David Von Pein

A discussion with a conspiracy theorist at Amazon.com..... PAT SPEER SAID: Gunshot residue was always present on the cheeks of men firing a rifle like the one owned by Oswald. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Dead wrong. And the above-quoted conspiracy myth was proven wrong by the FBI (and when firing Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 rifle too, not just a similar Carcano).... "There were negative reactions on both hands and on the cheek of the FBI agent who fired the assassination weapon. Thus, we had the other side of the coin: A negative reaction from the paraffin test did not prove that a person had not fired a rifle." -- Page 18 of "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury" by David Belin (c.1973) GARRY PUFFER SAID: We need something other than a quote from one of the WC attorneys. We don't trust Belin any more than you trust Mark Lane. Please link to the actual report and an independent verification of same. Thank you. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: From Page 165 of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History".... "To confirm that firing a rifle will not leave nitrate residue on the firer's cheeks, the FBI had one of their agents, Charles L. Killion, fire three rounds in Oswald's Carcano rifle. The result of the paraffin test conducted thereafter was negative for his cheeks and hands (3 H 494, WCT Cortlandt Cunningham; WR, pp.561–562)." ================== Now let's go to Mr. Bugliosi's two sources for the above claim.... Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test with the exhibit, with the rifle, 139, to determine whether that left a powder residue on the right cheek? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did. Mr. EISENBERG. Will you describe that test? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands. We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not fired a gun that day. Mr. EISENBERG. This was before firing the rifle? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek. Mr. EISENBERG. Also before firing the rifle? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts. Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire, no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber--in other words, so he wouldn't pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions. ================== And the Warren Commission Report, pages 561-562.... "In a third experiment, performed after the assassination, an agent of the FBI, using the C2766 rifle, fired three rounds of Western 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition in rapid succession. A paraffin test was then performed on both of his hands and his right cheek. Both of his hands and his cheek tested negative." ================== And here's the FBI letter sent by J. Edgar Hoover to the Warren Commission, dated April 2, 1964, concerning the paraffin tests mentioned above (Commission Document No. 787) ———> PAGE 1 --- PAGE 2 David Von Pein June 7-8, 2015 ==================================================== ====================================================

This is called "TOTAL DENIAL", folks. There simply is no other way to describe it. Kenneth HAS to know (or he SHOULD know) about all of the various SEPARATE pieces of evidence AND witness testimony that all indicate someone WAS firing rifle bullets at President Kennedy from the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building located at 411 Elm Street in Dallas, Texas, USA, on Friday, November 22nd, 1963 AD. Kenny HAS to know that. And yet we're treated to this brilliant and Oscar-winning quote from Louisiana's own Kenneth Drew.... "We all know that there is absolutely no evidence of any shot having been fired from the sniper's nest." After reading such claptrap, about the only thing a sensible person can do is just roll their eyes, smile a little half-smile, and then walk away in complete bewilderment by what they have just heard. That's what I'm going to do now ....

I agree with you there, Glenn. Dr. McClelland certainly doesn't sound like an old man in any of the interviews he's given during his "senior" years. He sounds very coherent and clear-thinking indeed. He gives an excellent interview every time. He pretty much went off the "logic" rails in 1988 for NOVA/PBS, however. What a bunch of malarkey this is.... THE ODD TALES OF THE PARKLAND DOCTORS ON PBS-TV IN 1988: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

In such a situation, I would lean toward the conspirators having at least a fairly decent amount of "sophistication". And if that had been the case, I certainly cannot envision (for even a moment) a group of plotters planning the assassination the way most Internet CTers think it was planned (and the way Oliver Stone thinks it was planned too) --- i.e., a plot that requires three gunmen to fire up to six shots at JFK while also attempting to frame a single patsy named Oswald in the TSBD. That type of pre-planning isn't something any sane plotter would have considered. It's suicide. Not to mention, just plain dumb (as well as wholly unnecessary overkill).

And yet you just gave a detailed account of the detective Brown situation. One you are totally ignorant of. Well, at least you're predictable. I was informed about it in greater detail by Gary Mack in his e-mails to me in the last two days. Haven't you been following the thread progression at all? I knew very little about the "Detective Brown" re-creation pictures until Gary e-mailed me all kinds of excellent information yesterday and today (which I have posted in this thread). And then I looked up a couple things myself, including the KDFW videos and the Fritz testimony that I posted earlier. That's how my "total ignorance" could be eradicated in just 48 hours. Does that do it for you, Ken? Or is further explanation required, utilizing charts and graphs and a blackboard?

Some additional background information and testimony concerning the "Detective Brown re-creation" photos..... This is from DPD Captain J. Will Fritz' 1964 WC testimony.... ------------------------- Mr. BALL. We offer 713, 712, and 714 as two pictures taken. Mr. FRITZ. These are the pictures I told about a while ago. Mr. BALL. They were taken by your crime lab? Mr. FRITZ. Our crime lab took these pictures when I went over there with Mr. Sorrels. [Fritz is referring to CE712 and CE713 only here. He's not talking about CE714.] Mr. BALL. Where were they taken? Mr. FRITZ. In the backyard of the Neely Street address. If you will note, you will see in this picture, you notice that top right there of this shed. Of course, this picture is taken up closer, but if you step back further you can see about where the height comes to on that shed right there. Not exactly in the same position. Mr. BALL. I offered these. (Commission Exhibits Nos. 712, 713, and 714 were admitted.) http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0262a.htm http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0262b.htm Mr. FRITZ. It shows the gate. Mr. BALL. Indicating the location of the picture taken--this set will indicate the pictures were all taken at the Neely Street backyard. Mr. DULLES. You recall the date of these pictures, in April? Mr. FRITZ. I believe they will be dated on the back of them. Mr. DULLES. April, so the trees would be about the same. Mr. BALL. When were the pictures taken by your crime lab? Mr. FRITZ. I am not sure but I believe the date will be on the back of the picture. November 29, 1963. Picture made by Officer Brown who works in the crime lab. -------------------------

In connection with what Gary Mack said in the e-mail above, here are some 1992 videos from the KDFW-TV archives regarding the backyard photos, including an interview with Dallas Detective Bobby Brown: PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 ----------------- Also see: JFK VIDEO: THE DALLAS TAPES Bobby Brown Re-Creation Photo

Here's another excellent interview with Dr. McClelland (from 2009). The interviewer is Brent Holland of Canada.... Also See: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/robert-mcclelland.html

E-Mail from Gary Mack...... Subject: B.G. "Bobby" Brown Date: 6/6/2015 11:31:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein ----------------- Ha-Ha, now Mitcham makes up a story that the BY photo of Oswald holding his rifle over his head was taken in Russia! Based on what or who? If he'd bothered to speak with the only two people on the planet who both saw and destroyed the picture, as I did decades ago, he'd know that the picture was definitely one of the BY photos we're all familiar with. Marguerite, especially, was very knowledgeable about the BY photos and wanted desperately to find some proof her son was innocent. But as she explained to me in the late 70s, the picture location was the same as the other BY poses. Unless, of course, Marguerite and Marina were part of the dastardly evil plotters' cabal. Here is Oswald's 201 file [and also see the photo at the bottom of this post] with a report mentioning Brown, Fritz and others taking the re-creation pictures at 214 Neely and there's a 1992 Now It Can Be Told show in which Brown appears on camera telling what he did and why. I've got a tape of it somewhere, but maybe you have it too. Brown is the person IN the picture re-creating 133-C, so obviously he and perhaps other DPD people knew about it in 1963. And it seems to me, in addition to a report on KDFW-TV here, there was a newspaper story about Brown and the photos, for they were a news item in the JFK movie days and the release of Dallas Police docs by the city. At the time, Brown was living in Oklahoma but he's since passed away. Gary

David J., The main point regarding the backyard photos, which you will forever ignore, is that Marina Oswald Porter has always and forever said that she took SOME PICTURES of Lee Oswald in the Neely backyard. What difference does it make HOW MANY she took? Or if she remembers exactly how many she took? The key is --- she remembers taking pictures in the Neely backyard of Lee wearing all black and holding guns. Why do you insist on calling this woman named Marina a bald-faced xxxx, David? Why? And Marguerite must have been a xxxx too, right David? Because Marguerite told the Warren Commission that she flushed one of the backyard pictures down the toilet in her hotel room on Nov. 23rd.... J. LEE RANKIN -- "Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?" MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture." And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture. She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet." -------------- Face it, fellows, those backyard pictures are real and genuine and they were taken in the Neely Street backyard in the spring of 1963, just exactly as Marina Oswald has always maintained. Conspiracy theorists should (once again) make at least a tiny effort to discard some of the perpetual myths that have surrounded the JFK case for five decades now. And the notion that the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald are fake photos (regardless of how many photos Marina took) is one of those myths.

Yes, that would be mighty helpful, Ron. Any chance that any CTer--some day or some year--will ever prove that somebody besides Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the 35th U.S. Chief Executive? Is it really asking too much to expect an answer to the above inquiry, Ron?

Date: 6/5/2015 (9:50:14 P.M. EDT) E-Mail From: David Von Pein To: Gary Mack ------------------- Thanks so much, Gary. Your vast knowledge about this case continues to be amazing and almost beyond belief. I love it so much that you feel comfortable writing to me all the time (and unsolicited too!) about everything under the sun which is "JFK"-related. I'm so pleased to be able to have many of the crazy conspiracy myths so thoroughly debunked via your wealth of knowledge regarding this case. And your messages to me also add a huge element of credibility and detailed info to my articles when I add them to my own website/blog (which as you probably know, I often do), such as your mail today regarding the backyard photos. Many thanks. Regards, David Von Pein jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-949.html#Gary-Mack

E-Mail from Gary Mack (re: the backyard photographs).... Date: 6/5/2015 3:57:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein ------------------- Hey Dave, Well, the CTs are all wound up again over the BY photos but I'm continually puzzled as to why they claim things don't make sense? For example, [David] Josephs misrepresents when the third pose was found by saying "NYE 1976." I guess that's code for New Year's Eve? Anyway, that third pose was known to exist in November 1963. Det. Bobby Brown was interviewed for local TV back in the early 90s and described how and why Fritz sent him out to duplicate the poses (plural) to look into Oswald's claim that CE134 (the blowup) was fake. So yes, DPD had at least three poses and it's fair to wonder what the heck happened to the missing negative. But the poses were evidence when Brown made his test studies. As for the copies, as we know from DPD reports and later interviews, Det. Studebaker made souvenir copies of them for many officers, including Rusty Livingstone and, apparently, Roscoe White. Of course, anyone could have acquired copies from other officers in later weeks and months and there's just no way to know now who did what and when. What the CTs never talk about is Marguerite and Marina both admitting to destroying a fourth pose in which Oswald held the rifle over his head. They did that the next day BEFORE Dallas Police found the other pictures. I knew Marguerite and I know Marina (although we haven't spoken in years) and not only did both women readily admit to having testified to the WC about destroying the photo, both were aware of the picture controversy and both said the destroyed picture was, in fact, just like the other three - taken in the Neely Street back yard. What this means is that IF the BY photos are fake (but they aren't), Oswald is the one who faked them! Phew! It's hard to keep all this straight. Gary

David Josephs, As I said before, I haven't the foggiest idea what the "Detective Brown" stuff is all about. But let me once again stress the importance of the following two facts. And these are two facts that a certain number of conspiracy theorists will apparently forever label as "fake" or "phony" or "lies", but these two quotes are still going to be there for CTers to ignore until the cows come home.... "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- HSCA Volume 6 and... "Jack Duffy asked Marina if she had taken the backyard photos of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did"." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (c.2007) And if you'd like to hear Marina herself say that she took the backyard photos, here she is doing so in this HSCA audio from September of 1978.... https://app.box.com/s/hf7yp5ctenxvgjttuq7jwtuuv57eagb7 In additional, during the same 1978 HSCA testimony, Marina Oswald made the following comments concerning Lee leaving their apartment in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 to go out to "target practice" with his rifle.... Mr. JAMES McDONALD -- "Did he ever take it out, outside the apartment, to practice with it, to do anything with it?" Mrs. MARINA OSWALD PORTER -- "Yes, he did." Mr. McDONALD -- "And what did he do?" Mrs. PORTER -- "He will, like before it gets very dark outside, he would leave apartment dressed with the dark raincoat, even though it was a hot summer night, pretty hot weather anyway, and he would be wearing this, and he would be hiding the rifle underneath his raincoat. He said he is going to target practice or something like that." Mr. McDONALD -- "This was one occasion you are talking about with the raincoat?" Mrs. PORTER -- "It is several occasions, maybe more than once." Mr. McDONALD -- "He did the same thing on several occasions, put the raincoat on...and the rifle under the raincoat?" Mrs. PORTER -- "Yes." Mr. McDONALD -- "And how long would he be gone?" Mrs. PORTER -- "A few hours." ------------- AUDIO VERSION OF ABOVE TESTIMONY -- https://app.box.com/s/wyh0qnvas7pkmkahcldp3omfjsxotmqq So the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that there is no evidence or testimony whatsoever to indicate that Lee Oswald ever practiced with his Carcano rifle in the months leading up to the assassination are just flat-out ignoring the above testimony by Marina Oswald, which can be found on Page 231 of HSCA Volume 2.

If you really believe the things you wrote in the two quotes shown above, Bob, I can only have pity for you. Because those two quotes are--let's face it--just plain rubbish. And what's with this "little guy" put-down of yours? Care to explain?

Linnie Mae Randle wasn't always saying the package was 24-27 inches long. On the day of the assassination, in fact, Linnie Mae told FBI agent James Bookhout that the length of Oswald's package was "approximately 3 feet".... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm And for David Wolper's "Four Days In November" film crew in 1964, she said the package was "approximately 2-and-a-half feet long".... Now, yes, it's true that both of those longer estimates supplied by Mrs. Randle are still wrong, because the package was, in reality, 38 inches long. But I don't expect every witness to nail things right on the money. Why would ANYBODY expect such pinpoint accuracy? The fact remains, however, that both Frazier and Randle observed Lee Oswald with a large-ish (long-ish) brown bag on the day of the assassination.....and, subsequently, a long-ish EMPTY brown bag (with LHO's prints on it) turned up in the same place where a gunman fired shots at JFK. Now, shouldn't those things make even the most stubborn "Anybody But Oswald" CTer stop and pause for a moment or two? And if not....why the heck not?

David J., I plead total ignorance on the "Detective Brown" matter. I haven't the slightest idea what it's all about.

No, of course Frazier wasn't lying. He truly thinks that the 38-inch bag he saw Oswald carrying was only about 24 to 27 inches in length. He was simply wrong about his estimate. He wasn't lying. He was just---wrong. Here's what I said about it six years ago, in October of 2009..... -----------------

I would maintain that conspiracy theorists do more denying of "circumstantial evidence" of Oswald's lone guilt than the LNers do of ignoring any circumstantial evidence of conspiracy. A good example, I think, of how conspiracists disregard circumstantial evidence that does not favor their beliefs in a conspiracy is when discussing Lee Harvey Oswald's actions and movements on both November 21 and 22, 1963. The provable things that Oswald did on each of those days have created a whole lot of "circumstantial evidence" of his LONE guilt in the assassination of JFK and the murder of Officer Tippit. Such as: LHO's unusual Thursday trip to Irving to supposedly pick up "curtain rods" (yeah, right). The "curtain rod" excuse has been proven to be nothing but a complete lie on Oswald's behalf. And everyone needs to ask themselves: WHY would he lie about something like that if it wasn't to hide some kind of criminal activity that other evidence proves he WAS involved in the following day? Plus: Oswald's movements right after the assassination, which show "flight" from the scene of the crime. And those movements are SOLO movements. Not a co-conspirator in sight. Oswald was hoofin' it ON HIS OWN after the assassination. Plus there's the murder of J.D. Tippit -- committed by ONE LONE GUNMAN on Tenth Street (unless we want to believe Acquilla Clemmons' account of the shooting instead of accepting the observations of the multiple other witnesses who all said that there was only ONE gunman involved). And then there's Oswald's incredibly "guilty-like" actions inside the movie theater, and the things he said to the police both inside the theater and in the police car on the way to City Hall, which are all things that reek of Oswald's guilty state of mind. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/they-say-it-just-takes-second-to-die.html But when I argue with conspiracy believers on the Internet about any of the above items of "circumstantial evidence", I get the sense that those CTers look upon those items as being things that somehow (and incredibly) lead more toward Oswald's complete innocence than they do in leading toward his guilt in the murders of either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit. Sure, there are some pieces of circumstantial evidence that, when isolated and never researched and examined any further, would make someone cry "Conspiracy!". But, as I say, when those things are removed from their "isolated" condition and placed back into the "sum total" of evidence in this case, then all thoughts of "conspiracy" vanish into a puff of S.M. Holland's smoke (even Holland's and other witnesses' "smoke" doesn't hold up under additional scrutiny, given the weight of all the other evidence that indicates there was no gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll). jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html Another example of CT "isolation" --- the several Dealey Plaza witnesses who said they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll area.... When ISOLATED, those witnesses seem to be providing pretty powerful evidence in favor of a conspiracy. But when putting their "Grassy Knoll" testimony up against all the other witness testimony (and when factoring in the very important and often overlooked "Multiple Directions" factor that I discuss in my article linked below), those "Grassy Knoll" witnesses don't seem nearly as solid or convincing.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html I think it's also kind of interesting that both Ron Ecker and Glenn Nall in this thread have emphasized only the words "circumstantial evidence" to promote their claims of conspiracy in the JFK case. No "physical evidence" at all. And that's because, of course, there is no PHYSICAL evidence that supports conspiracy in this case. None. Not a piece. Therefore, the only thing CTers can turn to is "circumstantial evidence". Now, I'm not saying all circumstantial evidence that tends to lead toward conspiracy should just be summarily dismissed and tossed in the trash. And as for me personally, I don't think I have dismissed such evidence in such a manner. I think I have debunked much of the "circumstantial evidence" of conspiracy by using sound methods of logic and common sense--plus by UN-isolating (if I may coin a phrase) that circumstantial evidence and placing it back into a framework of the TOTALITY of all evidence (like in the "Earwitnesses" example cited earlier). But I do also think it's rather remarkable that the ENTIRE alleged "case for conspiracy" does, indeed, boil down to ONLY circumstantial evidence. No physical evidence at all. And in a case of this size and magnitude (and multiplied by THREE murders, including the murders of Tippit and Oswald himself), to have not a speck of physical evidence to support a contention of conspiracy is, IMO, rather telling.

Lots and lots of CTers believe GHW Bush was involved in Kennedy's death. And I'd be willing to bet my next CIA Disinfo check (worth tens of thousands of dollars, btw) that there are several members of this very forum who believe that Bush was involved. But I could just as easily utilize Brian Schmidt's own words to get across my feelings about some other really dumb conspiracy theories.... I think John Armstrong's "Two Oswalds" theory is stupid. No serious researcher believes it. Why post it? or... I think the "Fake Backyard Photos" theory is stupid. No serious researcher believes it. Why post it? So, it just depends on what your point-of-view on these topics happens to be. One man's tommyrot is another man's Rosetta Stone to the truth about how JFK died.

~~ WHY WOULD A PLOTTER DO THIS? ~~ A CONSPIRACY THEORIST NAMED RALPH CINQUE SAID: New collage of George HW Bush; it's him. View it and weep. It can't not be him. This collage [shown below] really does serve as a litmus test: If you can't admit that that is George HW Bush on both sides of the collage, you are a xxxx; you are a Kennedy-killer; and you [are] a pawn of the fascist state and doing its bidding. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Yeah, right, Ralph. And we're supposed to believe that George H.W. Bush was involved in some way in JFK's murder (as you undoubtedly believe, or else you wouldn't have started this discussion in the first place), and then Bush just decided to hang around the entrance of the Book Depository for a while so that he could be photographed by the many cameramen who flooded the area immediately after the assassination -- an assassination that Bush himself was a part of. Brilliant guy, that Mr. Bush. This is similar in nature to the theory that has a sniper just hanging around the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository for five or ten minutes after the shooting in order to make sure he too had a good chance of being seen and/or photographed by the various witnesses on the street below. And this topic also brings to mind the preposterous and suicidal theory that a lot of conspiracists seem to place their complete faith in -- the theory that has a group of unnamed assassins and behind-the-scenes conspirators attempting to frame (in advance!) a man named Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of John F. Kennedy, even though those same assassins and conspirators allegedly shot the President from both the front and the rear. How anyone can even begin to believe in such a prearranged One Patsy / Multiple Gunmen assassination scenario is beyond me. (Let alone believing that such a plan actually succeeded in Dallas on 11/22/63.) When evaluating things like this, why is it that no conspiracy theorists ever bother to ask themselves this logical question: "WHY WOULD A PLOTTER DO THAT?" I wonder if Ralph Cinque ever even asked himself that question before rushing to his computer to post this message on an Internet newsgroup on July 3, 2013? I doubt that he did. Moreover, why would George HW Bush even be in Dealey Plaza at all on November 22, 1963? Since no conspiracy theorist I've ever encountered believes that Bush himself was firing a gun at President Kennedy, then what possible pressing and urgent need would there have been for George Bush to have been anywhere near Dealey Plaza on November 22nd--even if he had been part of some conspiracy plot to kill the President? To take this logical point one step further -- if George H.W. Bush had really had a hand in planning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963, then the very last place on this Earth he would want to be when the murder occurred is Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. That's food for conspiracy thought. Don't you think? BTW/FYI -- The person on the right-hand side in the photograph shown above is definitely not George H.W. Bush, as this much clearer copy of the photo, provided by researcher Robin Unger, clearly illustrates (click to enlarge the picture): Below is a composite that I put together, with the real George H.W. Bush on the left, with the center picture being the clear version of the man that a lot of conspiracy crackpots are absolutely positive is Mr. Bush, and the fuzzy/crappy version of that same man on the right: And here's another direct comparison below, proving that the conspiracy theorists who continue to say that the man on the left is George Bush don't have a leg (or a bush) to stand on: David Von Pein July 4, 2013 ============================== ADDENDUM: JOHN McADAMS SAID: It's become a standard factoid that George H.W. Bush "could not remember where he was when he heard that John Kennedy had been shot." .... This needs to go in the "silly factoid" file. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: One of the many new books coming out this year [2013] on the JFK assassination is one by Jodie Elliott Hansen called "November 22, 1963: Ordinary And Extraordinary People Recall Their Reactions When They Heard The News". And on the back cover of that book is a signed letter written to Mrs. Hansen by George H.W. Bush in August of 1979. In that letter, Bush recalls quite well where he was when JFK was shot. Quoting Bush from the letter: "I was in Tyler, Texas on November 22, 1963 to give a political speech." Here's a picture of the letter as it appears on the back cover of Jodie Hansen's 2013 book: David Von Pein October 23, 2013

I like Mr. Berkley a lot already. Welcome, Curtis.

More hilarity from Bob Prudhomme. Now he sees a conspiracy (of sorts) connected with the "new" Edu. Forum member, Curtis Berkley. Bob's use of quotation marks around the word "new" means, of course, that Bobby doesn't believe for a second that Curtis Berkley is using his real identity. Such paranoid behavior is, of course, par for the course among Internet CTers. It's behavior that should certainly be frowned upon by the owners of this moderated forum, however. Bob might as well just come out and call Curtis a xxxx. And on Curtis' first day here too. Isn't that special? Plus, Bob thinks things have gotten "a bit sticky" with respect to the preposterous "fake backyard photos" topic in this thread. Again, hilarious.

Bob, I don't know Curtis. I don't think I've talked to him before (but I could be wrong about that; I've talked to many people about this case over the years). But, anyway, it's nice to see someone else (besides me) with some common sense posting at this forum.