David Von Pein

Yeah, right, Jimmy. They were merely the ones doing almost all of the heavy lifting (i.e., the investigating and interrogation of witnesses). And yet they were "nothing"? That's a crock, Jimmy. Maybe you should go back and learn a little more, Jimbo. (Start with Page 334 of "Reclaiming History".)

And Jimmy says that even though he knows that several of the WC lawyers said exactly the OPPOSITE, i.e., lawyers such as David Belin and Burt Griffin and Joseph Ball have said that they WANTED to find evidence of a conspiracy, but they couldn't do it. But, naturally, Belin, Griffin, and Ball (et al) were just lying through their collective teeth when they made such statements---right, Jim? Was there even ONE lawyer on the entire staff of the WC or the HSCA who was honest, Jim? Anybody at all?

And so you wrote a 576-page book to tell people what they already knew ---- I.E., The Secret Service Blew It In Dallas On November 22, 1963. What's on the other 575 pages?

Reprise.... And isn't it funny that BOTH the WC and the HSCA had no problem at all coming to the conclusion that CE399 was THE EXACT BULLET that injured both JFK and John Connally. And that's a lot of LAWYERS making that claim. (But I guess all of those lawyers working for the WC and HSCA should take a back seat to those two seasoned courtroom professionals and inimitable barristers---James DiEugenio and Glenn Nall.)

...people with some basic common sense and an ability to evaluate the evidence properly? Yeah, I agree. It is.

So, Vince, you think the SS deliberately stripped JFK's security in Dallas so that the President could be murdered more easily? Is that it? And if that's not IT --- what is? I mean, it couldn't be more obvious that the Secret Service didn't do their job very well of protecting the President's life on 11/22/63. But do we really need a 576-page book by Vincent Palamara to tell us that?

Yeah, that must be why thousands of CTers just love to prop up and TRUST Clinton J. Hill when he said that the BACK of JFK's head was blown out. Right, Vince?

He didn't...... Regarding Vince Palamara's 2014 claim that Secret Service agent Floyd Boring was lying and was really present at Love Field in Dallas on 11/22/63 instead of being elsewhere at that time.... FRANK BADALSON SAID THIS.

No, the "lame and pathetic" one is the one who thinks everybody under the sun was a lying SOB. Given the manpower they had available to them in 1963 (which wasn't very much), the SS couldn't possibly check every single window in every building along a motorcade route in a big city like Dallas. Not possible---despite Fletcher Prouty's arguments to the contrary.

How would you know that, Vince?

Bull, Vince. A person who has to resort to "THEY ALL LIED" is a desperate person.

In addition, we can know by reading the official Secret Service assassination report that the U.S. Secret Service did not have a habit of checking every building and every window along motorcade routes in 1963. See pages 12 and 13 of the 12/18/63 Secret Service Report (Warren Commission Document No. 3). More lies??

You're only saying that because JFK was killed in Dallas. But the motorcade configuration and the security that was DIRECTLY SURROUNDING the President in Dealey Plaza was virtually identical when compared to other pre-Nov. 22 motorcades. And that's a fact. And you surely know it.

That, of course, never happened. I've never used an alias on the Internet. Perhaps somebody named Welton Hartford embedded a video from my YouTube channel. Is that what happened, Vince? You should get it straight before posting. Hartford does have a YouTube channel with a part of the San Diego video on it. But I am certainly not Welton Hartford -- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJDYARYYg4qTW_jXA1qzfjA/videos And all of the points I have made about the ridiculous "Secret Service Standdown" theory are still valid points which indicate (via many photos and films and SS documents, such as CD 821) that the security in the Dallas motorcade was exactly the same as it was in many pre-Nov. 22 motorcades. And Vince Palamara knows this is true. And so does anyone else who has bothered to look at the many photos and films of JFK's pre-Nov. 22 parades. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-service.html

Jimmy thinks we're in a courtroom here at Edu. Forum. Somebody should straighten Jim out on that mistake. And isn't it funny that BOTH the WC and the HSCA had no problem at all coming to the conclusion that CE399 was THE EXACT BULLET that injured both JFK and John Connally. And that's a lot of LAWYERS making that claim. Are you a lawyer, Jim? That's what I thought.

And there's the rub. You don't consider ANYTHING "evidence". Nor does Jon G. "Counselor for Oswald" Tidd. Nor does Kenneth "There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle" Drew. Nor does anyone else who thinks Oswald didn't fire a shot at President Kennedy. The physical evidence in this case all screams Oswald's guilt and everybody knows it. Hence, CTers in the ABO club are forced to pretend it's all fake. Because if it's not ALL FAKE, then Oswald is guilty. That is plainly--and simply--true. I suggest that the ball is in the defense (CTers') court when it comes to the accusation that every last piece of evidence connected with the JFK and Tippit murder cases is artificially crafted (i.e., fake) evidence. Conspiracists are making the extraordinary allegation that all the evidence is phony. Not LNers. So wouldn't it be kind of nice--just for a change of pace--to have just one conspiracy theorist actually provide some kind of PROOF to back up the idea that the evidence (just ONE piece of it!) against Lee Harvey Oswald is fraudulent? Or am I asking for the moon when I suggest that CTers actually prove something they say?

But we know for a fact that in many motorcades prior to 11/22/63, those very things you just mentioned also occurred -- i.e., nobody riding in the middle of the front seat of JFK's car, only "rear fender" motorcycle escorts, etc. Check out JFK's parade through the streets of San Diego on June 6, 1963, in the video below. Except for the presence of a press truck at the front of the motorcade, the configuration of the motorcade and the cycles and the lack of any military aide sitting in the middle of the front seat is exactly the same in San Diego as it was in Dallas on November 22nd. And yet I don't hear any CTers griping about any "security stripping" or "standdown" when it comes to this San Diego excursion.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/08/jfk-in-san-diego-june-6-1963.html

Regardless of how many times you say a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing. And the above quote by Kenneth Drew is really stupid. And it's provably wrong. But that fact won't keep Kenny Drew from telling me 101 more times that I have presented "no evidence" whatsoever of Oswald's (double) guilt. Ken will just gaze, unseeing and unfazed, at all of the many things in evidence that point directly to Lee Oswald.... http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com And after glancing at or just totally ignoring that list altogether, Ken will return to his keyboard to write tripe like this once more.... "There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle, there is no proof of what weapon was fired at him, there is not one piece of evidence linking any human to having fired at him, and there is not one piece of evidence that any shots have ever been fired from the sniper's nest. To sum it all up, your total is Zero." -- Kenneth Drew; June 1, 2015 That's the type of fantasy world Ken Drew wishes to live in. Sad, isn't it? --------------- Reality Break.... "During my examination of the evidence in preparation for the [1986 mock] trial, I found that virtually every piece of evidence against Oswald maddeningly had some small but explainable problem with it. However, two things became obvious to me: One was that Oswald, an emotionally unhinged political malcontent who hated America, was as guilty as sin. Based on the Himalayan mountain of uncontroverted evidence against Oswald, anyone who could believe he was innocent would probably also believe someone claiming to have heard a cow speaking the Spanish language. Secondly, there was not one speck of credible evidence that Oswald was framed or that he was a hit man for others in a conspiracy to murder the president. I meticulously examined every major conspiracy theory that had thus far been adduced, and although there were a few (a precious few) that at first blush seemed plausible, upon sober scrutiny they did complete violence to all conventional notions of logic and common sense. Though there are some notable exceptions, by and large the persistent ranting of the Warren Commission critics, some of whom were screaming the word conspiracy before the fatal bullet had even come to rest, came to remind me, as H. L. Mencken said in a different context, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. [...] If Oswald's guilt as the lone assassin is as obvious as I suggest, why, one may logically ask, the need for this extraordinarily long book ["Reclaiming History"]? Make no mistake about it. The Kennedy assassination, per se, is not a complicated case. I've personally prosecuted several murder cases where the evidence against the accused was far more circumstantial and less robust than the case against Oswald. .... The case against Oswald himself is overwhelming and relatively routine. Earl Warren himself said, "As district attorney of a large metropolitan county [Oakland, California] for years . . . I have no hesitation in saying that had it not been for the prominence of the victim, the case against Oswald could have been tried in two or three days with little likelihood of any but one result." [Earl Warren, "Memoirs", p.367] The allegation of conspiracy introduces an element of complexity into the case because it is inherently more difficult to prove a negative than a positive, and this complexity is compounded by the fact that Oswald was a deeply troubled person and a restless Marxist who traveled to Russia and Mexico. But the complexity is only superficial. [...] Throughout this book ["RH"], I will be referring to Oswald as Kennedy's killer, and conspiracy theorists, as well as legal purists, have maintained for years that the only proper way to refer to Oswald is "alleged assassin," on the rationale that under our system of justice in America, a suspect or defendant is presumed to be innocent until a jury finds him guilty in a court of law. But this invests a power and legitimacy to a verdict of guilty or not guilty that it does not have. A verdict of not guilty, for instance, cannot change the reality of whether or not the defendant committed the crime. That reality was established the moment of the crime, and nothing that happened thereafter can ever change it. If a courtroom verdict could, then if the defendant actually robbed a bank, but the three witnesses who saw him do it were unavailable to testify against him at the trial (e.g., the defendant's associates had either killed them or threatened them into not testifying), his subsequent not-guilty verdict means he didn't really rob the bank. In other words, the jury verdict succeeded in doing something that God can't even do—change the past. Likewise, if someone did not rob a bank, but in a case of mistaken identity he was found guilty, the new reality is that he actually did rob the bank. To those who have challenged my calling Oswald guilty throughout the years by saying he was never found to be guilty in a court of law, I've responded that "under that theory, Adolf Hitler never committed any crimes, Jack the Ripper never committed any crimes, and the only crime Al Capone ever committed was income tax evasion." " -- Vincent Bugliosi

Impossible. The very nature of a CT vs. LN JFK debate involves some level of "conflict". It can't be avoided. How COULD it be avoided, what with LNers believing in the exact opposite of what CTers believe? Ergo...there's conflict. What's amazing is that this would need to be pointed out to you at your age.

That's quite possible indeed, Ron. But do you think the extra four cops on motorcycles would have been able to prevent President Kennedy from getting hit in the head by a bullet fired by a rifleman who was hiding somewhere in Dealey Plaza?

Gee, there's a surprise. An LNer in conflict with CTers. Amazing, huh? in fact it IS disappointing and none at all necessary, David. contrary to what appears to be your own experience, there do exist adults who can vehemently disagree and still avoid conflict with mature, impersonal and reasonable discussion, debate. conflict is something different. what's amazing is that this would need to be pointed out to you at your age. I think maybe you'd better look up the word "conflict", because in the intense battle between "LNers" and "CTers", this word is virtually impossible to avoid.... CONFLICT (noun) --- A state of disagreement or disharmony between persons or ideas; a clash; a state of opposition between ideas, interests, etc; disagreement or controversy. CONFLICT (verb) --- To come into opposition; clash. thefreedictionary.com/conflict

That's hilarious, Greg. Thanks for creating it. I love it! How did you create that funny article to make it look like a newspaper article? Is there a "Fake Newspaper" program that's available to download? I'd like to try doing that myself sometime. I could invent a paper called "The Patsy Press", featuring such bombshell headlines as: Conspiracy Theorists Declare Oswald Innocent! Fuzzy Image That Is Essentially Worthless For Positive Identification Indicates That Oswald Was On Front Stoop Of Depository Saying A Prayer For Fidel When JFK Was Killed, CTers Say! and.... Oswald Innocent Of Slaying Police Officer! All Evidence Was Faked! One Dozen Eyewitnesses Coerced By Crooked Dallas Cops Into Positively IDing The Former Marine As Either Tippit's Killer Or As Gunman Fleeing Scene Of Crime, Conspiracists Assure Us!

Yes, I noticed the "four motorcycles on each side" request by Chief Curry too. However, once again, photographs of many pre-November 22 motorcades suggest that there were rarely (if ever) four cycles on each side of President Kennedy's car during motorcades. There were almost always TWO cycles flanking each side of the President's car, just exactly the same as in Dallas on 11/22/63, such as in the two pre-Nov. 22 examples seen below: And I also have several pictures of JFK in motorcades where there are zero motorcycles riding beside his limo, such as these examples: So if Chief Curry had received his request for EIGHT motorcycles flanking JFK's limousine (four on each side), it would most certainly have been a very unusual cycle configuration for a Kennedy motorcade, to be sure.

Gee, there's a surprise. An LNer in conflict with CTers. Amazing, huh?