David Von Pein

My, how witty. All those Colonel Sanders references, but nothing about Popcorn Chicken or Mashed Taters or DVP's Secret Blend of 11 Herbs and WC Lies? What the heck is the matter with you, Mark? Get on the ball. More fun with the Colonel.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkGaT7FJ4ZY

I'm not surprised, Ken. You can't even figure out who killed J.D. Tippit. (And it doesn't take Basil Rathbone to figure that one out.) If you ever get something right when it comes to the subject of the JFK assassination, I'll faint dead away from the shock. My favorite Kenny-ism is this wondrous hunk of brilliance from the keyboard of Mr. Drew.... "There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle." -- Kenneth Drew; June 1, 2015 Maybe you should add the above blurb to your signature, Ken. After all, based on your current choice of signatures, you obviously don't care how ridiculous you look.

I take it, then, from that brilliant comment you just graced us with, Bobby, that you CAN prove that all the evidence connected with the murders of President John F. Kennedy and Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit is fraudulent. Correct? I'm all ears. For some reason, you seem to think that my hind quarters are missing; but I have really good hearing. So let's hear that "proof" I've been waiting for forever. Any chance you'll be supplying any?

Jimmy, I know this is going to shock you greatly, but I'm going to still choose to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was in no way connected to or employed by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. And I still favor my previous explanation when it comes to the delay in opening Oswald's 201 file at the CIA -- "bureaucratic red tape and foot-dragging." Also, do you think that when a person is put on a "Watch List for mail interception" by the CIA, this action is somehow an indication that the person being placed on the Watch List works for the same agency? That seems like a rather odd leap of logic to me. It would seem to me that the fact Oswald was on a CIA "Watch List" would be a pretty good sign right there that the man being "watched" is NOT a person who is already employed by the CIA. Because if Oswald is with the CIA, then why would there be any need to put him on some kind of a "Watch List"? Or maybe it was merely a "fake" Watch List to throw people off. Is that it, Jimmy? And let me also add the following excerpts from Vince Bugliosi's book concerning the subject of Lee Oswald's 201 CIA file....

Ridiculous. Hoover wasn't "controlling" the evidence when the DPD collected it. You think everything got switched to "LHO Did It" evidence by Hoover, Tom? Do you really believe that? And do you think Hoover was "controlling" each of the witnesses who gave statements to the Dallas police or Sheriff's office saying it was Oswald they saw near the Tippit shooting? I get a big kick out of the idea that J. Edgar Hoover--of all people on the planet!--would have wanted to frame an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald for the two murders in Dallas in November 1963. In reality, of course, Hoover would have probably been about the LAST person in America who would have wanted to frame Oswald. And everybody here should know why that is so. Just think about it for a couple of minutes and maybe the light bulb will go on.

Yeah, so I've been told (thousands of times) by CTers. But, to date, I've yet to see a smidgen of something called PROOF to back up the non-stop allegations of evidence fakery that we keep hearing about from conspiracy theorists. For a change, let's see some PROOF that shows that ALL of the evidence that incriminates Mr. Oswald is fake evidence. Got any PROOF, David? Or should we just rely on CTer instinct and guesswork like we've been doing for the last 51 years? So, you'll have to pardon me for not hopping on board the "Everything Was Faked To Frame Oswald" gravy train. That train was doomed to derail before it ever left the station. Many conspiracy theorists will travel to the ends of the Earth to pretend that ALL of the evidence is phony. And it's no wonder that they do. Because if they DON'T, then their patsy is guilty of two murders. And it's really just that simple. And the Internet conspiracy theorists just don't like the idea of a guilty Lee Harvey Oswald at all.

I'd say the delay in opening Oswald's 201 file was merely bureaucratic red tape and foot-dragging. Nothing more. And certainly nothing sinister. It was opened, as I recall, in December 1960, about a year after Oswald left for Russia (which was in Oct. '59). But so what? Where do you want to go with the one-year delay, Jim? What is the delay supposed to mean anyway? And how does the one-year delay in opening the 201 file somehow indicate that the subject of that 201 file was working for U.S. Intelligence? Things in Government sometimes get delayed. Big deal. Is that really a surprise to you, Jim?

Yeah, right, Jim. In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics would present it", Vince would have had to touch base with every single CTer who has ever posted on the Internet (or who has ever written one of the hundreds of books on the case), because almost every CTer has at least a slightly different theory or approach to the evidence in the case. A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the CTers themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some conspiracy theorist out there who will be able to say (after reading "RH") -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a l-i-a-r! He didn't present THIS part of the case in the exact way *I* think it should have been presented, and therefore I get to call Vince a cheat and a l-i-a-r. It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as CTers want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he had written 10,000 pages instead of just 2,800. But I, myself, think Vince did just fine in debunking virtually all of the major conspiraciy theories connected with the JFK murder case. Many CTers, quite naturally, will vehemently disagree with me. Well, so be it.

Jon, What exactly do you mean when you say that Oswald was "served up to the FBI"? Oswald was never in "FBI custody". He was always in DPD custody. And one of the big problems CTers have is constructing a reasonable and sensible "Oswald Was Framed" theory since it would by necessity need to involve people from various law enforcement agencies -- the DPD, the FBI, the Sheriff's Department, and the Secret Service. All of those agencies had a hand in gathering and processing at least some of the evidence that incriminates Oswald (e.g., the front-seat bullet fragments were first touched by the SS; the rifles and Sniper's Nest evidence was first handled by the DPD; several Dallas Deputy Sheriffs were on the sixth floor and first discovered all of the TSBD evidence; and we all know the CTers love to blame Hoover for a lot of evidence switching and other assorted tomfoolery with documents, etc., so that puts the FBI in the middle of the alleged frame-up too, or even in the LEAD, even though the FBI didn't actually COLLECT a single bit of the evidence, they just tested it). And then you've got some witnesses (like Randle and Frazier) whom some CTers claim were also allegedly helping to frame Oswald by telling huge lies about the evidence, even to the point of just making up a paper bag out of whole cloth. (That's how far off the rails of reality many CTers have strayed.) So if Oswald was truly innocent, we'd have to believe that many individuals were trying their darndest to make it look like Oswald was guilty -- and guilty of TWO murders on November 22 too, not just one killing. The Tippit murder cannot be brushed aside as just an unrelated murder on that same day the President was killed (although some CTers seem to brush it aside anyway). Given the evidence against him, believing in Oswald's guilt is quite easy to do. In fact, it's impossible, IMO, to believe Oswald could have been innocent of TWO murders with the evidence that exists against him. And believing it's all been manufactured to make an innocent man look guilty is too much to stomach---because there's TOO MUCH evidence to manufacture and get away with such a scheme. But CTers, particularly on the Internet, seem to lean toward all the evidence being fake anyway, despite the implausible nature of such massive fakery being attempted and--even more unlikely--the evidence fakers being able to get away with every last bit of it. And then when we add in the implications of Oswald's own actions ON TOP of the large pile of evidence that all points toward LHO (guns, bullets, shells, the paper bag, and fingerprints), it becomes much much more difficult to envision a large-scale "Let's Frame Oswald" plot. For how on Earth did those same evidence planters/manipulators (or even a DIFFERENT group of plotters) manage to get a totally innocent Lee Harvey Oswald to do the unorthodox things he did on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22? If the EVIDENCE + OSWALD'S ACTIONS don't add up to a guilty Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63, I'd sure like to know why not.

Yes, Glenn, of course I cite Brennan. Should I just PRETEND he didn't positively identify Oswald as the assassin (albeit belatedly)? Like it or not, Howard Brennan's testimony is part of the record of this case. If you don't think he is credible, fine. But I see no really good reason for tossing Mr. Brennan under the White House press bus. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html

You're going to need WAY more than just J. Edgar in this frame-up, Tom. You're going to need Fritz and Curry and many others from the DPD. And you'll need the Secret Service too. Plus the Dallas Sheriff's office. As another LNer succinctly put it.... "[it was] either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Jimmy Orr, in your experience [as a USPS employee for more than 30 years], in general, how long does it take an air mail letter to go from Dallas, Texas, to Chicago, Illinois (provided the letter was mailed no later than 10:30 AM local Dallas time)? Thanks. JIMMY ORR SAID: David, Cancelled in Dallas by 10:30 AM and flown to Chicago that afternoon. Arrival for mail processing at a Chicago General Mail Facility during the early morning hours of the 13th and on the street for delivery to Klein's that same day. Makes perfect sense considering the volumes handled in 1963. More.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

I've done quite a bit of online promoting of the book via my websites. (Not that it's done much good.) But I have never fooled myself into thinking "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" was going to sell well at all. I was hoping it would, of course, but I never expected it to. And, btw, the publisher ("Strategic Media Books") is a joke. At least they were a joke as far as "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is concerned. Mel Ayton and I can tell multiple horror stories about our dealings with that particular publishing house. Related conversation..... GARRY PUFFER SAID: David is obviously just out to make a buck, like all those horrible conspiracy authors. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: You're nuts. I knew the book wouldn't sell very well at all. And it hasn't. I doubt it's sold 50 copies yet since its release in December 2014. Sales are pathetic, just as I knew they would be. I got involved in the BRD book project because Mel Ayton asked me to contribute some of my material to his manuscript. And I was honored to be asked to do so. I didn't do it to "make a buck". I haven't seen dollar #1 yet, btw [as of June 7, 2015]. And I'm wondering if I'll ever see even 50 cents. So you can take your "out to make a buck" garbage and do something unmentionable with it. 10-4? David Von Pein June 6-7, 2015 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-951.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But thanks for mentioning the book again, Jim. Every little bit of advertising helps. My "BRD" book page: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/04/beyond-reasonable-doubt.html

Not a single solitary bit of DiEugenio's Bugliosi-trashing effort above has anything whatsoever to do with Vince Bugliosi's JFK book "Reclaiming History". Jimbo is just looking for an excuse--any excuse--to bash Vincent T. Bugliosi. And Jim is willing to travel far outside the "JFK Assassination" perimeter to try and somehow smear Vince's 20-year effort regarding the JFK case. I guess the idea is: If Vince wasn't a saint all of his life, that must mean he was all wrong about all of the evidence in the JFK murder case. But as the late Mr. Bugliosi himself would no doubt quickly point out to Jim --- That's a non sequitur of Olympian proportions there. But the fact remains that Vince Bugliosi, in his huge tome "Reclaiming History", has proven Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt at least ten times over. The question of whether or not Oswald was involved in ANY type of conspiracy can never, of course, be answered with 100% certainty (and I've said that very thing myself in the past; and if you want my direct quotes, I'll be happy to dig them up). But I agree with Vince when he said.... "In the [John F.] Kennedy case, I believe the absence of a conspiracy can be proved to a virtual certainty." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 973 of "Reclaiming History"

No, not at all. Not even close. You surely aren't still arguing the worn-out "back and to the left" garbage, are you Jim? jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/head-shot.html Not at all. Not even close. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html Your bullet points for conspiracy are getting weaker by the minute. The "wrong rifle" crap is just another example of James DiEugenio not having the slightest idea (or desire) how to properly evaluate the JFK evidence. Jim knows perfectly well what the reasonable answer is for the "36-inch vs. 40-inch" rifle discrepancy, but he just refuses to look at this issue fairly and rationally. Here's the logical answer DiEugenio refuses to accept: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html FBI Agent Elmer Todd most certainly marked Bullet CE399. It's just that the pictures of the bullet don't show the markings very well at all. And even Frazier's and Cunningham's and Killion's initials are very hard to discern. But Commission Document No. 7 proves enough (to me) to indicate that Elmer Todd marked bullet CE399. But to the CTers like DiEugenio, these words written by Todd on November 22 (see the date in the lower left corner of Todd's FD-302 report) are just more lies---right, Jim?.... "At 8:50 p.m. [on 11/22/63], Mr. JAMES ROWLEY, Chief, United States Secret Service, gave to SA ELMER LEE TODD an envelope containing a bullet. This envelope and its contents were taken directly to the FBI Laboratory and delivered to SA ROBERT A. FRAZIER. The envelope was opened and initials of both SA TODD and FRAZIER were etched on the nose of the bullet for identification purposes." -- CD7 (page 288) Better start another "This Means Conspiracy" list, Jim. Because that last list of yours really sucks.

Jim, Nothing you have ever said knocks down the case against Lee Oswald murdering both JFK and Officer Tippit. Because in order for Oswald to be innocent of BOTH of those crimes, as you (incredibly) do believe, then we'd have to believe that literally ALL of the many pieces of evidence that incriminate Oswald are fake or fraudulent pieces of evidence. And that notion is, of course, just plain ridiculous. And now, Jim, you seem to think that after a relatively brief examination into the Manson case, you have discovered things that rip apart the whole "Helter Skelter" case that Vincent Bugliosi worked on for over a year between late 1969 and January of 1971. Your arrogance is staggering, James. And as far as the JFK case goes, as I said before (and it's probably even more accurate today, with Jim DiEugenio entertaining the idea of even more conspiracy theories in his head since I wrote this 1.5 years ago).... "I can add dozens of additional outrageous things to the list [below], but I'll stop at those twenty-two items for now. And yet despite [that] laundry list of silliness, James DiEugenio is still held in high esteem by many people when it comes to his evaluation of the evidence and his assessment of the facts concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Unbelievable." -- David Von Pein; January 4, 2013 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-81.html#The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes

So, Jim, do you think Charlie Manson ordered the Tate-LaBianca murders? Or was Manson just a "patsy"? I want to hear James DiEugenio utter these words.... Charles Manson was completely innocent. He didn't order anybody to be killed. In light of Susan Atkins CONFESSING to the murders, Jim has already made himself look really silly with this remark from last year.... "In my opinion, there is no way somebody like Susan Atkins should have ever spent the rest of her life in jail. It's very debatable whether she ever killed anybody. I don't think she did." -- Jim DiEugenio; March 6, 2014 I just want to see how far down Absurd Avenue Jim is willing to go in order to smear the late Mr. Bugliosi (and Vince's tireless work that he did on the Manson case) by telling the world he thinks Manson is snow-white innocent. Are you willing to go that far, Jim? Or have you done so already?

Given all of the evidence presented HERE, plus adding in just a small amount of common sense to go with it, can any reasonable person really come to a conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not own and possess Rifle #C2766 (CE139) in the year 1963? I'll answer that last question myself -- No, they cannot. Lots more Rifle Talk below..... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/mannlicher-carcano.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/lee-harvey-oswalds-rifle.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-852.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-93.html Excerpt from above article.... "In the final analysis of the Manson case, regardless of what the motive for the murders might have been, it is crystal clear by taking just a cursory look at the trial transcripts and the trial excerpts that can be found in the book "Helter Skelter", that Vincent Bugliosi did, in fact, prosecute the real killers of the seven victims in the Tate-LaBianca case. Another thing that has become crystal clear is that James DiEugenio has made a habit out of turning guilty murderers into innocent bystanders. He's attempted to perform that magical feat in the JFK case when he insists that a double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of killing President Kennedy and was also innocent of murdering Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit, and now Jim D. seems to want to do it again with respect to a vicious and savage killer by the name of Susan Denise Atkins. But, then too, given DiEugenio's track record of getting almost everything wrong when it comes to the John F. Kennedy murder case [such as all of these things], I guess I shouldn't be too surprised by any of the foolish things that come out of his mouth anymore." David Von Pein March 7, 2014

Yeah, Ken. It's either that or maybe I was having a bit of a giggle at the expense of crazy JFK conspiracy theories. Which of those two options is likely the correct one?

I can't possibly know the answer to that question for certain, Jon. No one can know. But I do have some thoughts on it.... 11:55 AM-12:05 PM (estimated) -- Oswald has the whole sixth floor to himself. This is just prior to Bonnie Ray Williams coming back up to the 6th Floor to eat his lunch. It's my belief that Lee Oswald, during this (approx.) 10-minute time period around noon or shortly after, probably went to the west end of the sixth floor (where he had his rifle hidden in the brown bag). Oswald unwraps the rifle at the west end of the sixth floor and assembles the rifle at the west end (hence, Arnold Rowland sees a white man with a rifle at the west end of the building at approx. this time, maybe a little later, 12:15 or so, but keep in mind the approximation of all times). It's quite possible, IMO, that Oswald initially was considering using the WEST-end window as his shooting window. But, for one reason or another, he decided that a window on the EAST end of the sixth floor would better serve his purposes. Perhaps he was mentally factoring in the angles and trajectories in his head, and possibly realized that an east-end perch would be a better one, especially since the Secret Service agents would all have their backs to him when he began firing, if he decided to wait until after the cars had turned the Elm/Houston corner....which, IMO, Oswald definitely had in his mind to do, due to the pre-arranged way the rifle-rest boxes were constructed (i.e., in a "Rifle Always Pointing West/Southwest" manner). It's also possible that, as Oswald mulled over potential shooting locations, he realized that a goodly number of boxes were already down on the east end of the 6th Floor, which would make constructing a makeshift "Nest" all the easier for him. More.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-timeline-part-1.html Wrong. The dent in one of the shell casings does NOT mean it MUST have been fired before 11/22. The HSCA (and many others who have fired Carcano rifles) have achieved a dented lip on a cartridge case AFTER firing a shot and then very quickly working the bolt. It's been proven. And it merely indicates Oswald's haste in trying to work the bolt. The shell just wasn't quite clear of the chamber yet, and Oswald's very fast working of the bolt dented the ejecting spent cartridge. Close. I think it was more like 8.36 seconds: Shot 1 -- Z160 (approx.). Shot 2 -- Z224. Shot 3 -- Z313. Total Time = 8.36 seconds.

Tell all that to Dr. Cyril Wecht, Mark. If I remember Dr. Wecht's comments about this topic correctly, he thinks all wounds should be referenced FROM THE TOP OF THE HEAD DOWNWARD, which, of course, means it would ALSO be a "movable" body part, because it still is, after all, being referenced in relation to the HEAD, which is movable. The mastoid measurement is perfectly fine. CTers just like to gripe about everything the autopsists did. If the measurement was taken from the mastoid when the body was in an anatomic posture (i.e., the "autopsy" position)--and why would Humes be doing such a measurement with the body of JFK in any other position?--then measuring from the mastoid process is a perfectly good place to measure from. Certainly AS GOOD as Dr. Wecht's preferred starting point of the top of the head.

The shirt doesn't tell anybody where the wound was. The autopsy photo and the "14 cm. below tip of right mastoid process" measurement from the autopsy report and the face sheet are the things that tell us where the wound was located on the body of John F. Kennedy. You think the SHIRT is BETTER information than the "14 cm. below the mastoid" measurement? Why would anyone other than Cliff Varnell think that? The Rydberg drawings are pretty much worthless. I never use them. I use CE903 instead. It's much more accurate. And no "Neck" entry required (or even WANTED) here....

As if Talbot and Bugliosi aren't "researchers". You're funny, Healy. But maybe this one will suit your needs. I know all CTers love this guy. Right, DGH?....