David Von Pein

If I ever need a person to see things that only exist in a CTer's mind, you're the guy! The "buckling", of course, is nothing but BLURRINESS in the film, which is particularly obvious in Z209 and Z210. How can you possibly determine any "buckling" through these crappy Z-Film frames? Incredible. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z209.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z210.jpg

The "Oswald Did It Alone" conclusion is not "impossible" at all. In fact, it's the only conclusion that the physical evidence supports. Another LNer summed things up nicely at another forum nine years ago when he said this: "[it was] either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud [alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup]; January 19, 2007

The video below is a Zapruder Film clip I just now created utilizing the four missing frames (Z208—Z211). This clip also includes Z206 and Z207, so we can see what JFK's head looks like just prior to the four damaged frames being re-inserted into the film. I've looped the clip several times in a row in this video, at two different slow motion speeds. Now, if anyone thinks the "missing" four frames—some of which are showing only the very top of President Kennedy's head—somehow provide any kind of definitive proof that JFK has just been hit by a bullet, then I fear that person's imagination has run away with itself: CLICK HERE FOR THE Z206—Z211 CLIP Here's what I said about this subject back in 2008: "Mr. DiEugenio makes a big deal out of the four "missing" (damaged) frames of the Zapruder Film, stating that years ago he had the opportunity to view a complete version of the Z-Film which contained those four missing frames (Z208-Z211), and as a result of that personal viewing (on a "really big screen"), DiEugenio is absolutely positive that President Kennedy was hit by a bullet at "around Z-Frame number 195 or so" [DiEugenio quote; 11/27/08], which comes close to matching the HSCA's erroneous timing for the SBT shot (which was Z190). And Jim's belief of an approx. Z195 JFK hit is solidified in concrete by merely looking at "missing" frames Z208 through Z211 in motion on an unspliced version of the Zapruder Film. Jim thinks JFK's head "buckles" during these four missing Z-frames, which is proof to Jim D. that Kennedy was hit by a bullet just a few frames earlier. It's interesting to note, however, that the four frames in question (Z208-Z211) show only the very top of JFK's head as Kennedy goes behind the Stemmons Freeway sign (and these frames aren't very clear at all). The majority of Kennedy's whole body (and even a good part of his "buckling" head) are completely obscured by the street sign [click to enlarge each frame]: To think that the above 4 "missing" frames of the Zapruder Film prove that JFK was reacting to a gunshot wound is just incredibly far-fetched and speculative, IMO. But, the little sliver of JFK's blurry head in Z208 through Z211 was apparently enough ironclad PROOF for Mr. DiEugenio to state as he did state on the November 27th BlackOp program -- "That's it" (i.e., that's all I need to see, folks; those four frames of the Z-Film, with Kennedy almost totally hidden by the street sign this whole time, are enough proof for me that JFK was hit by a bullet before he disappeared behind the signage). [...] Plus, we have this "Pot Meets Kettle" argument from Jim too (unless DiEugenio believes in the ultra-silly theory that has JFK being hit by separate bullets in the upper back and throat): At one point on the 11/27 BlackOp show, Jim berates Vince Bugliosi and the Warren Commission for postulating a "delayed reaction" by Governor Connally after he was shot in his upper-right back.* But then we have DiEugenio, just a few minutes later, telling the BlackOp audience (consisting of myself and one other guy in Helena, Montana, who was half asleep on the couch after consuming his heavy Thanksgiving feast) that JFK was absolutely, positively hit with a bullet at about Z195 (based on those critically-important 4 missing blurry Z-Frames that show JFK's "buckling" head). But what Jim doesn't tell his audience of two is that HE, too, must certainly believe in some type of a physical "delayed reaction" on the part of one of the two shooting victims (JFK in this instance), because we know that Kennedy doesn't start raising his arms up to his mouth and neck areas until Z-Frame 226, which is almost TWO SECONDS after Jim DiEugenio insists that JFK was struck by a bullet back at approximately Z195. So, Jim must believe that JFK's arm-raising reaction was, indeed, significantly "delayed". But when it comes to anyone else's theories about a delayed reaction on the part of the other victim in the limousine (Connally), Jim can't seem to control his laughter. Go figure the irony of that little two-faced argument there. But, as mentioned above, I suppose it's possible that Jim believes that Kennedy's arm-raising, which begins at Z226, is due to JFK being hit by a different bullet from the one that Jim says struck him at about Z195. I'm not sure what Jim's exact shot-by-shot theory is. But maybe he thinks Kennedy was hit at Z195, then again just before Z225, then again at Z313, and then again at Z898 as Bill Greer pulled into the Parkland emergency entrance (via the "real and unaltered" version of the Z-Film). (Just kidding about that Parkland gunshot. But you never know what a CTer is going to invent next, so maybe I should keep an open mind about a conspiracy theorist postulating a "Z898" shot.) * = I, however, don't believe the "delayed reaction" theory myself, because I'm quite confident that both victims were hit by Lee Oswald's SBT bullet at precisely Z-Frame 224, with each man's reactions to this Z224 hit being perfectly "in sync" with one another and perfectly corresponding to the bullet striking each victim at exactly Z224, as demonstrated here." -- DVP; November 29, 2008

Mr. J. Edgar Hoover was clueless about many of the facts surrounding the JFK case—almost to the point of being laughable—as I talk about HERE. Don't confuse "ignorance" with "cover-up". [EDIT (4/6/2016): And also see David Lifton's post HERE, wherein Lifton indicates that the "printing error" explanation provided by Hoover was actually a reference to the reversal of two of the Z-Film frames that were published by the Warren Commission, and had nothing to do with the "four missing frames" that were damaged by LIFE Magazine.]

The four frames (Z208—Z211) are missing due to LIFE Magazine damaging (and stepping on!) those frames. That's what happened. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing sinister. No cover-up. Just an accident by LIFE Magazine. Just as Wesley Liebeler explains in the audio excerpt below (which is from a debate he had with Mark Lane on January 25, 1967): 1967 AUDIO CLIP WITH WESLEY J. LIEBELER (The complete two-hour Lane vs. Liebeler debate is HERE.) But, just like they do with all of the assassination evidence, conspiracists like Jim DiEugenio have to add in a nonexistent layer of "cover-up" when it comes to the topic of the "missing Z-Film frames". But that's what conspiracy theorists do best — they invent sinister activity where none exists. SOP for CTers. Also see: jfk-archives.blogspot.com / DVP vs. DiEugenio (Part 12)

I've never heard that fairy tale before in my life. Who is the female witness, David? And who's the "supervisor"? I'd love it if that story could somehow be proven to be true, though, because such a "fishing pole" lie being uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald would be just that much more of a solid indication that the package he was carrying on November 22nd contained his Carcano rifle. Such a "fishing pole" tale, if true, would mean that Oswald told different lies to different people throughout the day on 11/22/63 -- with Lee telling Buell Wesley Frazier that the package contained "curtain rods", while (allegedly) telling someone else later in the day that the (presumably) very same package had a "fishing pole" in it. You'd then have to ask yourself this question: Why didn't Oswald just stick with the same story about curtain rods that he started the day with when he drove to work with Frazier? Because the more nonexistent things he tries to cram into that brown paper package, the more obvious (and provable) his lies become. But I doubt any such "fishing pole" or "fishing rods" encounter ever happened in the first place, much the same way Robert Groden's bombshell "I Was Giving LHO Change At The Time Of The Assassination When We Heard The Shots" witness, Mrs. Reid, was a hoax too, with that wholly unbelievable story being invented many years later. Because if that story allegedly told by Mrs. Reid had even a grain of truth in it, we would have heard it coming from the mouth of Lee Oswald himself after his arrest --- "Hey, why am I being accused of shooting the President?! I was in the office on the second floor at that time, getting change for the Coke machine! Just ask Mrs. Reid. She was right there with me!" (Oswald, of course, never said anything of the kind to the police after he was arrested.) jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Oswald's Many Lies (Part 1)

FILM REVIEW -- "RENDEZVOUS WITH DEATH: JFK AND THE CUBAN CONNECTION": ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Although not nearly as impossible to believe as most of the JFK assassination theories out there, the 2006 documentary film "Rendezvous With Death: JFK And The Cuban Connection", which purports an underlying Cuban involvement in "recruiting" Lee Harvey Oswald to kill President Kennedy, ultimately falls flat too (IMO). Two things in it tend to sink the film's credibility in my view: 1.) When an ex-Cuban "agent" named Oscar Marino, who is one of the bigshots being interviewed for the first time (with sensational info that he had never talked about heretofore, of course), says: "Is it so important whether or not he {Oswald} acted on his own initiative?" Well -- Duh! Yeah, I think it does matter just a tad bit. It's only the difference between "conspiracy" vs. "no conspiracy", for crying out loud. Perhaps Mr. Marino needs to look up the word "initiative" -- "On one's own initiative: At one's own discretion: Independently of outside influence or control." -- Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary Marino also says this in the "Rendezvous" documentary --- "It makes no difference whether he {Oswald} volunteered, or was used." I guess perhaps that means that John Hinckley, even though he acted on his "own initiative", can blame some other entity for putting him up to shooting Ronald Reagan in 1981. (Maybe he can use that strange logic to get Jodie Foster to share a portion of the blame for his actions that day.) 2.) And then there's a part I knew this program would sidestep -- and that is: The way in which Lee Harvey Oswald got his job at the Texas School Book Depository in October 1963. It's never once mentioned in this program that it was Ruth Paine and Linnie Randle who actually were responsible for Oswald getting hired at the Book Depository. Instead, the documentary's narrator states that Oswald had applied for MANY jobs in tall office buildings all along the motorcade route. Which is also a bunch of bullxxxx right there, seeing as how the exact route wasn't even finalized until November 18th...and not placed into any paper where Oswald could see it until November 19th at the earliest. Overall, "Rendezvous With Death" is a real yawn-fest, in my personal opinion. We know that the U.S. Government hated Fidel Castro and was probably trying to bump him off. And we know Oswald (the nutcase he was) was definitely pro-Castro and pro-Cuba. And we also know that in early September of 1963 (via the impromptu interview that Castro gave to Daniel Harker) Castro, in effect, was threatening U.S. leaders. So the tension was certainly there....so it's not surprising that a decent-looking theory can be made to have Oswald "recruited" by Cuban Intelligence to bump off Kennedy. But I've yet to see the ironclad proof that anyone put Oswald up to the assassination. Jean Davison's 1983 book ("Oswald's Game") provides a very good analysis of Lee Harvey Oswald and his probable motive(s) for assassinating President Kennedy. The general theory in Davison's book is that Oswald killed JFK all by himself....but he did it FOR CASTRO (but Oswald wasn't "recruited" by any outside organization). It was all Oswald's idea. That's a good "LN" theory too, especially since LHO almost certainly would have been aware of the Harker/Castro interview and Castro's threat to U.S. leaders in early September '63, because that story appeared in local New Orleans papers where Oswald lived at the time. David Von Pein January 2007 ----------------- Related Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4582488.stm

A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID: Gus Russo On Bugliosi: "He did a horrendous job." [End Russo quote.] .... In reference to his own work, you know what that means Von Pein? That means as bad a job as you can do. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Gus was only referring to what he believes was a "horrendous job" by Vince of debunking the awful 2006 Wilfried Huismann documentary film "Rendezvous With Death". Here is the full Russo quote: "Vince attempted to debunk the film, but in fact did a horrendous job -- as I think you will agree when you read the book." -- Gus Russo; October 29, 2008 The "Rendezvous" film plays a very large part in Mr. Russo's 2008 book "Brothers In Arms", wherein Russo tries desperately to link Cuban "G2" agents with Lee Harvey Oswald in a plot to kill JFK. In his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History", author Vincent Bugliosi uses up 10-plus pages of endnotes to dismantle (in a good bit of detail) Huismann's "Rendezvous" documentary and, hence, along the way also largely discredits Russo's identical (or nearly identical) theory about supposed Cuban "G2" involvement. Far from doing a "horrendous job", Bugliosi does a pretty good job (IMO) of ripping apart the "G2/Oswald" theory that is alleged to be the absolute truth in Huismann's film. Here's a sampling of Vince Bugliosi's comments on the subject: "Unbelievably, out of all these fabricated statements and nothingness, a reportedly well-credentialed German filmmaker, one Wilfried Huismann, directed a one-hour documentary, titled..."Rendezvous with Death", that was shown for the first time in Berlin on January 4, 2006. The entire thrust of Huismann’s documentary is that Castro’s Cuban intelligence people (G-2) used Oswald to kill Kennedy once he made the offer at the Cuban consulate to kill Kennedy, and the person who paid Oswald to do so was the black man with the reddish hair, who is identified in the program as a top Cuban G-2 agent in Mexico named Cesar Morales Mesa. Using Gilberto Alvarado Ugarte’s original fabrication that the black man (Morales) paid Oswald $6,500 to kill Kennedy (Huismann does not mention Alvarado by name in the documentary), Huismann proceeds to build his entire show on this nonexistent foundation. Huismann isn’t troubled by the fact that the basis for the alleged offer was Oswald’s supposedly saying, “I’m going to kill Kennedy for this” as he headed out of the Cuban consulate office after his request for an in-transit visa to Cuba was turned down, and that the only two people who we know were in the office at the time, Silvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue, have said they never heard Oswald say any such thing. Huismann, of course, doesn’t tell his audience this. Huismann is also not troubled by the fact that Oswald would have had no reason to say he was going to kill Kennedy “for this,” that is, for being turned down by the Cuban consulate for his in-transit visa. And he sees nothing preposterous about the discussion to murder the president of the United States and the payment to Oswald taking place right outside the Cuban embassy, when Cuban intelligence (the G-2 agent, Morales, who supposedly made the payment) had to know that the lenses of CIA cameras were focused on that area. Nor does he apparently feel that Alvarado’s claim to have actually seen (and apparently diligently counted out) precisely $6,500 in American bills ($1,500 for expense money, Alvarado says) being paid to Oswald is preposterous on its face. Further, Huismann is not bothered by the fact that if a Cuban G-2 agent gave Oswald $6,500 (at least the equivalent of $20,000 today) to kill Kennedy, what happened to all this money? Why was Oswald virtually broke at the time of his death, he and Marina having a grand total of $183.87 to their name? How did Oswald go through the equivalent of $20,000 (or even $6,500) in less than two months? What did he splurge this amount of money on? In addition, Huismann isn’t concerned by the fact that Alvarado said he saw this alleged payoff to Oswald on September 18, 1963, when we know Oswald wasn’t even in Mexico City, being present and accounted for in New Orleans. Nor is Huismann troubled by the fact that Alvarado took a CIA polygraph test in which the polygraph examiner concluded he was probably lying, and that Alvarado said, “I must be mistaken.” Huismann, naturally, doesn’t tell his audience any of this. [...] None of these things troubled Huismann. Nothing was going to stand in his way in his attempt to push his ridiculous story on as many unsuspecting people as he could. Since, at its source, there was no basis for this TV documentary, what did Huismann do to beef up a story worthless at its core? He does what nearly all conspiracy authors, documentarians, and motion picture directors do: embellish the story from the original nut (in this case, Alvarado) with stories from other nuts or frauds, and in this case with two former American public servants who should be ashamed of themselves [former FBI agent Laurence Keenan and former Secretary of State Alexander Haig]. [...] Remarkably, Huismann, for all his labors, was able to come up with only one new “face” to justify this “documentary,” an alleged former Cuban G-2 agent who is the clear star of Huismann’s flick. He is also a joke. I say “face” because for supposed fear of retaliation, the man’s face is bathed in shadows on the screen. And his name, Oscar Marino, is not his real name (Telephone interview of Gus Russo by author on January 15, 2006), though Huismann isn’t kind enough to tell his audience (or researchers who want to check out Marino’s background) this. So we have a faceless, nameless person as the star of Huismann’s shameless “documentary.” That itself would be bad enough, but Marino has absolutely nothing to say. “Oswald volunteered to kill Kennedy,” Marino tells the audience. When I asked Gus Russo if Marino was basing this on something other than Alvarado’s original allegation, he said he was not, that Alvarado was Marino’s source for this (Telephone interview of Gus Russo by author on January 15, 2006). Since we know that Oswald never made the threat to kill Kennedy that Alvarado claims (but later retracted) he made, we thereby know at this point that everything Marino says thereafter has to be a fabrication. [...] So we learn from Marino that with or without Castro, Cuban G-2 agents planned to murder Kennedy (and thereby ensure their deaths at U.S. hands, or if Castro never approved of the operation, at his hands if he found out what they did or attempted to do without his authorization), and Oswald simply “adopted” G-2’s “plans.” Since we know that Oswald himself bought the murder weapon (Cuban G-2 apparently wanted Oswald to have the absolute cheapest, most inexpensive rifle that could be found) and, through Ruth Paine’s suggestion, got himself the job at the Book Depository Building, one wonders what “plans” of the G-2 Oswald “adopted,” and how G-2 helped Oswald in “carrying out the assassination.” Just as Marino could tell Huismann with “complete certainty” that Kennedy’s death was a G-2 agency operation, I can tell Huismann with even more “complete certainty” that even though Marino, in effect, confessed to complicity with other G-2 members in Kennedy’s murder, he actually knows (even if Huismann doesn’t) that he has absolutely nothing to fear. Marino certainly would realize that if Cuban G-2 and Castro were vindictive enough and powerful enough to wipe out the president of the United States in the United States, they would be vindictive and powerful enough to wipe out non-entities like himself in Mexico for squealing on them. If Huismann could find the supposedly ailing Marino, surely they could. But Marino knows he doesn’t have to worry a whit since he knows his story is fabricated nonsense that only nonsensical conspiracy theorists would have any interest in, not very serious people like Castro and his G-2. You can’t squeal on someone when there is nothing to squeal on. [...] And even though there is no statute of limitation for murder in the United States, Marino also knows he doesn’t have to worry about FBI agents knocking on Huismann’s door to obtain Marino’s identity and whereabouts (by court order if necessary) so they could arrest him and extradite him back to the United States for prosecution for Kennedy’s murder. Why? Because Marino, I, and virtually all other sensible people know that no one in authority would take him seriously. The authorities, including Castro, only deal harshly with real people telling real stories, not humbugs like Marino. Huismann is either pathetically gullible or a fraud. [...] So what we have here with Huismann’s "Rendezvous with Death" is a very trite rendezvous with a foundationless base (Alvarado’s recanted allegation), old witnesses whose stories have already been discredited, a star witness without a name or face and nothing to say other than to make a naked declaration, and two former American public servants, tossed in for cachet purposes, who made fools of themselves. The question is how did Huismann convince his Japanese and German benefactors to part with close to $1 million on something as patently worthless as this “documentary”? A related question is why would Gus Russo, a respected assassination researcher, lend his name to a project as insubstantial and sophistical as this? In defense of Russo, he pointed out to me that he felt the Cubans in the documentary had credibility because they had to be pressured (some for months) to participate in the program, so they weren’t seeking notoriety. Also, he says, they got no pay, and wanted their names changed. And they spoke in a way, he added, that was believable to him. (Telephone interview of Gus Russo by author on February 8, 2006)" -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; Pages 731-733, 735-737, and 741 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007) David Von Pein December 16, 2008

.....

But such a minor error pales by comparison to the gaffe you just made -- because it's certainly "a little much" to call the Neely Street backyard photograph a "fake photo" when that picture has been determined to be totally legitimate by numerous photographic experts (20 on the HSCA's Photo Panel alone). When will the everlasting conspiracy myths cease being propagated? (Should I hold my breath until the year 2525?) jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html

I wouldn't be too critical of an error in a caption within a photo section of a JFK book. I can certainly relate to a similar captioning error that occurred in the book I helped Mel Ayton write ("Beyond Reasonable Doubt"). One of the pictures in the photo section is incorrectly captioned, and it drives me crazy, because I had no control over that caption; it was put there by somebody other than the book's two authors. Ironically, however, that particular caption was written by me, but the person who was in charge of arranging the photo section attached the wrong words to the photo. .... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/04/beyond-reasonable-doubt.html#Captioning-Error So perhaps Philip Shenon had the same difficulty in his book---i.e., the accuracy of the captions written for the pictures might have been beyond his total control. ~shrug~

Yeah, right. Like a week (SEVEN days) was an absolute eternity, wasn't it? You're a howl, Jim. So, what are you trying to suggest anyway -- that Ruth Paine planted a fake note in a book before she gave it to the police? And the note was a perfect forgery too (per CTers), with "Oswald"-like handwriting that fooled every expert who examined it for years thereafter. Talk about preposterous stories. The CTer version of "The Note" is far more preposterous.

It was stuffed inside a book. Was the FBI supposed to leaf through every page of every book in Ruth's house in a search for potential evidence? Get real.

So let me get this straight (from your POV), Jim.... You think CE573 is a fake and a fraud (naturally). And you also believe that somebody was trying to frame Lee H. Oswald for the Walker shooting at the same time "somebody" placed CE573 into the evidence pile....even though we know that CE573 was banged up too much to be linked conclusively to the patsy's gun. Right, Jim? So, here's the question I have for you.... If the cops (or whoever) were wanting to frame LHO for the Walker shooting, why on Earth would they plant into evidence an essentially useless bullet that can never be tied specifically to Carcano Rifle C2766? Were the plotters completely void of all brain cells? Or did they just want to keep busy in late November after the JFK assassination stuff quieted down a bit? Or did they just simply screw up (again)---like they did when they left a Mauser on the sixth floor too, even though their patsy never owned one of those? Your call. In short (and in truth, IMO) --- The fact that CE573 cannot be linked to any specific rifle is virtual proof, right there, that it was not "planted" into the evidence pile. Because only a total idiot would want to do something so stupid. Although, yes, CE573 looks exactly like CE399 in many respects. No doubt about it. But if you're going to go to the trouble of PLANTING a bullet to frame a particular person, you're surely going to make sure that that bullet can be tied exclusively to the patsy's gun. Wouldn't you agree, Jim Hargrove?

There's a ton of LHO's correspondence written in the Russian language in the Warren Commission volumes. And all of it (AFAIK) was determined by the handwriting experts to be in Lee Harvey Oswald's writing. Including Oswald's Diary (CE24). Do you think it's ALL phony and fake?

Thanks, Jim H., for showing us all your true "Everything's Been Faked" colors. I'm loving it! BTW, let's hear what the FBI's Bob Frazier had to say about the bullet types.... MR. EISENBERG -- "Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this [CE573] a steel-jacketed bullet?" MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket." ------------ Frazier was just lying through his teeth there, right Jim?

Good boy, Jim. Just totally ignore the NOTE, which wasn't written by MARINA. It was written by LEE Oswald himself! Tell us, Jim, why did Lee write that letter to Marina? Or do you want to pretend that CE1 is a fake and a fraud too? It's a letter which indicates LHO was about to go out and do something that was so bad that Lee thought he might very well end up dead or in the slammer. Any idea what that activity on April 10, 1963, might have been? Need any help? MARINA OSWALD HSCA AUDIO EXCERPT Also -- notice any similarity here?:

Lance, how can you have ANY doubt whatever about Oswald's involvement in the Walker shooting with CE#1 staring at you? Marina found this note on Lee's desk (with their P.O. Box key on top of it) on the night of the Walker shooting when Lee was away from home all evening. Lee then came home, nervous and pale, late that night. .... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0013a.htm What do you think the above note was referring to if not the Walker murder attempt?

Lance, Stepping outside of Harvey & Lee Make Believe Land for another brief moment.... An even more reasonable, sensible, and believable scenario is the following one: The one and only Lee H. Oswald (whose middle name just happened to be Harvey) purchases a cheap rifle for himself in March 1963 (so he can shoot a certain retired general in Dallas). He misses in his attempt to kill General Walker, but decides to hang on to the Carcano rifle (for some reason that I've never quite been able to figure out, other than his own extreme stinginess and unwillingness to get rid of something he only used once). Oswald is then afforded the perfect opportunity to kill an even bigger political figure seven months later in November when the President is scheduled to come to town. And Lee just couldn't let such a golden target pass him by without trying to redeem himself for failing in an assassination attempt in April. Ergo, the "curtain rod" story is born, a long brown paper package is constructed, and an unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, is hastily planned. The biggest snag for conspiracy theorists in the standard "Oswald Was Framed In Advance" theory is, in my view, the manner in which Lee Oswald obtained his job at the Book Depository. In order to get Oswald "planted" into the building, CTers have no choice but to twist things into a silly unbelievable plot involving Ruth Paine, Linnie Mae Randle, Roy Truly, and/or Buell Wesley Frazier (or any combination of the above). The normal, ordinary fashion in which Lee got the job just doesn't appeal to CTers, so an imaginary version of the event becomes mandatory for the conspiracists. In short, every single thing the conspiracy theorists insist was the result of "conspiracy" in the JFK case are things that Lee Harvey Oswald could quite easily have accomplished without any conspiracy entering into the equation whatsoever. E.G., ordering the rifle and revolver via mail order, getting his job at the TSBD, transporting the rifle to the Depository on 11/22/63, firing 3 shots at JFK with his Mannlicher-Carcano, and getting to 10th Street in time to kill J.D. Tippit. Not a single thing Oswald did on Nov. 21st or Nov. 22nd required the intervention of "conspiracy" or the assistance of a single other human being (other than the use of Wesley Frazier, Cecil McWatters, and William Whaley as Lee's chauffeurs). Lee Harvey Oswald—alone—could easily have committed the two murders that the Warren Commission (correctly) says he did commit in November of 1963.

"I've never heard such a major distortion of what is actually a conclusive fact." -- Joseph A. Ball; Dec. 4, 1964

Time now for a DVP CS&L Break™ (reprised from two earlier EF posts).... As far back as 1964, everybody in officialdom already knew the money order was totally legitimate. And that's because they knew it had Lee Harvey Oswald's very own handwriting all over the front of it, plus the Klein's stamp which proves that Klein's handled it, plus the fact it was found in the exact spot where it should have been found on 11/23/63. What more did they need? It's only the obsessive conspiracy theorists of the world who have the slightest desire to pursue this subject to the ends of the Earth. And that's because they'll do anything they can--no matter how far-fetched--in order to take that rifle out of the hands of the man who obviously purchased it, Lee H. Oswald. Additional CS&L....

I wonder what "DVP" means? (Probably some idiot's initials.) (I have a brother who has some cool initials -- MVP.)

Bulletin from the DVP Newsroom! --- For those unaware of it, Scott's recent use of the abbreviation "SMH" stands for "Shaking My Head" (via the good old "Urban Dictionary"). That was a new one on me. I hadn't the foggiest idea what that one meant until I Googled it just now. (And, yes, Scott, I'm just having a little fun at your expense, as a result of this humorous exchange three days ago. Nothing personal.)

I'm pretty sure that Jim Hargrove wouldn't hesitate to add the Smithsonian to his list of plotters and/or cover-uppers in a heartbeat. After all, Jim said this to me just two weeks ago.... JIM HARGROVE SAID: There is plenty of evidence at the National Archives incriminating “Lee Harvey Oswald,” and all of it is phony. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: When you have to resort to such massive allegations of constant "alteration" and "falsification" and "fabricated" stuff, it's a good sign that you've reached a level of deep desperation from which you can likely never escape. In other words....since you've got no evidence of your own to prove any conspiracy, you have no choice but to try and invalidate the real evidence in the case. (The Hidell money order and CE399 being two prime examples, among dozens of others.) When I see words like "all of it is phony", it's a sure sign that the CTer who wrote such nonsense has a very weak case for "conspiracy". So he's got to attack the legitimacy of ALL of the evidence. A very tiresome (and predictable) way to approach any murder case. You are absolutely right, Lance. I've been arguing with JFK conspiracy theorists for about 13 years now, and I completely agree with what the late Vincent Bugliosi said many times in his 2007 radio interviews.... "There is no bottom to the pile in the Kennedy case. It is absolutely endless." -- V. Bugliosi http://Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com

I think there's a good chance that the "Extra Copy" of the deposit ticket was never sent to the bank by Klein's. It's a carbon copy of the original ticket that could very well have just stayed with Klein's all the time for their records. So if it never was sent to First National, of course it would never have been stamped by the bank.