Jean Davison's "Oswald's Game"

[David Von Pein]

Newspaper articles concerning author Jean Davison and her 1983 book "Oswald's Game":

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RuWvnzb2vxM/YAfHJk6fk8I/AAAAAAABXXs/2R8NGPQuxIogm2zPpc1Z49jEHckEvDLPwCLcBGAsYHQ/s3000/The-Burlington-Free-Press-November-22-1983.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img/AAUBp9TLQQhtql1-QdaG-8Z5j7c6dGOW1Vh6vCZ2Ei4h2EHuJw5ukIdImMdcZWJUkYEjAUgnVNZTD3-HiprxJA=s3000

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img/AAUBp9QpVhVwVgX-B8FqDd4cyGXCkhYlTOHMTJF_BGOT3SHNKkaBDtPumWlacRYUSKaagu3VQu4S_MmCInz7cg=s2000

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

http://oswalds-game.blogspot.com

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

[David Von Pein]

Excerpts from my review of "Oswald's Game":

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

"In a (lone) nutshell:

1.) This book shows (beyond a reasonable doubt, in my opinion) that Lee Harvey Oswald had it WITHIN HIMSELF the desire to shoot President Kennedy.

2.) The physical evidence positively indicates that Oswald's very own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle WAS the one and ONLY weapon used to kill JFK.

Those two things go together like bread and butter. When adding #1 to #2 above, it's pretty clear that Lee Oswald was not the "innocent patsy" that so many conspiracy theorists seem to want to believe he was. Instead, numbers 1 and 2 above, when merged, are telling the world that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

Thank you, Jean Davison, for your excellent book "Oswald's Game", and for the high road that you have taken since writing it when dealing with critics of your work regarding Oswald. I've yet to read an article or a newsgroup posting by Jean that didn't brim over with common sense and reasoned thinking with respect to John Kennedy's assassination." -- DVP; Feb. 2006 and Jan. 2007

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

According to what's at the first link, Davison comes to an illogical conclusion on conspiracy based on Oswald's antisocial personality. A misfit can't be used in a conspiracy? The fact that Oswald was willing to kill for his political ideals doesn't exclude that he would do so in league with others. This is the silly idea that almost everybody seems to use, that Oswald's guilt or innocence also determines the conspiracy question. The "conspiracists" say that Oswald was innocent, therefore it was a conspiracy. The Nutters say that Oswald was guilty, therefore it was not a conspiracy. This is a false dichotomy. Oswald can be guilty AND a patsy in a conspiracy. The question should be about conspiracy, not about Oswald's guilt or innocence. The false dichotomy excludes what I think it the correct solution. Why does the false dichotomy define the narrative?

[Bud]

I got the book out of the library once, the book gave me more insight into Oswald, the man, than anything else I read. It just may be that Jean hit the nail on the head as far as Oswald`s motivations better than anything else ever written. The book may have suffered from two things, neither in Jean`s control. She was a woman in a man`s field and a man`s hobby. Secondly, not many LNers buy books to reinforce what they already know (CTers on the other hand seem to have libraries of conspiracy books, because they are looking for justifications for their crackpot beliefs). I wouldn`t have read the book if I hadn`t known Jean from the groups, I don`t need a book to tell me that Oswald killed Kennedy.

David, do you know if Jean is still alive?

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 6:45:02 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 3:21:46 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Newspaper articles concerning author Jean Davison and her 1983 book "Oswald's Game":
> >
> > https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RuWvnzb2vxM/YAfHJk6fk8I/AAAAAAABXXs/2R8NGPQuxIogm2zPpc1Z49jEHckEvDLPwCLcBGAsYHQ/s3000/The-Burlington-Free-Press-November-22-1983.jpg
> >
> > https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img/AAUBp9TLQQhtql1-QdaG-8Z5j7c6dGOW1Vh6vCZ2Ei4h2EHuJw5ukIdImMdcZWJUkYEjAUgnVNZTD3-HiprxJA=s3000
> >
> > https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img/AAUBp9QpVhVwVgX-B8FqDd4cyGXCkhYlTOHMTJF_BGOT3SHNKkaBDtPumWlacRYUSKaagu3VQu4S_MmCInz7cg=s2000
> >
> > ----------------------------
> >
> > http://oswalds-game.blogspot.com
> >
> > ----------------------------
> According to what's at the first link, Davison comes to an illogical conclusion on conspiracy based on Oswald's antisocial personality. A misfit can't be used in a conspiracy? The fact that Oswald was willing to kill for his political ideals doesn't exclude that he would do so in league with others. This is the silly idea that almost everybody seems to use, that Oswald's guilt or innocence also determines the conspiracy question. The "conspiracists" say that Oswald was innocent, therefore it was a conspiracy. The Nutters say that Oswald was guilty, therefore it was not a conspiracy. This is a false dichotomy.

Misrepresentation of our position. Correctly stated it is "Oswald killed Kennedy and there is no compelling evidence that anyone worked with him."

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 3:21:46 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

> Newspaper articles concerning author Jean Davison and her 1983 book "Oswald's Game":
>
> https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RuWvnzb2vxM/YAfHJk6fk8I/AAAAAAABXXs/2R8NGPQuxIogm2zPpc1Z49jEHckEvDLPwCLcBGAsYHQ/s3000/The-Burlington-Free-Press-November-22-1983.jpg

I really liked this review, this guy is good, especially since his take mirrors my own, even though I didn`t read it until after I made my response. Like I said, Jean could have been almost entirely correct, more correct than any other author, but the truth doesn`t guarantee an audience when it comes to this event.

From the article...

"We have been fed a considerable pile of tripe from conspiracy writers whose repertories of Oswaldian conjecture is as absurd as comic book plotting."

Still goes on today, but not much longer.

"...hers is not an important book, just unexpected and necessary."

Sad. All those unnecessary conspiracy books sold well, Jean just chose the wrong event to give an honest treatment to.

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 8:00:47 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> David, do you know if Jean is still alive?

She was still with us as of July 30, 2022 (her last log-in date at the Education Forum; which assumes it was really Jean herself who visited that forum on July 30 and not somebody else using Jean's computer):

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/1129-jean-davison

Here's my archive of Jean's various posts over the years:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Jean+Davison

[donald willis]

Hear, hear!

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 6:45:02 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

Having never read the book, I don't know whether you are accurately representing Jean's
conclusions or not but I will agree with your argument that Oswald's anti-social persona and
the fact that he was the gunman doesn't preclude him from having acted on behalf of a
conspiracy. What we know is Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and in almost 60 years,
no credible evidence has surfaced that indicates he had even a single accomplice. That
doesn't prove he acted alone, but gives us no reason to believe he didn't.

[Bud]

Where, where? You don`t try to uncover a conspiracy by disregarding the prime suspect.

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 10:12:41 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 8:00:47 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > David, do you know if Jean is still alive?
> She was still with us as of July 30, 2022 (her last log-in date at the Education Forum; which assumes it was really Jean herself who visited that forum on July 30 and not somebody else using Jean's computer):
>
> https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/1129-jean-davison

Looking at the few posts she did make there it is obvious why she got the hell out of there. She made some points about the claim that Ford raised the neck wound and the responses were your typical conspiracy hobbyist fare (strawmen, not addressing points made, making pretend that Jean was in agreement with their positions, begging the question ect). Someone called Robert Charles-Dunne (note the photo, they told Jean if she wanted to post there she needed a photo as her avatar) made the usual litany of bad arguments conspiracy types make...

"As Ms. Davison well knows, the wording employed by both the first draft of the WC report and the subsequent alterations provided by the late Gerald Ford are both incongruent with the known evidence."

This claim is begged, and never backed up with anything.

"Ms. Davison does not argue that Ford didn't make the cited changes in the report's language."

Nor did she argue that rainbows aren`t pretty.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/8861-wikipedia-spartacus-and-the-jfk-assassination/page/5/#comment-87051

[Steven Galbraith]

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 8:00:47 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

It's interesting (I didn't know this until now) that she wrote Norman Mailer on this issue, i.e., that Oswald's personality made it unlikely (my word) that he would conspire with others, and he told her to write a book. Mailer would later write that book - "Oswald's Tale" - essentially making, in part, the same argument that Davison did.

Here is Mailer: "It violates our understanding of Oswald that he would allow his Mannlicher-Carcano to be fired by another man on the sixth floor while he lingers in the lunchroom four landings below. To what end? What purpose would that serve for him? If he has allowed his rifle to be used in such fashion by others, he is still deeply implicated. Yet the conspiracy allows him to amount to no more than a cog in the machine. That could hardly be enough for the man who has been depicted over the length of this book. If one misperceives his character on this point, then one has misunderstood him entirely.

And this: "Every insight we have gained of him suggests the solitary nature of his act. Besides, it is too difficult, no matter how one searches for a viable scenario, to believe that others could have chosen him to be the rifleman in a conspiracy. Other amateurs, conceivably. But not professionals. Who would trust him to hit the target?"

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 12:13:22 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> She [Jean Davison] made some points about the claim that Ford raised the neck wound and the responses were your typical conspiracy hobbyist fare...

Yes. I've archived most of that discussion at my site here....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 12:47:53 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 8:00:47 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 3:57:52 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > Excerpts from my review of "Oswald's Game":
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > "In a (lone) nutshell:
> > >
> > > 1.) This book shows (beyond a reasonable doubt, in my opinion) that Lee Harvey Oswald had it WITHIN HIMSELF the desire to shoot President Kennedy.
> > >
> > > 2.) The physical evidence positively indicates that Oswald's very own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle WAS the one and ONLY weapon used to kill JFK.
> > >
> > > Those two things go together like bread and butter. When adding #1 to #2 above, it's pretty clear that Lee Oswald was not the "innocent patsy" that so many conspiracy theorists seem to want to believe he was. Instead, numbers 1 and 2 above, when merged, are telling the world that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy.
> > >
> > > Thank you, Jean Davison, for your excellent book "Oswald's Game", and for the high road that you have taken since writing it when dealing with critics of your work regarding Oswald. I've yet to read an article or a newsgroup posting by Jean that didn't brim over with common sense and reasoned thinking with respect to John Kennedy's assassination." -- DVP; Feb. 2006 and Jan. 2007
> > I got the book out of the library once, the book gave me more insight into Oswald, the man, than anything else I read. It just may be that Jean hit the nail on the head as far as Oswald`s motivations better than anything else ever written. The book may have suffered from two things, neither in Jean`s control. She was a woman in a man`s field and a man`s hobby. Secondly, not many LNers buy books to reinforce what they already know (CTers on the other hand seem to have libraries of conspiracy books, because they are looking for justifications for their crackpot beliefs). I wouldn`t have read the book if I hadn`t known Jean from the groups, I don`t need a book to tell me that Oswald killed Kennedy.
> >
> > David, do you know if Jean is still alive?
> It's interesting (I didn't know this until now) that she wrote Norman Mailer on this issue, i.e., that Oswald's personality made it unlikely (my word) that he would conspire with others, and he told her to write a book. Mailer would later write that book - "Oswald's Tale" - essentially making, in part, the same argument that Davison did.

I believe Mailer wrote the forward for "Oswald`s Game".

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 10:53:18 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 12:13:22?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> She [Jean Davison] made some points about the claim that Ford raised the neck wound and the responses were your typical conspiracy hobbyist fare...
>

>Yes. I've archived ...


What you can't do is deny that Ford verbally raised the back wound.

[Bud]

Benny the Burden Shifter!

[John Corbett]

Probably the kindest nickname one could give him.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 3:34:00 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

You Tiny Minds seem to be more interested in Burden Shifting than the assassination.

[John Corbett]

That's because some of us figured out the assassination a long time ago. We can't understand
why some folks are still puzzled by it.

[Hank Sienzant]

“You Tiny Minds” is of course a logical fallacy of ad hominem, where you attack the messenger instead of the message.

Please note that pointing out logical fallacies is a excellent way to advance the discussion of the assassination, by hopefully eliminating them, leading to a better discussion.They are not mutually exclusive goals.

In this particular case, Ben claims “Ford verbally raised the back wound” but doesn’t advance the discussion by citing any evidence for this claim and making an argument. When challenged, Ben shifted the burden back, essentially asking for disproof of his claim, instead of supporting his claim.

Guarantee: Ben will take my point out of context and append it to everything he deletes and labels a logical fallacy.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 05:09:52 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:40:16?PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>> On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 3:34:00?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

>>> On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 11:07:30?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 10:53:18 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 12:13:22?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>>>> She [Jean Davison] made some points about the claim that Ford raised the neck wound and the responses were your typical conspiracy hobbyist fare...
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. I've archived ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What you can't do is deny that Ford verbally raised the back wound.
>>> Benny the Burden Shifter!
>> You Tiny Minds seem to be more interested in Burden Shifting than the assassination.
>
>That's because some of us figured out the assassination a long time ago. We can't understand
>why some folks are still puzzled by it.

You believe that *we* are puzzled, yet it's *YOU* who can't find and
post a single sentence from the Autopsy Report.

But, of course, cowards run.

That's what they do.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 12:33:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 11:07:30?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 10:53:18 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 12:13:22?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>> She [Jean Davison] made some points about the claim that Ford raised the neck wound and the responses were your typical conspiracy hobbyist fare...
>>>
>>>Yes. I've archived ...
>>
>> What you can't do is deny that Ford verbally raised the back wound.

Logical fallacy deleted.