David Von Pein

TRACY RIDDLE ASKED: Do you think JFK was trying to end the Cold War and get out of Vietnam at the time of his death? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I think he was most certainly trying to end the Cold War. No doubt about that fact, IMO. (What President WOULDN'T want to put an end to that struggle?) As far as the Vietnam question goes, no one can KNOW for certain what JFK would have done in the future re: Vietnam had he not been killed in Dallas. But he is on record himself saying "I think we should stay" and that it would be "a great mistake" for the U.S. to pull completely out of Vietnam (at least as of the date he made those statements to Walter Cronkite on CBS-TV on September 2, 1963; see Part 2 of the JFK interview linked below). jfk-interview-cbs-tv-september-2-1963 So unless you want to believe the President was just telling a tall tale to the American public on national TV on that September day, then it's fairly clear that Kennedy was not planning to pull completely out of Vietnam as of late '63. However, in his press conference on October 31, 1963, JFK did talk about the U.S. Government's plans to withdraw 1,000 men from southeast Asia by the end of 1963. (Go to about the 6:00 mark in the video below to hear JFK say it himself.) jfk-press-conference-october-31-1963 But regardless of any decision and plans President Kennedy had concerning the troops in Vietnam, it's always been my opinion that the "Vietnam" question as it allegedly relates to JFK's assassination has always been nothing more than a red herring brought up by conspiracy hobbyists in order to attempt to cast doubt over the motive behind JFK's murder. It was Lee Harvey Oswald who killed JFK. Nobody else did it or was involved, IMO. And I don't really think Oswald's motive for shooting Kennedy had anything whatsoever to do with the Vietnam situation. It had much more to do with Oswald's status as a "pro-Castro sympathizer", which he most certainly was, and is a status he freely exhibited via his August 1963 radio interviews in New Orleans. DVP Jan. 16, 2015 [Amazon.com] http://www.amazon.com/R3MIQ55WOAFWV6

You meant to say "back" here, instead of "bank", didn't you Lance? Yes, right. Thanks. Now that I have a contact, I'll correct that. Repeating my 10:43 AM edit from my earlier post: (I am, of course, absolutely positive you meant "back", since the word "bank" in that sentence makes no sense at all. So I changed it to "back" when I quoted you for my website page. But I also want to get "official verification" from you that you meant to say "back" [which Lance has provided], so that the change I made on my site will be official, above-board, and non-"imaginary", so that Jim Hargrove won't jump down my throat again.)

You meant to say "back" here, instead of "bank", didn't you Lance? (I am, of course, absolutely positive you meant "back", since the word "bank" in that sentence makes no sense at all. So I changed it to "back" when I quoted you for my website page. But I also want to get "official verification" from you that you meant to say "back", so that the change I made on my site will be official, above-board, and non-"imaginary", so that Jim Hargrove won't jump down my throat again.)

It's a mystery to me as to why you still insist that I have archived "imaginary" material at my website (blog). I guess it won't matter how many times I point out that you're dead wrong about that, you'll still keep using that silly word "imaginary", won't you Jim? But there's nothing "imaginary" about it. I simply choose to archive the portions of Internet forum discussions that I am involved in at my website. If that's unacceptable to you, Jim Hargrove, that's just tough. It's my site and I'll archive the material the way I want to do it. If anyone wants to see the entire lengthy discussions that I'm involved in (including every last imaginary theory espoused by the CTers), I provide a link for that very purpose (unless the moderators decide to delete the whole thread, which has happened twice at this forum in the last few days re: the PMO topics; but if the original link survives, I've linked to it, even if I have to use the Wayback Machine at Archive.org to retrieve the threads, which many times I have used). DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Let's review.... >> Oswald's writing is on the Hidell money order (per multiple handwriting analysts---all of whom were total boobs or incompetents or liars, per people like DiEugenio). >> Klein's stamp is on the back of the M.O. >> A File Locator Number is on the M.O. (which is ONLY put there AFTER the M.O. has gone to the FRB). >> The M.O. is found just where it should be found (per CD75) on 11/23/63---the Federal Records Center in Alexandria/Washington. >> The "bleed thru" issue is now a total NON-issue, as proven by Tim Brennan (via his pointing out the "No Bleed-Thru" status that exists in the M.O. as seen in Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.) But all of the above is FAKE/FRAUDULENT, per many CTers. You're fighting a losing battle, CTers. The money order was handled by Lee Harvey Oswald, Klein's Sporting Goods, and the Federal Reserve Bank. Maybe it's time for conspiracy theorists to accept that fact. [...] ALBERT DOYLE SAID: Do you understand that the Money Order could be processed, or partly processed, and still be 'handled' through the system in order to frame Oswald? In other words, it could have a legitimate File Locator stamp and still be planted on Oswald in order to frame him. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I love that constant moving of the goalposts by CTers. Since it couldn't be more obvious that the Hidell money order now has a proper path to legitimacy (and conspiracy theorists like Albert Doyle know it), we're now treated to more sheer crackpot speculation about how the LEGITIMATE money order (with Oswald's writing on it that was bought and handled by Oswald HIMSELF) was being used to frame Oswald anyway. The CTer mind is a spinning whirlwind of ever-expanding and forever changing concocted claptrap. IOW --- Whatever it takes to pretend Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy on 11/22/63, an Internet CTer is ready and eager to do it -- even if the number of goalposts that must be moved reaches triple digits. [...] A "Money Order Timeline" summary [yet again].... Please note that there is solid evidence to support every step of the Hidell money order's journey --- from the post office in Dallas all the way to the document's final resting place at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia (just outside Washington, D.C.).... 1.) The Dallas "G.P.O." Post Office handled the CE788 "Hidell" money order --- via the two stamps applied to the M.O. at the post office (i.e., the "Dallas, Tex.; G.P.O.; Mar. 12, 1963" stamp and the "$21.45" stamp that appear on the money order). 2.) The purchaser, Lee Harvey Oswald, handled the money order --- via the fact that Oswald's handwriting is on the document. 3.) Klein's Sporting Goods Company handled the money order --- via the Klein's "Pay To The Order Of The First National Bank Of Chicago" stamp on the back of the M.O. 4.) The First National Bank of Chicago handled the money order in question --- via the FBI interview with First National Bank Vice President Robert Wilmouth on November 23, 1963 [see CD75]. In that interview, Wilmouth verified that his bank received a $13,827.98 deposit from Klein's on 3/15/63, which contained a U.S. Postal Money Order in the amount of 21 dollars and 45 cents. Wilmouth also verified that the subject money order was sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 16, 1963. 5.) The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago handled the Hidell money order --- via the presence on the document of the ten-digit "File Locator Number" in the upper left corner, which is a number that is stamped on a money order (or check) only after it has reached a Federal Reserve Bank for processing. 6.) And the CE788 money order was recovered on November 23, 1963, by employees of the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, which is precisely where approximately 75% of the U.S. Postal Money Orders were being sent for storage by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in March of 1963 [see CD75, Page 669]. Now, if ALL of the above things are fake, fraudulent, or just a bunch of lies, then I think we can all agree that miracles are, indeed, possible. [...] JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: ...I go back to my original argument: if everything about a transaction is dubious, from A to Z, it is illogical to assume that one last step in the process is genuine. And that is what DVP and Payette want you to believe. Which is why they avoid almost everything else. In fact they do not even want to bring it up. But from Oswald's time cards covering everything that morning... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I think it's quite possible that Oswald went to the post office and purchased his money order BEFORE he went to work on March 12th. But other possibilities certainly exist as well, as Gary Mack speculated about in this e-mail to me in 2011: "True, there's no evidence showing Oswald to have been anywhere but J-C-S that day, but do his time sheets list his working hours AND breaks - including lunch - NO. Of course not, they just show that he was paid to be at J-C-S for a full day.....and he was. As for Oswald's J-C-S times sheet, researcher Mary Ferrell, whom I had great respect for, wrote, "OSWALD'S time sheet for March 12 is evidence that he probably lied sometimes about his hours. On the day he ordered the rifle, he signed in from 8:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m., (Exhibit no. 1855, Vol. 23, p. 605)." She then wrote that the post office opened at 8am, after noting Harry Holmes' testimony that the envelope was mailed in the early morning. The simple fact that Marina and Marguerite both admitted back then and for years later — I've heard the story directly from both women — that he posed for pictures with the guns he ordered trumps everything else." -- Gary Mack; March 25, 2011 JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: ...to the fact that no one admits giving him the rifle... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: You expect way too much from the post office clerks eight months after one of them handed a package to a person who was—at the time in March of '63—just one of hundreds of ordinary people who picked up packages at that post office that same day. JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: ...and that the postal regs would not allow him to get the rifle... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Well, Jim, I guess you should really be scolding the bumbling patsy framers—yet again—for still another stupid error on their part. The alleged plotters were trying desperately (from the look of things that you claim are "bogus") to make it look as though Lee Harvey Oswald ordered and took possession of Rifle C2766 in March of 1963, and yet they rigged the evidence in such a way so that it would have been impossible (legally) for the patsy to have obtained the "Hidell"-ordered Mannlicher-Carcano through the postal system? Oh, those brilliant conspirators! JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: ...and every step in between--this evidentiary trail is bogus. Including THE FACT THAT IT'S THE WRONG RIFLE!! DAVID VON PEIN SAID: And no matter how many times I point Jimbo to the reasonable explanation which reconciles this "rifle length" discrepancy (linked again HERE), DiEugenio will still insist the discrepancy has never once been explained in a logical manner. Go figure. Jim, don't you think maybe it's time for conspiracy theorists like yourself to finally shed at least a couple of the conspiracy myths that were debunked and/or fully explained in non-conspiratorial ways years ago? Such as your silly "Wrong Rifle" canard. And the "Postal Zone 12" theory is very likely another myth that should be dumped at sea as well. Here's why. [...] JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: Armstrong is coming. Guns blazing. Jon [Tidd] is correct. And he is also right in asking why on earth did the HSCA or the ARRB never investigate this? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Why on Earth would they have felt any NEED to investigate such a stupid claim regarding alleged fakery of the Hidell/Oswald money order? 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. And the ARRB's job certainly wasn't to "investigate" anything anyway. (Doug Horne's crazy notions notwithstanding.) Why in the world they took ANY testimony from any witnesses is still a mystery to me. There was no need for it whatsoever. But this fascination that many CTers continue to have with "Money Order Fakery" isn't surprising to me in the least. I pretty much could have predicted months ago that most of the hardcore Internet conspiracy theorists would never actually have the balls to come out and admit they were wrong about the money order being fraudulent. Because if they were to do that, it would force them to re-examine a few other things relating to Oswald's rifle purchase, such as the order form (CE773) that Oswald sent to Klein's to buy the rifle, plus Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which proves that Klein's did ship the C2766 rifle to Oswald's very own post office box in Dallas and also proves that Klein's did receive payment from a certain "A. Hidell" in the amount of $21.45 via a money order on March 13, 1963. And if U.S. Postal Money Order #2,202,130,462 is a real and legitimate document that was handled by Lee Harvey Oswald and was mailed to Klein's Sporting Goods by Lee Harvey Oswald, then where can the conspiracy theorists go with the idea that all of that other stuff relating to the same rifle purchase is somehow fake and fraudulent? In short, if that money order is the real deal, then Lee Harvey Oswald did order a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in 1963. And many conspiracists just don't like that idea at all. Right, Mr. DiEugenio? [...] There are just too many things about the Hidell PMO that are proving beyond all reasonable doubt, in my opinion, that it is a legitimate document that was handled by every person or company or bank that should have handled it if it had been properly handled and processed in 1963 -- from Oswald himself, to Klein's, to the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago, and then to the FRB storage facility in Alexandria/Washington. So I guess a good question to ask conspiracy theorists at this point might be this question: How many things that appear to be legitimate about the Hidell money order does it take for a stubborn CTer to admit that the money order is, in fact, very likely a legitimate document? I also have little doubt that even if a few First National Bank markings had been stamped on the Hidell PMO, there would still be a dedicated group of conspiracists who would continue to claim that the PMO is a fake, with those CTers merely adding any and all FNB endorsements to their list of things that were forged by the unnamed plotters who were allegedly framing Lee Harvey Oswald. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/#The-Wrong-Date-On-The-Deposit-Ticket

"The Hidell Money Order" (archived discussions, beginning October 2015, with links to all original threads at bottom of page, except for Education Forum threads No. 22610 and No. 22714, which have been deleted by the Edu. Forum moderator(s) for some unknown reason that I don't understand at all, but at least a few posts from those particular threads are archived at my site here).... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

2013 Replay..... JIM DiEUGENIO SAID: Ruth had visited her sister that fateful summer of 1963. Right before she picked up Marina. She stayed with her for several days. We are to somehow buy the idea that during that stay, and in all the years previous, and the years afterwards, she never ever asked where she went to work. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Well, my sister stayed with me at my house for several days in 2008 and again in 2010. And, as I recall, the topic of her work never once came up. Now, would you like to call me a [L-word] too, Jimbo? As a footnote to this whole discussion about Ruth Paine being a conspirator, let me add this basic fact, which is a fact that pretty much destroys the notion that anyone planted an innocent Oswald in the TSBD for the purpose of framing him for JFK's murder: Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed John F. Kennedy. I know that the above statement elicits gasps of horror from the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio, but, nonetheless, it's a statement that has all of the physical evidence supporting it and a bunch of circumstantial evidence to boot, not the least of which were Lee Oswald's own actions both before and after the assassination, including Oswald's blatant lie that he told (twice) to Buell Wesley Frazier about the "curtain rods". Naturally, DiEugenio doesn't think that Oswald's tale about wanting to go out to Irving to get "curtain rods" is the slightest bit suspicious at all. Or, as an alternative (which is almost certainly what Jimbo says he does believe), the "curtain rod" story of Oswald's is just one more lie that people framing Oswald utilized in order to set him up as the patsy. Which would mean, of course, that Wesley Frazier was part of the "Let's Frame Oswald" crew too. Or the evil cops FORCED Frazier to tell the lie about the curtain rods. Right, Jimmy? I know that the actual evidence in this murder case means absolutely NOTHING to a conspiracy hound like Mr. DiEugenio. To him, the evidence has ALL been faked and manufactured. In the real world, however, crimes are actually solved by using the EVIDENCE connected to the case. In DiEugenio's world, though, I'm expected to throw out and disregard every last piece of evidence that points to the guilt of Mr. Oswald. But that's something that no reasonable and sensible person can possibly do after seeing and evaluating the huge pile of stuff that all leads to the inevitable conclusion that Lee Oswald killed not just one man on 11/22/63--but TWO! (Did Ruth Paine have something to do with framing Oswald for J.D. Tippit's murder too, Jimbo?) jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/was-oswald-planted-in-tsbd.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html#Ruth-Paine-And-The-Depository jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html#LHO-And-The-Other-Job ruth-paine.blogspot.com dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruth-paine.html

Via "Reclaiming History" (Bugliosi)(Endnotes Section)....... "The specific color of the casket: In Case Closed, Gerald Posner writes that “technicians Paul O’Connor and Jerrol Custer” said “the president’s body was . . . in a simple gray metal coffin and . . . he was zippered inside a military body bag.” Posner does not cite any source for this, and Custer, as indicated, was never interviewed by the HSCA and did not tell Lifton this.* *Custer told an interviewer, circa 1998–2000, that he saw two caskets in the morgue. “One was a regular shipping casket, one was a ceremonial casket.” Conspiracy theorist William Law then asks, “But you did see a cheap shipping casket?” and Custer replied, “Yes.” (Law with Eaglesham, In the Eye of History, p.111) Posner goes on to say that O’Connor and Custer may have been confused about the simple gray casket and body bag because “James Jenkins, a laboratory technician, said that a plain gray coffin, containing the body of an Air Force Officer in a body bag, arrived at Bethesda before JFK’s coffin.” Posner doesn’t quote Jenkins as having told him this, and he doesn’t cite any other source or document. (Posner, Case Closed, p.301 footnote) In the HSCA’s interview of him in 1978, Jenkins said he was present in the morgue for several hours before the president’s body was brought in, and his duty during this time “included admitting a body into the morgue and the discharge of the body” (JFK Document 009526, HSCA interview of James Jenkins on June 27, 1978, p.1). In a 1977 HSCA interview, Jenkins had said that after the president’s autopsy, “an Air Force colonel and a child were autopsied that night” (HSCA Record 180-10105-10166, August 29, 1977, p.3). But, as Posner writes, the colonel’s body may have arrived at Bethesda before the president’s body did." -- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 615-616 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" (2007)

Yeah, I never would have figured that out -- even though I have been using that abbreviation for the last four months in these Edu. Forum threads, including three separate times in Post 224, which was before you ever wrote Post 225.

Nope. Never happened. Your imagination is just running rampant (as always).

Bull. Such a thing never happened. I never ever made any such statement or comment about planning to go to NARA. DiEugenio, as I said, is just inventing crap out of thin air. Please stop doing that, Jim. Okay?

15 years? You mean 50+ years, don't you? Anyway, the answer to your above question is: Probably because nobody bothered to look for that information. I sure never did. Did you? Did Armstrong? Did anybody? Also, when this topic re-surfaced in 2011, Gary Mack did do some research on it, but he couldn't at that time (in 2011) verify that the Main Post Office in Dallas opened earlier than 8:00. But he said he thought it likely DID open at 7:00. Here's what he said: "It would not surprise me to learn that the Main Post Office opened at 7am, but I don't know that to be the case. I'd have to check the 1963 directories, but I sort of remember doing that years ago. ... [Later...] ... None of the directories at the [sixth Floor] Museum show the hours at the main post office in Dallas in 1963. However, the USPS online search service shows the main distribution center today opens at 7am. But that building wasn’t there in 1963. The main post office, and presumably the distribution center, was at 400 N. Ervay in 1963 and it would likely have had the early business hours. The Ervay PO is the one that was just a few blocks from J-C-S [Jaggars] which was located at 522 Browder. According to Google maps, the two are only 8 blocks, or ½ mile, apart. Oswald could have walked or run, or probably ridden the bus, since Ervay was a main north-south street. For that matter, he could have bummed a ride from a co-worker." -- Gary Mack; March 2011

The money order ended up in the exact place it should have been -- at the Federal Records Center near Washington. The BOFD (Bank of First Deposit)--First National--sent it to the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago. And then the FRB sent it to the Records Center in Washington for storage, whereupon (after 2 years) it is discarded. See CD75 below, where Lester Gohr of the FRB confirms where 75% of the PMOs were being sent after being handled by the FRB in Chicago as of March of 1963. Do you think this fellow named Gohr was lying too, Scott?.... http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477#relPageId=673 I've talked about Oswald's "cool and calm" demeanor many times in the past. Here's one such conversation I had with Bill Kelly at this forum in September 2013.... WILLIAM KELLY SAID: How come Oswald, if he had just shot the president, deposited the rifle behind boxes and ran down four flights of steps to get to the Second Floor Lunchroom before Baker – 90 seconds after the last shot – how come he wasn’t out of breath from running and hyper from having just blown JFK’s brains out, but instead his demeanor was cool, calm and collected, just as he was 30 seconds later when he encountered Mrs. Reid. After the Walker shooting, Oswald was still hyper and excited hours later. Was Oswald the “cool” assassin, or wasn’t he the killer at all? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: But you don't really think Oswald shot at Walker either, do you Bill? Anyway, here again we are faced with an unanswerable type of question. Who can know these things for sure? Nobody can. But this type of question does not magically ERASE all of that evidence with Oswald's name on it that's on the sixth floor. That evidence is still going to exist no matter what Oswald's demeanor was like when he encountered Marrion Baker. And his cool demeanor is just as indicative of guilt, IMO. Because any truly INNOCENT person would probably NOT be cool and calm and TOTALLY SILENT when confronted at gunpoint by a police officer. An innocent person would probably have been rattled, startled, scared, and would have said SOMETHING to Baker, like: "What did I do? Why are you pointing a gun at ME?" But Oswald says nothing. You know why? Because he didn't NEED to say those things--because he, and he alone, was the only person on the planet at 12:31 PM who knew exactly what had just happened out on Elm Street in front of the Book Depository. Ergo, he expected the cops to be crawling all over the building in very short order. Which is one of the main reasons he scurried down four flights of stairs in a very short amount of time right after the shooting. Surely, even conspiracy theorists wouldn't expect ANY assassin to just loiter on the sixth floor playing dominoes for a half-hour after having just killed the President. Would they, William? Source Link: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/09/questions-and-answers.html

Of course. Why wouldn't I? Do you think Baker is lying through his teeth in this 1964 CBS interview too, Ray? .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZRdbkNPuck

Ray, You actually have some doubts about whether Baker saw the real Lee Oswald in the lunchroom? Even with Roy Truly's verification? Okaaaaaaaaaay.

I never said anything of the kind. I have never once EVER said I was planning to make a trip to the National Archives and Records Administration. DiEugenio is making up crap from whole cloth. In fact, in the discussion below, I even made fun of Jim for suggesting that I could have just walked right into NARA and demanded to see CE399. (Hilarious notion there.) .... JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: Davey Boy, everyone here is still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is. Something you never ever do. In other words...go to Travelocity, book a flight and a hotel room, and go ahead and do what you have been saying you would do for ages: Prove John Hunt is a xxxx [L-word]. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Yeah, right, Jimbo. Like the NARA is going to allow me to just waltz right in and examine CE399. Get real. Fact is: John Hunt DID NOT examine the bullet itself. He examined the same photos that have been posted in this very thread. And those photos (as good as they might be) are not definitive proof that Todd did not mark CE399. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-79.html

The late Doug Weldon was the "Windshield Expert" of the JFK case. In 2010, Doug actually (incredibly) said this to me in an Edu. Forum post.... “The third person was removed from the front seat [of JFK's limousine in Dallas on 11/22/63]. .... I believe this created the opportunity for a shot to be fired through the front of the windshield from the south knoll area to hit Kennedy in the front.” -- Doug Weldon; November 15, 2010 In other words, according to Weldon, the conspirators who were planning the assassination of President Kennedy actually WANTED to fire a shot through the windshield of the car, and they PLANNED IN ADVANCE for that to happen by eliminating the military aide who sometimes sat between the two Secret Service agents in the front seat of the limo during JFK's motorcades.* (LOL.) The above cockeyed theory that was embraced by Douglas Weldon just might be #1 on both the “hilarious” and “ridiculous” scales. * BTW, there was most certainly NOT always a third person sitting in the front seat of the car during all of Kennedy's motorcades. A good example of a fairly lengthy motorcade drive with President Kennedy riding in that very same car (SS-100-X), with the top down, in which no third person was riding in the front seat can be found in the videotape footage of JFK's trip to San Diego in June of 1963, which can be seen HERE. In addition -- The limousine wasn’t whisked off to Dearborn in late November. And the windshield wasn’t replaced. And the windshield never had a hole in it. Those are myths. Nothing more. Robert Frazier’s testimony and the photos of the windshield [CE350 and CE351] verify there was only a crack in the glass (striking it from the INSIDE, where the lead smear was located). Let me guess—Bob Frazier was lying. The “Dearborn” witnesses are similar to the “Second Casket Arrival” witnesses at Bethesda. Just as the Bethesda witnesses could not possibly have seen a “JFK casket” enter the morgue TWICE on 11/22/63 (so any “shipping casket” that was observed that night by anyone at Bethesda Naval Hospital obviously had to have contained a body OTHER than John F. Kennedy’s)….the Dearborn witnesses might have seen some vehicle resembling JFK’s limo, but it was certainly NOT SS-100-X. [Also see: "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 300-301 of the endnotes.] David Von Pein May 2014

I love it when Jimmy D. gets all worked up. What fun. And the fancy-filled "Everything's Fake" notions that emanate from JD's keyboard when he gets all red-faced are something to behold. There is not a single piece of "Oswald Incriminating" evidence in this case that Jim DiEugenio thinks is legitimate. Is there, Jimmy? (Just admit you think it was ALL planted. It'll save a lot of time.) (Remember just a short time back when Jimmy promised to never respond to any of my posts again? I wonder what happened to that pledge? I've often said Jim's memory is a short one.) jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html

Is it okay for me to use that same rule on CTers, Jimmy? Such as on John Armstrong when he claimed in his book that there was some kind of Wilmouth statement that proved PMOs required commercial bank stamps? And can I use it on all the CTers who claim there were gunmen firing from the Knoll at JFK on 11/22? And on the CTers who insist there was a hole in the limo's windshield? And on the CTers who insist there were a bunch of other bullets recovered from various places on 11/22? And on and on to "CTer make-believe plots" infinity? DiEugenio never met a pot (or a kettle) he didn't like.

Still want to totally ignore the File Locator Number, eh Jimmy? (Why of course you do.) And your position regarding Oswald taking possession of the S&W revolver continues to be one of the funniest things on the Internet. Regardless of WHERE Oswald picked up the gun (whether it was at the post office or at REA), we KNOW he DID pick it up someplace, because he had that gun ON HIM on Nov. 22 in the theater. That is a FACT, regardless of your whining and foot pounding and Black Op Radio giggling. But it's understandable why a rabid Internet CTer like Jimmy D. needs to pretend LHO didn't have the V510210 gun in his hands on 11/22. Because if Jimbo were to ever admit the truth, he would have no choice but to admit that Oswald shot and killed Patrolman J.D. Tippit. And we know Jimmy would never want to admit such a reality. Don't we, James?

Jon, When the entire lengthy laundry list of physical evidence is pointing irrevocably in one single direction (toward the guilt of Lee H. Oswald), isn't it about time to just admit that Oswald did it?

As I've said many times before, if you want to believe virtually everything was (or COULD HAVE BEEN) faked in the JFK case, then OF COURSE you're going to distrust ANY signs of genuineness and validity. It's what CTers do best---they look sideways at ALL the evidence. So even if the File Locator Number is 100% real and legitimate, Sandy Larsen's argument will STILL trump all other arguments for Sandy and other CTers --- because EVERYTHING in life I suppose COULD be fake. I wonder, therefore, what good ANY court trial is when it comes to arriving at the absolute truth? ~shrug~

"Even the age of the assassin Brennan saw fits perfectly with Marrion Baker's incorrect estimate of Lee Oswald's age -- about 30 -- which we know is wrong, but we also know that the man Baker described as being "approximately 30 years old" WAS Lee Harvey Oswald and not somebody who could have merely been confused with Oswald. And then there are the "weight" estimates provided by Brennan and Baker in their individual affidavits, which also (just like the "age" estimate) blend together perfectly: Baker said -- "165 pounds". Brennan said -- "165 to 175 pounds". And, just like Baker's estimate for Oswald's age, the weight estimate he provided in his affidavit is wrong, but we still know that Baker was estimating the weight of the real Lee Harvey Oswald when he wrote down "165 pounds" in his 11/22/63 affidavit. Ergo, we know that it is, indeed, possible for a person to look right at Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, and think he weighed as much as 165 pounds. Shouldn't this fact mean just a little something to CTers when they attempt to assess whether or not Howard Brennan could have possibly seen Oswald in the Sniper's Nest on that same day? Do CTers think that Baker and Brennan got together and swapped information so that their affidavits would merge perfectly with respect to both the "age" and "weight" estimates?" -- DVP; August 2015 More.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1000.html

I didn't say anything about removing your items. Thank you.