floors in 90 seconds, who was observed drinking a coke, cool and calmly as if nothing happened. All the while enjoying a casual day's work in his job place.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You are misinformed on several things here. Oswald was never seen "sitting" in the lunchroom after the shooting, nor was he seen "drinking a Coke". That's a myth that has endured for 50 years.

Plus, the two female witnesses you spoke of (Adams and Styles) were almost certainly on the stairs only AFTER Oswald had already descended those same stairs. Click Here.

And here's where you went wrong about the Coke.


GREG LADNER SAID:

Your point that 3 shots were fired and three cartridges were found in the shooter's nest is irrelevant. The CIA can put any amount of cartridges they want in the shooter's den.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh come now, Greg. You've been reading too many conspiracy tales. Nobody from the "CIA" was ever up on that sixth floor. The Dallas Police collected those bullet shells--and all three were fired in Oswald's rifle. There is no doubt about that fact.

Sure, evidence COULD be planted. But it COULD be planted in every murder case ever investigated in the history of mankind, right? So what's your point? Should we ignore the evidence of Oswald's guilt simply because somebody COULD have planted it there? Then what's the point of ever having any evidence introduced at any murder trial--ever?

All the defense needs to do is to say to the jury -- This evidence, you know, MIGHT have been planted by somebody to incriminate the defendant. And since none of us in this courtroom was there when this crime was committed, we must therefore assume that it WAS planted and let the defendant go free.

See how silly such an argument sounds? And yet, every day, I do indeed hear many conspiracy theorists making very similar arguments on the Internet. They've got no PROOF that any of the evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murders was planted or manufactured. All they've got is an inkling in their guts. But an inkling isn't very persuasive in my book. Evidence is.


GREG LADNER SAID:

How did a guy who was such a shooting expert as Oswald, that could hit that kind of a target like the way he supposedly did, completely miss not only Kennedy but the whole car on one of his shots. And many say this was the first shot.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Oswald's "miss" was the first shot. More on that here.


GREG LADNER SAID:

On his head shot, if Oswald shot Kennedy from behind, the left front of the head should have a huge hole in it, with the right back, only a small entry wound. The film does not support the fact that Kennedy's head is turned.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not sure what your last sentence means at all. But there WAS only a small wound of entry in the back of the head.

I've argued about the head wounds for years on the Internet with various people. Some articles you might want to peruse regarding JFK's head wounds can be found here and here.


GREG LADNER SAID:

Another huge thing -- why would Jack Ruby, a small-time gambler and criminal, care so much that he would kill Oswald?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You've got to get to know Ruby better in order to understand his motives. And the same goes for Oswald too. You need to get inside of the MEN who committed these crimes (Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby).

Those men, particularly Oswald, have for too long been cast aside as just scenery or pawns to move around the conspiracy chess board by people like Mark Lane and Oliver Stone, et al.

But when you read about WHO Oswald and Ruby were, the idea that they each acted alone in 1963 becomes much easier to understand--and accept.

Try:
Oswalds-Game.blogspot.com

And:
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Jack Ruby

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/How Did Ruby Enter The Basement?


GREG LADNER SAID:

Why would Johnson secure everything for such a long time so we cannot get to the information?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

He didn't. Lyndon Johnson didn't seal or "secure" anything. That's another conspiracy myth that needs to go into the trash can.

The National Archives had a rule that said all leftover documents following a Governmental investigation (like the Warren Commission inquiry) must be sealed for 75 years. It wasn't Earl Warren or LBJ who sealed any records. It was the National Archives.

Plus, that old rule has since been abolished by the creation of the JFK Act (sparked by Oliver Stone's film) in 1992.

So nearly all records (except a very tiny percentage) are out there for everybody to see. And most of them are even online (for free).

Thanks for writing.

David Von Pein
November 6, 2013

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1180)

ALBERT DOYLE (AKA: RALPH YATES) SAID:

This [Amazon.com review of Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", which is a review that has now been deleted from the Amazon website] is the kind of offhand, glib review you get from biased, non-discriminating Bugliosi fans. It's as shallow as the book it is based on. Meanwhile, JFK assassination master James DiEugenio just destroyed Bugliosi's 'Reclaiming History' in his new book 'Reclaiming Parkland'. DiEugenio shows all the facts Bugliosi omitted that the above reviewer doesn't seem to be interested in.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ralph Yates/(Doyle) thinks Mr. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" is "shallow".

From that comment, it's obvious that Yates has never even glanced at Bugliosi's tome. Because "shallow" it ain't.

Calling "Reclaiming History" a "shallow" book is kind of like calling the Grand Canyon "a small little hole in the ground".

And since Mr. Doyle/Yates seems to be one of James DiEugenio's cheerleaders these days at Amazon, let me remind any lurkers just exactly what type of things DiEugenio believes in when it comes to the JFK murder case:

DiEugenio believes in all of the following things (any one of which, individually, should make any reasonable person wonder what planet Jimbo currently resides on):

1.) Oswald never fired a shot at JFK.

2.) Oswald never fired a shot at J.D. Tippit.

3.) Oswald didn't fire a shot at General Walker on 4/10/63.

4.) Oswald didn't visit the embassies in Mexico City in 1963.

5.) Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods.

6.) Oswald never ordered a revolver from Seaport Traders Inc.

7.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's are fake.

8.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's revolver purchase are fake.

9.) Ruth Paine was a major co-conspirator in JFK's murder, in helping to "set up" the proverbial "patsy" named Lee Oswald.

10.) Linnie Mae Randle lied when she said she saw Oswald crossing Westbrook Street in Irving with a large paper package on the morning of November 22, 1963.

11.) Buell Wesley Frazier lied about a bunch of stuff after the assassination, including the whopper about seeing Oswald carrying a large bag into the Depository Building on November 22nd.

12.) Captain Fritz of the DPD was a major co-conspirator in a plot to have Jack Ruby rub out Lee Oswald in the police basement, with Fritz deliberately opening up a big gap between himself and prisoner Oswald just before Ruby fired his fatal shot.

13.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in BOTH the Kennedy AND Tippit murders was faked/planted in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey.

And for 9 additional super silly things that DiEugenio believes -- go here.

So, THAT'S the type of "researcher" DiEugenio is. And that's the type of researcher that people like Ralph Yates choose to prop up on a pedestal and treat as the Holy Grail of Truth regarding the JFK assassination, all the while attempting to bash, belittle, and berate a person like Vincent Bugliosi, whose book on the JFK case I suspect shall forever remain the gold standard of reference books concerning this subject of President Kennedy's murder.

There are a few mistakes in Vince's book, yes. But a tome of that size cannot help but have a few errors. People being what they are--human--mistakes are bound to occur in such a massive publication. But none of the errors diminish Mr. Bugliosi's bottom-line conclusion -- nor could any minor errors possibly seriously tarnish the "Oswald Killed Kennedy" conclusion reached in "Reclaiming History". The overall weight of the evidence that says that conclusion is the correct one is far too substantial for that to happen.




DOYLE/YATES SAID:

Mr. Von Pein: You just switched the subject and tap-danced around my main point. Your credibility is on the line here. Answer my specifically detailed point about the brain evidence and how its single example shows both the lack of credibility in Bugliosi's book and the Warren Report. Don't dodge it like you did in your overly-long, evidence-evading, speech-making diversion.

Also, you're trying to ignore the fact DiEugenio just sunk 'Reclaiming History' with 'Reclaiming Parkland' if you honestly address the facts he presents instead of offering speech-making like you do.

Von Pein said: "There are a few mistakes in Vince's book, yes."

You mean like deliberately avoiding the irrefutable proof for conspiracy in the brain evidence?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If Doyle/Yates could READ, he would easily be able to see that Vince Bugliosi most certainly did not "deliberately avoid" the subject of JFK's brain in his book.

To the contrary, Vince spends quite a bit of time evaluating Douglas Horne's preposterous "2 Brains" theory (which, naturally, is a theory that DiEugenio believes 100%, despite the impossible nature of the theory itself).

Vince goes into great detail about the brain topic for more than 12 pages (Pages 435 to 447 of "Reclaiming History"). Vince deals with all of the stupid theories concerning JFK's brain on those pages. And Vince destroys the conspiracy theories regarding the brain.

And yet DiEugenio is supposedly claiming Bugliosi totally ignored the "2 Brains" subject--is that it? If that's the case, it makes me wonder what OTHER things Jimbo has conveniently overlooked (or misrepresented) in Bugliosi's book.

And I just love this quote by Yates in one of his Amazon posts:

"All the witnesses at Parkland said Kennedy's right occipital lobe was blown-out through an obvious rear wound. This is prima facie evidence that the brain shown in evidence was not Kennedy's, which in turn is proof of a conspiracy. If you read the section in Bugliosi's 'Reclaiming History' where he covers this, he never mentions these facts." [End Quote.]

Incredibly, Yates thinks Bugliosi just completely ignored the Parkland "back of the head" witnesses. And furthermore, Yates seems to think that Vince should have ACCEPTED AS FACT that there WAS, in fact, a huge hole in the back of JFK's head--even when all of the autopsy photos and X-rays prove that there wasn't.

The Parkland witnesses are not "proof of a conspiracy" at all. Because those witnesses are proven wrong by BETTER evidence---the autopsy photos and X-rays (and the autopsy report too).

Maybe it's time for Doyle/Yates to let go of Mama DiEugenio's apron strings. Because, as I've shown time and time again in my online chats with him, Jimbo D. doesn't have the slightest idea how to properly evaluate evidence when it comes to the JFK case.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey:

When you make a list like that, without supplying the evidence for it, then you deliberately distort the picture. Which you do all the time. And then you run a commercial for your site? At my expense?

BTW, numbers 9, 11 and 13 are wrong. I don't think Ruth Paine was a major co-conspirator before the fact. There were other people who I name in Destiny Betrayed, Second edition, who were more important than she was. Ruth's real importance came in afterwards.

Secondly, I do not know if what Fritz did was deliberate. But it's clear he allowed Ruby to shoot Oswald. I just think this should be brought out in the open for debate. Davey wants to cover it up.

As for 13, I don't know exactly what is meant by "all of the physical evidence". But Davey never liked being specific about these kinds of things. He specializes in the smear.

To deal with just a trio of these matters: Randle could not have seen Oswald approach the auto since the car was on the far side of the carport. Second, there is no evidence the FBI ever went to REA to check up on the handgun transaction that Oswald had to have made there.

Von Pein went through about 6 different versions of how that could happen. In one hilarious scenario, he actually had the post office keeping a separate box behind the counter for cash on REA merchandise sent to post office boxes!!! I kid you not. He did say that.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jimbo needs to read this again:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-72.html


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

So the question becomes: Why did the FBI not get to REA? Davey was never able to answer that one.

Finally, how could a money order go 750 miles, be sorted at the main post office, be given to route carriers, delivered to Klein's, sorted at Klein's, and then deposited in their account, in, get this, 24 hours!! Before the advent of computers. And that is just one step of this rifle transaction. There are about eight others just as bad.

But the coup de grace is this: the rifle in evidence today is not the rifle the WC says Oswald ordered. It's a different length, 40 inches vs 36 inches, and a different classification, carbine vs short rifle.

Finally, when the HSCA investigated this, the gunsmith from Klein's testified that they did not place scopes on the 40 inch rifles. So how did this one get a scope? Davey never asks that question, let alone answers it.

This is all dealt with in Chapter 4 of my book Reclaiming Parkland. You may want to ask Davey why he never supplied this back-up evidence before he smeared me. He knows about it all, since I used to thump him almost daily about it. One of Davey's many shortcomings is his lack of fairness.

As per Bugliosi's book having a "few" mistakes in it, I mean can he be serious? In Reclaiming Parkland, I show that it's more like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. In Chapter 3, I expose that LWT [London Weekend Television] trial as the farce it was. And I then spend 8 chapters exposing the book for what it is: essentially, a rerun of the forlorn Warren Commission. I then talk about [Tom] Hanks' bomb of a movie that he made from it.

You shouldn't do this Davey. People tell me about you, and it was not Ralph. You never learn.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Do what, Jimmy? Expose all of your theories for the silly theories they are (which is what I do here)?

I should just let you distort all kinds of evidence in the JFK case and then just sit back and not respond at all?

As my list of "22 Silly Things DiEugenio Believes" amply illustrates (with no further commentary needed by me at all), you (Jimmy D.) simply cannot reasonably evaluate the evidence or the facts in the Kennedy case. I would think that much would be crystal clear to anyone who's read anything written by you in the last few years.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Greg Goebel's review:

http://Amazon.com/review/R3OLBL6QWDOOPE

[The earlier version of that review was deleted by Greg himself after DiEugenio joined in the discussion, and Greg hates Jimbo and doesn't want him around. Hence, the dead link in my previous post.]

[2016 EDIT -- And I see that Goebel has now deleted his second version of the review too. My guess would be that the obnoxious presence of James DiEugenio and/or Ralph Yates once again surfaced in the "comments" area for that second review as well, prompting Mr. Goebel to reach for the "delete" button yet again.]

David Von Pein
November 8, 2013