JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 152)

1.) Three bullet shells found under TSBD window from where assassin
was firing at JFK -- Linked to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all
other weapons.

2.) CE567 & CE569 (the two bullet fragments found right inside the
President's limousine) -- Linked to Oswald's rifle "to the exclusion".

3.) CE399 -- Bullet fired from Oswald's rifle "to the exclusion".

Since #1 and #2 exist in the JFK case (and there hasn't been a single
conspiracy theorist who has ever proven that either #1 or #2 were
"planted" or falsified in some manner), then the likelihood of #3
(CE399) being a "fake" or "planted" or "substituted" piece of evidence
is substantially diminished.

IOW -- Why on Earth was there any NEED to fake CE399 when the #1 and
#2 items on my list above existed as evidence in the JFK murder case
also?

The CTers who continue to bitch and moan about the legitimacy of CE399
are living in a dream world. There has never ever been any solid proof
that Commission Exhibit No. 399 is anything but what it was purported
to be by both the Warren Commission and the HSCA -- and that is a
bullet that was fired by Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63, which was one
of three bullets LHO fired from his own Carcano rifle at JFK's car on
Elm Street.

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

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16652&st=0&p=206567&#entry206567

The mere fact that CE399 is a bullet that came out of the SAME WEAPON
that produced CE567, CE569, and the three bullet shells found on the
floor under the Sniper's Nest window is solid evidence that CE399,
which WAS entered as OFFICIAL evidence in the JFK case whether any
conspiracy theorist likes it or not, is also a valid piece of evidence
in this case.

I guess some conspiracy theorists think it's very likely that the
evil conspirators would have had a desire to want to start "planting"
or "substituting" CE399 in order to frame Oswald, even though those
plotters should have already known they had the three shells in the
Sniper's Nest and CE567/569 to link to their prized patsy named
Oswald.

Or are the 3 shells and the 2 limo fragments supposedly all "faked"
evidence too?

And if the CTers want to start pretending that the 3 shells and
CE567/569 ARE faked pieces of evidence, then my other question is
still really just as valid as it is via the scenario which has the 3
shells and the limo fragments being legitimate evidence -- Why the
need to fake the stretcher bullet too?

Or weren't the "fakers" of CE399 aware that OTHER evidence was going
to show up to implicate their patsy (whether it be "faked" or legit
evidence)?

Maybe the CTers ought to check up on how many plotters were supposedly
manipulating the evidence on November 22, because it doesn't seem like
the left hand knows what the right hand is doing.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/ce399-part-1.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 21, 2010, 7:42:22 PM9/21/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16652&st=15&p=206584&#entry206584

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16652&st=15&p=206609&#entry206609

>>> "It was planned to remove all bullets and identifiable fragments from the wounds before the official autopsy." <<<

But what about the potential bullets and fragments in John Connally's
body?

Connally didn't die, and therefore could not be subjected to any kind
of "rigged" or phony autopsy (which is what CTers think happened with
JFK's autopsy).

So did the plotters of this grandiose "REMOVE ALL BULLETS AND
IDENTIFIABLE FRAGMENTS FROM THE WOUNDS BEFORE THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY"
scheme just get lucky when no bullets or large, identifiable fragments
were recovered from the wounds of Governor Connally at Parkland
Memorial Hospital in Dallas?

Conspiracy theorists sound so incredibly silly when they start talking
about the physical evidence in the JFK case. And what makes it so
incredibly silly, of course, is the fact that none of this stupid crap
they think happened with the bullet evidence ever really happened at
all. Nor COULD it possibly have happened--unless all of the plotters
and conspirators had the same talents and abilities as magician David
Copperfield.

>>> "Regarding the shells, DVP, there is also testimony in evidence that the shells were bunched together when first discovered." <<<

Oh, I see that the chronic liar named Roger Craig has you hypnotized,
eh?

Can't you see the idiocy of Craig's statement about the shells being
only about an inch apart and all pointing the same direction?

Who would even WANT to plant shells in such an obvious "THESE SHELLS
WERE PLACED HERE, THEY DIDN'T FALL THIS WAY ON THEIR OWN AFTER BEING
FIRED FROM RIFLE C2766" fashion?

Just how stupid were those patsy-framers anyway? I'd really like to
know.

Let's take a quick "How Stupid Were These Plotters?" inventory:

They supposedly planted a bullet on the WRONG stretcher at Parkland
(per some CTers).

They planted shells in the Sniper's Nest in such a manner to make it
look like they were placed there by hand (per some CTers).

They wait until Sunday, Nov. 24th to shoot Lee Oswald, so that their
"hit man" named Ruby could perform the murder on live television in
front of millions of people.

They allow their one and only patsy to wander around on the lower
floors of the Book Depository at the exact time they desperately need
him upstairs on the sixth floor firing a gun at the President. (This
one is momumentally stupid on the part of the unknown and unseen
"they".)

They go to the immense trouble of impersonating LHO all over God's
Creation PRIOR to Nov. 22, and they take the time to "fake" the
backyard photos (and then they got Marina to lie about them by getting
her to say for the rest of her life that she, herself, took those
pictures of her late husband) -- and yet when Game Day (11/22) rolls
around, what do "they" do? --- They start popping away at JFK from
several different directions in Dealey Plaza, even though they are
supposed to be framing just ONE guy in the TSBD.

These bumbling patsy-framers must have all attended "Idiots 'R Us
University" before commencing their Let's Frame Oswald project.

>>> "If we are to accept CE399 on face value then we must also accept other testimony that appears as evidence in the WCR, right?" <<<

If it's the testimony of a known liar such as Roger Dean Craig, then
no.

As far as the JFK murder case goes, there was no bigger and more
blatant PROVABLE liar than Roger D. Craig. No question about that
fact. And anyone who places a single ounce of faith in anything that
liar says in connection with the JFK assassination is nothing but a
fool.

http://The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 21, 2010, 9:29:44 PM9/21/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16652&st=30&p=206642&#entry206642

JIMBO DiEUGENIO GUSHED:

>>> "As Howard Donahue has stated, the HSCA never dented a shell like that." <<<

DVP RESPONDED WITH:

Bullshit. The exact opposite is true. The HSCA firearms panel dented a
shell very similar to the way CE543 was dented.

Look at 1 HSCA 454:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0229b.htm

Mr. McDONALD. Have you examined CE-543?

FIREARMS EXPERT DONALD E. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir; I have. .... This
composite photograph depicts CE-543 and in particular the area of the
mouth that has an indentation in it. This is shown primarily in the
lower left-hand photograph. It is rather difficult to see but it is
there. It can also be seen to a certain extent in the upper left-hand
photograph in this area.

Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Champagne; as you have testified, this was one of
the cartridges found on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository
Building and the mouth has a dent. Could that dent have occurred
during the loading process.

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. No, sir; this is not a dent that would have been in the
cartridge case during the loading process.

Mr. McDONALD. Could it have occurred during the ejection process?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes; during the testing of the weapon we found that one
of the tests that were fired and ejected from the weapon by the
panelists also included a cartridge case with a similar deformation of
the mouth of the cartridge case. .... We also examined Federal tests.
Of two tests that we examined, one of them also had an indented mouth.

Mr. McDONALD. Are you saying then when your panel test fired CE-139,
out of four fired cartridges, one was ejected with a dented mouth?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir, that occurred during the ejection process in
firing the weapon. .... The ejection is that process whereby the bolt
handle is moved to the rear to eject the expended cartridge case,
ejecting the cartridge case out of the weapon.

Mr. McDONALD. Now, when you tested the rifle, the panel tested the
rifle, of your panel members, who ejected the shell or cartridge case
that came out with the dent?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Mr. Lutz.

Mr. McDONALD. Would Mr. Lutz please come forward and demonstrate to us
how you ejected to cause a dent in the test cartridge case.

Mr. LUTZ. The particular amount of force that I used to extract and
eject the cartridge case from the weapon was much in the manner that I
would consider to be employed during an attempt to rapidly fire the
firearm. The cartridge was fired with the bolt being closed and then
with considerable speed and pressure being applied, opening it and
pulling the bolt to the rear and holding it to my side, and in a
manner very rapidly, kicking the cartridge back and ejecting the
cartridge and causing it fall to the floor.

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

All lies, right DiEugenio?

>>> "In his over 20 years as a professional marksman, he never saw a shell deformed like that." <<<

Who cares?

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the patsy-framers WANTED to plant a
shell that they had to know couldn't have been fired in LHO's rifle on
11/22?

You really DO think your patsy-framers were total morons, don't you
Jimbo?

Besides, as mentioned, your argument is totally worthless anyway,
because as I just proved via the above-cited HSCA testimony of
Champagne and Lutz at 1 HSCA 454, we know that the HSCA firearms panel
positively dented a lip in a similar fashion to CE543.

Plus: even John McAdams said he had dented a shell in that fashion
too. (He was lying out his ass, right Jimbo?)

Plus: Why would there be ANY need to "plant" any shells in the Nest at
all? You REALLY think that NOBODY was firing from the one and only
rifle THAT THE GOOFBALL PLOTTERS WERE TRYING TO FRAME OSWALD WITH,
Jimbo? More insanity from Patsy Framing University, it seems.

Here are the minutes from the final meeting at Patsy Univ. in Nov.
'63:

Hey, my fellow patsy-framers! I've got a great idea! Let's take
the time to set up this schnook named Oswald by putting together fake
photos of him and by impersonating him all over Dallas in places that
don't mean a Goddamn thing relating to this assassination---and then
let's do something REALLY great! Let's NOT USE OSWALD'S RIFLE AT ALL
ON ASSASSINATION DAY!! How 'bout it, guys? You with me?!

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 21, 2010, 9:54:50 PM9/21/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16652&st=30&p=206653&#entry206653

DELUSIONAL DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "BTW, this Champagne, Lutz BS is right out of RH--a book that I think after that long thread we had is--to be kind-- rather suspect." <<<

DVP SAID:

Bullshit. The Champagne-Lutz stuff is RIGHT OUT OF HSCA VOLUME #1, as
I linked earlier. I wasn't citing "Reclaiming History". I was citing
directly from 1 HSCA 454.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0229b.htm

Please note, though, how Jimbo has no problem discarding (at the drop
of a hat) the HSCA testimony of firearms experts like Monty Lutz and
Donald Champagne. They each said something that Delusional DiEugenio
doesn't like--so, they're each tossed under the bus.

And don't come back with any "You Tossed Roger Craig Under That Bus
Too, Davey Boy" -- because Roger baby deserved his trip under the
White House Press Bus for the multitude of provable lies he told re
the JFK case; I'm sure DiEugenio likes Craig a lot though; normally,
CT mongers go for the least reliable evidence while ignoring the best
evidence.

>>> "But if you want to see just how far out VB and Lutz are on the ballistics issue, they say they could fire 3 shots from the MC in 3.8 seconds." <<<

Penn and Teller [below] did it in 3.45 seconds (dry firing). Big deal.

I'm sure that DiEugenio thinks this video should be tossed under the
same bus with Champagne and Lutz--because Bugliosi pops up at the end:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/debunking-jfk-conspiracy-myths.html

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Sep 22, 2010, 11:12:01 AM9/22/10

to

On Sep 21, 4:03 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

“http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?
showtopic=16652&st=0&p=20...

1.) Three bullet shells found under TSBD window from where assassin
was firing at JFK -- Linked to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all

other weapons. “

Explain for us why the evidence shows ONLY two shells were admitted
into evidence! Cite the evidence that shows LHO owned a rifle so it
could be called “LHO’s rifle”!

Explain for us why one of the shells had a crimp in it that indicated
it was loaded and fired multiple times.

2.) “CE567 & CE569 (the two bullet fragments found right inside the
President's limousine) -- Linked to Oswald's rifle "to the exclusion".

“

What is this “Oswald’s rifle” again? I don’t see any evidence that
shows he ever owned a 40” Carcano! Can you cite it for us?

Fragments that can be linked to a questionable rifle BUT NOT the
victims does you very little good Dave.

“3.) CE399 -- Bullet fired from Oswald's rifle "to the exclusion".

Since #1 and #2 exist in the JFK case (and there hasn't been a single
conspiracy theorist who has ever proven that either #1 or #2 were
"planted" or falsified in some manner), then the likelihood of #3
(CE399) being a "fake" or "planted" or "substituted" piece of evidence
is substantially diminished.

IOW -- Why on Earth was there any NEED to fake CE399 when the #1 and
#2 items on my list above existed as evidence in the JFK murder case

also?”

Who has to “prove they were planted” when YOU can’t prove they ever
where tied to either victim or this mysterious “Oswald’s rifle”
nonsense? Why do we have to do what you won’t do?

The evidence leaves us with NO doubt that CE399 was planted as the
people who found it, saw it and touched it on 11/22/63 ALL said it was
NOT the bullet they found, saw or touched! Are you calling all of
them liars and kooks too?

“The CTers who continue to bitch and moan about the legitimacy of

CE399 are living in a dream world. There has never ever been any solid
proof that Commission Exhibit No. 399 is anything but what it was
purported
to be by both the Warren Commission and the HSCA -- and that is a
bullet that was fired by Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63, which was one
of three bullets LHO fired from his own Carcano rifle at JFK's car on

Elm Street.”

The ONLY one living in a “dream world” is you Dave as you believe in
fairy-tales! The evidence shows us that CE399 is NOT the bullet that
was found in PH on 11/22/63. ONLY a dreamer would deny this!

To say there is no proof of this is an out and out lie as the evidence
shows us it is NOT the bullet that was found! Cite or quote one of
the primary people involved in finding it or handling it that said it
was the bullet they found or handled!

YOU can’t even show LHO fired a rifle on 11/22/63 let alone he fired
the one they said he did (CE139). Why do you make stuff up all the
time? Isn’t that what they do in a dream world?

===============================================
“http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?
showtopic=16652&st=0&p=20...

The mere fact that CE399 is a bullet that came out of the SAME WEAPON
that produced CE567, CE569, and the three bullet shells found on the
floor under the Sniper's Nest window is solid evidence that CE399,
which WAS entered as OFFICIAL evidence in the JFK case whether any
conspiracy theorist likes it or not, is also a valid piece of evidence

in this case.”

NO it isn’t as all of the evidence you just listed has NO chain of
custody for it and it has NO ties to LHO or the two victims. Showing
the shells, CE399 and the two fragments came out of CE143 is useless
when YOU CAN’T TIE CE143 TO LHO AND THE BALLISTIC EVIDENCE TO EITHER
VICTIM!

You have nothing but a pile of dogs**t as it sounds good to someone
who does NOT know the evidence, but once it is researched we see you
have NOTHING that supports or shows LHO to be guilty!

“I guess some conspiracy theorists think it's very likely that the

evil conspirators would have had a desire to want to start "planting"
or "substituting" CE399 in order to frame Oswald, even though those
plotters should have already known they had the three shells in the
Sniper's Nest and CE567/569 to link to their prized patsy named

Oswald.”

The witnesses and the evidence show CE399 is NOT the bullet that was
found in PH on 11/22/63 so to act like it is just shows us all you
have an agenda!

“Or are the 3 shells and the 2 limo fragments supposedly all "faked"
evidence too?”

First of all, the official DPD photo of the evidence ONLY shows 2
casings, and numerous other DPD documents only lists TWO shells being
taken into custody! Secondly, the mysterious third shell that was
supposedly in Fritz’s pocket would have been thrown out.

As for the bullet fragments they became useless the moment the SS took
the car out of the Dallas area with NO jurisdiction! Then add in the
fact they can’t be matched to a weapon LHO owned or shown to have been
inside either victim and you have nothing left.

“And if the CTers want to start pretending that the 3 shells and

CE567/569 ARE faked pieces of evidence, then my other question is
still really just as valid as it is via the scenario which has the 3
shells and the limo fragments being legitimate evidence -- Why the

need to fake the stretcher bullet too?”

No one needs to claim they are “fake” since you can’t show they ARE
REAL to begin with. YOU also can’t show how they connect to this case
anymore than you can show ammo fired in WWII was involved in Dallas.

Stay with things you can support Dave.

“Or weren't the "fakers" of CE399 aware that OTHER evidence was going

to show up to implicate their patsy (whether it be "faked" or legit

evidence)?”

They didn’t care as they controlled the ENTIRE INVESTIGATION and as
Dulles said, “No one reads anyway!”

“Maybe the CTers ought to check up on how many plotters were

supposedly manipulating the evidence on November 22, because it

doesn't seem like the left hand knows what the right hand is doing.”

Maybe you should check on what the actual evidence shows us for once!
Is that too much to ask?

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 22, 2010, 9:23:05 PM9/22/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16659&st=15&p=206761&#entry206761

DAVID VON PEIN ASKED:

WHY would any of the conspirators have even WANTED to risk the whole
"patsy" ballgame by utilizing two, three, or four gunmen in Dealey
Plaza on 11/22/63?

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "I don't even know what the heck this question means." <<<

DVP SAID:

LOL. Oh, for Pete sake.

Jimbo knows exactly what my question means--and it's a perfectly
reasonable question, and one that no CTer can possibly answer in a
reasonable, believable way.

IF OSWALD WAS THE ONE & ONLY "PATSY" IN DALLAS, THEN SETTING HIM UP BY
UTILIZING MANY DIFFERENT GUNMEN IS JUST PLAIN SUICIDE. Such a multi-
gun, one-patsy scheme would not have been attempted by even the most
bumbling of conspirators.

>>> "I think he means that somehow Oswald was the shooter or one of them, and that it would be stupid to put other gunmen in Dealey Plaza. If I am right about this, then its his usual Von Peinian solipsistic view of the universe. Once you step out of the solipsism, the answer is simple. Oswald would not have tried to kill JFK since he liked him and worked for him." <<<

LOL. But the plotters who were framing him didn't know this about
Oswald, eh? They just hoped that nobody else would find out that LHO
admired and liked JFK, is that it?

Hilarious.

And the "worked for him" crappola was a nice touch, Jimbo. It's pure
BS, of course, but it's the first time I've ever heard one of you guys
state it in such a fashion.

>>> "Even if somehow you could have snookered him into it, why do it? The guy could not have hit Kennedy in ten run throughs under those conditions. The shooting was so difficult that you needed three professional gunmen to guarantee a kill shot. Just ask Craig Zirbel or Carlos Hathcock." <<<

More bullshit from Jim D.

The shooting "feat" by Oswald was not that difficult at all. The
"feat" was accomplished on camera by multiple CBS marksmen in 1967.
Naturally, however, DiEugenio will dismiss those CBS tests...because
CBS is part of the "MSM cover-up".

Reprise (just to prove my "Patsy" point from a slightly different
angle):

>>> "Even if somehow you could have snookered him into it, why do it? The guy could not have hit Kennedy in ten run throughs under those conditions. The shooting was so difficult that you needed three professional gunmen to guarantee a kill shot. Just ask Craig Zirbel or Carlos Hathcock." <<<

Yeah, right, Jim. That's why your bumbling patsy-framers decided to
FRAME OSWALD AS A SOLO PATSY, even though the shooting in Dealey Plaza
"was so difficult that you needed three professional gunmen to
guarantee a kill shot".

Hilarious. Benny Hill was never funnier than the ABO conspiracy
theorists.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 22, 2010, 10:10:54 PM9/22/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16659&st=15&p=206761&#entry206761

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16659&st=15&p=206763&#entry206763

JAMES "BLADDER-BUSTER" DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Again, someone help DVP. I don' t understand the above. Isn't that what happened? The evidence that the shot was nearly impossible is in the WC. Did that stop Dulles, McCLoy and Ford from saying LHO did it? Did it stop the Ny TImes? Did it stop CBS? Does it stop John McAdams or DVP? So where is the logic here? The conspirators knew that LHO would not fire, and if he did, he would miss. So they needed three experts to be sure to do the job. They did. The WC covered it up. The MSM bought it. End of story." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The delusions never stop gushing from the fertile mind of James
DiEugenio, do they?

The PRE-assassination plotters who were framing Oswald as a SOLO
PATSY, even though the shooting "was so difficult that you needed
three professional gunmen to guarantee a kill shot" [DiEugenio's exact
words], just GOT LUCKY when the cops and the MSM and the WC decided to
play along and FRAME THE SAME SOLO PATSY NAMED OSWALD TOO!

And yet *I* am the one who supposedly needs "help" here, per
DiEugenio. Hilarious.

DiEugenio's next bladder-buster will undoubtedly be:

"Oh, who gives a damn if the people framing Oswald didn't keep
an eye on their patsy at 12:30 on Nov. 22?! What difference does it
make if a bunch of people see the patsy on the first floor of the TSBD
at the exact moment he's supposed to be up on the sixth floor killing
the President?! The DPD and Hoover and the WC's Troika will fix
everything afterwards anyway. So who gives a shit if the patsy garners
for himself seventeen different alibi witnesses in the Depository at
12:30? Big fucking deal, Davey Boy!"

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 23, 2010, 12:53:17 AM9/23/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16659&st=15&p=206769&#entry206769

DVP SAID:

Yes, you're right, Jim, about the 30-foot-high shooting tests done by
the WC, vs. the proper height of 60 feet. And Vince Bugliosi does a
little WC-bashing in his book when the topic comes around to those WC
rifle tests.

And the "MSM" that Jim D. thinks was bending over backwards to convict
Oswald also raked the WC over some hot coals too in 1967, when Walter
Cronkite ridiculed the Commission on that "30 foot vs. 60 foot high"
topic.

Paraphrasing Cronkite from the 1967 CBS-TV program "A CBS News
Inquiry: The Warren Report":

"CBS built a tower to match the height of the sixth floor; so
surely it wasn't beyond the capabilities of the FBI to do the same."

But the FACT is that some of the CBS shooters (from a 60-foot-high
perch) were able to duplicate (and beat) Oswald's Dallas shooting
performance. One shooter (which might have been Howard Donahue, but
I'm not 100% sure of that at this moment) got off three shots in 4.1
seconds, but he only got 1 hit on the silhouette target.

And another CBS marksman achieved three hits on the target in just 5.2
seconds.

So it CAN be done.

And Monty Lutz of the HSCA Firearms Panel also beat Oswald's
performance.

So, perhaps it's time for the conspiracy theorists to stop peddling
the "IT CANNOT BE DONE AND HAS NEVER BEEN DONE" myth when it comes to
the subject of Lee Harvey Oswald's so-called "impossible" shooting
feat in Dealey Plaza.

Don't you think that's a good idea, Jim?

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID [SEE POST BELOW]:

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16659&st=15&p=206772&#entry206772

DVP SAID:

Well, Jim, if you were to change the timing for the three shots to the
accurate time of approximately 8 seconds, I'm all for it.

But your "6 seconds" time is too short and you (of course) know it.

Oswald's shots:

Shot 1 -- Z-frame 160 (approx.).
Shot 2 -- Z224.
Shot 3 -- Z313.

Total time = 8.36 seconds.

Actually, I'd very much like to see a test like that performed, Jim.
And in Dealey Plaza too.

Of course, there's one major stumbling block to the kind of test
you're proposing, Jim. And Gary Mack informed me about the roadblock
in an e-mail he wrote to me in July 2009.

Gary's e-mail was in response to this question that I had asked about
the "Inside The Target Car" documentary:

"I'm wondering why the test shots couldn't have simply been done
in the best possible place to perform such a test -- right in Dealey
Plaza itself (and from the 6th-Floor window inside the Book Depository
itself)?

"The Discovery people already had arranged for the police to
completely close off Elm Street and Dealey Plaza for a period of time
for their initial "looking through the rifle scope" tests (to see
whether certain angles within the Plaza were feasible ones or not for
the head shot), so I wonder why they didn't just go the whole nine
yards and perform the actual test shots that were fired into the
surrogate skulls from Dealey Plaza as well?

"I know that Oswald's Sniper's-Nest window is now technically
"off limits" to visitors of Mr. Mack's Sixth Floor Museum. But surely
an exception could have been made to allow Mr. Yardley to use that
corner window to fire just that one shot at a dummy's head.

"If the test shots could have been fired right at the scene of
the crime itself (Dealey Plaza), I think it would have been better all
the way around, and mainly to silence even more critics of the lone-
assassin conclusion.

"But by doing the actual shooting tests in California, the
naysayers can now argue that the tests weren't set up right...or that
the distances cannot be confirmed...or that the height of Oswald's
window wasn't measured with accuracy...etc., etc.

"But I'm guessing that some legal restrictions (or some kind of
roadblock anyway) prohibited the shooting tests from being done right
there in Dealey Plaza. That's too bad, too, because unless I miss my
guess, a head-shot test performed from the actual crime scene would
have been even MORE powerful and conspiracy-refuting." -- DVP;
November 2008

Gary Mack then said:

"As for why the test shots weren't fired in Dealey Plaza, there
was no reason to do so. Such actions would be dangerous, pure
exploitation and probably against the law, since the Plaza is a city
park and a National Historic Landmark." -- Gary Mack; July 4, 2009

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/jfk-inside-target-car-part-1.html

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/jfk-inside-target-car-part-3.html

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

I knew you would back out, but not in world record time.

We are doing what the WC says happened.

DVP SAID:

If you're talking about the WC saying that Oswald positively did the
shooting in 5.6 seconds, you're wrong. That was their best guess, yes.
But the WC wasn't confining itself to only "5.6 seconds" as most
conspiracy theorists seem to want to believe. Just read Page 117 of
the Warren Report and see for yourself:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/WCRPage117.gif

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

Further, you just said that CBS did it in less than six seconds. So
why chicken out right after you said it could be done?

DVP SAID:

Oh, it certainly CAN be done--even by a Marine sharpshooter who scored
a 212 on the U.S. Marine rifle range in 1956. We KNOW it can be done--
because your favorite patsy DID IT in 1963, James.

BTW, who's chickening out?

Perhaps you missed this comment by me in an earlier post:

"Actually, I'd very much like to see a test like that performed,
Jim. And in Dealey Plaza too." -- DVP

That comment means I'm "chickening out"?

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

If we were on a school ground in high school or JHS right now, I would
be flapping my arms like wings and making chicken sounds at you.

DVP SAID:

And watching you performing that childish task (even though I said I'd
LIKE to see such a rifle test performed in Dealey Plaza) would do
WONDERS for your stellar reputation, James. So, please, borrow these
plastic chicken wings of mine and have a ball.

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

He [Gary Mack] does not get many letters from people like you or me,
let alone co-signed.

DVP SAID:

As I said previously....I'm all for it. Such a test would be
excellent.

But it'll never happen in Dealey Plaza. Didn't you read this part of
Post #27 of this [Education Forum] thread?:

"As for why the test shots weren't fired in Dealey Plaza, there
was no reason to do so. Such actions would be dangerous, pure
exploitation and probably against the law, since the Plaza is a city
park and a National Historic Landmark." -- Gary Mack; July 4, 2009

Or do you, Jim, have a lot of "pull" with the city managers in Dallas?

There are two more problems with DiEugenio's proposed "test firing" in
Dealey Plaza (as Jimbo tries to make things harder and harder for
anyone who might try to duplicate the "feat" that Lee Harvey Oswald
positively did perform on 11/22/63):

Jim D. said --- "Getting a rifle just like the MC the WC says Oswald
had. Then misaligning the scope, making the bolt very difficult to
work, and then making the trigger pull a two stage process."

The part about the "misaligned scope" is pure guesswork on Jimmy's
part.

I'm not denying that Oswald's scope on Rifle C2766 was misaligned (and
it fired high and to the right) AFTER the assassination. But there is
no proof whatsoever that the scope was misaligned when Oswald was
using it to shoot at President Kennedy.

The scope might very well have been damaged and misaligned only after
Oswald threw the rifle on the floor behind the box stacks in the
northwest corner of the sixth floor. Nobody can ever know for sure how
roughly (or smoothly) Oswald placed his rifle on the floor that day.

And I think even most conspiracy theorists will agree that if that
rifle had bounced on the floor a time or two before settling (scope
up) on the floor between the book cartons, such rough handling of the
weapon could very possibly have jarred the cheap telescopic sight out
of alignment.

Jim D. said --- "Do not let him live practice in advance at all."

You don't know whether Oswald ever practiced with his C2766 Carcano or
not, Jim.

Of course, I realize you want to pretend that LHO never had that gun
in his hands AT ALL in the year 1963, but as all reasonable people
know, that idea is just a flat-out silly one, given all of the firm
evidence that indicates he did ORDER, PAY FOR, WAS PHOTOGRAPHED WITH,
and therefore TOOK POSSESSION OF Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766 in
early 1963.

Plus, we do know for a fact that Oswald definitely "practiced" dry-
firing the rifle on his porch in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
Now, that's not the same thing as practicing with live ammo in the
gun, that's true. I'm not saying it is the same thing.

But via that front-porch dry-firing, I'm guessing that Oswald probably
knew the ins and outs of working that bolt and "two-stage trigger"
that you claim were ultra-crappy. And I'll bet he knew how to work
that rifle pretty well too. After all, it WAS his gun (despite
DiEugenio's constant whining to the contrary).

So, Jim, you're going to have to remove those two biased requirements
from your letter to Mr. Mack.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 23, 2010, 1:35:14 AM9/23/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16659&st=30&p=206786&#entry206786

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Frame 210 to frame 313 is 113 frames. The WC said JFK was hit sometime behind the sign. It's just short division Davey, so even you can do it." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, I can. But you seem to be having some math trouble tonight,
Jimbo. You can't even subtract 210 from 313. You think it's 113. (It's
only 103 frames, Jim. 104 inclusive.)

And, yes, Z210 to Z313 is 5.6 seconds. But didn't you read Page 117 of
the Warren Report, where the WC said the shooting could have taken as
long as "7.9 seconds"? Let's take another look, shall we?:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

BTW, Jim, get your apostrophe fixed. I get tired of adding them in all
the time for you.

>>> "As per the guesswork on the misaligned scope, you are the one who is blowing smoke. Look at the photo in Groden's book, and you will see it was not misaligned after, but before. It was resting with the scope up." <<<

Who needs Groden's book? I've got the picture in question in my photo
archives on the Internet--right here:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/JFK%20ASSASSINATION%20PHOTO%20ALBUM%20--%20VOLUME%202/Rifle_Stashed_Between_Boxes.jpg

And you actually think that just because the rifle ended up on the
floor in a SCOPE-UP position, that means we can positively eliminate
the idea of the scope being damaged or misaligned by way of Oswald's
possible rough handling of the gun when he shoved it between those
boxes?

Surely you jest, my friend. The scope could very well have received
some rough treatment as Oswald was hurriedly throwing it down on the
floor amid those boxes. You're reaching far into your conspiracy
cookie jar on this silly one, James.

>>> "There is absolutely no evidence of Oswald live firing a rifle, let alone that one in 1963. Pure BS on your part." <<<

Nobody can say for sure whether he ever practiced with his Carcano or
not. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. This argument is a CT/LN wash, and
always was.

>>> "See, now I know why you don't want to co-sign the letter [to Gary Mack about a proposed rifle test in Dallas' Dealey Plaza]." <<<

WTF? I've said multiple times tonight in this thread that I would LIKE
to see such a rifle test. Are you not reading my prior posts at all,
James?

Actually, such a test with a Carcano rifle in Dealey Plaza (which, as
I explained to Jimbo twice previously, will never happen just because
a couple of guys from California and Indiana have signed a letter and
mailed it to Gary Mack, because Gary already explained that such on-
site tests in Dealey Plaza would not be permitted) would really be a
win-win situation for an "LNer" like myself -- and that's because even
if the Gomer Pyle-like Marine didn't hit anything with his Carcano
from the Sniper's Nest, such a failure by Gomer wouldn't suddenly
WIPE OUT all of the physical and circumstantial evidence of Lee Harvey
Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination.

Does Jim DiEugenio really believe such a failure (if a failed test did
occur) WOULD wipe the slate clean and result in the Government
suddenly ready to declare that the man to whom ALL OF THE 1963
EVIDENCE STILL POINTS is now totally INNOCENT of the shooting?

Come now, James.

But, of course, if such a test with Gomer (or even his cousin Goober)
was successful, and Gomer/Goober fired three shots from a Carcano in 6
or 7 or 8 seconds, with two hits on the target, it certainly should
make a lot of ABO CTers shut their traps for all time. (But, of
course, it wouldn't. We all know that, don't we Jim?)

>>> "Any true test under real conditions is impossible." <<<

Spoken like a true-blue Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorist. Call
Jim Fetzer and have a beer together. Jim F. thinks that Oswald's rifle
wasn't even a...."rifle". (Go figure.)

>>> "BTW, let me apologize to Jim Root. But he complained about DVP on this thread previously. It's the same thing he did at Lancer, which is why he got banned." <<<

Yeah, Jim. I'm the only one who's been derailing Jim Root's thread
here, right? You haven't uttered a peep, have you?

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Sep 23, 2010, 10:51:17 AM9/23/10

to

On Sep 22, 10:10 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16659&st=15&p=2...
>
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16659&st=15&p=2...
>
> JAMES "BLADDER-BUSTER" DiEUGENIO SAID:

Dave continues to post things about CTers who are NOT on this board!
Just how dishonest is this?

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 23, 2010, 8:29:21 PM9/23/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16659&st=30&p=206869&#entry206869

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> ""...the evidence indicated that the President was not hit until at least frame 210 and that he was probably hit by frame 225." (WR, p. 105)" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sure, that's 100% accurate too. JFK and Connally WERE, indeed, hit by
Oswald's CE399 bullet between frames 210 and 225. The SBT occurred at
Z224, IMO, which falls between those two points.

BTW, I think the WC was very wise to "bracket" the SBT timing, too. It
was wiser to do that than to try and pinpoint ONE specific frame and
label it as the definitive "SBT frame". And Vincent Bugliosi does that
same type of bracketing in his book, "Reclaiming History", too. And I
can appreciate and understand that kind of approach to the SBT shot.

Yes, I know that I myself HAVE pinpointed a specific SBT frame in my
Internet writings (Z224). But we also have better digital techniques
and gif clips, etc., with which to examine the Zapruder Film today
than the Warren Commission had back in 1963 and 1964.

And I'll also admit that I could be wrong about the exact "Z224" SBT
hit, because it's true (as the WC points out) that JFK was almost
certainly struck by the SBT bullet while he was hidden by the road
sign, which makes any kind of a definitive timing for the SBT shot
very difficult indeed.

But I also feel that it's really JOHN CONNALLY that pretty much
determines the SBT shot occurring at Z224. Because we can see all of
Connally BEFORE he's hit by a bullet.

And since the only REASONABLE and rational conclusion, given the sum
total of evidence connected with the initial wounding of both victims,
is that one bullet positively did strike both men at the same
time....then it becomes fairly simple to determine at what point on
the Z-Film the SBT is occurring -- and the involuntary reactions and
movements of Governor Connally in the frames immediately after Z224
are unquestionably telling me (and other reasonable people who have
studied Mr. Zapruder's home movie) that Connally has just been hit by
a bullet an instant prior to Z225.

But the Warren Commission's analysis of when JFK & JBC were hit by the
SBT bullet (between Z210 and Z225) doesn't negate the WC's words that
we find on Page 117, which is where the WC is admitting that they
really DO NOT KNOW when the "missed" shot occurred. The WC is allowing
for ALL possibilities, and they say so right on Page 117. They allow
for a FIRST-SHOT miss, which, naturally, would stretch out the timing
of the whole shooting. The Commission also allows for a SECOND-SHOT
miss and even a THIRD-SHOT miss.

The WC also allows for the possibility that the Main St. curb damage
could have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. And, hence,
the WC is also allowing for the head shot to be a cause for the
wounding of James Tague as well.

Again, that's all spelled out, clear as day, on Page 117 of the WCR.
But Jim DiEugenio, who has his "Conspiracy Only" hat firmly affixed to
his cranium 24/7, apparently thinks that the Warren Commission was
just lying through its collective teeth when it was giving a whole
range of possibilities on Page 117.

Gee, you'd think that Jim would be giving the WC a few extra points
for being above-board and honest by ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL
POSSIBILITIES concerning the shooting.

Jimbo, however, evidently thinks that by allowing for other
possibilities (instead of being hard-headed and sticking to a specific
scenario that the WC knew it could not prove with total certainty),
the Warren Commission was STILL being as crooked as a dog's hind leg
on Page 117.

I guess with some CTers, the Warren boys couldn't win....no matter
what they did or said.

WCR; Page 117:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 23, 2010, 8:32:38 PM9/23/10

to

>>> "Dave continues to post things about CTers who are NOT on this board! Just how dishonest is this?" <<<

One of the moderators at Simkin's Conspiracy House has no problem with
cross-posting (as we can see below). I wonder why Caprio The Kook has
such a problem with it?

"If members link to or copy posts from this [Education] Forum,
then there is nothing wrong with that." -- Evan Burton; 09/18/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16620&st=15&p=206269&#entry206269

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Sep 24, 2010, 11:24:42 AM9/24/10

to

> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16620&st=15&p=2...

So I am supposed to have the same beliefs as this Evan Burton guy?
YOU must have me confused with the LNers as they ALL BELIEVE the same
things.

I think you should post things were the person you are quoting is
there to respond. Why can't you do this? Why do you have to share
this stuff with folks who are not even sure of the context of what is
going on?

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 24, 2010, 9:27:08 PM9/24/10

to

Go away, Rob.

I couldn't care less what you think, and I couldn't care less what you
have to say about the JFK case.

I got my full use out of your kooky Anybody-But-Oswald posts three
years ago for my archives. So feel free to stop yammering away any
time now. Nobody's listening to you.

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 1, 2010, 6:40:53 AM10/1/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16704&st=0&p=207586&#entry207586

WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

>>> "It is not the Pawn [Lee Harvey Oswald] who is most responsible for the Checkmate and loss of the King [John F. Kennedy], but the King's movements that put him in jeopardy." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A Pawn doesn't have a Mannlicher-Carcano, with real bullets in its
chamber, aimed at the King's head during a game of chess. Oswald did.

And the King drove right into the Pawn's domain--onto Elm Street at
only 11 MPH.

Checkmate. The Pawn wins.

>>> "Exactly my point David. The King drove right into the Pawn's domain -- Pawn Takes King, no check, just checkmate. It's the King's move, not the Pawn's that counts." <<<

The fact that JFK came to Oswald made it too irresistible for LHO. No
way he could pass up that golden chance. The assassination was served
up to Ozzie on a silver platter.

Conspiracy theorists, though, think it was a fake or contrived silver
platter, designed to frame the pawn (Oswald).

But what most CTers never talk about is the fact that their "pawn"
named Oswald had murder flowing through his very own veins as surely
as night follows day--and the Walker shooting is proof of that fact.

It's much better, however, for the conspiracists to ignore or distort
the Walker shooting. Because if they start analyzing the true inner
character of their so-called patsy, they'd begin to realize that
Oswald had it within HIMSELF to kill people with rifles in 1963.

And that type of realization makes it much, much more difficult to
treat Lee Oswald as a mere bystander (or "pawn" or "patsy") to the
events of November 22nd.

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 8, 2010, 1:24:03 AM10/8/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16397&st=75&p=208067&#entry208067

Anyone who could possibly even begin to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald
was innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit, given the wealth of evidence
that proves Oswald committed that murder beyond all reasonable doubt,
is a person who isn't worth taking seriously for even two seconds.

And Herbert Blenner's laundry list of documents from the Dallas
Municipal Archives that Lee Farley re-posted above can only elicit a
two-word response from anyone reading it:

So what?

There's nothing there that even begins to exonerate Lee Oswald.

And why Herbert Blenner thinks that some initial mistakes concerning
the address of the Tippit shooting can possibly lead toward the
direction of Oswald's innocence is anybody's guess. Mistakes like that
are commonplace, of course. But apparently CTers feel there was no
room for ordinary human error on 11/22/63 in Dallas, Texas.

Every anomaly and human gaffe MUST mean conspiracy to the CTers on the
Internet. No other explanation is to even be considered among some
conspiracists. Otherwise, why would anybody even bother to post
something silly like the paragraph repeated below? (Does Herb Blenner
think that Tippit was really shot in six different locations in Oak
Cliff on November 22nd?) .....

"When police initially arrived at the scene of the Tippit
shooting, the dictabelt had recorded six addresses for the location of
the crime scene. This situation is particularly difficult to dismiss
since a citizen reported the shooting to the police over the two-way
radio of Tippit's patrol car."

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/murder-of-jd-tippit-part-1.html

aeffects

unread,

Oct 8, 2010, 3:09:59 PM10/8/10

to

On Oct 7, 10:24 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

...
your whining is overwhelming your lone nut foolishness... whata' dweeb!

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 8, 2010, 6:12:57 PM10/8/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16397&st=75&p=208120&#entry208120

PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "David, you need to stop seeing everything through your "Oswald did it, therefore everything's been solved" prism before anyone can take you seriously." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oswald DID do it. So the case HAS been solved. Even you, Pat, admit
that LHO probably killed Tippit.

Everything else is just a hobby for the conspiracy theorists, whose
major goal is to try to sift through the evidence and nitpick every
single anomaly or inconsistency to death until they satisify their own
curious desire to exonerate the lone killer of both JFK and J.D.
Tippit.

E.G., Herbert Blenner's comment about there being six different
addresses on the Dictabelt tape for the Tippit murder site. (BTW, if
the DPD altered the Dictabelt, I'm wondering why they didn't alter out
those 5 incorrect addresses too? Maybe it wasn't important enough to
"edit" out of the tapes. But it sure is important to a conspiracy
theorist named Herbert Blenner. Otherwise, why even bring it up in the
first place?)

>>> "I...would still find the prospect the DPD edited the tapes to give Oswald "more time" interesting." <<<

Pat,

Do you happen to know the name of the rabid conspiracy theorist who
first suggested that the Dallas Police Department actually "edited the
tapes" as part of a cover-up plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for
Officer Tippit's murder? Where on Earth did that silliness come from?

There's not a shred of proof to back up that ridiculous theory, of
course. But apparently some conspiracist decided to invent a radio
call from T.F. Bowley at 1:12 PM (a call that never existed, of
course, since Bowley's call occurred at 1:18 PM) in order to pretend
that the whole timeline of official DPD radio calls surrounding the
Tippit shooting has been "edited".

Bugliosi was right -- there apparently is nothing too silly for the
palate of certain JFK conspiracy theorists.

aeffects

unread,

Oct 8, 2010, 6:22:26 PM10/8/10

to

On Oct 8, 3:12 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

way to much whining...

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 8, 2010, 7:52:27 PM10/8/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16397&st=75&p=208129&#entry208129

MEGA-KOOK LEE FARLEY UTTERED:

>>> "Von Pain needs us all to believe that Ted Callaway placed his call to the dispatcher to tell them of a police officer who had been shot AFTER he'd helped put him in the ambulance with T.F. Bowley." <<<

DVP SAID:

Callaway knew that somebody had called for an ambulance, but that call
could have been made by a citizen on Tenth Street for all Ted Callaway
knew.

Callaway didn't know if the DPD knew about the shooting or not, even
after the ambulance had left the scene.

Naturally, I'm sure Farley is ready (and eager) to call Ted Callaway a
liar, since Callaway specifically told the Warren Commission that he
placed his radio call BEFORE the ambulance arrived and not afterward.

But things were happening very quickly, and Callaway's testimony to
the WC is obviously slightly off on the exact timing of his radio
call. He certainly placed that radio call AFTER the ambulance had left
with Tippit's body, not before.

And that's just the type of inconsistency that feeds conspiracy
theorists like Farley. Without such inconsistencies, which couldn't be
more normal and expected in any criminal case, CTers like Farley would
be lost.

I'm pretty sure that Farley's next liars will be Virginia Davis and
Barbara Davis. They MUST be liars, because they nailed Farley's prized
patsy to the wall (where he belongs).