David Von Pein

From a 2010 discussion I had with Pat Speer..... PAT SPEER SAID: David, Jim [DiEugenio's] problem with the SBT at 224 comes not from Connally's not being hit at this time, but from Kennedy's having been hit almost two seconds earlier. Now, try as you might, you can't argue he is wrong on this without exposing yourself as a "theorist" at odds with "officialdom". You see, the HSCA photography panel concluded as much back in the 70's and your friend Vinnie pushed as much in his "mock" trial. Of course, you won't find Vinnie acknowledging as much in his book, now will you? After all, it might hurt his credibility a bit if he let his readers know he'd misled the jury during the mock trial. Am I wrong? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I think it's fairly obvious why Vince Bugliosi endorsed the silly Z190 HSCA timing for the SBT at the 1986 TV docu-trial -- it was because the person who testified for the prosecution during that "trial" was a member of the HSCA's photographic panel, Cecil Kirk, and Kirk endorsed the Z190 SBT timing. Over a period of time after 1986, while writing his book, Bugliosi quite obviously realized the silliness of the Z190 timing for the Single-Bullet Theory, and Vince adjusted the shot to a later Z-Film frame. Vince, of course, is still 100% wrong about his "new" SBT time (around Z210), but at least he got a lot closer to the correct frame of Z224 when he shifted from Z190 to circa Z210. Plus, I'll add this -- Even if Bugliosi, in 1986, had completely disagreed with Kirk's Z190 time for the SBT, I'm guessing that Vince wouldn't have made a huge issue out of the discrepancy during Vincent's questioning of Kirk on the witness stand. Why not? Because whether the shot occurred at Z190 or Z210 (or whenever), the man Vince had on the witness stand at the '86 TV trial was still testifying to the likelihood of the SBT being true (which, of course, it is, regardless of what EXACT Zapruder Film frame it occurred at). Footnote -- I do think that Mr. Bugliosi should have explained in his 2007 book ["Reclaiming History"] the reason(s) he was endorsing a completely different SBT Z-Film timeline in 1986 vs. the Z210 timeline that appears in his book. And if Vince had provided such an explanation in his book (which, as Pat Speer says, I do not think he did), I believe that explanation would be very similar to the one I just laid out above in this post. DVP April 14, 2010 google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/FKUfqhF3Iyk/F6lv-atrGGQJ Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

So you don't even allow for the possibility of Frazier being "mistaken" about the length of the paper bag? Is that correct? As I said, it's no wonder you're lost.

Which eliminates the silly idea right there of there being NO BAG AT ALL, as some CTers allege. Because if it was merely a bag made up from whole cloth by Buell Frazier, then Buell would have certainly said his make-believe bag was big enough to hold the rifle. Otherwise, what would be the point of creating an imaginary bag in the first place? So, once we get past the absurd notion that there was no bag at all, we're left with these core facts: 1.) Oswald carries a "long-ish" brown paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22/63. 2.) Oswald lies to Buell Frazier about the contents of that bag. (There were no "curtain rods". I think even most conspiracy believers will stipulate to that fact.) 3.) An empty "long-ish" brown paper bag---with Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on it---is later found by the police near the place from where shots were fired at President Kennedy. (And at least four different Dallas police officers said they saw the long-ish brown bag on the sixth floor.) 4.) Oswald's rifle is also found on the sixth floor after the assassination. I don't even need to break a sweat to figure this one out. MORE "BAG" TALK: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-914.html -----------------------

Brilliant logic, Ray. ~eyeroll~ No wonder you're lost. Even the easy things are beyond your grasp. Tell me, what's the official number of people who you think are required to witness an event in order for you to consider those people "truth tellers" instead of "liars"? Is the number 3, 4, 5? 55? (We know, of course, it's not as low as "2".)

And given the circumstances, why would you expect anybody else to necessarily have seen Oswald with the package? It's early in the morning on Nov. 22. Lee walks toward the Frazier house. Linnie Mae happens to be looking out the window and sees LHO with the package. Then the only other person that I would have completely EXPECTED to see the package---Buell Wesley Frazier---sees the paper bag on the back seat (and sees LHO carry it into the TSBD Building). And it's quite possible that Oswald might have stashed the bag/rifle in the Loading Dock area BEFORE he ever entered the inner door that led to the TSBD's first floor (where Jack Dougherty was). But we also know that Dougherty said he only saw LHO that morning out of the "corner" of his eye. So why would you expect him to have necessarily seen any package even if Lee had it with him at that time? So, IMO, the argument about "Only Two People Saw Him With The Package" is a very weak argument given the time of day and the conditions of Oswald putting the package in the back seat of Frazier's car (where nobody BUT Frazier and Oswald himself could possibly see it on the way to work). Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily expect anyone else to see that brown bag. And, quite obviously (given the overall evidence and testimony), I'm right---nobody else did see it. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-his-rifle-and-his-paper-bag.html

"Yes, it always comes down to the clothes." -- C. Varnell Gee, what a surprise.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-892.html

My sentence was correct, Thomas. I said, "So who should I believe?" Whom doesn't seem right at all in that sentence. (And yes, I am very picky about grammar.)

How do we KNOW that for a "fact", Jon? Just because you say so? Or just because a disk jockey on the radio said so? I heard another report that said the temperature in Simsbury got up to 69 degrees. So who should I believe? See there? I just started a debate about the Simsbury weather. There's nothing that can't be debated. Even "facts" are debated all the time. Because somebody will always come forth to claim that the thing you say is a rock-solid "fact" is not really a "fact" at all. It's merely a "manufactured fact". (That sounds familiar to JFK researchers, doesn't it?) For instance, I maintain that it's a "fact" (proven by the various documents in evidence) that Lee Harvey Oswald ordered the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in March 1963. But many conspiracists will argue with me all day long about how that "fact" isn't a fact at all. Far from it, they'll say. Waldman Exhibit No. 7 is a complete fraud, they'll say. And Oswald's handwriting was forged on all the documents relating to the rifle purchase. I, however, will still maintain until the world comes to an end that it's a "fact" that Oswald ordered that rifle and was shipped Rifle #C2766 by Klein's Sporting Goods in 1963. But CTers will always disagree. Hence, what I consider to be an undeniable "fact" becomes the subject for a "debate". As I said, it never ends. And do you think it ever will? And do you think it ever COULD?

Thomas, Everybody cherry-picks. It can't be helped. It's done by LNers and CTers alike. It's impossible to avoid. In fact, the term "cherry-picking" (at least as far as my own "LN" beliefs are concerned) could probably be better defined as: "Harvesting the wheat and discarding the chaff".

Jon G. Tidd, Everything in human life can be "debated" in one way or another. I saw something the other day on the Internet about a debate that was going on concerning the color of someone's dress. Is it black or is it gray or is it blue? A whole article and video spot on that "debate". So every single thing we humans do (or SEE--like the color of a dress) can be subjected to scrutiny and some level of debate and controversy. But in the JFK case, the "debate" reaches absurd levels concerning topics that, IMO, are not really debatable at all. Such as (off the top of my head): ...Did Oswald take a package into the TSBD? ...Did Oswald pull a gun on Officer McDonald in the theater? (Some CTers are now insisting that even THAT fact is "debatable".) ...Could Oswald (or ANYBODY) get down to the second floor of the TSBD from the sixth floor in less than 90 seconds? (This is another thing that many CTers refuse to let go of, despite the many re-enactments done by both the Warren Commission and the HSCA, in which that journey was accomplished in less than 80 seconds at a WALKING speed. And the HSCA did it in, I think, about 46 seconds.) ...Was Oswald "planted" in the Depository Building by Ruth Paine (or others)? ...Was Oswald standing in the TSBD doorway at the time of the assassination? Those "debates" have been settled, in my view. And many others have been settled too. But CTers disagree. So, we have "debates". It never ends and never will. But I'm glad to have helped Mel Ayton put together a book that includes a concise look at the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases which both Mel and I feel is the "real" and accurate evidence in those cases. Others will, naturally, vehemently disagree. And so the cycle continues...

PAT SPEER SAID: I know you love Vince but c'mon, the people buying your book deserved better than a summary of his book. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Well, Pat, to tell the truth, I wanted to include a whole lot more conspiracy-debunking stuff in the book, but I wasn't allowed to do that because of space restrictions. The book's primary author, Mel Ayton, told me that the book shouldn't be more than 100,000 words in length. (Mel says that the publishers he has dealt with frown on manuscripts that are too much longer than that.) So it's a bit like being caught between a rock and a hard place. The problem then becomes: What should we include and what should we leave out? But prior to becoming fully aware of the "100,000-word limit", I had actually submitted to Mel a total of (gulp!) 27 appendix sections (totaling 24,000 words), in the hope that ALL of that material would end up in the finished book. After Mel then told me that we had a fairly strict limit as to the book's length, I was quite embarrassed for having flooded him with so much material that could obviously not be used in the finished manuscript. But if anybody has any suggestions on how to write a "Lone Assassin" book of a limited length (approximately 100,000 words or so) and still cover every last thing that conspiracy theorists think should be covered in an "LN" book, I'd be pleased to hear their suggestions on how to do that. Heck, Vincent Bugliosi's mammoth 2,800-page behemoth still doesn't come even close to satisfying the requirements of most CTers. So a book that is one-fifteenth the size obviously doesn't have a prayer of meeting the requirements of the world's demanding conspiracists. But "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" wasn't written with the "Internet Conspiracy Theorist" in mind. Both Mel and I know full well that the "Internet CTer" who posts regularly on JFK forums will never be satisfied with ANY lone-gunman book---regardless of its depth and breadth. (Bugliosi's 20-year, 2800-page effort is the proof of that.) "BRD" is aimed more at the "middle of the road" person or the person who is "on the fence" about the JFK case, with the book presenting the raw facts and evidence relating to the murders of Kennedy and Tippit without resorting to speculation (except for the topic of Oswald's motive, which can't be discussed without "speculation" entering into it). Here's what Mel Ayton said.... "There are hundreds of books on the market that rely on rumour, innuendo and the promotion of a particular conspiracy theory without any credible, factual and documentary evidence to back their claims up. I became aware that Vincent Bugliosi’s 'Reclaiming History', which I consider to be the definitive account of the assassination, had not had the impact on the American public it deserved. It had not satisfied a great many Americans about the truth of the assassination. The authors [of 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt'] do not claim to surpass Bugliosi’s work, but complements it by telling the true story of the assassination in a comprehensive way which Bugliosi failed to do. Essentially, our book seeks to show the general reading public that the conspiracy theorists’ claims do not hold up under close scrutiny." -- Mel Ayton; 2014 jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Q&A

Everything always comes down to those clothes, doesn't it Cliff? Nothing else seems to matter very much. It's all about the collar.

It is a fairy tale, Ron. Especially when we factor in ALL of the evidence. And most conspiracy believers I've ever talked to DO indeed think that EVERY last piece of evidence leading to Oswald was tampered with in some fashion -- bullets, guns, shells, prints, the paper bag, the backyard photos, the autopsy photos, the autopsy itself, every incriminating document with Oswald's handwriting on it, everything. And other than the prints on the TSBD boxes, I'd like to have some CTer explain to me (in a believable way) just how Lee Oswald could be innocent if all of the remainder of the evidence is truly legitimate. That'd be a neat trick. And I notice that Martin Hay hasn't come forward with any response after I said this to him a few days ago: "Good. Then Oswald is guilty. He has to be guilty if the evidence is not "fake" or "phony" or "fraudulent". Right? Because how could he possibly be innocent if the evidence is truly legitimate? .... You've just admitted that Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 is not "fraudulent". And you've admitted that you DON'T think "all the evidence is fake and phony". Which I assume would indicate that you think at least SOME of the evidence is real and legitimate and worthy of being utilized to try and solve the JFK murder case. Correct?"

RONALD WIECK SAID (AT FACEBOOK): I just received a copy of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". Having read the first fifty pages, I can state that book promises to become the One-Stop Shop for everyone tired of the incessant yammering of agenda-driven conspiracy peddlers. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thank you, Ronald, very much. TRACY RIDDLE ["TLR"] SAID: A detailed critique of the book by Martin Hay: http://kennedysandking.com/ayton-mel-and-david-von-pein-beyond-reasonable-doubt DAVID VON PEIN SAID: What a surprise --- a conspiracy theorist (Martin Hay) disagrees with LNers. ~yawn~ And it's no surprise to see Martin Hay doing what all Internet CTers do every day---trying to explain away all the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald. Martin believes all the evidence is fake and phony. If he didn't believe that, then Oswald's guilty. And Martin doesn't like that idea at all. So, the evidence is ALL fraudulent---from the rifle to the paper bag to Howard Brennan and everything in-between. And I'm wondering why Mr. Hay is telling this false tale in his BRD book review at CTKA?..... "Although the precise location of the back wound was not recorded by Kennedy's pathologists..." -- Martin Hay Hay is dead wrong about that statement. The autopsy Face Sheet records the exact location of the upper-back wound. It's the precise location of the throat wound which wasn't recorded by Humes, Boswell, and Finck. Maybe Hay meant to say "throat wound" instead of "back wound" above. ~shrug~ But, in any event, Martin knows full well that no bullets were found inside JFK's body, and there was very little damage inside Kennedy's upper back and neck that could have stopped a rifle bullet, let alone stopping TWO such bullets, which is the number of missiles (two) that Hay needs to disappear into thin air if he thinks the bullet that struck JFK's back did not transit the President's body. But common sense was never a strong suit of JFK conspiracy theorists. Their constant refusal to accept the truth of the Single-Bullet Theory has been proving that fact for fifty years. TRACY RIDDLE SAID: That's it, David? You found a typo error? You can't refute anything else he wrote? No, all we get is more bold assertions and hyperbole. Howard Brennan? Most LNers on the internet gave up using Brennan a long time ago. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Tracy, I've seen all of the silly excuses for ignoring all of the Oswald-Did-It evidence before. Nothing Martin Hay had to say in his review surprised me. I expected it. Hay's review is merely the most recent excuse for conspiracists like him to raise their Internet voices so they can (once again) pretend that Oswald never ordered the rifle and never took the rifle into the TSBD and never shot at General Walker, etc., etc. to absurdity. If you want to see each foolish claim made by CTers debunked, I've got pages on my websites that accomplish that task fairly well (IMO). But I'm not going to type out 5,000 words on these [Amazon.com] forums to refute Hay's fairy tale beliefs. That's why I've archived everything at my own sites, so I don't have to type it all out again every time these things come up (which they constantly do). Regarding Howard Brennan.... Do you think LNers like myself (and Mel Ayton) should just completely IGNORE Mr. Brennan, is that it? We should just toss Howard under the wheels of SS-100-X and pretend he never told the Warren Commission that the man he saw shoot JFK was, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald? Is that it? And do you think the whole case against Oswald rests on the shoulders of only Howard Brennan? Why would anyone think that? Even without Brennan, Oswald is still guilty as ever. And the evidence proves it. Brennan's testimony merely corroborates and buttresses what all reasonable people can already figure out for themselves based on the physical evidence and Oswald's own actions---i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy. MARTIN HAY SAID: Nowhere in my review do I state or even suggest that "all the evidence is fake and phony". .... I never suggested that there was anything "fraudulent" about the rifle. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Good. Then Oswald is guilty. He has to be guilty if the evidence is not "fake" or "phony" or "fraudulent". Right? Because how could he possibly be innocent if the evidence is truly legitimate? So, it's good to have that cleared up. You've just admitted that Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 is not "fraudulent". And you've admitted that you DON'T think "all the evidence is fake and phony". Which I assume would indicate that you think at least SOME of the evidence is real and legitimate and worthy of being utilized to try and solve the JFK murder case. Correct? At this rate, you'll be an LNer before you know it, Martin. Because there are very few Internet conspiracists who are willing to stipulate that ANY of the evidence against Oswald is legit. Lots more here.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-918.html -----------------------

Not at all, Tommy. The WC fully acknowledges in its Final Report (on Page 117) that the Main Street curb damage (and therefore the injury to Tague as well) could have come as a result of a fragment that struck JFK's head. Therefore, via the possibilities laid out by the Warren Commission on Page 117, the WC obviously didn't feel pressured into endorsing the Single-Bullet Theory based on James Tague's injury: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

If you want to hear some frank and straightforward talk from Warren Commission counsel members (Liebeler, Ball, and Jenner), including discussion of the WC's disagreements with the 12/9/63 FBI Report, listen to the program below. Do conspiracy believers really think these three guys went on a national radio show (voluntarily!) just so they could lie their tails off?.... If you'd like to cut right to the topic of "Sylvia Odio", here's that excerpt taken from the above program:

UPDATE..... The Kindle (E-Book) version of "BRD" is now available too.... As well as a PDF version, available here.... BRD Book Reviews ----------------

1998 TV interview with Anna K. Nelson: jfk-archives.blogspot.com / anna-k-nelson-interview.html ---------------------

Here's what one book reviewer had to say about "THE MURDER OF MARILYN MONROE: CASE CLOSED" .... "This is the worst rip off ever, it has nothing to do with a book. It's a look up on newspaper articles, books and movies. After having read 50% of this so-called book, the author turns to telling about Robert Kennedy and his death. In the end there is even shown pictures and information on the shooting of Bobby. To be honest this is disrespectful to Marilyn Monroe!" http://amazon.com/review/R82GVSSPRBL5U --------------

Thank you, Don.

The back of JFK's head has not been blacked out, Ray. It merely looks darker in that area of the head due to the angle of the picture and the fact that Kennedy's head is tilted back in that photo. But there are other autopsy photos that clearly show each individual hair on Kennedy's head in the right-rear area of his head that you seem to think shows a "complete blacking out" in the photo depicting the back wound. The photos below are not as high quality as the first-generation prints that reside at the National Archives, but the two pictures on the left show no "blacking out" of the head, with JFK's hair plainly discernible: And John Fiorentino was kind enough a few years ago to send me a very clear copy of an even higher-quality version of the middle photo above, and every strand of hair on the back of JFK's head can be clearly seen. I can't post that higher-quality version of that picture here because Mr. Fiorentino asked me not to post that particular picture on the Internet. Plus, there's also this X-ray, which is in perfect harmony with all of the other JFK autopsy photos, with this X-ray proving for all time that President Kennedy did NOT have a big hole in the back of his head (despite the many Parkland and Bethesda witnesses who said otherwise). There's not a bit of MISSING skull bone in the back (occipital) portion of the head here: In addition, here's the GIF clip put together by John Mytton (below), which verifies the "stereo" nature of two of JFK's autopsy photos (the "red spot" color picture, plus one of the black-and-white photos of the back of the President's head). And JFK's hair is easily visible in the so-called "blacked out" area at the right-rear of the head: Now don't tell me you think ALL of the above photographs and the X-ray are phony, Ray. You don't really believe that....do you?

Bull. I constantly "post evidence". Tons of it. The problem, IMO, isn't with "the evidence". The huge problem with the JFK case is the conspiracy believers who are constantly evaluating that evidence in very bizarre ways. The evidence IS the evidence. And as I've stated numerous times, nobody can possibly deny that the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE on the table today (just as it was in 1963-1964) all points to ONE single individual---and that individual's initials are LHO. Conspiracists can moan all day and all year about how they THINK that evidence has no chain of custody and has all been faked to frame the alleged patsy -- but not a single piece of the physical evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit cases has been PROVEN to be fraudulent or phony or planted or substituted. A lot of people will argue with me about my last statement above, but that statement will still be a fact regardless of any CTer's protestations. And the argument I've heard recently on this forum about how the evidence must be subjected to "authentication" in a court of law (or else we have no choice but to look at all of it sideways and suspect the police and FBI tampered with every last piece of it) is, IMO, a silly argument....because if people like Robert Frazier of the FBI told one lie after another in front of the Warren Commission (as forum member Robert Prudhomme has suggested lately), then why on Earth would anybody think the unvarnished TRUTH would have come out of Mr. Frazier's mouth at Oswald's trial? Do CTers who desire "authentication via cross-examination at a court trial" actually think that if the kind of frame-up against Lee Harvey Oswald existed immediately after the assassination on 11/22/63 (which many CTers think did occur), and if there had been a massive campaign orchestrated by the DPD and the FBI to switch around the evidence in order to pin the two November 22 murders on Mr. Oswald, then the police and FBI officials would have gotten up on the witness stand at Oswald's trial (had there been one) and ADMITTED to the world that the evidence they collected and/or examined had no chain of possession and was fraudulent/fake evidence? (Yeah, right.) Point being --- If people like Robert A. Frazier were willing to tell many lies about the evidence when questioned by the Warren Commission, then those same officials would certainly have told the very same lies at Oswald's actual court trial. Once again, I think it's a matter of WHO is doing the evaluating of the Warren Report and of the WC testimony. Based on the CTers I've talked with over the years, there are very few conspiracy theorists who are capable of FAIRLY evaluating the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases. Let me cite two examples.... First, the "paper bag" evidence and the testimony given by Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle: We all know that Frazier's and Randle's estimates for the length of Oswald's paper bag that he carried to work on the morning of November 22nd, if they were estimates that were spot-on accurate, would mean that Oswald could not have taken his rifle to work that day in the paper sack observed by Frazier and Randle. But what does a fair evaluation of ALL of the "paper bag" evidence lead to? Does it really lead to Oswald taking a SHORTER (27-inch) paper bag to work that day, with that bag turning up NOWHERE in the TSBD building or anywhere else? Or does a reasonable evaluation of the overall "paper bag" evidence tell us that it's very likely that the bag found on the sixth floor of the Depository (CE142) was, indeed, the SAME brown paper package that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle observed in the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald on the morning of the 22nd of November? Upon just a tiny bit of common-sense evaluation of the paper bag matter, it's painfully obvious that the "Sniper's Nest" bag in evidence today (CE142) is, in fact, almost certainly the same bag that Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carrying. The alternative would be to believe that Oswald carried a shorter brown bag into work that day....with that bag vanishing off the planet before the end of the day (did the cops deep-six it? CTers probably think they did, without a granule of proof to back up such an allegation)....and then a LONGER (38-inch) brown bag, with NOTHING in it at all (but Lee's rifle was nearby on the same sixth floor), turns up underneath the spot where JFK's assassin was hiding--and that EMPTY bag happens to have two of LEE OSWALD'S PRINTS on it. And what about those "curtain rods" that Lee said were in that bag he took to work? That's yet another part of the "paper bag" story that needs to be examined. And there can't be much doubt in any reasonable person's mind that Oswald told the curtain rod lie TWICE to Buell Frazier. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html So a proper evaluation of the paper bag evidence, coupled with just ordinary common sense, tells us that Frazier and Randle simply were in error when they said Oswald's bag was only about 27 inches long. To believe they nailed the length of that bag, when they had no reason to pay any amount of detailed attention to it whatsoever at the time they each observed it, is not a reasonable expectation, in my opinion. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-his-rifle-and-his-paper-bag.html And as another example of how conspiracists improperly evaluate the evidence, there are the Tippit bullet shells: There were FOUR shells found by THREE different civilian witnesses near the scene of Officer J.D. Tippit's murder. And two of those four shells did not pass through the hands of Officer J.M. Poe. Those two non-Poe shells have a solid "chain of possession" -- going from witnesses Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis to DPD officers Dhority and Doughty. CTers sometimes try to argue that those two shells found by the Davis girls are tainted in some manner too. But those CTers are wrong. They are inventing a poor "chain of custody". But the chain is rock solid, with each officer's initials scratched into the respective bullet shells. (See Dale Myers' book for clear pictures of those shells with the proper markings on them.) But CTers will generally ignore the key overall SUM TOTAL of facts regarding the Tippit shells: 1.) Only ONE gunman was dumping shells out of ONE single gun at the Tippit murder scene on 11/22/63. 2.) Two of the four shells that littered the Davises' yard at the corner of Tenth & Patton were not handled initially by Officer Poe, with those two shells being collected separately later in the day on November 22nd. 3.) Those two "non-Poe" shells were proven to have been ejected from the revolver owned and possessed by Lee H. Oswald. 4.) Oswald still had that revolver in his very own hands when he was arrested after fighting with the police in the Texas Theater just 35 minutes after Officer Tippit was killed. 5.) Several witnesses, including BOTH Davis girls, positively identified Lee Oswald as the gunman who was dumping shells on the ground right after Tippit was slain. Given the above set of facts, it becomes virtually impossible for Oswald to be innocent of killing J.D. Tippit. But many conspiracy theorists will simply ignore (or skew) the above set of "sum total" facts regarding the evidence in the Tippit murder. They will, instead, always focus their sole attention on the two "Poe shells", which the CTers will say could have been "switched" by the police because J.M. Poe didn't mark them. Or the CTers will ignore the dozen witnesses near the Tippit murder site who all IDed Oswald as the killer or as the one and only man fleeing the murder scene, with those conspiracists choosing instead to focus attention on the ONE witness (Acquilla Clemmons) who tends to contradict the other witnesses. We all "pick and choose" our evidence sometimes. LNers do it too. I'll admit that. But the "picking and choosing" done by the conspiracy theorists when it comes to the murder of J.D. Tippit is farcical and downright disingenuous, especially when given the fact that the CTers' favorite "patsy" was caught red-handed with the Tippit murder weapon on him just a half-hour after Tippit was killed. I'm now hearing some CTers claiming that Oswald didn't pull ANY GUN AT ALL from under his shirt in the Texas Theater. Which would mean, if that were true, that shoe salesman Johnny Brewer must have been a major force in the plot to frame Lee Oswald too (because Brewer has always said that he saw the gun in Oswald's hand as he fought with Officer McDonald in the theater). I mean, how much more "disingenuous" can it get? So, those are just two examples (among many) of how I believe the conspiracy promoters have made a mockery out of the evidence (and the facts) in the Kennedy and Tippit murder cases. A conspiracy theorist's BELIEFS and SUPPOSITIONS do not substitute for the EVIDENCE which repeatedly comes back to yield one conclusion---Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK and J.D. Tippit. Is it possible that Oswald had one or more helpers who aided him in carrying out the assassination in Dealey Plaza? Yes, it's possible. I've been on record for years in saying it's wise not to close the "conspiracy" door completely: "Let's face it, we can never know with 100% certainty that someone didn't urge Oswald on in the days leading up to 11/22/63. I think it's very unlikely that anyone did aid him in any fashion at all....but, as Ken [Rahn] said, the door should be left open just a small crack, because it's just not possible to prove this particular "negative" to a 100% certainty (mainly thanks to a man named Jacob Rubenstein, who certainly didn't do the world any favors by walking down that basement ramp on Sunday)." -- DVP; July 29, 2007 But given Oswald's actions and movements and the manner in which he transported himself from one place to another on both November 21st and November 22nd, 1963, I think it's highly unlikely that Oswald had anyone at all helping him to plan and/or carry out the assassination of John Kennedy. His actions and movements on those two days in question certainly suggest that Lee Oswald was ON HIS OWN every step of the way in Dallas and Irving and on Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff and on Tenth Street and on Jefferson Boulevard in front of Johnny Brewer's shoe store and any other place you can name where Oswald was located on November 21 and 22. To put it another way -- If Lee Harvey Oswald had a helper, that helper was of NO HELP to Lee whatsoever when he needed help the most.

Mark, Many different pathologists, who certainly know the human body better than I do, have concluded that the SBT is correct and that one bullet DID, in fact, pass through President Kennedy's body without striking any vessels or organs (except for the slight bruising of the upper pleura and the lobe of the right lung--but this bruising was said to have been caused by the mere PASSAGE of the bullet through JFK's body, and not as a result of the bullet directly striking the pleura or lung). Are you saying I should just toss out the determinations of EVERY forensic pathologist who has ever studied the JFK case for the United States Government--including Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, who also concluded that one bullet passed cleanly through JFK's upper back and throat? I should just disregard the conclusions and observations of the 17 or so pathologists who have examined either JFK's body itself or the autopsy photographs and X-rays? And I should embrace the conclusions of James R. Gordon and Mark Knight instead? You actually think ALL SEVENTEEN pathologists in question were utter boobs and/or were all liars---including Dr. Wecht? Surely you jest.

You have blown up my "little bit" comment completely out of all reasonable proportion. I didn't MEASURE the amount of "bunching" that we can see in JFK's jacket in the Croft photo. And YOU haven't "measured" it either. It's impossible to measure the degree of bunching from just looking at the photos and films. So when you continue to post on numerous forums the preposterous argument that my one "little bit" remark somehow means I have admitted that the SBT is completely wrong, you're revealing yourself to be a very silly person. You're displaying your propensity for preposterousness yet again, Clifford. Because only a fool would continue to claim (year after year) that the clothing of JFK somehow trumps the autopsy picture of the dead President which shows precisely where the bullet entered his BODY -- in the upper back. There was only one bullet that struck either of those body parts, Cliff. So your use of the plural ("bullets") is not supported by any evidence at all. I can easily answer your question -- CE399 passed through both bullet holes in the upper back and throat of JFK, and then that bullet went on to hit Governor Connally--which is just exactly what both the Warren Commission and HSCA concluded. No other scenario is even remotely believable (nor supported by any of the overall evidence in this case). And Cliff Varnell's unsupportable claptrap don't qualify as "believable" (or reasonable).