David Von Pein

I see. And YOU get to decide who the "proven liars" are, right Glenn?

You're funny, Glenn. You've got everything backwards (as usual). It's the conspiracy buffs who are always arguing that the various pieces of evidence are fake/phony/planted/manufactured/fraudulent/worthless. Therefore, it's THAT accusation that must be PROVED. And since it's an extraordinary and outrageous accusation (particularly when it involves nearly ALL of the evidence in BOTH murders--JFK's & Tippit's), then the accusation requires an extraordinary amount of proof to back it up. Thus far, there hasn't been a SLIVER of PROOF that has come forth from the arrogant CT Brigade to prove that ANY piece of evidence was faked---let alone the DOZENS of pieces of evidence the CT Brigade claims was faked. Try again, Glenn. I need another laugh before supper. And you seem to be making a habit out of impersonating Red Skelton.

Hilarious. Pompous Prudhomme The Great thinks he's such an expert on human anatomy that I should, indeed, toss ALL of the following under the bus... WC HSCA/FPP 3 autopsists Clark Panel Rockefeller Commission Somebody needs to widen Prudhomme's front door. I doubt his head can fit inside that door anymore.

Glenn, if you don't "take somebody's word" for SOMETHING somewhere along the line, how can you ever even begin to try and solve the case? Are you actually suggesting that conspiracy theorists NEVER "take anyone's word" for anything connected with the JFK murder? Example #1 --- Aren't CTers "taking the word" of Earlene Roberts when she said Lee Oswald stayed in his room on Beckley Avenue for "3 or 4 minutes" on 11/22/63? Example #2 --- Aren't CTers "taking the word" of both Helen Markham and T.F. Bowley when they said the murder of J.D. Tippit occurred at specific times on November 22nd?

Yes, we are. What else CAN we do with respect to CE567/569, or ANY other piece of evidence for that matter? We must always take somebody's "word" for everything. Since neither you nor I were there in the White House garage when the two front-seat bullet fragments were found by the Secret Service, then we are forced to either "take somebody's word" for the details surrounding the discovery of those fragments (and the ballistics tests that were performed on them by the FBI), or we must just throw up our hands and say (as you seem to be saying) -- I have no idea whether anybody is telling us the truth about these bullet fragments; therefore, I can't use those fragments at all when trying to solve JFK's murder. But, of course, ANY piece of evidence COULD conceivably be planted or switched. But why would I go down that "Planted" path when I also know that there is so much other C2766 rifle evidence found elsewhere---in the hospital and in the TSBD? And neither the FBI nor the Secret Service collected any of the Depository C2766 evidence. The DPD and Dallas Sheriff's officers found and collected all that TSBD evidence. So, should I pretend there was some kind of amazing "Let's Frame Oswald" like-mindedness occurring between the SS, FBI, and the Dallas local police on November 22? Why on Earth would anyone believe such craziness? There is just too much evidence--which all points to Oswald's gun--to conclude anything other than this: Rifle C2766 was the weapon that killed John F. Kennedy. I'm not like the CTers. I don't automatically think J. Edgar and his employees were trying to frame a man for murders he never committed. YMMV (and obviously does).

Glenn, That's a re-creation that was done for a movie. (Probably for Oliver Stone's fantasy film in 1991.) Another pretty good re-creation of the assassination was done in 1977 for the TV movie "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" (the one with Lorne Greene, Ben Gazzara, and John Pleshette [Pleshette playing Oswald])....

No, Glenn. It's part of that "common sense" stuff I'm always talking about. You know, it's that stuff ("common sense and deductive reasoning") that you said there is "NO room for" when trying to ascertain someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I can just hear Vince Bugliosi laughing aloud at this ludicrous statement.... "Guilt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There IS NO room for "plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning"." -- Glenn Nall; 6/26/15

You don't KNOW that the bullet would have absolutely HAD to have struck JFK's vertebrae. You're GUESSING. That's all. Nothing more. You know, of course, that many many doctors (pathologists) have endorsed the idea that one bullet DID transit through JFK's upper back and neck, including the three autopsy surgeons. But you don't care about all those doctors' opinions, do you? You think Bob Prudhomme, MD, is MUCH more qualified to tell the world about this matter. Right, Bob? Tell me, Bob, what year did you graduate medical school? And why should I toss the entire WC and HSCA and Clark Panel and Rockefeller Commission and the autopsy doctors under the bus because some self-appointed "expert of the human vertebrae" has posted endless amounts of his anti-SBT opinions at various Internet forums? In short, you need to dig up John F. Kennedy's body in order to have a chance at proving your anti-SBT theory. Plus, when we factor in the absurd "Two Bullets Entered & Never Exited & Both Bullets Disappeared" alternative, it then becomes quite clear that the idea of a NON-transiting missile entering JFK's body is an idea not even worth considering---and that's because the CTers need TWO of those non-transiting bullets to make their theory work. And what rational person could possibly even begin to accept such a remote possibility?

David J., Not taking into account WHO was firing the rifle, the FACT remains that Carcano rifle # C2766 WAS fired at President Kennedy on 11/22/63. That fact is proven by the existence of CE567 and CE569 in the front seat of JFK's car. You can try and dodge those C2766 bullet fragments by pretending those fragments really WEREN'T fired from the C2766 rifle at all (despite the numerous firearms identification experts who said they were) or that those two fragments were planted into the official record in this case by some person or persons who wanted to frame Lee Oswald for the President's murder. But those two fragments are forever going to be part of the evidence in this case just the same---whether you like it or not. And if you DON'T think those fragments were planted into the official record, then it's impossible for Rifle C2766 to NOT have been fired at Kennedy's car on November 22nd. Now, David, can you PROVE that CE567 and 569 are fraudulent pieces of evidence?

I've never thought of the "Dealey Plaza EarthCam" as being either creepy or tacky. (But to each his own, I guess.) I've always thought of it as more of an "Eye on History", as the 24/7 camera is able to take all of us instantly to the location where an important historic event took place. It's fascinating, IMO. Sometimes I'll go to the Dealey Cam website and just watch for a little while, and count the number of people who dodge traffic in order to stand in the middle of the street on Robert Groden's "X". (Now THAT is something that qualifies as "tacky", Glenn---that "X" in the middle of Elm Street. I think it's rather offensive. But, YMMV.) Here's the view through the "Dealey Cam" on the 50th anniversary (Nov. 22, 2013).....

Oswald took his gun to the sixth floor....fired three shots at JFK on the street below....hitting the President twice....and killing him. ~~Mark VII~~ P.S., Can any conspiracy theorist answer this for me?..... If firing those shots at JFK from the sixth floor (while using the Carcano rifle) was so utterly "impossible" (as many conspiracy theorists seem to think it truly was)....and if a large part of the assassination "plot" was to frame Lee Harvey Oswald....then why were the architects of the "frame-up plot" so reckless? Did they think (on 11/21/63) they could make people believe Oswald could really do the impossible? In reality, of course, the shots from Oswald's sniper's perch were not difficult shots at all. All of the shots were under 90 yards. And even if LHO didn't use the scope, so what? He was trained to use a rifle in the military. And he compiled some pretty decent shooting statistics (while firing at targets a lot farther away than 88 yards). And he certainly didn't have the benefit of a four-power telescope to aid him when he attained the ranking of Sharpshooter in the Marines in 1956. So why would shooting at a target that was barely in motion at all (JFK's head), from a distance of under 90 yards, be such an arduous chore for a former Marine like Oswald? In short, the notion that Oswald's shooting performance in Dallas on November 22, 1963, was more difficult than building the Pyramids is yet another conspiracy myth that was disproven decades ago. And yet the myth persists.

You think Mother Teresa was in Dealey Plaza toting a rifle on the Knoll, do you Clive? That's an intriguing theory.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: J. Raymond Carroll is one of the very few conspiracy theorists on the planet who thinks Lee Oswald was totally innocent of everything regarding JFK's death---that is: Lee didn't even have any knowledge at all of the plot to kill the President. Lee was as innocent as Mother Teresa, per J. Raymond. That's how far afield from reality Mr. Carroll has strayed. And I see that Raymond has been gullible enough to fall for the worn-out "Oswald Was Doorway Man" schtick too. Oh, my. Ray is in trouble. I wonder if Ray can explain to us why Oswald HIMSELF lied about his location at the time of the assassination? Or does Raymond think that being on the front steps of the Book Depository is the same thing as being "inside" the building? RAYMOND CARROLL SAID: Lee Oswald was "out with Bill Shelley in front," just as he told Fritz. The front steps are actually "in the building," as you can see for yourself if you go there. The proof is in the Darnell film, discovered by Sean Murphy, and you can see it for yourself in this thread on the Education Forum. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Nobody who was standing on the TSBD steps would ever say they were "in the building". That's nuts. The steps are OUTSIDE the front door, for Pete sake [see photo below]. And it goes to show how desperate CTers like Raymond Carroll truly are to exonerate a double-murderer. RAYMOND CARROLL SAID: He never said he was "inside," he said he was "in the building." Since the steps he was standing on are within the building's structure, he was quite correct in stating he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" yet still "in the building." Actually, we cannot hear the question in the video, and the question may have been "were you in the building TODAY?" Anyway, we don't have to parse what he said. The Darnell film PROVES he was on the front steps. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: The Darnell Film proves no such thing. Your "Prayer Man" could be almost anybody. But you now like the idea that "PM" was Oswald---so, it's Oswald. And we most certainly CAN hear the reporter's question to Oswald. The reporter clearly says: "Were you in the building at the time?" Oswald's answer: "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir." And what do you think Oswald thought the reporter meant by "AT THE TIME"? Considering the previous question had been: "Did you shoot the President?", I don't think there's much doubt. See the video below. It is the highest quality version of Oswald's "patsy" statement you will ever see or hear, because it was culled from the excellent 2009 documentary "JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America": Again, only a person hell-bent on finding Oswald innocent for some odd reason could possibly think these steps are located "in the building".... David Von Pein July 2014

Think again..... "I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There's also this from Vince.... "The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was, indeed, dealt with in London by Judge Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at the time, ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of course, which we did not have in London) was admissible at the London trial." -- Letter from Vincent Bugliosi to David Von Pein; August 22, 2009

Kenneth, Let me try a little "Fact" test on you here. (I want to see if you're as predictable as I think you are.)..... Regarding the four spent bullet shells that were found near the Tippit murder scene, the following testimony exists in the record at 3 H 466, in the testimony of FBI firearms expert Cortlandt Cunningham.... Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did. Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ And CE143 is the revolver that was in Oswald's hands when he was arrested (the S&W .38, Serial No. V510210). Now, Ken, when I therefore say that it's an established FACT that Oswald's revolver was the weapon that killed J.D. Tippit, do you disagree? And do you dispute the FACT, as established by Cunningham's testimony, that the Tippit shells came out of Oswald's own gun? This same kind of "fact test" can be done with many other pieces of evidence too, of course. E.G., the TSBD bullet shells, verification of Oswald's ownership of the C2766 rifle, the front-seat limo fragments, CE399, Oswald's palmprint on the rifle, the paper bag with LHO's prints on it, the verification of the authenticity of the Backyard Photos, the verification that Oswald was in Mexico City via multiple documents with Oswald's signature and/or picture on them, verification of the authenticity of the autopsy photos, etc. I'm just wondering how many "Facts" you're willing to ignore (or deem as "fake")?

Kenneth, Do you think you're fooling anybody with this incessant "You Have No Evidence Or Facts" act of yours? It's embarrassing for you. Maybe it's time to stop playing that game. Ya think?

Yeah, it is pretty good, isn't it? (And oh so accurate.)

Oswald killed two people on Nov. 22. Hence, his "double-guilt". Simple.

Kenneth Drew, After slogging through much of your inane "LHO NEVER SHOT ANYBODY" and "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE" crap on this forum, I am pretty much convinced that you wouldn't know a "FACT" regarding the JFK case if your life hung in the balance. And if you think I've ignored the "two different brands of bullets" controversy re: the Tippit murder, think again. I've covered it many times on my sites. The keywords to put into my search engine are: REMINGTON, WINCHESTER, and MIS-MATCH (with a hyphen). And you do know, don't you Ken, that the man whom you think never shot Tippit DID have BOTH of those brands of bullets (Remingtons and Winchesters) in his revolver when he was arrested? You're not IGNORING that crucial FACT, are you Ken? (No, not Ken.)

Well, yes, Pat. But I think most CTers consider the timing of Oswald's death to be "quite suspicious" even without factoring in the stuff you just talked about above. Wouldn't you agree?

Glenn, I was just trying to help you overcome your admitted ignorance when it comes to many areas of the JFK and Tippit cases. If you want to use the links, fine. If not, just wallow in your ignorance. I don't care. I was just trying to be helpful. And you will find a lot of "proof" of Oswald's double-guilt on my pages, as well as hundreds (if not thousands) of primary sources to back up my claims.

Okay, Glenn, since I now know that you apparently don't know any of the evidence in this case, perhaps you'd like a primer.... You can always start your journey by perusing some of my webpages. I've put about 11 years into building this JFK archive. It can't hold a candle to the primary source documents found at the fabulous "Mary Ferrell" and "History Matters" sites, but I have a lot of info here (and I utilize the Ferrell/HM sites continuously; i.e., I link to ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL whenever possible; so if you go to my pages, you'll be seeing a whole boatload of Ferrell and HM links..... http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com and http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com and http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com Re: Tippit specifically.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit

Now I'm wondering why the heck you're even posting on this forum? The people who post here are generally very knowledgeable about the evidence in the Kennedy and Tippit cases. And yet you weren't even aware of something so basic as the fact the three bullet shells (CE510) were linked to the C2766 rifle. That's pretty basic stuff, Glenn. And yet Mr. Nall has been scolding me for not knowing what the words EVIDENCE and PROOF mean? Good heavens! Give me strength!

Nice. Another silly taunt from Mr. Nall. Thanks so much. (However, given your latest reply regarding your seeming ignorance of the fact that the TSBD shells have been linked conclusively to the C2766 rifle, it makes me wonder if you know about any of the Tippit evidence either. Do you?)

Are you REALLY that ignorant of the evidence, Glenn? Check out the testimony of the FBI firearms guys---Frazier, Cunningham, and Killion (plus Nicol from Illinois). They all confirm the shells were fired in and ejected from Rifle C2766. How is it possible you didn't know that?