>>> "I would not want to be an investor in this [HBO "Reclaiming History"] project and that isn't because of my views but what I see are very limited prospects for it being a success." <<<

Just like Vince Bugliosi's book, the HBO mini-series will go down as a
TV program "for the ages" (i.e., the truth will rest within its 10-
hour timeframe, regardless of how many people scoff and spit on it in
the future).

Same goes for Bugliosi's book. That book contains the truth of what
happened in Dallas in 1963, and the current or future opinions of
conspiracy theorists are of very little consequence or concern in the
long run. Because facts are still facts, no matter how many silly
conspiracists there are in the world who refuse to accept them.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 16, 2009, 12:57:41 AM10/16/09

www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1239.msg16841.html#msg16841

IAN LLOYD SAID:

>>> "I've been wondering about how many people were deemed to have been "mistaken" about something by the Warren Commission. Perhaps we can start compiling a list and try to establish if there were any common causes for these "mistakes"? I'll kick it off -- Frazier and Randle regarding the length of the paper sack carried by Oswald on the morning of the 22nd: Even though they were absolute in their conviction that the paper sack shown to them by the FBI/WC was longer than [the bag] they remembered Oswald to have been carrying AND the FBI carried out 2 tests based on 2 essentially independent observations to conclude that the bag Oswald was carrying was only around 27" long, the WC decreed that both Frazier & Randle were "mistaken" regarding the length of the bag." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were obviously "mistaken" as to
the precise length of Oswald's paper bag.

To believe otherwise is to believe that the brown paper bag Frazier
and Randle saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63 was a different brown paper
bag from the EMPTY brown paper bag that was found in the TSBD which
had OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT.

Is a reasonable and sensible person supposed to actually believe that
Oswald took a large-ish bag with him into work on November 22 that was
27 inches long, with that bag then disappearing without a trace
between 8:00 AM and early- to mid-afternoon on the same day (November
22)?

And then are we supposed to believe that a similar-looking BROWN PAPER
BAG (EMPTY!) turned up in the exact place from which a gunman fired
shots at JFK, with this coincidence occurring (incredibly) on the very
same day that Oswald carried a 27-inch BROWN PAPER BAG into the very
same building where a 38-inch BROWN PAPER BAG was discovered WITH
OSWALD'S PALMPRINT AND FINGERPRINT on it?

A reasonable person can arrive at only one reasonable conclusion here:

The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Harvey
Oswald carrying on the morning of the assassination was the very same
paper bag that was seen lying (empty!) in the Sniper's Nest by Lt.
Carl Day and Robert Studebaker of the DPD on November 22, 1963.

Accepting any other scenario other than the scenario I just mentioned
in the above paragraph is to accept a scenario that lacks all
fundamental logic and common sense.

Plus, any alternate "two bags" scenario raises more questions than it
answers, e.g.:

1.) Where did this so-called 27-inch brown paper bag disappear to?
Where is it? If Oswald really took some innocuous, innocent object(s)
into the Book Depository that Friday, then why wasn't this innocuous
item (curtain rods?) ever discovered by anybody after the
assassination? (And if some conspiracists want to speculate that the
DPD or the FBI deep-sixed the curtain rods, it would be nice to see
some proof to back up such a vile allegation. To date, no such
evidence has emerged from the speculation-ridden CT brigade.)

2.) How did Lee Harvey Oswald's palmprint and fingerprint manage to
get on the 38-inch paper bag that is now in evidence in the National
Archives (CE142)? Are we really to believe that the DPD "planted" two
of Oswald's prints on that paper bag sometime after the assassination?
(That's an extraordinary accusation that requires an equally-
extraordinary amount of proof to substantiate it, don't you all
agree?)

3.) If the bag that Oswald carried into the building had really merely
contained curtain rods (or some other item that wasn't a gun), then
why did Oswald deny ever taking such an innocent item into work on
November 22nd? Did Oswald think that CURTAIN RODS could be considered
a suspicious or dangerous item? Maybe he thought that the cops would
accuse him of plotting to kill the President by the odd method of
stabbing him to death with his curtain rods, eh?

Of course, conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio has decided to create a
different scenario altogether (although this silly theory has probably
been postulated by other CTers in the past as well, but I personally
don't know of anyone else besides Jim D. who has gone on record as
being this idiotic and paranoid):

DiEugenio has decided that Lee Oswald carried NO LARGE-ISH BAG INTO
THE DEPOSITORY AT ALL on November 22nd. No bag at all!*

* = DiEugenio might have suggested in the past that Oswald had a small
lunch sack with him that Friday, but Jim is now pretty sure that
Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Randle were part of Jim's almost-endless
list of scheming liars and cover-up operatives who were attempting to
frame and railroad poor schnook Oswald in November of '63, because
DiEugenio thinks that Oswald carried NO BIG BAG into work at all on
the morning of the President's murder.

So, Jim D. thinks that these two ordinary Irving, Texas, citizens
(housewife Linnie Mae Randle and 19-year-old stock boy Buell Wesley
Frazier) were lying when they each repeatedly claimed that Lee Oswald
was carrying a large-ish brown bag with him on November 22.

Mr. DiEugenio evidently has never asked himself the following logical
question regarding these two supposed liars:

If Frazier and Randle were really telling lies about Oswald having a
large bag, then why on Earth did those two liars contend that the bag
that each of them just MADE UP FROM WHOLE CLOTH was too short to hold
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?!

If Frazier and Randle were liars (as Jim DiEugenio now claims), they
were pretty crappy liars, weren't they? Because if they were really
telling falsehoods about LHO carrying a large bag, then those two
liars would certainly have wanted to continue the deception by saying
to the authorities that the bag they created out of thin air was BIG
ENOUGH TO HOLD THE WEAPON THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY SUPPOSED TO BE CONTAINED
INSIDE THAT MAKE-BELIEVE PAPER BAG.

So many (stupid) conspiracy theories.
So little (common) sense do any of them make.

David Von Pein
October 16, 2009

www.Battling-A-Conspiracy-Kook.blogspot.com

www.The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com

tomnln

unread,

Oct 16, 2009, 1:46:08 PM10/16/09

Hey David;

How "defensible" would your claims be in a "Real-Time" debate with me on my
Live audio chat room?

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8ed98e58-982f-4d71...@y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1239.msg16846.html#msg16846

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 5, 2009, 12:11:23 AM11/5/09

Subject: Thanks
Date: 11/4/2009 2:04:11 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Richard Corcoran
To: David Von Pein

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

David,

I would like to thank you for the many articles, videos, etc. that you
have contributed to making certain that truthful and objective
materials relating to the murder of JFK are freely available on the
internet.

I am an amateur historian and although JFK and his assassination is
not my area of expertise (in fact, I learned so much from your blogs
and links to other sites, I don't claim any extensive prior knowledge
other than being convinced the WC had it right), I thoroughly enjoyed
the videos you posted, especially the "real-time" CBS/NBC/ABC footage.

The videos, particularly watched in real time (and as you had stated
in one of your blogs), are so compelling as to how much was correct
initially (number and direction of shots, description of gunman,
wounds the president suffered), from so many witnesses even before
anyone knew who Oswald was, that it defies reason that anyone could
suppose an actual multi-gun, frame-the-patsy scenario could be set up
in real time.

As a matter of fact, comparing how much information was conveyed and
had actually held up (because it was true) in the brief period of time
after the event, before it was even certain the President was dead,
and in the technical limitations of 1963, to some of the errors
reported in the first hour of the 9/11 attacks is quite remarkable to
me.

This crime and the evidence was not "cooked up, planted and solved" in
the bowels of the Dallas PD with the conspirators connivance, there
literally was too much accurate information collected and reported in
the first hour for a vast and omnipotent fakery campaign.

In fact, short of some "men-in-black" characters employing some kind
of mind control device not only on the large number of witnesses
interviewed in the first few minutes, but also employing that same
device through the airwaves of all three networks to erase the memory
of everyone who saw the first couple of hours of TV coverage (again
before Oswald came to light, although he was by this time in custody),
there is no way a monumental fakery campaign could work.

Nor could such a campaign survive even one of the fakers deciding at
some point in time to "cash in" with an "I was involved in planting
the pristine bullet" tell-all book to supplement their retirement (or
better yet on their deathbed). Or where all the "fakers" subsequently
iced?

When you put together the voluminous physical evidence linking Oswald
(and only Oswald, or at least someone who was in the TSBD at the exact
moment, and looked just like him, whom no one ever saw entering or
leaving the building, and using the rifle delivered to Oswald's PO
box) to Kennedy's murder, such a spectacular "frame up" is just not
possible.

In fact, CT'ers who claim Oswald did not murder JD Tippit might as
well just go on and claim Jack Ruby did not kill Oswald, as the amount
of physical evidence in the two murders are roughly comparable, Ruby's
crime just happened in front of TV cameras. In fact, you don't
actually see Ruby's shot...you hear it.... the AP picture could have
been faked placing the revolver in Ruby's hand... LOL. That scenario
is just as plausible as the multiple killers of Tippit scenario placed
in Stone's shameful fantasy tale.

Anyway David, I just wanted to thank you for your efforts and I very
much enjoyed the living history materials you have made available to
anyone with a desire to find out the truth. There are too many
panderers out there peddling some non-sensical drivel to support
financially an unsupportable thesis.

Richard Corcoran

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

Subject: Thank YOU
Date: 11/4/2009 6:11:40 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Richard Corcoran

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

Hi Richard,

Thank you so much for your exceptionally well-written e-mail that you
sent me today. I enjoyed reading it very much. .... [It] is one of the
best messages about the JFK case I have ever received.

Thanks again, and take care.

Regards,
David Von Pein

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

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

Subject: RE: Thank YOU
Date: 11/4/2009 10:39:19 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Richard Corcoran
To: David Von Pein

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

David,

[...]

I can appreciate that your posting of the evidence of the case is not
designed to sway the usual CT'ers, but to reach the people (an
incredible number now, thanks to Oliver Stone and co.) who have been
bombarded with so-called "evidence" that is anything but and have been
confused by the continual misdirection and fabrications proferred by
the CT industry. Your logical arguments cut through the bullshit most
effectively.

I count myself among those who over the years were confused by
unsubstantiated drivel and outright lies (our own congress did no
favors with this "acoustical evidence" bs, and Oliver Stone did
incalculable damage with his irresponsible fantasy picture), to think
that perhaps there was something not right about the WC and that the
Dallas PD rivaled the keystone cops for comedic value.

But when you actually get down to the bald facts of this case, and
plow through the actual detailed evidence (and anyone who thinks the
WC did a slipshod whitewash does not know what they are talking about,
the murder of JFK has to be the most documented and detailed
evidentiary disclosure ever made available to the public), there
really is very little reason for a critically thinking person to
conclude that anyone other than LHO killed the president (and officer
Tippit).

There is also no evidence that anyone was in league with LHO and
indeed the mountain of physical evidence as well as circumstantial and
behavioral evidence (such as fleeing the scene, going home to get a
handgun, murdering the first police officer that questions him,
ducking into a dark movie theatre to get out of sight, and attempting
to shoot the arresting officer) points only to Oswald as the killer.

The sheer weight of additional physical and testimonial evidence that
not only exists, but also was uncovered by law enforcement and
reported by the media very quickly (before Oswald was even apprehended
or his name was even known in most cases) precludes anyone else taking
an active part in the assassination or that any subsequent large-scale
frame up existed.

It's interesting that many CT's (not just JFK ones) often rely on an
omnipotent and malevolent power short-circuiting established rules and
procedures and rest frequently on the fatalistic feeling of
powerlessness of believers (elections don't matter, economic power is
concentrated in some cabal) and in a set of received wisdom and
insight into a mystery that "initiates" (who buy the book, natch) feel
the removal of powerlessness by being privy to the almighty secret.

CT's also overestimate both the competence and power of the
conspirators as well as the close-mouthedness of the same. Why is it
that CT proponents assume all sorts of nefarious motives, supreme
cunning, and superhuman competence in carrying out some criminal
sleight-of-hand, yet the conspirators themselves honorably keep the
secret to the grave, even when it would be financially a bonus to
"reveal the great secret", even from some beyond-the-grave tome?

Even the mafia had trouble keeping secrets that involved more than a
few individuals and many of those eventually got out. And anyway it
was financially a benefit for a mafioso to keep quiet (especially in
the good old days), it was only when a mafia member was faced with a
potential benefit for spilling the beans (usually when they were
facing death anyways) that they did. There was really no romantic
adherence to a code.

Any large-scale conspiracy cannot hold up for very long and even if it
could, human beings are simply not supremely competent in arranging
things. This is a fact that law enforcement relies upon. Actual
criminals (even pros) do make mistakes even when everything is on the
line. How much less likely is a conspirator acting under orders with
limited skin in the game able to perform demonstrably criminal acts
with perfect precision without mistakes?

This is why I believe CT's rely on some supremely compelling
motivation for the perpetrator (even some of the more way-out ones
even dispense with this) but fall completely apart with any critical
scrutiny in direct proportion to both scope and complexity. Because
human beings are not perfectly competent and cannot perfectly (and
permanently) keep secrets and human omnipotence (in this day anyways)
does not exist.

Yet scope, complexity, and inherent powerlessness is exactly what CT's
generally sell. As I believe Hitler said, the bigger and the more
complex the lie, the more the masses will believe it.

Anyway, It appears you've seen nearly every crackpot CT on JFK, so I'm
certain you know more about it than I do. I haven't got around to
reading the one where aliens perpetrate the JFK assassination, but I
must confess that one sounds more plausible than most other CT's. I
mean assuming an alien race with more or less omnipotent powers and
assuming they buggered off of earth (with their abducted human co-
conspirators) after the deed, they certainly would fulfill the
requirements needed for perpetrating a wide-ranging, complex, and
secretive conspiracy. It would be rather weak on motive though.
(Although I'm sure some super CT guru could come up with one - Aliens
wanting to suppress knowledge of area 51 and Roswell perhaps?)

Actually I better stop, I might concoct a story someone might actually
believe - given the stuff floating around the CT community that would
not be hard.

Take care.

Rich

[Richard Corcoran]

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

Subject: The JFK Assassination
Date: 11/4/2009 11:09:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Richard Corcoran

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

Wow. That was quite a response, Richard. Thanks.

Your articulations regarding "conspiracy" are very interesting and
illuminating (and a breath of always-welcome fresh air concerning the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy).

One of the silliest things associated with the type of conspiracy plot
that many, many conspiracy theorists in the world today currently seem
to believe (i.e., the "Oswald Was Being Set Up As A Lone Patsy In
Advance Of The Assassination" theory) is that those CTers apparently
have no problem at all with the pre-November 22 plotters/conspirators
placing assassins in FRONT of President Kennedy's vehicle (supposedly
on the Grassy Knoll), even though a big part of this perceived plot
was to frame ONLY LEE HARVEY OSWALD, who was located in the TSBD,
which was to the REAR of the President during the entire time of the
shooting.

I've repeatedly asked conspiracy theorists on the Internet to explain
the LOGIC of such a pre-planned shooting scenario. But I have yet to
hear a reasonable and believable explanation for WHY the plotters
would have wanted to place assassins in locations that could not
possibly in a million years be traced back to the one and only so-
called "patsy" if ANY of those frontal gunmen were to strike John F.
Kennedy with ANY of the bullets that conspiracists insist were being
fired from the Grassy Knoll (or any other frontal shooting location).

But, since Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison have said that such an insane
MULTI-GUN, MULTI-DIRECTIONAL, ONE-PATSY plot was afoot in Dallas in
November of 1963, I guess a lot of gullible people must have just
tossed their hands in the air and said, "I guess Ollie Stone must be
right; after all, he made a movie about such a one-patsy, multi-
shooter plot, didn't he?"

But if the conspiracy theorists who are currently in bed with Mr.
Stone and the late Mr. Garrison would just STOP AND THINK about the
inherent illogic that is built-in to such a crazy assassination plan,
surely at least a few of those conspiracists would awaken from their
Oliver Stone-induced slumber and realize that they've been brainwashed
by the slickness of a Hollywood movie. (Wouldn't they?)

[...]

Thanks again for writing. I appreciate it. Write again anytime.

Best Regards,
David Von Pein

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

A SHORTCUT TO BECOMING AN "LNer" -- THE LIVE TV COVERAGE OF 11/22/63:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/addeb5d529d1fb03

THE JFK ASSASSINATION--AS IT HAPPENED:
www.JFK-Assassination-As-It-Happened.blogspot.com

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 5, 2009, 7:49:38 PM11/5/09

GETTING BACK TO BASICS IN THE JOHN F. KENNEDY MURDER CASE:

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

A 24-year-old young man born in 1939 by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald
murdered two individuals in the early 1960s in Dallas, Texas, USA.

Oswald assassinated 46-year-old then-President John Fitzgerald Kennedy
on November the 22nd, 1963, and that very same day Oswald also fired
several bullets at a 39-year-old Dallas police officer named J.D.
Tippit, resulting in the officer's death as well.

John Kennedy was the father of two young children when his life was
brutally cut short on a Dallas city street in late 1963. Tippit was
also the father of young children. He left behind three of them when
he was shot in cold blood on 10th Street in Dallas a mere 45 minutes
after the President was slain.

Many conspiracy theorists have, for decades now, tried to establish
their case that Oswald didn't kill anyone that Friday in Dallas. But
such efforts have fallen pitifully short of proving any such thing.

Instead, what is left behind, is quite literally a trail of physical
evidence that leads right straight to that 24-year-old young man named
Oswald.

I'm still waiting for some super-skilled conspiracy believer to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody else besides Lee Oswald killed
John Kennedy and Officer Tippit. But, to date, such a thing has never
been accomplished. Nor will it ever be, I surmise, given the dozens of
pieces of physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases that bear the
unmistakable signature of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I fully realize that those "LNers" who favor Oswald's lone guilt in
the murders in question have the burden of proof with regard to
establishing Oswald's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (which the LN
side HAS indeed accomplished without a shred of a doubt, IMO).

But the conspiracy ("CT") side, if they want to continue to chant
"Oswald is innocent!" from the rooftops must then prove (also beyond
the proverbial reasonable doubt) that the LN "case" against Oswald is
flawed and therefore totally inadequate and incorrect. And that, IMO,
has never been done.

And (again in my opinion) if the pro-conspiracy side wants to stomp
its collective feet and insist Oswald is innocent of killing JFK (and,
in many CT circles, innocent of murdering J.D. Tippit as well, which
is even more foolish on their part given the existing evidence to say
they're dead wrong), then some crackerjack conspiracist(s) somewhere
should be able to piece together enough evidence to tell the world who
DID kill John F. Kennedy that Friday in Dallas.*

* = Seems to me that that task should be able to be accomplished, via
the same cunning investigative skills that led those same CTers to
their current firm conclusion that the Lone-Nut case against Oswald
isn't worth a pile of cow chips at round-up time. But, alas, not one
conspiracy theorist to date has done so...and, thusly, the BEST
EVIDENCE in the case is still this -- Lee Harvey Oswald killed both
JFK and J.D. Tippit.

In short, if nobody can prove beyond reasonable doubt that all (or
most) of the physical evidence that shows Oswald to be a double-
murderer was somehow "faked" or manipulated after the fact, then any
reasonable, honest, and straight-thinking man or woman who has studied
and examined the physical evidence associated with the JFK murder case
literally has NO CHOICE (to paraphrase my main dude, Vincent T.
Bugliosi) but "to return to this courtroom with a verdict of 'Guilty'
against the defendant Lee Harvey Oswald!".

"Prove" (definition) -- "To establish the existence, truth, or
validity of (as by evidence or logic)."

http://webster.com/dictionary/prove

David Von Pein
May 2005

www.Amazon.com/review/R3V96ZYL75TFSG

www.The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com

Nobody

unread,

Nov 5, 2009, 8:43:40 PM11/5/09

David I'm glad christmas is coming cause I was wondering where the
turkeys coming from and then you appear. You and cork junior wouldn't
listen if the evidence bitch slapped you nine times every morning.
There's no doubt you're no dummy so why do you continue with your
agenda. Is it the Langley money you like so well that you would sell
your soul for a bag of silver? Do you not realize if you're not a bush
you ain't shit and are just a future patsy? Do you think you or your
family won't be patsies if and when the need arises? So what is it?
The power you feel today that will be gone tomorrow? Surely you're not
an atheist. I don't mean to preach at you but I know there's more.
Just the satisfaction of an honest job well done is plenty good for a
simple man. And if you think you're more than that it's a shame you
can't see into your future and see how all your pride and silver and
even more can be snatched away in an instant. I know you don't believe
the oz did it shit so why you trying so hard? Which is it? Come on and
show me I should respect you for something cause right now I think
you're a fool. Prove me wrong and at least tell ole stan something
about DVP or whoever you are something I can believe.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 7, 2009, 10:52:18 PM11/7/09

www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1262.msg18399.html#msg18399

>>> "David, the difference between being human and human sewage lies in whether you genuinely believe in your position. And if your belief is that you cannot defend your position but intend to pitch it anyway, then you fall squarely into the latter category. And when you compound your lie by falsely claiming that you are capable of refuting an argument but will not do so because your adversary is a "kook", then you are not just a liar, but a joke. /s/ Robert Harris" <<<

Just to set things a little straighter:

Robert Harris thinks he is BETTER at finding the truth concerning the
JFK assassination than all of the following official organizations:

The Warren Commission.
The HSCA.
The Clark Panel.
The Rockefeller Commission.

The above four official organizations are all pure garbage and are
totally worthless and useless, according to a person like Robert
Harris. Because:

1.) Robert Harris thinks that a conspiracy existed in JFK's death (and
Bob certainly doesn't believe in the HSCA's "4-shot" type of
conspiracy, because the HSCA said that Lee Oswald was the only gunman
to strike JFK with any bullets in Dealey Plaza).

2.) Robert Harris thinks that David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello were
two of the key conspirators behind the assassination (which can never
be proved, naturally).

3.) Robert Harris thinks that a frontal shot hit JFK in the head
(which is a stance that is dead wrong, and provably so).

4.) Robert Harris thinks he has SOLVED the case.

Therefore, because of the above laundry list of unprovable conspiracy-
oriented silliness, it's quite easy to label Mr. Harris a "kook",
because he is a person who is forced to totally IGNORE virtually all
of the BEST EVIDENCE in the case in order to promote his nonsensical
theories and suppositions. And that "best evidence" is, of course: The
autopsy report, the three autopsy doctors, and (most importantly) the
autopsy photographs and X-rays of the late President Kennedy.

As for Harris' theory about a missed shot occurring at precisely Z285
of the Zapruder Film....

Bob has convinced himself, via totally-subjective analysis, that a
gunshot did occur at Z285. And he is happy with that subjective
analysis (which can never ever be proven, of course). Well, good for
him.

So, Robert Harris sits up on his high horse of conspiracy and crows to
anyone who will listen (on YouTube or any available Internet forum)
about how he has solved the JFK assassination case, as he implies with
glee that David Von Pein is nothing more than "human sewage", a
"joke", and a "liar".

I always get a kick out of the CTers who claim mightily and superiorly
that they have SOLVED the case, even though they've "solved" the case
on nothing more than a whim, a fancy, pure speculation, and a digital
copy of the Zapruder Film. Not a lick of hard evidence, of course,
enters into Robert Harris' "solving" of the case. How could it, since
every single piece of solid evidence, of course, points only to
Oswald?

Such conspiracy theorists are the true "jokes" of the "assassination
research community". It's just too bad they will never realize that
fact.

Vincent Bugliosi said it very well when he said:

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the
tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty
pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or
she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal
witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the
equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to
the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain
everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vince
Bugliosi; Page xliii of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

This portion of the above Bugliosi quote is always worthy of an
instant replay (because of its 100% spot-on accuracy):

"The conspiracy community regularly...leaps from the most
minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists
that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is
explained." -- VB

As far as this comment made by Mr. Harris....

"And when you compound your lie by falsely claiming that you are
capable of refuting an argument but will not do so because your
adversary is a "kook", then you are not just a liar, but a joke."

....Harris knows full well, of course, that he and I have battled
several times online in the past (concerning his "Z285" theory and his
"Marcello/Ferrie" theory and his "Two Head Shots" theory).

Apparently the following one-dozen Internet battles must have vanished
completely from his memory. I guess I'm supposed to refute Bob's
arguments anew on every single forum I visit from now until doomsday,
otherwise Mr. Harris will continue to pretend we've never fought these
battles in the past.

But, you see, this is exactly why I prefer to "archive" all of my past
posts and messages in an easy-to-reach location for future reference,
so that I won't have to spend untold hours rewriting a bunch of stuff
that I've already written months or years ago. Here are 12 examples of
what I mean:

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/8b994f762e7a21f5

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/14b006b915d508f4

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/908e2a497ca69119

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/06a37b155bd78082

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8fce774cb0467a8c

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fc867c9f4672772b

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2563012823029942

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5ee3dbf48f2fc9dc

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/893ee93483c4bd80

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5b955385eb10878b

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/329bb3220db051fa

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/674c214df48e5766

aeffects

Of course one bullet passed through both men. And that one bullet had
no choice but to be bullet #CE399. (Notwithstanding a conspiracy
theorist's unfounded speculation about that particular bullet being a
fake, of course.)

1.) The autopsy doctors determined that one bullet passed through JFK.

2.) The WC determined that one bullet "probably" passed through both
JFK & JBC (they were being soft on the terminology, of course, in
order to keep from saying that one bullet POSITIVELY passed through
the victims).

3.) The HSCA determined that the SBT is true.

To believe that the SBT is untrue and that the back-wound bullet to
JFK did not exit, a person has to throw all logic out the window and
pretend that TWO bullets went into Kennedy (with neither bullet
exiting the President's body) and then both of those bullets vanished.
And that's just plain silly.

And to believe in some weird alternate "SBT, But Not The WC's
SBT" (which is what a kook named Bob Harris believes), a person must
get within about an inch of accepting the obviously-true "WC/CE399"
version of the SBT, but not quite accepting it, and instead make up a
bunch of junk from whole cloth to postulate an "Anti-SBT SBT" theory
(as Robert Harris has done). And that's just plain silly, too.

>>> "But the problem is that nobody heard that shot, not even Connally who was wounded by it. Instead, they heard the next shot that most of them thought hit Connally and that Mrs. Kennedy thought hit her husband." <<<

Let's take a look at things from the standpoint of RAW FACTS and
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE:

1.) Three shots (and only three shots) were fired at JFK's car on
11/22/63. (This fact is based on the 90%+ of witnesses who heard THREE
OR FEWER shots fired; plus #2 below.)

2.) Exactly three empty shell casings were found beneath the Sniper's-
Nest window on the 6th Floor of the TSBD.

3.) No bullets were found inside JFK's neck or upper-back regions.

4.) No substantial damage was done to JFK's upper back or neck that
would cause anyone to believe that ANY bullets could have suddenly
stopped dead in their tracks after entering the President in these
areas of his body (let alone having TWO bullets stop their flight
paths for no apparent reason whatsoever, which is what almost all
conspiracy theorists firmly believe, save Robert Harris and maybe
three other CTers in the world).

5.) This verbiage appears in JFK's autopsy report:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the
neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior
surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck
no bony structures in its path through the body." [WR; Pg. 543]

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm

6.) Robert A. Frazier of the FBI, after looking through the scope of
Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the vantage point of
the sixth-floor Sniper's-Nest window during the WC/FBI 5/24/64
reconstruction of the shooting in Dallas, said this to the Warren
Commission:

"In my opinion, the bullet had to strike in the car, either the
car itself or an occupant of the car. .... In fact, I think...it is
obvious when you look at the photographs themselves that the crosshair
of the telescopic sight actually would give you the point of impact of
the bullet if the weapon is sighted in and if there is no change in
the line of sight the bullet had to strike the cars [sic] shown in
each of these photographs, which is frame 225 on this end of this
series, and frame 207 on the other end of the series. It shows that
there would be no chance for the bullet to miss the car at all if it
had...no deflection in its path." [5 H 169]

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0090a.htm

>>> "The question is, what did Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Connally, and the others hear that made them mistakenly believe that one of the victims was wounded at that instant. I'm sure you are as eager as I am to figure that out. So, when do you think Mrs. Connally and Mrs. Kennedy suffered an hallucination, thinking their spouses were hit? I think if we pool our analytical skills, we can solve this mytsery [sic] David!" <<<

In short -- There is absolutely NOTHING in the collective testimony of
Jacqueline Kennedy, Nellie Connally, John Connally, Roy Kellerman, and
William Greer that would definitively eliminate the possibility of one
bullet striking both President Kennedy and Governor Connally at
Zapruder Film frame #224.

And I think I make a pretty good case to back up that last paragraph
in the October 2007 Internet message linked below (at least as far as
Nellie Connally's and John Connally's observations are concerned):

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9871273b0f35f000

Robert Harris has elected to elevate the testimony of the limousine's
occupants to ridiculous levels of ASSUMED ACCURACY. But such an
exercise is, again, just plain silly.

Witness testimony can, indeed, be very helpful. No question about
that. Such as the stat I cited earlier regarding the "90%-plus" of the
Dealey Plaza earwitnesses who heard three shots or fewer, which is an
ironclad fact that, surprisingly, even very few conspiracy promoters
seem to dare ever challenge.

But to think that the limo occupants (or any of the witnesses in
Dealey Plaza) are going to each recall those unexpected, horrific few
seconds with pinpoint precision and accuracy when it comes to
specific, detailed timing issues relating to the shooting is just too
much to hope for.

But, since Robert "Z285" Harris has a specific (subjective) theory to
peddle, he needs to rely on certain things that were said by the limo
witnesses. And Bob needs to place a great deal of faith in his wholly-
subjective and unique analysis of the silent Zapruder Film too.
Otherwise, Bob's "Z285" theory goes sliding down the drain (which is
where it deserves to reside, of course).

David Von Pein
November 9-10, 2009

www.Twitter.com/DavidVonPein

aeffects

unread,

Nov 10, 2009, 1:43:48 AM11/10/09

On Nov 9, 10:11 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

no advertising shithead..... you know the drill moron.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 12, 2009, 1:50:37 AM11/12/09

www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1373.msg18731.html#msg18731

>>> "We don't know when Ruby arrived at the Western Union office, but we do know that his timing was perfect. It had to be because he did not have a press badge and would likely have been thrown out if he got there early. There were no cell phones back then, so a great place to hang around waiting for a call was a Western Union office, with lots of phones on the wall. My suspicion is that someone with DPD phoned him to let him know that Oswald was OTW. That same person could have phoned him at home to let him know there would be a delay and to suggest when Oswald would be moved. To think that this perfect timing was another one of those miraculous coincidences is just too much. It seems far more probable that he was told when to go in." <<<

Only a rabid conspiracy theorist, bent on believing in a "Ruby
conspiracy" at all costs, could possibly utter the things Robert
Harris just uttered above. And this comment from Harris just reeks of
crazy, backward thinking:

"To think that this perfect timing was another one of those
miraculous coincidences is just too much."

In reality, of course, the exact OPPOSITE is true.

I.E. -- the "perfect timing" is much more indicative of pure
happenstance and NO CONSPIRACY PLOT than it is indicative of Jack Ruby
being sent to the Dallas City Hall basement to "rub out" Lee Oswald as
part of a pre-arranged murder scheme.

And Bob Harris must also believe that Karen Carlin was a very big part
of this last-minute Sunday-morning plot to rub out Oswald too. Because
it was Carlin's telephone call to Ruby at about 10:20 AM that prompted
Ruby to leave his apartment when he did on 11/24/63.

In short -- People who think ANY of Jack Ruby's actions on November
24th, 1963, spell out "I'M A HIT MAN FOR THE MOB AND I'M GOING TO
SILENCE LEE OSWALD THIS MORNING" are simply not thinking straight, and
are attempting to fit a square "Conspiracy" peg into a perfectly-round
"No Conspiracy" hole.

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

JACK RUBY AND KAREN CARLIN:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d89216ba38101c32

HOW DID JACK RUBY GET INTO THE DALLAS POLICE BASEMENT?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5bfb6bd1b771ed4d

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 12, 2009, 1:54:09 AM11/12/09

www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1374.msg18732.html#msg18732

>>> "Tell me, David - how badly do you want to discover the truth? Bad enough to admit that the evidence envelope for ce842 contained forged initials [WTF? HERE WE HAVE A KOOK NAMED HARRIS GOING OFF HALF-COCKED ON ANOTHER "EVERYTHING MUST BE FAKED OR FORGED" BINGE, WHILE OFFERING ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF, AS ALWAYS, OF SUCH A VILE ALLEGATION; BOB HARRIS' ATTEMPT TO INTERJECT "CONSPIRACY" INTO THE JFK CASE AT EVERY TURN IN THE ROAD IS TRULY PATHETIC; AND SURELY EVEN ROBERT HARRIS HIMSELF KNOWS HOW PATHETIC IT IS] and that additional information was written on it by someone other than nurse Bell? Or do you prefer to just mindlessly continue to pitch a lot of drivel to support your theory that a single assassin carried out this attack by himself? What these people did was criminal, David. I cannot understand how any decent human being would want to shield them." <<<

The only thing "criminal" here is that certain conspiracy-loving
clowns have been looking into the assassination of President Kennedy
for way yonder too many years now, armed with their always-forever-
unprovable accusations of evidence-tampering, fakery, coercion, and
various other nefarious misdeeds supposedly engaged in by members of
the Dallas Police Department, the FBI, and the multiple official
committees who were assigned the job of investigating the
assassination.

In short, these conspiracy-giddy clowns are the very last people on
the planet who should be looking into the assassination of John F.
Kennedy.

A couple loose ends:

1.) IMO, Bardwell Odum of the FBI was wrong when he said he never
showed bullet CE399 to O.P. Wright. I think Odum most certainly did
take that bullet to Wright at some point after the assassination. Odum
just doesn't remember doing it. Any other explanation regarding that
particular topic makes little to no sense.

2.) The fact that various witnesses could not say positively whether
CE399 was THE EXACT BULLET they saw on 11/22/63 certainly does not
prove that 399 was not the bullet they saw that day. 399 most
certainly WAS the bullet they saw and handled on Nov. 22 at Parkland
Hospital. And a big reason we can be confident of that fact is this
fact:

CE399 is corroborative of OTHER BULLET EVIDENCE in the JFK murder case
that is linked to Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano C2766 rifle.

If CE399 was the ONLY piece of ballistics/bullet evidence connected
with the case, then the conspiracy kooks would have a better argument
for "fakery", "forgery", "planting", "substitution", or whatever.

But since the three empty bullet shells (from Oswald's rifle) in the
Sniper's Nest ALSO exist....and since CE567 and CE569 from Oswald's
rifle (the two largest bullet fragments recovered from the
Presidential limousine) ALSO exist in this case....then the likelihood
that CE399 is a fake or fraudulent piece of evidence is reduced
substantially (being reduced to pretty close to ZERO, in my view).

Ask yourself this -- With those 3 bullet shells from the TSBD and
those 2 fragments from the limo being in the evidence pile against Lee
Oswald, WHY ON EARTH would anybody feel any need or desire to insert
an additional piece of bullet evidence into the pot? Just....why? It
just doesn't make sense...at all.

Also -- Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA had no problem
whatsoever in accepting Bullet CE399 as a REAL AND LEGITIMATE PIECE OF
EVIDENCE in their respective investigations into the assassination of
the President.

Now, Robert Harris, were the Warren boys AND the House Select
Committee boys who accepted CE399 as a legit piece of evidence ALL
liars and rotten, deceitful crooks in your book?

Of course, I already know the answer to that last inquiry. People like
Bob Harris think they know MUCH more about the verification and
legitimacy of the evidence in this case than did the very
organizations who were tasked with investigating the crime--such as
the WC and the HSCA, etc.

Ain't it a shame that people like Robert Harris and James DiEugenio
and James Fetzer and John Armstrong (et al) weren't a part of any
official investigative body which looked into the JFK case? If they
had been, we could now all be talking about the "Kook Version Of The
WC And HSCA Reports", which would have undoubtedly been a version of
those reports where conspiracy-tinged supposition, conjecture, and
subjective analysis totally trump and invalidate the true facts and
evidence associated with the events of November 22, 1963. My weak
urinary bladder would have been given quite a workout had that version
ever been published.

www.The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 12, 2009, 10:12:24 AM11/12/09

www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1374.msg18748.html#msg18748

>>> "One thing we agree on however, is that lots of other evidence in the FBI's case is dependent on CE399. Once it falls through, we have essentially no ballistic evidence at all linking gunshots to Oswald.[Needless commas once again removed by DVP.]" <<<

The above Robert Harris comment is total nonsense (aka: bullshit).

There is ample independent ballistics evidence that is tied
irrevocably to Oswald's rifle. The 3 bullet shells found in the
Sniper's Nest and the 2 bullet fragments in the limo were tied
conclusively to Rifle C2766.

Why on Earth would you think that even if CE399 were to fall through
the cracks as evidence in this case (which, of course, it hasn't--the
WC and the HSCA both accepted CE399 as a genuine bullet that went
through both JFK and Connally on 11/22/63), that would mean that there
was "no ballistic evidence at all linking gunshots to Oswald"?

That's a really strange thing to say, Bob. (Even for you.)

Why do you think that the 3 SN bullet shells and CE567 and CE569
should be tossed out the window as legitimate evidence, even if CE399
didn't exist?

Those 5 pieces of bullet evidence (the 3 shells and 2 limo fragments)
were linked beyond all doubt to Oswald's MC rifle....and NAA analysis
had absolutely nothing to do with linking those 5 items to Oswald's
gun at all. Those items were linked to that gun via regular ballistics
"comparison microscope" type of evaluations by the FBI.

Do you now want to call the FBI (Frazier, Cunningham, Killion, and
Hoover) and independent firearms expert Joseph Nicol of Illinois all
LIARS regarding those 5 bullet items I just mentioned?

In short--Oswald's rifle is tied to the JFK murder five different ways
to Sunday -- even WITHOUT bullet CE399 in the mix.

aeffects

unread,

Nov 12, 2009, 1:09:10 PM11/12/09

On Nov 12, 7:12 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

you know the drill moron!

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 13, 2009, 2:28:39 AM11/13/09

www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1348.msg18801.html#msg18801

>>> "Lee Harvey Oswald - "Well, let's see now. I'll probably be facing 20 or 30 Secret Service agents, a few dozen Dallas cops and a dozen Sheriff's deputies. Guess I better take three bullets and leave the pistol at home."" <<<

But it's hard to argue with total success.

Lee Harvey Oswald (with four bullets in his rifle, not three) did, in
fact, kill the President, and he did, in fact, escape the building
without needing his revolver. He no doubt realized that his status as
an employee in the building would clear him temporarily....and it did.

If you're saying that Oswald's movements were totally controlled by
the "Patsy Framers Of America, Inc.", then why didn't those patsy-
framers tell LHO to take his revolver to work on November 22? And why
didn't they tell him to take more than four bullets for his rifle?

As usual, a conspiracy theorist thinks he knows what happened on
11/22/63 (such as Oswald being merely an innocent patsy in the whole
day's events), and the conspiracy theorist will second-guess every
move made by everybody (including the movements of the real assassin,
Lee Oswald).

And since Oswald's November 22 movements and actions don't meet with
the expectations of conspiracy-happy kooks, this must be a sign that
Oswald is innocent (despite the evidence that vividly demonstrates
otherwise).

If given a second chance perhaps Oswald would perform the Presidential
assassination in a more orderly and predictable fashion that would
satisfy the majority of conspiracy mongers around the world.

Addendum:

It's my own opinion that Lee Oswald possessed the following mindset
when he left for work with his Carcano rifle in tow on November 22,
1963:

"IF I AM AFFORDED A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO SHOOT THE PRESIDENT AND
IF I'M SOMEHOW LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE THE WHOLE SIXTH FLOOR OF THE TEXAS
SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY TO MYSELF WHEN THE PRESIDENT DRIVES BY THE
BUILDING, I'LL TAKE SOME SHOTS AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY. IF NOT, I'LL
FORGET IT."

The above simulated mindset is almost certainly the mindset possessed
by Lee Harvey Oswald right up to 12:30 PM on 11/22/63.

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/571d6d3084a73632

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/679eb16f02238b52

aeffects

unread,

Nov 13, 2009, 3:26:51 AM11/13/09

On Nov 12, 11:28 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

nope shithead, you know the rules.....

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 12:31:37 AM11/23/09

Subject: The JFK Assassination
Date: 11/21/2009 11:54:08 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Mick LaSalle (San Francisco Chronicle Film Critic)

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

Hi Mick,

My name is David Von Pein. I just wanted to drop you a note to say
thanks for the two times that you've included my JFK-related YouTube
videos on your blog since late September 2009. And another "thanks"
for mentioning me and my YouTube channel on your latest podcast (on
November 20, 2009 [linked below]).

www.DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/11/jfk-assassination.html

And the fact that you pronounced my last name correctly deserves a
special "thank you" as well. (Hardly anybody ever pronounces it right
without prompting.) ;)

Also -- I want to give you a couple of revised embedded links to the
two videos of mine that you have placed on your blog recently. I've
been updating some of my JFK videos at YouTube with better-quality
material that includes higher image resolution, which means that the
embedded videos that you've posted on your blog are not working
(because I've been deleting the old versions of several of my videos).

I don't know about you, but I hate dead links on my blogs and
webpages, so I thought you'd like to have these embeddable codes so
that you can fix the broken links.

The first link below replaces the CBS/Cronkite video that you posted
on your blog on 9/23/09, and the second link replaces the Fort Worth
video you posted on October 1st (that video will soon be replaced with
a new version, which is why I'm sending you this new code, which is a
code that will play the whole 6-part "JFK In Fort Worth" series):

www.YouTube.com/view_play_list?p=FFD6CCCB72B1CB73

www.YouTube.com/view_play_list?p=A272A7DD4122C715

www.SFGate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/mlasalle/detail?entry_id=48190

www.SFGate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/mlasalle/detail?blogid=38&entry_id=48736

A JFK ADDENDUM:

Mick,

During your 11/20/09 podcast, you mentioned that you couldn't
understand why the right-frontal portion of President Kennedy's head
would have been blasted out by a shot that came from Lee Harvey
Oswald's sniper's perch in the Texas School Book Depository
Building....

Well, I think the main reason for that is due to the angle of JFK's
head at the moment Oswald's bullet struck the President's head. Mr.
Kennedy was leaning significantly forward and to his left when he was
shot in the head, and the bullet struck very high up on his head as
well.

Plus, a bullet can also change its trajectory after striking a very
hard object (like a person's skull). And Oswald's bullet likely did
change direction slightly after hitting the back of JFK's cranium,
resulting in the exit wound being located where it was located (at the
right-front of the head).

But even without a clear-cut answer as to why the large exit wound was
located at the right-front part of JFK's head, there is irrefutable
scientific evidence which proves that the "horror movie" filmmaker
Oliver Stone and all other Kennedy conspiracy theorists are full of
crap regarding this issue....and that irrefutable evidence is JFK's
official autopsy report, which indicates that only one bullet struck
the President in the head, with that bullet positively entering the
REAR of his head.

Plus, there is this autopsy photograph, which highlights the one and
only entry wound in Mr. Kennedy's head (which is the red spot in the
REAR of his head):

http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=3sOgG0gAAADaPnAtlvPjxRWfhTgppBLhnwJmRdlqiGjM5eEcM-k2whZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg

To see more of my non-stop ramblings and essays regarding the
assassination of the 35th U.S. President, I invite you to have a look
sometime at my JFK Blog, located here:

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

Thanks again. I've been enjoying your recent podcasts. (And I really
like Sandra Bullock too.) :)

Best regards to you,
David Von Pein

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

MICK LaSALLE SAID:

"Forty-six years ago today, I saw my grandmother crying. She
told me the president (the "presidente") had been killed, so I ran up
the stairs to tell my mother. The stairs, as I remember them, were
three feet high. And when I told my mother, who was putting on her
make-up, she was about 12 feet tall. I had no idea she'd react like
that: "What?! What?! Who said that?!"

"Watching TV, I heard the president had been shot "from a
building" and I spent the rest of the day dreading they'd show Kennedy
falling off a building. I misunderstood.

"Two days later, Oswald was killed, and my father said that we
might never know what happened.

"I don't know if there was a conspiracy. But if there wasn't,
there must have been a conspiracy to make it look like a conspiracy.

"In any case, check out the [Oliver] Stone movie, much maligned,
but terrific. And for all things Kennedy, check out David Von Pein's
YouTube channel, which is pretty amazing." -- Mick LaSalle; November
22, 2009

www.SFGate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/mlasalle/detail?blogid=38&entry_id=52189

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

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/addeb5d529d1fb03

www.JFK-Assassination-As-It-Happened.blogspot.com

www.DVP-Reviews.blogspot.com

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

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 24, 2009, 3:08:41 AM11/24/09

>>> "During the Nov. 22 "Coast to Coast AM" broadcast, two guests on the show, Jim Marrs and John Barbour, who believe there was a conspiracy, pointed to a few problems with the Warren Commission's conclusions that I thought you might address ---- 1.) The parafin [sic] test on Oswald's face as taken by the Dallas police revealed no powder burns or nitrates, suggesting that he was not in the classic rifleman's position he would have needed to assume when the shots were fired." <<<

This is yet another attempt by conspiracy theorists to exonerate JFK's
killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, with the conspiracy quacks insisting that
because Oswald didn't have nitrates on his cheek he could not possibly
have fired a rifle on November 22nd.

But such a conclusion is total nonsense, and surely people like Marrs
and Barbour know it's nonsense too, because the FBI performed a test
on Oswald's rifle, with an FBI agent firing shots with Rifle C2766.
The end result of this test was that the FBI agent (after firing shots
from LHO's Carcano) had NO NITRATES on either his hands or his cheek,
proving that the LACK of nitrates on a person's cheek after a paraffin
test is not conclusive evidence that the person did NOT fire a rifle.
End of story there (except for conspiracy kooks who want to totally
ignore that FBI test).

>>> "2.) Three shell casings were found on the sixth floor windowsill in the Book Depository Bldg., inches apart from one another, when, according to these guests, the casings would have flown over Oswald's right shoulder if he was firing the shots with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle." <<<

~Sigh~

Yet another conspiracy myth that continues to surface, year after
year. (Sickening, isn't it?)

The "inches apart from one another" crap comes from Deputy Sheriff
Roger D. Craig (a known and proven liar regarding several aspects of
the JFK case).

The bullet shells most certainly were not lying on the floor "only
inches apart" from one another. That's ridiculous on its face, because
such a configuration of the shells would certainly scream out
"FRAUDULENT EVIDENCE" to anyone who would see the shells in such an
obviously rigged condition.

This official DPD photo shows the shells as they were when police
officers discovered the Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, and the shells are
scattered and are not just "inches apart" and they are not "pointing
in the same direction" as Big Fat Liar Roger Craig said years later:

http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/074a.+THREE+BULLET+SHELLS+FOUND+IN+TSBD+SNIPER%27S+NEST?gda=lG7-UWkAAADaPnAtlvPjxRWfhTgppBLhzX3GIP0Vmc5lEJNFw3s3WOb4nxXGSepDGQKscLxMDR5-SFN4DNGB16sScKia7Zks-hEblyNrtl_F7CWyFgZ_lI5mdpvIvJW3QPcvTrj7Q2aECKgQbmraGdxlZulaYnsh&gsc=RgnUKAsAAAAsa-3KJjQ_xAao2TsqHH6A

>>> "3.) Before the Warren Commission could see the Dallas police files, the FBI took possession of them, and could've altered them in any number of ways before the Commission had a chance to review them." <<<

Could have, schmood have!

This is just more speculation and accusations of FBI misconduct coming
from the mouths of conspiracists who are more than eager to label
anyone "official" who was connected with the JFK case as a "liar" or a
"crook", etc.

But, in reality, the unfounded and never-proven allegations spouted
endlessly by conspiracy-happy individuals like Jim Marrs and John
Barbour couldn't possibly matter less in the long run.

Whenever a conspiracy nut comes up against a piece of evidence he
doesn't like (e.g., just about ANYTHING that points to Sweet Patsy Lee
Oswald), the conspiracy nut will almost always resort to attacking the
credibility of the authorities (such as the FBI, the DPD, the Warren
Commission, LBJ, the HSCA, etc., etc. to infinity). It's pathetic.

>>> "4.) The results of a surveyor's report on Dealey Plaza showed that there was no clear line of fire from the sixth floor of the Depository Building, but this and other findings were changed before the Warren Commission could see them. The guests said this rules out any computer analyses made since that time about the trajectory of the shots." <<<

~Bigger Sigh~

I guess Marrs and Barbour want to conveniently forget (or totally
dismiss as junk) the detailed re-creation of the assassination that
was conducted BY THE WARREN COMMISSION ITSELF (with help from the FBI
and the Secret Service) on May 24, 1964.

That May '64 re-creation clearly indicates that not only was there a
"clear line of fire" from Oswald's sixth-floor perch in the Texas
School Book Depository (as can be seen in CE895 and CE896
below)....but the May '64 re-creation done by the Commission also
demonstrates the workability and feasibility of the Single-Bullet
Theory as well.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0052b.htm

Just read the June 4, 1964, Warren Commission testimony of FBI agent
Robert Frazier to gather the intricate, step-by-step details of the
Dealey Plaza re-creation [beginning at 5 H 165]:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0088a.htm

>>> "5.) LBJ was worried that Atty. General Robert Kennedy was about to uncover revelations that could've sent him to prison." <<<

More speculative nonsense.

Final Thought:

Jim Marrs and John Barbour should get a new hobby. Because the one
they are currently engaged in (i.e., attempting to find a hidden
conspiracy connected to the murder of President Kennedy) is
embarrassing the hell out of them.

www.The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com

www.Google.com/profiles/DavidVonPein

0 new messages