David Von Pein

Because there's always a very small chance that there are a few "lurkers" out there who haven't been totally sucked into the abyss created by the Internet conspiracy believers. (And based on the 2013 polls, the number of CTers is dropping fairly quickly---to 59% via one of the polls--which is always good to see.) So if I can counteract a little bit of the silly "conspiracy" talk on the Web, it's a pleasure to do so. As Jon G. Tidd accurately said above, no CTer on the Internet is ever going to be swayed by one single thing ANY LNer says, or will ever say. (Has that EVER happened since the Internet was invented? If it has, I've yet to encounter it.) But since freedom of speech and expression and opinion hasn't been outlawed in the USA (to my knowledge), I can try to get the "Oswald was guilty" message out there....because I think Oswald was guilty (and was a lone assassin).

Probably James W. Powell. Also..... "If Lee Harvey Oswald could easily misidentify a newsman as a Secret Service agent in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 (and he did, per his comments about this matter to the police after his arrest) -- then why is it out of the realm of possibility for other witnesses in the Plaza to have made the very same kind of mistake that Oswald made that day?" -- DVP; April 9, 2009 Or, to use the words of Vincent Bugliosi: "From all the evidence it clearly appears that the Secret Service sightings on the grassy knoll and behind the Book Depository Building after the shooting are entitled to about the same weight as Oswald's statement in Captain Fritz's office about being confronted by a Secret Service agent in front of the Book Depository Building." -- Page 871 of "Reclaiming History" Lots more on the "Fake Secret Service Agents" here.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/fake-secret-service-agents.html And here.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-710.html

Many conspiracy theorists believe that the Warren Commission was created merely to cover up the truth about President Kennedy's assassination. And some conspiracists also believe that Earl Warren's Commission, in effect, framed the late Lee Harvey Oswald for the murders of both Kennedy and policeman J.D. Tippit, with those particular conspiracy theorists believing that the Warren Commission knew full well that Oswald was totally innocent of both of those murders, but the Commission decided to conclude in its final report that Oswald was guilty of those crimes and that he had acted alone. To the conspiracy theorists who possess such a nonsensical mindset, I offer up at the link below several excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History". And after reading these book excerpts, a good question to then ask CTers would be this one---- Is this how the Warren Commission would have behaved if the MAIN OBJECTIVE of the members of that Commission was to rubber-stamp the "Oswald Did It Alone" conclusion reached by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the FBI's 12/9/63 report on the assassination? ..... JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/warren-commission-objectives.html --------------

If I could travel back to late 1963 and early 1964 in a time machine, one of the things I would be most anxious to do would be to sit in on a few of the executive sessions of the Warren Commission (in a "fly on the wall" manner), just to hear for myself what was being discussed (even "off the record") during those Commission meetings. maryferrell.org / WC Executive Sessions And if such "fly on the wall" eavesdropping on the Warren Commission could be accomplished in a handy time machine, I have a feeling that every single bogus cloud of suspicion that many conspiracy theorists have decided to hang over the heads of the entire Commission would evaporate very quickly. And the reason that such suspicions would disappear in very quick order is because people like Burt Griffin and David Belin were telling the truth -- they really did want to find a conspiracy. But they couldn't do it....because Lee Harvey Oswald really was the lone assassin of President Kennedy and Jack Ruby really was a second "lone nut" in Dallas in November 1963. Sometimes things really are as they appear to be. David Von Pein October 29, 2009 ========================================== COLIN CROW SAID: History shows that the Warren Commision [sic] ultimately did not convince the majority of the US public (and world) that there was not a conspiracy. This was it's [sic] prime objective... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Oh, goodie, that old canard again. Any chance you can prove that the "prime objective" of the Warren Commission was to whitewash things? Any chance of that at all? A conspiracy theorist believing that somebody (or some group) was up to no good is meaningless. What the CTers need is some kind of proof that people were conspiring with each other to do the following: 1.) Kill JFK. 2.) Make Oswald the patsy. 3.) Whitewash ALL of the various post-assassination investigations so that everybody would think Oswald (and Ruby) did it alone -- including the Dallas Police Department's initial investigation on the weekend of November 22-24, 1963, plus the Warren Commission's investigation, plus the HSCA's probe into the murder. And to believe that ALL THREE of those individual investigations into President Kennedy's murder were "whitewash" jobs is just too ridiculous a thought to consider for more than two seconds. And yet, a goodly number of conspiracy theorists think that ALL THREE of those investigative agencies were, indeed, part of a "cover-up". Such thinking is silly beyond all tolerance. To date, none of the above three things has been proven by the conspiracy believers of the world. And they never will be proven, because none of the extraordinary things that conspiracists think happened in this case really happened. Nor could they have happened in the real world in which we live. David Von Pein January 13, 2010

I agree. But I think in Oswald's case, the truth rests more with Oswald wanting to GET OUT of the United States and abandon American life than it does with him wanting to sing the Star Spangled Banner every day. He wants to go to Russia (of all places)! He wants to go to Cuba (again--of all places)! And you think THAT'S a man who is deeply fond of the USA?

Via either method, one irrevocable conclusion becomes very plain --- Marina's husband killed two people on November 22nd. The only way to avoid that conclusion is to just ignore all the evidence. (IMHO.)

Hi Larry, You're correct, Oswald didn't "legally defect" to Russia. But he sure as heck wanted to in October of '59. But then, like with other things in his life, he became dissatisfied with life in the USSR too, so back he comes to America. He was pretty much dissatisfied with everything in his life. Drifting from one lowly job to another, drifting from one American city to the next, and even drifting from one country to another (while trying desperately to get to a third---Cuba). If some people want to think that all that adds up to a young man who loves the United States (despite telling a policeman in New Orleans the exact opposite), well, okay. Everybody's entitled to their views. But given Oswald's last attempt to ditch America for yet another hostile nation--Castro's Cuba--via LHO's Mexico excursion in Sept. '63, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that Mr. Oswald was in love with the good ol' USA.

What about Lee's trying to defect to a hostile nation, Mark? Just more "bravado"?

Mark, Oswald had four years to start hating America between the time he was discharged from the Marines and the time he told Martello that he "hated America" in August of 1963. Tell me, Mark, do you think Francis Martello just MADE UP the "HATED AMERICA" dialogue that he attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald? If so, what for? Conversely, if Oswald DID say what Martello said he said, do you think Oswald was LYING to Martello? Did Lee really love his country of birth, but told Martello he hated it? And what kind of person voluntarily leaves a country he loves in order to defect to a nation like Russia? That move ALONE shows Oswald's dissatisfaction with American life. Wouldn't you agree, Mark? Or do you think Oswald was a "fake defector"? IOW -- Is ANYTHING surrounding Lee H. Oswald what it seems to be? Or was Oswald's entire life pretty much nothing but smoke and mirrors?

Not a trickle of doubt exists in my own mind about those CORE beliefs (aka: "facts", IMO) regarding things like.... >> Oswald's ownership of both the JFK and Tippit murder weapons (the paperwork is a mile deep that proves LHO ordered and was shipped BOTH guns). jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/mannlicher-carcano.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html >> Oswald's attempted murder of General Walker. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/edwin-walker-and-lee-harvey-oswald.html >> Oswald's guilt in President Kennedy's murder. Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com >> Oswald's guilt in Tippit's murder. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit All of the above things are proven facts, in my opinion. And they've been proven in a number of different ways too, which all have to be added together to provide the full picture --- e.g., ballistics evidence, eyewitness testimony and statements, Oswald's own incriminating actions, and documents written in Oswald's own handwriting. I mean, Jon, when a guy is caught with his hands on the very same gun that was used to kill a police officer just 35 minutes earlier, how much more proof is needed to prove he committed at least THAT murder on 11/22/63? Even if we were to debate the Tippit case for another 200 years, the fact remains (given the evidence) that Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't possibly be innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit. Only in the outer reaches of the world of speculation and fantasy could anyone believe that Oswald didn't kill Officer Tippit. But, amazingly, many Internet CTers reside in just such a world. In short, I'm not an "Everything Was Faked" believer. Therefore, to me, Lee Oswald's status as a proven double-murderer couldn't be any clearer.

Oh, come now, Mark. We all know why Lee went into the Marines. He did it in order to get away from that very strange mother of his. He didn't join the military because of his desire to fight for America and its principles.

Is there any website in the whole world (JFK-related or otherwise) that is more vile and more utterly disgusting than that smut factory known as "ROKC"? If so, I've yet to see it. Can you even imagine wanting to be a member of such a filth-ridden community? If any of the posters there can go two consecutive posts without uttering enough expletives to make George Carlin blush, it'd be a miracle. Yuck! I'll stay here at EF. I don't agree with most of the members here. But at least there's some common decency being exhibited.

The key is Oswald's hatred of America's "representatives", which Oswald tells us about in CE25 (16 H 120).... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0072b.htm But there is also some evidence that Lee Oswald did, indeed, "hate America". New Orleans Police Lieutenant Francis Martello's memorandum concerning his interview with Oswald in August of '63 was read into the record by the Warren Commission [at 10 H 56]: "When Martello asked why he [Oswald] did not allow members of his family to learn English, Lee said that he hated America and didn't want them to become "Americanized" and that he planned to return to Russia." -- Page 724 of Vince Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" 10 H 56: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh10/html/WC_Vol10_0032b.htm Yes, Lt. Martello's statements about the things Oswald said to him at the New Orleans jail are hearsay, but they are in the record nonetheless. And Martello's memo definitely says that Oswald said he "hated America".

I posted the above "SIX THINGS" article at John McAdams' aaj newsgroup and received this feedback which might be of interest.... JOHN CORBETT SAID: A classic crime of opportunity. You could add to your list the selection of the Trade Mart for the luncheon, which played a factor in #3. Since any motorcade would likely have been routed through downtown, any luncheon site would probably have resulted in the motorcade going through Dealey Plaza, but the selection of the Trade Mart resulted in the jog over to Elm St. from Main St., making Oswald's shot much easier. He may not have even attempted a shot at JFK if he was on Main. Another luncheon site might have resulted in the motorcade going through downtown in the reverse direction that it did. The motorcade might have been routed from Love Field, past Parkland to southbound Stemmons to Dealey Plaza. In that case, it might have even ended up on Commerce and jogged over to Main on Houston. "For of all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: 'It might have been!' " -- John Greenleaf EDWARD BAUER SAID: Great analysis, DVP. I would add: As an ex-Marine, Oswald possessed the marksmanship expertise required to hit a moving target at that distance and the knowledge of the indispensable requirement to first zero the firearm using the windage and elevation screws on the scope. ANTHONY MARSH SAID: Well, in fact the motorcade was not scheduled to pass the TSBD at NOON. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Just for the sake of clarification, I did not say in my "Six Things" article that JFK's motorcade was due to arrive in Dealey Plaza "at NOON". I said "RIGHT AT LUNCHTIME", "at noontime", and "lunch period". I didn't put an exacting "12:00 noon" timestamp on it. I merely said "lunchtime" and "noontime" and "lunch period", which is perfectly accurate. Also.... President Kennedy's written itinerary for 11/22/63 shows these two entries: "11:45 am -- Motorcade through Dallas" "12:30 pm -- Arrive Trade Mart for Luncheon" [source for the above picture --- Screen capture from the 2013 National Geographic documentary "JFK: The Final Hours".] Now, given those times shown above, Anthony Marsh surely can't argue with me about this part of my "Six Things" post repeated below. Can you, Tony?.... "Not only did Kennedy's visit to Dallas occur on a workday for Oswald (a Friday), but the parade route took JFK's limo past the Book Depository Building RIGHT AT LUNCHTIME as well, which meant that most TSBD employees were on their normal lunch breaks at that hour of the day. .... This meant fewer people staying on the upper Depository floors...with those employees going down to the first-floor "Domino/Lunch Room" or the second-floor lunch room (or going outside the building to watch the President pass by) during the exact time when Lee Oswald would require a VACANT sixth floor in his preparations for shooting the President during this Friday lunch period." David Von Pein April 25-26, 2015

SIX THINGS MADE TO ORDER FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD Lee Harvey Oswald was lucky enough (from his warped point-of-view) to have these six things all align themselves into perfect harmony on November 22, 1963: 1.) He (Oswald) hated America and its Government's representatives. 2.) Oswald owned and had ready access to a rifle in November '63. 3.) Oswald worked in a building which just happened to overlook the last portion of JFK's motorcade route through Dallas on 11/22/63. 4.) It stopped raining prior to 12:00 noon on 11/22/63 (hence, the bubbletop roof was left off of JFK's limousine for the motorcade drive through Dallas). The bubbletop roof was not bulletproof at all, but it's quite possible that Oswald wouldn't have known that fact on November 22nd. Seeing the roof in place that day, if it continued to rain, just might have made Oswald think twice about firing those gunshots at the limo. 5.) Oswald was lucky enough to have President Kennedy visit Dallas on a Friday (i.e., a regular workday for Lee Oswald and the other Book Depository employees), instead of, say, a Saturday or a Sunday. 6.) Another small item that relates to #5 above is something that could well have played a very big factor in Oswald pulling off the shooting that Friday -- and that is the fact that not only did Kennedy's visit to Dallas occur on a workday for Oswald (a Friday), but the parade route took JFK's limo past the Book Depository Building RIGHT AT LUNCHTIME as well, which meant that most TSBD employees were on their normal lunch breaks at that hour of the day (and would have been even if Kennedy had not been scheduled to drive by the building at noontime). The normal time for the warehouse employees to break for lunch at the Depository was from 12:00 Noon to 12:45 PM, just exactly the time period when President Kennedy was scheduled to drive through Dealey Plaza on Friday, November 22nd. That information was confirmed via the Warren Commission testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier (the 19-year-old who drove Oswald to work on the morning of the assassination): WESLEY FRAZIER -- "12 o'clock is when we always eat lunch." JOSEPH BALL -- "12 to 12:45?" FRAZIER -- "Right." This meant fewer people staying on the upper Depository floors (i.e., the "warehouse" floors, which were floors 5, 6, and 7), with those employees going down to the first-floor "Domino/Lunch Room" or the second-floor lunch room (or going outside the building to watch the President pass by) during the exact time when Lee Oswald would require a VACANT sixth floor in his preparations for shooting the President during this Friday lunch period. For Oswald, the above combination of things was simply a made-to-order combination of factors that just fell into his lap on November 22nd, 1963, including item numbers 4, 5, and 6 mentioned above, which are things that Oswald HIMSELF could not possibly have had any control over whatsoever. And even #3 as well, to the extent that Oswald was hired at the TSBD on October 15, 1963, which was a full month prior to anyone officially announcing the details of JFK's final motorcade route through Dallas (which included the turn onto Elm Street in front of the Depository). Happenstance (and a kook named Lee Oswald, who definitely had murder running through his own veins, as evidenced by the fact he tried to kill General Edwin Walker in April 1963) got John F. Kennedy killed. Not conspiracy. David Von Pein January 2008 Revised November 2011 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/six-things-made-to-order-for-lho.html

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".