David Von Pein

You could be right. I really have no idea. I know absolutely nothing about a certain Mr. James Robenalt. Never heard of him prior to September 9, 2023, when his Vanity Fair piece came out. And I certainly have been critical of Mr. Landis' new and incredible story. I simply don't believe he found a "whole bullet". I think he probably found a "fragment" (just as he said to the press way back in 1983), and then that "fragment" was embellished by Landis (for whatever unknown reason) into becoming whole bullet CE399. But as far as Jim Robenalt is concerned --- as of right now, I'll choose to believe him when he said on NBC-TV: "The book was done when I read it. He [Paul Landis] had completed the book." This EF thread reminds me of the rumors that were circulating in July of 2007 when several CTers had the very silly idea that Vince Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" had been ghostwritten by multiple different authors: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/ghostwriting.html

But I can't find any reference to that phrasing ("process his memories") on the Amazon page for Landis' book, which is where Mr. Groubert says he saw it. It's just not there. So I have no idea what Groubert is talking about there (as that phrase relates to the "Amazon pre-order page" anyway.) Edit --- I just checked the Canada and U.K. Amazon sites too. It's not on those pages either. Maybe Groubert is mixing up his source for the "process his memories" quote. It's definitely not on the Amazon page(s), but evidently is (per Wiki) in the NYT article written by Peter Baker. [EDIT -- I later confirmed that the quote is, indeed, in the Baker article.]

I certainly wouldn't go that far, Ben. In the NBC interview below, Robenalt specifically said this: "Well, first of all, the book was done when I read it. He [Paul Landis] had completed the book." This would imply, of course, that Mr. Robenalt didn't write a thing within the covers of Landis' book. Or do you, Benjamin, think that Robenalt was just being clever, tricky, evasive, and untruthful there? (The quote I mentioned comes up at the 18:30 mark in the NBC News video below. And Robenalt also says he acquired his pre-release copy of Landis' book from his [Robenalt's] publisher, which is the same publishing company that is putting out Landis' book--Chicago Review Press.)

I just noticed today that James Robenalt has a Wikipedia page, and on that Wiki page we find this (FWIW): "Robenhalt [sic] helped former Secret Service agent Paul Landis "process his memories" of the JFK Assassination, enabling Landis to write his memoir The Final Witness (2023)." The source used for the above quote is Peter Baker's recent [September 2023] New York Times article, which can't be accessed unless you pay for it (which is typical for NYT online material).* But the term "process his memories" is quite interesting, isn't it? * EDIT --- You can get around the paywall by accessing the Wayback Machine version of the article, here.

Mr. Landis is now, in 2023, clearly not a person who believes in the Single-Bullet Theory. And as such, I can't help but wonder why the blurb pictured below still occupies space on Landis' book page at Amazon.com? Landis has stated in some of his interviews this month that he thinks Lee Oswald WAS, indeed, the sole assassin in Dallas. But, as all of us here at The Education Forum know, if the SBT goes down the tubes, then it's almost impossible (barring some kind of miracle) for there to have been only one shooter in Dealey Plaza. Which means that Mr. Landis is simply not very well-informed when it comes to certain things relating to the assassination (e.g., the timing of the gunshots and analysis of the Zapruder Film). Or.... Perhaps Mr. Landis has another "bombshell" waiting for us when his book is released on October 10th, 2023, and perhaps he's going to tell us how (in his opinion) Lee Harvey Oswald was able to assassinate JFK all by himself but WITHOUT the Single-Bullet Theory being a part of the equation. Because without some sort of explanation to logically and reasonably explain to his readers how the Lone Assassin scenario is still valid (even without the SBT), then this blurb below doesn't make much sense at all....

A Landis Summary..... As of the time I'm writing this post on September 26, 2023, I think there are five versions of Paul Landis' "bullet" story, with versions 2 and 3 being virtually identical. I'll outline those versions and variations below: Version #1: November 1963. In this earliest version, via two separate Secret Service reports (one of which is extremely long and detailed), Landis doesn't say a word about seeing or finding any type of "bullet" or "bullet fragment": PAUL LANDIS' REPORTS (11/27/63 & 11/30/63) Version #2: November 1983. In this version, which appeared in at least two Ohio newspapers, Landis tells Associated Press writer Tim Curran that "there was a bullet fragment on the top of the back seat" which Landis said he "picked up and gave to somebody": THE COSHOCTON (OHIO) TRIBUNE (NOV. 20, 1983) GREENFIELD (OHIO) DAILY TIMES (NOV. 22, 1983) Version #3: November 1988. This version is nearly identical to Version 2, with the only difference being that Mr. Landis, in 1988, doesn't specifically say he found the fragment "on top" of the back seat. In his 1988 interview, he merely says he found a fragment "on the seat". But another key difference in this 1988 article is the fact that the reporter/writer has placed quotation marks around the key words being spoken by Mr. Landis, indicating that these words (shown below) are not just a mere paraphrasing on the part of the author of the article, but instead represent a direct and verbatim quote coming from the mouth of Paul E. Landis Jr.: "I distinctly remember there was a bullet fragment on the seat which I picked up and handed to somebody." THE COLUMBUS (OHIO) DISPATCH (NOV. 20, 1988) Version #4: 2010 (in the book "The Kennedy Detail"). In this version, like the 1983 and 1988 newspaper accounts, Landis says he saw a bullet "fragment" in the back portion of JFK's limousine. But in this 2010 version, unlike the earlier articles from the 1980s, Mr. Landis doesn't say anything about giving the fragment to another person. Instead, he says he placed the fragment "on the seat". Here's the complete excerpt concerning Landis and the "bullet fragment" as it appears on Page 225 of the 2010 book "The Kennedy Detail" (with thanks going to Vincent Palamara for providing the screen capture linked below): "When Agent Paul Landis helped Mrs. Kennedy out of the car he saw a bullet fragment in the back where the top would be secured. He picked it up and put it on the seat, thinking that if the car were moved, it might be blown off." PAGE 225 OF "THE KENNEDY DETAIL" (2010) Version #5: Landis' current version, which first surfaced publicly in September 2023, which has Landis now saying he saw and picked up a whole bullet off of the top portion of the back seat of the Presidential limousine on 11/22/63, with Mr. Landis, unlike all previous statements he has ever made concerning the discovery of any type of "bullet" material, now claiming to have put that whole bullet in his pocket and then carrying it himself into Parkland Hospital where he then placed the whole bullet at the foot of the stretcher being occupied by John F. Kennedy in Trauma Room #1. INTERVIEW WITH PAUL LANDIS (SEPT. 12, 2023) ------------------------------- DVP's JFK Archives / Discussion About Paul Landis

"To answer the question about Prayer Man: I have been looking at this all day, and I can tell you this: I 100% have no idea who that person is. I can also tell you 100% that is not Lee Harvey Oswald. First, Lee was not out there. I know that to be true. Second, for anyone who thinks Prayer Man is Lee, the individual has a much larger frame than Lee." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; March 28, 2021 --------------------------------------- https://www.facebook.com/Wheelman1963 ----------------------------------------------

More Mark Lane Videos: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Incredible silliness coming from Mr. Larsen here. He seems to be implying that I, DVP, a long-time LNer who knows Oswald was a Lying Machine on 11/22/63, actually believe Oswald "ate lunch twice" on Nov. 22nd. When, in fact, it couldn't be more obvious that my belief really is that Oswald ate no lunch at all on 11/22 and that every single thing Oswald said about his "lunch" was a lie. But even CTers are dead regarding the chronology of the statements (i.e., lies) made by Oswald about his "lunch" after his arrest. Because even if Oswald couldn't keep his own alibi attempts straight in his head (which he couldn't), there's still no reason under the sun why he couldn't have been implying by his statements (lies) that he had STARTED to eat his lunch on the 1st floor, then he went to get a Coke on Floor #2, and then went back to Floor #1 to CONTINUE eating the lunch he had started minutes earlier.

Which, of course, is "evidence" that nobody has acquired. Not even Mr. Larsen.

The Navy Corpsman who wrote the memo that said "missle" [sic] was definitely mistaken. Even BOTH of the FBI agents think he was wrong/mistaken, and they've said so in various interviews over the years. "There was no large bullet of any kind there at Bethesda during this autopsy that was found." -- James W. Sibert; June 30, 2005 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / 2005 Interview With James Sibert http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / 1979 Interview With Francis O'Neill

Refresh my memory --- Who is Chief Mills?

I wasn't attempting to make any sense out of this "Dr. Young Bullet" mess/silliness in my first reply in this thread. I was merely answering this question you asked earlier: "Could you imagine anyone, even a child, looking at one of those [CE567 & CE569] and calling it a "deformed bullet"?" And, as Gerry and I have both said, the answer to THAT question SPECIFICALLY (and all by itself) is, in my opinion, Yes.

Well, we know that no "whole bullet" was ever at the autopsy either. Because if it had been, then that whole bullet would have most certainly been entered as evidence in the case by Dr. Humes, and it would have been given to FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill (along with the two fragments from JFK's head that were given to those two agents). But no whole bullet was given to Sibert & O'Neill. Therefore, Dr. Young must be wrong.

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID (IN JANUARY 2019): That whole second floor lunch room encounter has been decimated by, among others, Bart Kamp, Greg Parker, and Sean Murphy. It was manufactured and [Marrion] Baker never got his story together about it. Anyone who supports that today simply is either not aware of the new work, or is just denying the new facts. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: And it's my opinion that anyone who could possibly think that the second-floor lunchroom encounter never occurred at all is a person living deep within a fantasy world all their own. There are many reasons to disregard the conspiracy fantasists who constantly insist that the Baker/Oswald encounter never happened at all. (See link below.) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Lunchroom Encounter Excerpt.... "It seems as if a whole new breed of conspiracy theorist is among us. And members of this new breed, in addition to being part of the proverbial "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity, are now also members of the "It Never Happened At All" club too. I can remember not that long ago when CTers would argue in FAVOR of the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter happening just where all sensible people know it happened--in the second-floor lunchroom of the TSBD. With those CTers using that FACT as "proof" (they would say) of conspiracy, because they'd say that Oswald couldn't possibly have made it down to the second floor in time to see Officer Baker in the lunchroom. But now we get INHAA [It Never Happened At All] members (like Mr. DiEugenio) who can never use that other "He Couldn't Have Made It There In Time" argument ever again---because DiEugenio is convinced the encounter never happened at all. And the same with the "paper bag" argument. In past years, that brown paper bag (CE142) that Oswald was seen carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963, was propped up as a "proof of conspiracy" crown jewel by the conspiracy faithful, with the CTers insisting the bag itself was proof that Oswald never carried any rifle into the Depository on November 22 because the bag was way too short. But now, it's a new ballgame with the bag. And people like Jim DiEugenio can never again utilize the "Too Short" argument. Why? Because Jimmy assures the world that Oswald never had a bag at all on November 22. Go figure. Kind of funny, isn't it? I think so." -- DVP; July 2015

Given the wealth of evidence that exists concerning Oswald's March 1963 rifle purchase from Klein's, no sensible person could possibly believe that Rifle No. C2766 was anything BUT Lee Harvey Oswald's weapon. Like all sensible people evaluating the evidence in the JFK murder case, I make reasonable inferences based on that evidence. And the only "reasonable inference" that can be made regarding the large-ish package LHO took into the TSBD on 11/22 is that the package contained Oswald's rifle. So, Pat, does that mean you think Oswald told the TRUTH about the "curtain rods"? (Come now.) Another Pot/Kettle moment here. Sounds to me like you're talking to a CTer. Because almost all CTers do exactly what you just accused me of doing. They make Oswald the "patsy", not based on the actual evidence, but based on what the CTers WANT the evidence to be. All the REAL evidence is to be tossed aside (if you're a CTer).

Oh, for Pete sake, Pat! You're one of the most sensible and reasonable of all online CTers (without doubt). So how can you possibly pretend not to know all of the various things that "nail down" Oswald's guilt for an LNer like myself? There are many many things that (collectively) "nail down" Oswald's guilt. None of which will ever satisfy a CTer, of course. But that's of little consequence in the long run. Just start with these two items..... 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound John Connally. 2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker. Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in evidence but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Lee Oswald's Whereabouts At 12:30 PM On November 22

Why would you say "ate lunch AGAIN"? Via Lie #1, he could be implying to Fritz/Bookhout/Hosty that he had already started to eat some of his lunch while he was on the first floor, then he went up to the second floor to get a Coke, then he came back down to the first floor to CONTINUE eating the rest of his lunch. But it makes very little difference in exactly what ORDER Oswald told his lies. For they were still ALL LIES regarding anything he said about being on the first (or second) floor EATING LUNCH at around the time JFK was being shot. Because in reality, of course, Mr. Oswald was on the sixth floor aiming his Carcano rifle at John Kennedy's head at the exact moment when Mr. Kennedy was killed by gunfire. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / index / Lee Harvey Oswald

It's very likely merely an indication of the President's assassin not being able to come up with a very believable alibi for himself and he botched it when he had to tell it to Captain Fritz. ----------------------------------- Also....... "There is yet another reason why Oswald's statement that he was on the first floor eating lunch at the time of the shooting makes no sense at all. If he had been, once he heard the shots and the screaming and all the commotion outside, if he were innocent, what is the likelihood that he would have proceeded to go, as he claims, up to the second floor to get himself a Coke? How could any sensible person believe a story like that?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 958 of "Reclaiming History"

No, of course he didn't. That was just another one of the dozens of LIES that escaped the mouth of Lee Oswald after he was arrested. Similar to the lie that Oswald told to Fritz about how he (LHO) was on the FIRST FLOOR at the time of the assassination itself. Which is a lie that even many (most) CTers don't believe, because the "Prayer Man" CTers think Lee was OUTSIDE the building at 12:30, and hence he wasn't anywhere IN the building on the "first floor". But if you're a CTer who believes in the "Prayer Man" nonsense, it means that it was really Captain Fritz who lied, instead of Oswald telling his "first floor" falsehood. CTers, however, also have to paint FBI Agents Bookhout and Hosty as falsehood tellers as well, because they said this in their joint report on Page 613 of the Warren Report: "Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building."

Sandy Larsen's imagination is running wild....as usual. It's The World vs. The Patsy in a CTer's fanciful universe.

You've totally misrepresented the TIMING of the above information in Bookhout's solo report, Sandy! A reading of the whole Bookhout report clearly indicates that the paragraph quoted by Sandy Larsen above is unquestionably referring to a point in time AFTER the Baker/Oswald encounter in the lunchroom. And when did that second-floor encounter occur? It occurred, of course, AFTER the shooting had taken place. Therefore, Bookhout's report most certainly does not give Oswald an "alibi" for the exact time of the shooting itself. Why did you misrepresent the timing like that, Sandy?

Does it really matter? Absurd theories such as "Prayer Man Is Lee Oswald" practically debunk themselves, as discussed here.