David Von Pein

Go to Page 80 of Vince's Endnotes in "Reclaiming History". He talks specifically about the NAA test on that page. Vince does make a mistake, however, when he implies that the NAA/Barium/Antimony test at Oak Ridge tested for "nitrates". I don't think it tested for the presence of nitrates at all. It only tested for barium and antimony. (See John Gallagher's WC testimony at 15 H 749 for confirmation of this.)

Total BS (yet again) from Jimmy D. I specifically LINKED to Pat's article at my website--TWICE! And I even referred to Pat's article as an "excellent article".... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-583.html But I guess this REALLY is supposed to mean, per Jimbo, that I don't want anybody to read Pat's article. Even though I linked to it twice.

I'm merely pointing out to you that you are wrong when you utilize the word "NEGATIVE" when describing the results of Oswald's NAA/Barium/Antimony cast tests. Some of those elements WERE present on the casts. Therefore, the casts showed a POSITIVE result. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that that positive result is proof that Oswald shot JFK. In fact, in 2015, I specifically made this clear to conspiracy hobbyist Ben Holmes.... "But the main point is --- Neither test (paraffin or NAA) proves Lee Harvey Oswald didn't fire a gun on 11/22/63. And, by the same token, neither test proves he DID fire a gun." -- DVP; Sept. 2015

I guess you're going to keep telling this blatant falsehood until the end of your days, eh Sandy? The Barium/Antimony/NAA test was NOT "negative". It was positive for the presence of antimony and barium. And nothing you can say can change it to a "negative" result.

Plus, Sandy, as I mentioned multiple times previously, Oswald's casts were WASHED before being subjected to the NAA analysis! What would you expect after the casts are WASHED, for Pete sake? Of course there's going to be LESS of the chemicals present after such washing. That's only common sense. And the FBI's John Gallagher says so in his testimony (emphasis is my own).... Mr. REDLICH -- Did the fact that these casts were washed prior to the neutron activation test materially alter, in your opinion, the results of the neutron activation analysis? Mr. GALLAGHER -- I can say that the washing did not remove all the antimony and barium. Mr. REDLICH -- In your opinion, would the washing of these paraffin casts remove substantial amounts of the elements barium and antimony if they were present on those casts? Mr. GALLAGHER -- Chemical treatment and washing will remove portions of the barium and antimony from these casts. This was determined from test casts which were studied in connection with these analyses. But it did not remove all the barium and antimony.

Sure it does. The PRESENCE of the substance means it is THERE. Ergo, it's a POSITIVE result for the PRESENCE of the item being searched for.

Jim DiEugenio's last post is another great big "SO WHAT?" post. Jimmy seems to want people to believe that the WC was HIDING the fact that the NAA and Paraffin/Nitrate tests were WORTHLESS for determining if Oswald had fired a rifle or a revolver. Jim seems to imply that the ONLY place we are able to find out about the uselessless of the NAA/Paraffin tests are in memos distributed amongst the WC members. But that's certainly not true at all. Because, as I just pointed out (and linked to) in my previous post, the Warren Commission and the FBI were not hiding anything regarding the NAA & Paraffin tests. The WC says, right there on Page 562 of its public Report, that it is "impossible to attach significance to the presence of these elements" on Oswald's paraffin casts. Some cover-up there, huh? Why is it the WC and FBI don't get ANY credit for their forthright HONESTY about what we find on Page 562 of the WCR regarding Oswald's paraffin and NAA tests, Jim? Why is that? But the fact still remains that all CTers are wrong, and always will be, when they try to say that Oswald's cheek cast had a negative result for barium & antimony (the only two elements the NAA tests for, btw). Those results were POSITIVE, not negative. But even with a positive NAA result, we still find the WC being completely honest about what that positive results MEANS --- they told us, on Page 562, that it really doesn't mean much of anything.

Now, Greg, why did you want to go and plant that seed into Jim Gordon's head? You probably just started him on the road to mandatory registration here too. Which would mean that all of the Edu. Forum posts that I have ever linked to at my own site will become worthless and unavailable to 95% of the people looking at my webpages, because they are not (of course) members of The Education Forum. ~sigh~ You should have kept quiet, Greg.

CTers have an odd way of turning POSITIVE results into NEGATIVE ones. Amazing. More excerpts from my Sept. 2015 discussion on this "NAA" matter..... DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID: Here is some more of John Gallagher's Warren Commission testimony..... Mr. REDLICH -- And therefore the presence of a lesser amount of barium and a slightly larger amount of antimony on the inside surface was one of the reasons why you could not make a determination as to the significance of the barium and antimony on the inside surface, is that correct? Mr. GALLAGHER -- Yes, sir. Mr. REDLICH -- Did the fact that Oswald was believed to have fired a revolver prior to the time the paraffin casts were made have an effect on your ability to determine the significance of the barium and antimony on the inside of the cheek cast? Mr. GALLAGHER -- The subsequent repeated firing of the revolver definitely overshadowed the results. That is why it was reported that no significance could be attached to the residues found on the cast other than the conclusion that the barium and antimony in these residues are present in amounts greater than found on the hands of a normal individual who had not recently fired or handled a fired weapon. Mr. REDLICH -- In other words, given the known fact, or the assumed fact, that the suspect had fired a revolver repeatedly, the barium and antimony could have found their way to the suspect's cheek as a result of the repeated firing of that revolver, and therefore precluded you from making any determination as to whether the elements barium and antimony were placed on the cheek as the result of the firing of the rifle. Is that a correct statement? Mr. GALLAGHER -- Well, there is no way to eliminate the fact that the subject may have wiped a contaminated hand across his cheek subsequent to the firing of the revolver, thus contaminating his cheek with barium and antimony. [End WC Quotes.] ---------------------- But the above testimony doesn't mean the NAA tests were NEGATIVE. They were still POSITIVE, but Gallagher was giving a possible alternate reason for the POSITIVE reading other than Oswald firing a rifle. But Ben seems to think Gallagher's explanation changes the POSITIVE Barium/Antimony reading to a NEGATIVE one, because Holmes said this in an earlier post (which is most definitely incorrect).... "Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast." -- Ben Holmes In addition, I think it's also important to note the completely honest and forthright nature of the testimony of FBI agent John F. Gallagher above (and Norman Redlich's questioning of Gallagher). The WC and the FBI were telling it like it was -- i.e., a POSITIVE result on the cheek of Oswald for barium and antimony did NOT necessarily mean that Oswald had fired a rifle on November 22nd. And that type of honesty and frankness on the part of both the Warren Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation sure doesn't help out the conspiracy theorists, because many CTers have always believed the Commission and the FBI were on a mission to railroad Oswald and prove his guilt at all possible costs. But the above excerpts from John Gallagher's testimony definitely tend to disprove that notion. So, let's stick yet another fork in Holmes. He's now burnt to an absolute crisp. BEN HOLMES SAID: Davey is running like a yellow dog right now. He *KNOWS* what I spoke of earlier... the relevant facts that he's omitting. He *KNOWS* that the paraffin cast showed a *HIGHER* level of barium & antimony on the OUTSIDE of the cast ... the 'control' of the test. He surely cannot possibly be too dumb to understand what that means. Such INCREDIBLE dishonesty!!! Tell us Davey - why would *anyone* believe anything you say after the lies you've told recently? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Brilliant, Benny. And somehow a "HIGHER level" of the two elements means the overall NAA cheek test was "NEGATIVE", which is what you said in an earlier post. Is that your ridiculous reasoning process, Ben? If so, think again. No matter how much double-talk Ben gushes forth, this statement below is (and always will be) an outright falsehood.... "Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast." -- Ben Holmes Tell us Benji - why would *anyone* believe anything you say after the above provable lie you've told recently? Plus, as I just said above, the Warren Commission (Redlich) and the FBI (Gallagher) were ADMITTING ON THE RECORD that, in essence, the NAA cheek test was useless and worthless when they said the positive result could not be utilized to say whether or not Oswald fired a rifle. In other words, the test was meaningless—and Redlich and Gallagher said so! On the WC record! So, Ben, why are you griping about it? Redlich and Gallagher, in effect, AGREE WITH YOU — the NAA test cannot be used to say if Oswald shot Kennedy. And that honesty also shows up in the Warren Commission's final report too — on Page 562, right here. [Another fork is now inserted into Holmes' ravaged torso.] DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID: Pat Speer's lengthy Internet article, "Casts Of Contention", is a very interesting piece. But I can't really see how Pat's article changes the previously-linked "unreliable" determination reached by the Warren Commission on Page 562 of the Warren Report. Speer, however, thinks that there is something "suspicious" about the way the NAA cheek test was treated by the FBI and the Warren Commission. (CTers, of course, think that a lot of things are "suspicious" in the JFK case.) Quoting from Pat Speer's article: "On [August 31, 1964], the Dallas Morning News runs their own article on Guinn's statements in Scotland about the use of NAA, entitled "New Test May Tell if Oswald Shot a Gun." The FBI's Special Agent in Charge for Dallas, J. Gordon Shanklin, who'd previously told the New York Times that the paraffin tests performed in Dallas proved Oswald's guilt, calls Laboratory Director Conrad and warns him about the article, written by Hugh Aynesworth. Beyond the statements by Guinn already cited, Aynesworth relates that Guinn "said when it was concluded that Oswald's guilt could not be proved or disproved from paraffin tests made by the Dallas Police, he asked the FBI to try the neutron activation analysis technique. Guinn described the experiment in this manner: A rifle similar to the one that killed the president was used. One person fired the rifle on eight different occasions and each time was given the paraffin test. 'Only one out of the eight experiments gave a positive identification,' Guinn said. Then they repeated the experiment using radioactivity. 'It was positive in all eight cases, and showed a primer on both hands and cheeks,' he said. 'Then we took the casts of Oswald's cheek and put them in a nuclear reactor. Remember that they already had been through the chemical tests which would wash particles away. I can say for the moment that we found no barium but we found antimony in every case,' Guinn added." [End Speer Quote.] ------------- Evidently the last thing mentioned in the above quote is apparently something that never happened at all, according to a later statement made by Dr. Vincent Guinn written on September 25, 1964, in which Guinn said he never subjected the actual "Oswald casts" to any NAA analysis at all. See Speer's article for more details. And I want to point out and emphasize the following portion of the above excerpt from Speer's article.... "A rifle similar to the one that killed the president was used. One person fired the rifle on eight different occasions and each time was given the paraffin test. 'Only one out of the eight experiments gave a positive identification,' Guinn said." Therefore, after performing EIGHT separate standard paraffin (nitrate) tests on a person who definitely HAD fired a rifle similar to Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano rifle, SEVEN of the eight tests revealed just exactly the same thing that the FBI's 1964 test revealed after FBI agent Charles Killion had fired Oswald's rifle three times --- a negative result for the presence of any nitrates. So much for the FBI/Killion test being a big fat lie (which is what some conspiracy theorists have told me they think that FBI test was---a lie). Or do CTers also think Dr. Guinn lied SEVEN times too about the nitrate/paraffin tests he says he performed? BEN HOLMES SAID: You can keep right on trying to compare the paraffin test with the NAA test...and you'll *KNOW* that you're lying. Apparently it doesn't matter at all to you. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I wasn't comparing the paraffin tests to the NAA tests, Holmes. I just took notice of that interesting "7 out of 8 were NEGATIVE" stat regarding the paraffin/nitrate tests that Dr. Guinn performed, and so I just threw that in as a "bonus" for you to chew on (and spit out). Because most CTers seem to think that the Killion/FBI test with LHO's rifle was a complete lie and merely a manufactured test so that the Feds could say -- You see, we got a false negative on a paraffin test after an agent fired Oswald's rifle three times. But then I noticed in Pat Speer's excellent article that Dr. Guinn had apparently performed eight paraffin (nitrate) tests after a person had fired a Carcano rifle, with 7 of the 8 turning out NEGATIVE when tested for nitrates. (Although I'm unsure as to the exact number of shots that were fired in each of the eight tests, but I would assume it was probably three shots per test, to simulate Oswald's three shots; otherwise, the tests wouldn't be as accurate if used to compare to the Oswald case.) So now I can use the FBI/Killion "false negative" test, along with SEVEN other such similar tests done by Dr. Guinn whenever some smart-aleck CTer says to me --- Oswald is innocent because the paraffin (nitrate) test on his cheek was negative. And other explanations are certainly possible too for why Oswald's nitrate and NAA tests turned out the way they did. See my following comments below.... Re: Oswald's Paraffin/NAA Tests.... Oswald could have washed his face and hands in the restroom while he was in the Texas Theater. And then he could have re-acquired deposits of gunpowder residue (nitrates on his hands and small amounts of barium and antimony on his face) shortly thereafter when he again handled his revolver during the struggle with the police in the theater. Another conceivable possibility is that Oswald wiped his face with his shirt sleeve (or jacket sleeve) at some point in time between JFK's assassination and the time when Oswald was given the paraffin test at Dallas City Hall several hours later. The above scenarios are, indeed, just speculation and guesswork on my part, and they should be properly labeled as such. But they seem to me to be somewhat reasonable pieces of speculation and are certainly within the realm of possibility for Oswald to have accomplished during the 80 minutes between President Kennedy's assassination and Oswald's capture in the Texas Theater. "IGS" SAID: DVP, perhaps the test was VERY reliable in that it gave the expected negative result. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: That's perhaps a pretty good point (re: the negative results for the PARAFFIN/NITRATE test). Because when we take into account the Killion/FBI test plus the 8 Guinn paraffin/nitrate tests, the NEGATIVES outnumber the POSITIVES by an 8 to 1 score. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, nobody can possibly prove that LHO didn't wash his face and hands in the restroom at the Texas Theater (or simply wipe his face with his shirt) prior to the struggle with police in the theater. That possibility HAS to exist. And therefore, if true, could account for the lack of nitrates and the relatively low level of barium and antimony on his cheek. BEN HOLMES SAID: Ah! Science via polling! A new low for believers. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I was merely stating a fact, Ben --- 8 out of 9 paraffin/nitrate tests turned up NEGATIVE when counting the eight Guinn tests and the one Killion/FBI test. And we know that all 8 of those negatives were FALSE NEGATIVES, because we know that all eight of those people HAD fired a rifle shortly before being given the test. Those statistics can't be good for the persistent and tireless conspiracy theorists who still love to insist that the negative paraffin/nitrate result on Oswald's face is rock-solid PROOF that he never fired a rifle on November 22, 1963. David Von Pein September 15-16, 2015 September 22-24, 2015

FYI: I've saved Jim DiEugenio's original 2-part version of his CBS article (prior to some edits being made by Parry). Here are the two original parts.... https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-rcjDGNFEH_NlFqNGJqZTBZUGM

No, it did not! Why are you saying such a thing, Sandy? Just read John Gallagher's testimony at 15 H 748. Here it is (emphasis is mine): Mr. GALLAGHER -- "The deposits found on the paraffin casts from the hands and cheek of Oswald could not be specifically associated with the rifle cartridges. The casts from Oswald bore elements--namely, barium and antimony--which were present in the powder residues from both the rifle, and revolver cartridges. No characteristic elements were found by neutron activation analysis of the residues which could be used to distinguish the rifle from the revolver cartridges. In view of the fact that the paraffin casts were not made until after the reported firing and handling of the fired revolver, no significance could be attached to the residues found on the casts other than the conclusion that the barium and antimony in these residues are present in amounts greater than found on the hands of an individual who has not recently fired or handled a recently fired weapon." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now, how does that testimony by Mr. Gallagher of the FBI somehow translate to a NEGATIVE NAA result on Oswald's paraffin casts? Answer -- It doesn't (of course). And, as I mentioned previously, the probable reason for there not being MORE deposits of antimony and barium on Oswald's casts is because they had been washed prior to the NAA tests, thus removing some of the deposits before testing. Here's a Jean Davison quote from 2002: "I think I see now what happened here. The fact that the documents came from the ERDA indicates that they deal with the results of the neutron activation tests done at Oak Ridge and NOT with the paraffin tests done by the DPD. Although the paraffin test on Oswald's cheek was negative for nitrates, the NA test on the same cast was *positive* for barium and antimony, two elements found in bullet primer. [see WR, 562: "The paraffin casts of Oswald's hand and right cheek were also examined by neutron-activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Barium and antimony were found to be present on both surfaces of all the casts and also in residues from the rifle cartridges and revolver cartridge cases. ...." and Gallagher's testimony, XV, beginning at 746] Thus it's very possible that face casts made of someone who fired Oswald's rifle would *also* test positive for barium and antimony. This is in no way a contradiction of the WR statement that rifle tests showed negative results for *nitrates* on the cheek. Different tests, different results. Weisberg said "heavy deposits" were left on the shooters' faces, but heavy deposits of WHAT? Too bad he didn't say, but since the papers came from the ERDA, I assume he must be talking about the elements Oak Ridge tested for -- barium and antimony. If so, there's no WC dishonesty here." -- Jean Davison; July 5, 2002

Hi Chris, Ruby can easily be seen in the basement before the shooting in the raw NBC-TV footage linked below....

And the perpetual cycle of CTer nonsense continues. Tomorrow's inevitable instant replay argument from Sandy: Oswald never even owned a rifle! (Don't these conspiracy myths have any expiration date at all? You'd think 52 years would be past their shelf life.) ~sigh~

You'd better re-think that argument, Sandy. The NAA tests on Oswald's paraffin casts were certainly NOT negative. They were positive. From a September 2015 Amazon discussion: BEN HOLMES SAID: Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: This is an outright lie. The NAA tests, according to John Gallagher, showed a POSITIVE result on all casts for the presence of some deposits of antimony and barium (the casts weren't checked for nitrates at all, remember). And the obvious reason for there not being a lot MORE deposits found on the casts is because the casts were washed before going through the NAA process. So it's rather humorous that any CTer would want to utilize the NAA cast tests at all, because they definitely showed some presence of barium and antimony on Oswald's face and hands. Now, Ben, did Dr. Vincent P. Guinn WASH his casts before subjecting them to his NAA tests? (I kinda doubt he did.) And why on Earth conspiracy fanatic Ben Holmes [in this post] is propping up the fact that NOT ALL of the barium and antimony was washed off the casts is anyone's guess. That's hysterical! That means that TWO properties that you'd expect to find on a gunman were still present on Oswald's casts during the NAA analysis. And yet that is supposed to somehow EXONERATE Mr. Oswald and prove a conspiracy???? Incredible illogic. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MORE: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-583.html

I haven't the slightest idea.

Total BS. The evidence is so abundant against Oswald, in order to have any "reasonable doubt" about his guilt, a person must pretend that all of that evidence (or virtually all of it) was faked by unknown plotters who wanted to make it only look like Oswald killed TWO people. Yes, Jim DiEugenio is one of those people who believes such foolishness. But does that mean everybody should be sucked into his vacuum of silliness? I think not. A friend of mine at Facebook summed up Jimmy's approach to the case the other day, and it's worth repeating here.... "DiEugenio is a master of the "shotgun" approach. He relishes in throwing out hundreds of questionable inconsistencies, yet cannot focus on the bare facts of Oswald's prints on the rifle and the sniper boxes. He is another hack distracter who desperately and cowardly will not address the obvious evidence. There will always be a wide audience for DiEugenio and others like him." -- Steve Roe; 4/16/16 https://www.facebook.com/groups/243480929145732/permalink/537068333120322/ Hear! Hear!

You're too funny, Jimmy. As if Martin's blistering critique had any effect on the pathetic book sales of BRD, which have been virtually non-existent since Day 1 in December 2014, just as I predicted they would be in August 2012 when Mel brought me into the project. It's an "LN" book, so I knew it would sell like a lead balloon (esp. since the authors are virtually unknown to most readers). And I was right. So there were no "tracks" for Martin Hay to stop in the first place. (LOL) I'm still glad the book is out there, though. It provides at least a little more "LN" balance to the lopsided overall catalog which will always heavily favor the CT side in sheer numbers. And there are a few sensible reviewers out there (thank goodness)..... "[beyond Reasonable Doubt] is a very good book and one of the best resources on the Kennedy assassination I have ever read and a nice companion to "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi and "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner. The manner in which Mr. Ayton and Mr. Von Pein present the information is very effective. .... A very useful book, very comprehensive, easy to read and well written. So, anyone interested in the Kennedy case must have a copy of this book." — Cassio F. D. Queiros; March 15, 2016 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/04/beyond-reasonable-doubt.html

How can anybody possibly argue with the logic contained within the above sentences? So what? We're not in a courtroom. And Mel Ayton, when he wrote the above words for page 118 of BRD, wasn't speaking to a jury sitting in a courtroom's jury box either. He was merely applying common sense and logic to the BASIC TERM "reasonable doubt". In short, the above paragraph from the BRD book is still 100% logical and sensible, regardless of official courtroom "definition".

You surely aren't relying on the wholly UNreliable paraffin (cheek) test, are you?

Then why even bring up the subject of Fritz' activity in the basement at all? What useful purpose is served by mentioning it? We all know the DPD blew it (big time) by letting their prisoner get shot in the gut with 70 of their armed officers right there nearby. So that's not exactly "bombshell news". Re: Dan Rather.... https://app.box.com/s/1a0mhnrp3fc77lb470de (And, yes, I wrote the caption to that audio file.)

But why REQUIRE someone to JOIN a forum just to READ its contents? That was my point. I hate that restriction. And I think some other people do too. Some people prefer to lurk (i.e., just read), but prefer not to "join up". Virtually all forums that I have been a part of have allowed everyone on the Internet to at least SEE the posts being written without being forced to join the forum as an official member. Duncan MacRae's forum permits everyone to read the site (although, for some reason, there is a restriction on viewing links and photos unless you're a registered member). The Usenet newsgroups are completely open to all readers. As is Greg Parker's forum. And DPF. And Wim Dankbaar's forum. And, of course, this Education Forum does not restrict the reading of threads to just members. So why would JFK Lancer restrict readership? They never did before their shutdown a few years ago. Anybody could read the posts in past years. I don't understand the logic of such a restriction at all. Without the restriction, the site would undoubtedly get far more hits too. (How could it not?) And isn't that one of the things that a website owner strives for--a bigger audience, in order to get its message out there to the public?

The evidence DOES clearly indicate his guilt. And there's NOTHING on this Earth that you or I can do to change that basic of all facts. http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com So, it must have been, in effect, The World Against The Patsy, is that correct? Because there's a LOT of evidence pointing to a certain Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald, which is evidence that was discovered in MULTIPLE places (hospital, limousine, TSBD, 10th Street, the Paine garage, Oswald's roominghouse). Was all of that stuff gathered up AFTER it was "planted", or was it gathered and then switched? The idea that all of the evidence against Oswald is phony is beyond silly, and is an outrageous theory that should be embarrassing to anyone who suggests such a thing. And yet many Internet CTers are charter members of the "Everything's Fake" club. But don't expect me to join. It's way too embarrassing. And, besides, my bladder is far too weak to be a member of that fraternity. When did I ever state that the case against Oswald is "perfect"? Answer -- Never. The case against Oswald is extremely strong, yes. But the world is never "perfect". Just ask your bumbling patsy framers for proof of that. They certainly weren't "perfect" either (according to CTers anyway). They decided to frame their patsy in the TSBD, but then went ahead and shot at the President from the opposite direction--from the Grassy Knoll. Brilliant! Thank goodness your patsy-framing conspirators had the whole world of law enforcement jumping on board the "Let's Frame Oswald" train on Day 1 to help them out of this mess, huh? Because, per the conspiracists, the DPD jumped right on board and started switching/planting evidence, and so did the Secret Service and the FBI. And then the Warren Commission jumped on board to frame the patsy too! Whoever planned that assassination must have had Lady Luck on his/their side on November 22, 1963 -- in spades! Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Neal? (My apologies to Jimmy DiEugenio. We've drifted off topic--again. So sorry. Jim's going to start disliking me if I don't stop doing that.)

Is there any way to revise that horrible decision, James? IMO, it's incredibly silly to go to the trouble of restoring all those Lancer posts and then cut off everyone except "members" from reading the content. Why would anyone choose to incorporate such a stiff restriction? I really don't understand that. ~shrug~

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/jfk-audio-video-spotlight-page.html

Geez, why so antagonistic, Tom? The evidence clearly indicates Oswald's guilt, so why should I sugar-coat it?