Kudos to David Von Pein - An editorial

Skip to first unread message


Jul 28, 2007, 9:01:00 PM7/28/07
David has been a dogged researcher and seeker of the truth for many
I have the utmost respect for his achievements in determing the truth
about 11/22. David has demonstrated over time his ability to use the
evidence and common sense to reach the only satisfactory conclusion
one can reach based on the evidence. David, on numerous occassions
"scratched his head" about the discrepancies in the BOH eyewitnesses
the official autopsy pics and x-rays. Pat Speer, a CT researcher I
respect has done some good work on this issue. I'll suggest to those
who have questions, they view Pat's website.

Unfortunately, in an opposite vein, we have CT's who refuse to do
what David Von Pein routinely does. Speak the truth. I've
numerous occassions on this newsgroup where for personal motivations
CT's have put forward obvious lies. They are not difficult to see
The truth does not require anyones belief. And yet, one has to wonder
how these CT's view the world we live in. A world where scientific
evidence is ruled invalid by CT's with no education on the subject
matter. A world where CT's accuse respected Americans who
devoted their lives to Government as being part of this vast
conspiracy. The simple foolishness of this is so simple:
Why? Why would so many people ruin their lives and
reputations to cover up a conspiracy? And yet, this very
simple question goes unanswered.


Jul 28, 2007, 9:26:32 PM7/28/07

I couldn't agree with you more on your description of David. His posts
are continuously informative with facts, not fiction. Kudos to you
David for your fine research.

It is one thing to have a theory and present it to others for
discussion. What I cannot understand is why any of the CT's would
present their theory as fact with absolutely no evidence. The
speculation runs rampid in the CT community. They fail to see the
entire picture. It is very easy to construct a conspiracy atmosphere
when only certain sections of testimony or reports are picked out and
twisted around. They use what suits their agendas for the sake of

This case has been solved for years. The conspiracy saga will live on
forever. The reason is simple, they will never find any proof in the
theories they present. They haven't in 44 years and they won't in the
next 44 years. If nothing else, it is a very interesting hobby.


Jul 28, 2007, 9:29:27 PM7/28/07
High five to YOU Harvey for giving the
incomparable DVP the credit he deserves!
We tend to take his level headed wisdom
and *PROFOUND* knowledge for granted!

Thanks to you too DVP!!

MR ;~D
Ed Cage

Kenneth A. Rahn

Jul 28, 2007, 10:03:44 PM7/28/07

<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Without taking away from the basic strength of your answer, I would simply
add that I prefer to leave a small corner of my JFK mind open to the remote
possibility that someone will find proof of a low-level conspiracy some day.
I consider it highly unlikely, of course, given the course of the last 44
years, as you properly summarize, but I think the door has to be left open.

My JFK mind lives out an uneasy truce between the part that recognizes the
overwhelming thrust of the physical evidence that one guy could do it and
actually did it, and the part that must leave the logical door open to new
evidence. So when I say I am a nonconspiracist, it is always with this
little asterisk in mind.

Ken Rahn


Jul 28, 2007, 10:10:16 PM7/28/07
On Jul 28, 10:03 pm, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
> Justme,
> <justme1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Ken Rahn- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

Ken, since you purport to believe the NAA evidence alone is completely
indicative of only one gunman, while we cannot say with 100% certainty
that LHO was that gunman, based on the totality of the evidence, we
say perhaps with 99% certainty that LHO was the sole assassin. Do you
dispute this?


Jul 28, 2007, 10:16:17 PM7/28/07
We all held that sliver of objectivity out
for a couple decades Ken.. But 43 yrs later..
If it was coming it would have arrived by
now.. No crime since the Crucifixion has
been so thoroughly researched.


On Jul 28, 9:03 pm, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
> Justme,

> <justme1...@gmail.com> wrote in message


Jul 28, 2007, 10:31:24 PM7/28/07
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

I can understand your reasoning, however, a large majority of the
people involved have since passed on. Although there are a few
descendents of these individuals such as St. John claiming that his
father left a death bed confession, there hasn't been any proof of
these claims. The logical door will always be ajar for most people.
It's something that will keep many Americans wondering. The fact of
the matter is, as Ed said, 44 years and still nothing concrete. I feel
if it was going to happen, it would have certainly happened by now.

Kenneth A. Rahn

Jul 28, 2007, 10:56:52 PM7/28/07

"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Slight modification. Larry Sturdivan and I published that the NAA shows two
bullets to a probability of 97% to 98%, not 100%. Since that level is at or
above the typical scientific decision-making level, we felt comfortable in
saying that there were only two bullets and one shooter. Our figures imply
that you should lower your 99% by a percent or two. That is a technicality,
however, and does not change your basic conclusion.

Ken Rahn


Jul 28, 2007, 11:54:28 PM7/28/07

Ken musta turned 70.

Sounds like he's "Crammin Fer FINALS"

"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message


Jul 28, 2007, 11:55:10 PM7/28/07

"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message

David Von Pein

Jul 29, 2007, 1:24:33 AM7/29/07
>>> "We can say perhaps with 99% certainty that LHO was the sole assassin. Do you dispute this?" <<<

Forgive me for speaking out of turn (and forgive me, Ken, if I
misrepresent your position in this post), but I think Ken is certain
in his mind that just ONE assassin (Lee Harvey Oswald) was shooting at
John Kennedy in Dallas.

Ken's "asterisk" regarding leaving the "door open" for potential
future evidence of a low-level conspiracy that he was talking about is
almost certainly referring to the possibility of someone being
complicit with LONE-GUNMAN Oswald. But this "other" person was not a

I can also agree with Ken in this "asterisk" regard. Although I'm very
confident there was no conspiracy at all in Dallas, I can indeed
respect Ken's position of wanting to leave that door of conspiracy
open just a wee crack...just in case.

In fact, the Warren Commission did that very same thing. The WC didn't
come right out and say "there's positively NO CONSPIRACY, period".
Instead, they used softer language, saying they found "no credible
evidence" of any conspiracy. That's a key distinction that perhaps
many WC bashers are not truly aware of.

In fact, I salute the WC for placing that kind of language in its
Final Report in '64. I think it was a very wise move (similar to the
smart move the Commission also made by not pinning themselves down,
circa 1964, to an exact Z-Film frame for the SBT, which is a theory
that is certainly as much a FACT as is the fact that Lee Oswald shot
JFK and Tippit).

But let's face it, we can never know with 100% certainty that someone
didn't urge Oswald on in the days leading up to 11/22/63. I think it's
very unlikely that anyone did aid him in any fashion at all....but, as
Ken said, the door should be left open just a small crack, because
it's just not possible to prove this particular "negative" to a 100%
certainty (mainly thanks to a man named Jacob Rubenstein, who
certainly didn't do the world any favors by walking down that basement
ramp on Sunday).

And even LNer supreme Vince Bugliosi, in the past, has left that same
door open a tiny bit too, when he said he was "95% certain" that
Oswald acted alone. So, there's a 5% "asterisk" right there for
Vince....even though he does say the following in his book "Reclaiming

"In the Kennedy case, I believe the absence of a conspiracy can be
proved to a virtual certainty." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 973 of "RH"

Vincent's "95%" comment, however, came in 1988, which was 19 years
before his book came out, of course:


One other footnote --- If Oswald had an accomplice (or two), it almost
certainly had to be a very "low-level" conspiracy (as Ken Rahn


Well, mainly (IMO) because of the weapons that lone-gunman Oswald used
on 11/22/63. He used his OWN traceable weapons to commit ALL of his
attempted assassinations and murders throughout 1963 (Walker, JFK,

If any higher-level type of Oswald-backing conspiracy had existed
(involving the Mob, CIA, KGB, etc.), I think it's highly UNlikely that
Oswald would have been forced to use his OWN traceable guns on
November 22.

It's just silly to think that Oswald, if he had been a triggerman for
the Mob or whoever, wouldn't have been supplied with untraceable
weapons for a Presidential assassination and its (potential)
associated aftermath.

Couldn't the Mafia afford to supply their hit men with guns in '63? Or
was each assassin expected to use his own arsenal for big-time
Presidential hits?

The very fact that we KNOW that Oswald used his own guns to shoot JFK
and Tippit (and to shoot at Walker in April, too) is a very big hint
that there was no big conspiracy lurking behind Oswald's acts
throughout the entire year of 1963.

David Von Pein

Jul 29, 2007, 1:25:37 AM7/29/07
>>> "David has been a dogged researcher and seeker of the truth for many years. I have the utmost respect for his achievements in determining the truth about 11/22." <<<

Thank you, Yo (and others here too). I appreciate those kind words
very much.

Now seems like perhaps a good time to give this following post a
repeat performance. :) .......


"Lee Harvey Oswald's Sole Guilt -- Point-By-Point"........

When one piece of evidence that favors Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt is
piled atop another, and another, and another....I just was curious as
to how many pieces of individual evidence that show Oswald killed JFK
in 1963 it takes to sway a person away from the notion of conspiracy?
Or, if nothing else, sway that person away from the "Oswald is
completely innocent" claims?

It's a veritable mountain of "Oswald Is Guilty" evidence (both
circumstantial and physical). And not a single speck of it has been
shown to be refutable with 100% absolute certainty.

Does the average researcher just simply ignore all of the evidence
that supports Oswald's lone guilt (and every bit of hard evidence
supports it), or is the idea of "it must have been a conspiracy" so
ingrained into subsequent generations of people since the event took
place that they feel they have no choice BUT to go with the flow and
believe the CTers?

For I ask --- How could ALL of the following evidence against Oswald
have been either fabricated, planted, distorted, or in some manner
faked?! There's just TOO MUCH stuff here on the "Oswald Did It" table
to ignore!

Granted, I'd agree that perhaps one or two of these things could have
been manufactured to set up a patsy. But ALL of these items?! And
complete silence be maintained by the many, many operatives who must
certainly have been involved in the acts themselves and ensuing 40-
year cover-up?!! Common sense (to me) dictates otherwise. And the
"otherwise" leads anybody who isn't prone to cry "Conspiracy!" at
every turn in the road to finally envision the fact that LHO was a
lone nut who DID indeed pull off what the majority of people say
couldn't happen in a million years.

Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President John F. Kennedy without the
assistance of others in November of 1963 in Dallas, Texas, USA.

The evidence against Lee H. Oswald includes these subtle tidbits:

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the 6th Floor of the
TSBD on November 22, 1963.

2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used in the
J.D. Tippit killing.

3.) Oswald was positively identified by witness Howard L. Brennan as
the person firing a rifle at JFK on 11/22/63. .... And to believe that
Brennan was "influenced" by TV and newspaper reports showing Oswald
before Brennan positively IDed LHO -- I'd remind you that Brennan's
INITIAL description of the killer very closely matched Oswald, given
to police within minutes of the shooting (prior to 12:44 PM).

Is this just another in a series of "CT coincidences" that has
Brennan's man in the window closely matching Oswald's description?
I'll admit, the description was "general" in nature, and could fit
thousands of men in the world. But out of ALL the possible
he COULD have offered up to describe whom he saw in that SN window
(even "general" descriptions), what description does he give just
minutes after the assassination (well BEFORE he ever laid eyes on Lee
Oswald)? --- He describes a person who COULD INDEED BE LEE HARVEY

Brennan COULD, conceivably, have seen a fat black man, with a beard,
5-feet-2, 200 pounds in that window. ... But, instead, he sees a
slender white male, about 30, 5-feet-10, approx. 165 pounds. That
description isn't a dead-on match for Oswald, no. But it's close
so that LHO certainly isn't ELIMINATED from the pack re. this

* = BTW, concerning Brennan's "age" bracket of Oswald (30, or "early
30s") -- IMO, Oswald looked older than just 24. (And he had just
24 one month prior to the assassination.) Oswald always seemed much
older than 24 to me, in both looks and demeanor. Possibly, re. his
"looks", Brennan agreed with me on that.

4.) Marina Oswald admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these
weapons on his person, which (all by itself) validates the "Backyard
Photographs". But even if you wish to think that Marina is a bald-
liar, there's the fact that the HSCA panel of photo experts vouched
the B.Y. pics (and the autopsy photos and X-rays to boot). ....



5.) Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Depository
on the morning of November 22nd, 1963. .... Frazier said (via his
affidavit): "I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the
building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm."
(Emphasis mine.) ....


6.) Oswald's claim of "curtain rods" within the package cannot be
supported at all. His room needed no curtains, nor rods, and NO such
rods were ever found in the TSBD or at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue in Oak

7.) Oswald was seen working on the Depository's sixth floor that
morning. Co-workers sent the elevator back up to Oswald on the 6th
Floor shortly before the assassination. This fact, of course, doesn't
nearly prove Oswald was guilty of a crime; but what it does do is
him on the Death Floor (alone) a short time (approximately 35 minutes)
before Kennedy's assassination. This fact, too, is a solid piece of
often-overlooked or scoffed-at circumstantial evidence.

8.) Oswald's palmprint is found on his Carcano rifle. .... But, of
course, this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in linking LHO
to the weapon. For even without it, it's glaringly obvious that the
weapon was Oswald's. It was proven that the alias, "A.J. Hidell", was
actually Oswald himself; and the order form from Klein's to purchase
the mail-order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's
handwriting, and sent to a Dallas P.O. Box that was used by him.

Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
trigger. But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate
(with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner
said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on 11/22? The
alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason, handed
over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it. Why
he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well what might
be the implications of doing so?

9.) Not ONE SPECK of any bullets/bullet fragments/bullet shells OTHER
THAN OSWALD'S 6.5 MM MANNLICHER-CARCANO were discovered anywhere in
Dealey Plaza, the limousine, the TSBD, Parkland Hospital, or in the

This one, to me, is simply impossible for conspiracy advocates to
overcome, IF there had been (as some claim) up to 3 firing teams and 4
to 10 shots fired in DP on Nov. 22nd. HOW could every single scrap of
ballistics evidence be completely eradicated from the 2 (or more) non-
Oswald weapons almost immediately after the event? Couldn't have been
accomplished by even Kreskin!

Plus: This massive task of removing all non-Oswald wounds & bullets
would most certainly have had to include the many doctors who worked
BOTH the President and Gov. Connally at Parkland. PLUS it would
the multitude of people who observed the body at Bethesda (unless you
subscribe to the totally-implausible accounts of body-altering and all
that business aboard AF1, or elsewhere before the body got to
Washington. Again, even Kreskin would be amazed by such incredible

ALL ballistic evidence was traced back to being consistent with the
weapon owned by Lee H. Oswald. The probability of this occurring IF
there were multiple guns firing at the motorcade is probably so low to
be considered virtually impossible.

10.) The majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses said shots came from
the President, in the direction of the School Book Depository
.... In addition, an even larger pct. of witnesses said they heard
EXACTLY three shots fired. No more, no less. And three spent shells
(co-incidentally?) were found in the Sniper's Nest. ....




I also find it extremely interesting (and quite telling) that
virtually EVERY SINGLE ONE (if not 100%) of the newsmen and reporters
riding in the motorcade and in DP, who were in a position to
immediately report the shooting to the world via media outlets (radio/
TV), heard EXACTLY THREE SHOTS FIRED. Precisely the number that the
"plotters" NEED to have Oswald firing in the Depository.

This would include Merriman Smith, Jack Bell, Jay Watson, and Jerry
Haynes (among still others who reported "3 Shots" to a TV and Radio
audience before 1:00 PM on November 22nd). Funny huh? Were these
people just being NICE to the conspiratorial plotters by cooperating
with their "Three-Shots-Needed" plot/plan? An odd "coincidence" IMO IF
there had REALLY been 4 to 10 shots fired in DP that Friday. Don't you
think ANY of the reporters just might have heard a DIFFERENT number
(other than "3") if the plot involved so many more shots?

11.) Oswald makes an unusual trip to Irving on Thursday, November 21,
to retrieve his "curtain rods". His rifle is found missing from the
Paine garage the following day. But, interestingly, some curtain rods,
which Mrs. Paine testified she DID have in her garage prior to the
assassination (via 1986 questioning of her by Vincent Bugliosi), were

Plus: Never ONCE did Ruth Paine or Marina Oswald hear Lee Oswald
mention ANYTHING about "curtain rods" during his surprise Thursday
visit to Irving. Don't you think he might have at least MENTIONED the
"rods" to either woman if the only reason for his Irving visit was to
pick up said rods -- esp. seeing as how it was Mrs. Paine's house, not

12.) Oswald left behind, presumably for wife Marina, his wedding ring
and just about every dime he had to his name ($170), on the morning of
11/22. Logic dictates that he felt he may not return.

13.) Oswald was the only Depository employee known to have been INSIDE
the Depository Building at the time of the assassination to leave work
prematurely on 11/22. Why do you suppose this was? The day was only
half over.

Plus: Oswald's reason for ducking out of work at 12:33 PM is extremely
weak -- not to menion downright prescient on his part. For HOW, three
minutes after a shooting that he supposedly knew NOTHING about (what
with him supposedly being in the lunchroom eating lunch at the time),
could Oswald have POSSIBLY KNOWN FOR A FACT that TSBD Superintendent
Roy Truly would spring everybody for the day due to the commotion
caused by the shooting (which is EXACTLY the convenient excuse he gave
to police after his arrest)?

If Oswald was telling the whole truth every step of the way on
22 -- He would have had NO knowledge that any shots would have come
from HIS building (the TSBD) to cause Mr. Truly to let everyone go due
to THAT building being the source of gunfire. .... Oswald also, if
not the liar I know him to be, would not really have known much of
anything re. the President's shooting (certainly not from an
standpoint, since the beloved Oswald is on the 2nd Floor supposedly),
although Mrs. Robert Reid DID tell Oswald on his way out of the
building that "The President's been shot; but maybe they didn't kill

Plus: WHO would LEAVE such an exciting (albeit very sad) scene like
that right after a Presidential shooting? An average Joe would want to
stick around and rubber-neck and see what the hell had happened. Does
Oswald do this? No. He doesn't stay around the exciting scene at all
he leaves within THREE MINUTES of the shooting. THREE minutes. Doesn't
talk to anyone (that we know of); except Mr. Allman or Bob MacNeil
or the other; that point's in dispute by some researchers), when one
both of these men asks Oswald where a phone is.

In short: Oswald's leaving his workplace without a truly valid and
believable reason to do so at 12:33 is solid circumstantial evidence
his guilt. He WANTED to leave, fairly obviously, before he was caught.

14.) Oswald, in flight, shoots & kills Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit
(multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald, with very few variations of
description). In the Tippit case, are we truly to accept the minority
number of people (which I believe number 1, Mrs. Clemons) who state:
"It was a larger man" or "There were two people", rather than believe
the vast majority of witnesses who claimed, uncategorically, that

15.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another
crime just 45 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza? Answer: He would have
such reason to do so. If the Tippit shooting isn't one of the biggest
reasons to shout from the rooftops "Oswald did it!", then I don't know
what would be.

16.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to
murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, in April of '63. Marina
Oswald herself testifies that "Lee told me...he just shot Walker". The
Walker bullet is proven to have come from the Oswald rifle. ....
Another KEY fact is the Walker attempt, as I think any reasonable
person looking at the case objectively would concur. For, it displays
in Oswald a definite tendency toward violent action on his part during
the months leading up to November 22nd.

To me, it's not a wild stretch of one's imagination to think that if
this guy is willing to bump off Walker, then he might just set his
sights a little higher when the perfect opportunity presents itself 7
months later. The fact that Oswald was a kind of loner, oddball, and
rejected authority at just about every turn in life cannot be
underestimated when talking of motive. He admitted that he hated
America (in general terms) for not being able to just come and go as
pleased to Russia and Cuba whenever it pleased him in the months just
prior to November 22. As a former Marine acquaintance of Oswald's once
said: "He always thought he was a little better than everyone else".
This statement speaks volumes, in my opinion, when gazing into
background and possible motive in the JFK murder.

17.) It was PROVEN, no matter what anybody WANTS to believe to the
contrary, that three shots COULD be fired in the allotted timeframe
from the Oswald rifle. The probability that Oswald had, in fact,
approx. 8.2 seconds to accomplish the shooting further increases the
likelihood that Lee could have performed the deed. IF you believe the
first (missed) shot hit a tree branch and ricocheted to strike James
Tague by the underpass at approx. Frame 160 of the Zapruder film (as
of course, do), then the total time between shots #1 and #3 increases
to more than eight seconds, much more than the minimum required of 2.3
seconds (times two) to get off the three shots.

18.) Try as the CTers might, the Single-Bullet Theory has still not
been proven to be an impossibility. The Zapruder film shows that the
SBT is more-than-likely the correct scenario of events that day.
Kennedy & Connally are reacting to their initial wounds at virtually
identical time, at Z-Frame 224. Unfortunately, that damn Stemmons sign
is blocking our view during what might be a critical point on the
It can therefore NEVER be determined by anybody whether JFK was
reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame earlier than Z224. But,
based on the available evidence, the SBT (judging by the reactions of
the two victims in the limo) most certainly cannot be said to be

19.) While viewing the Zapruder film, I cannot see how anybody can say
that the BACK of President Kennedy's head is blown away as a result of
the head shot. It seems quite obvious while watching and freezing the
film at various post-Z313 frames, that the entire rear portion of
head remains intact throughout the shooting. The RIGHT-FRONT portion
his head is blown apart.

Isn't it obvious that it's the FRONTAL portion of his skull that is
being displaced by the swiftly-moving projectile? And if so, doesn't
this demonstrate the actions of an object that's just been struck from
BEHIND, not from the front? For, if shot from the grassy knoll (front
right), WHY isn't there evidence on the Z-Film of massive head damage
on the President's LEFT-REAR side of the head? Bullets explode out the
EXIT wounds, don't they?

20.) It was also proven that Oswald could have indeed trekked, in 90
seconds, the distance across the sixth floor and descended the 4
stories in time to have been seen on the building's second floor.


I've no doubt that the many conspiracy theorists, who claim that
had nothing whatsoever to do with the events of 11/22, could provide a
lengthy list of their own, favoring (in their view) theories such as:
"Oswald Was Framed", "Oswald Was A Patsy", or "Oswald Was A Figment Of
Everyone's Imagination And Was Never Even In Dallas During His
Lifetime". I'm sure the CTers would have no trouble denouncing my
as "More Warren Commission-related B.S.!".

However, while compiling your own CT list, and rejecting the vast
array of evidence that convincingly shows that a Mr. Oswald pulled
that trigger, I think it might be wise to just ask yourself ..... IS
ALONE?! (And every bit of evidence that has been unearthed to this
point has shown that it WAS indeed possible for Lee Oswald to have
performed this task.)

And if the answer to the above question is even a hesitant "Yes",
doesn't that, by definition (at least partly in a CTer's mind)
validate the belief of Oswald's lone participation in the JFK

For .... aren't hard facts and evidence always more believable than
wild speculation and conjecture? And aren't many/(most) conspiracy
theories created out of just that -- speculation?


David Von Pein
July 2003
July 2005

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages