David Von Pein

You think it takes superhuman ability to assess and reasonably evaluate the statements made by William Newman concerning his observations relating to JFK's head wound? A second-grader could figure this out. I wonder why so many conspiracy theorists can't do it? It's probably because those conspiracy believers just simply don't WANT to properly evaluate statements made by witnesses like Bill and Gayle Newman. The CTers are too enamoured with their long-held belief that William E. Newman is a terrific "conspiracy" type witness. But in reality, he's no such thing. Newman even marked the location of where he thought the shots were coming from on a map during his appearance at the 1986 mock Oswald trial in England. And just look at where he put the gunman--in a location that's not even close to the famous "picket fence" area: In fact, Newman's marked location on that map is much closer to the Book Depository Building than it is to the fence atop the Grassy Knoll. I think you already know the answer to that question, Ray. But, I'll bite anyway.... The largest portion of Oswald's Carcano bullet, after going through JFK's head, was never recovered by anybody. But two fairly large chunks of that head-shot bullet (CE567 and CE569) were recovered in the front seat area of JFK's limousine, with those two fragments of bullet being stopped by the car's windshield and chrome molding (which were cracked and dented, respectively). More of my thoughts about CE567/569 HERE and HERE. Now, to reciprocate, maybe Ray Mitcham can answer a similar question for me (and for everyone else in the world too) --- Since you obviously think that what Bill Newman saw on the SIDE of President Kennedy's head was the ENTRY location of a bullet, would you please tell me what happened to that bullet that entered the right "temple" of John F. Kennedy? Where did that bullet end up? And why didn't it cause some kind of wound to the LEFT side of JFK's head?

So, Ray, you think Bill Newman had the superhuman ability to actually SEE the bullet in flight, eh? Otherwise, how could he possibly know precisely where the bullet ENTERED President Kennedy's head? As any child could figure out, Newman saw the big hole and all the blood on the RIGHT SIDE ("temple" area) of JFK's head after Oswald's bullet had gone through the President's cranium....and Newman's immediate impression, due to the location of all that blood, was that the bullet hit JFK in the side of the temple. Newman says over and over again in his various interviews in 1963 and 2003 that he saw the "SIDE" of the President's head come off. That sure doesn't sound like he's describing the ENTRY point for a bullet, does it? He's describing where the EXIT wound was located, of course. And Newman repeated that comment again during his November 2013 interview at the Sixth Floor Museum ----> "The side of his head blew off." -- William Newman; 11/9/13 There is also a similar statement made by Gayle Newman in her official affidavit, which she prepared on the day of the assassination itself ---> "I saw blood all over the side of his head." -- Gayle Newman; 11/22/63

And just how on Earth does Zapruder's "from back of me" remark help out the conspiracy theorists who want to place a gunman behind a fence on the Grassy Knoll, which is a fence that was certainly NOT in "back" of Abe Zapruder's pedestal at the time of the head shot. That fence was to the RIGHT of Zapruder....and actually, to be technical, the area of that fence where most of the conspiracy buffs like to put a gunman was also a little bit in FRONT of Zapruder's position as well (i.e., a little SOUTH of the Zapruder pedestal) -- as the photograph below indicates: But I suppose all the conspiracy theorists can argue that the picket fence area was, indeed, IN BACK of Zapruder's position when at least ONE of the shots was fired, because Zapruder's body would have been turned more toward the Elm & Houston corner at that time. So you can argue that "angle" difference if you want, but it's still not going to garner you a victory in this particular argument, and that's because of the following portion of Mr. Zapruder's Warren Commission testimony that Ray decided to leave out of his last post: Mr. LIEBELER - All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you? Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, yes. Mr. LIEBELER - From the direction behind you? Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment, where they came from--after the impact of the tragedy was really what I saw and I started and I said--yelling, "They've killed him"--I assumed that they came from there, because as the police started running back of me, it looked like it came from the back of me. Mr. LIEBELER - But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what direction the shots did come from actually? Mr. ZAPRUDER - No. So it's pretty clear to me that Zapruder's WC testimony is in perfect harmony with what he told CBS-TV in 1967. In other words--he just couldn't tell exactly where the shots were coming from.

Yes, you are absolutely right, Ray. Bill Newman did utter the above words in his 2003 interview at the Sixth Floor Museum. I stand corrected. However, even in that excerpt at 9:50 of the video, Newman is saying that the shots came from what he calls the "in-between area", very near where Abraham Zapruder was standing -- between the Depository and the picket fence.

Huh? Bill Newman said no such thing in that 2003 video. In fact, he specifically says that he refuses to "define" the exact location of the gunshots. He said: "So I say 'behind' and I leave it at that." He said he can't say whether the shots he heard came more to the left or more to the right of his location: "If I thought it came from the sixth floor, I'd most definitely tell you so. If I thought it came from the picket fence, I'd certainly tell you so. The reality of it is--I don't know." -- William E. Newman; July 10, 2003 Audio clip with Bill Newman -- https://app.box.com/s/koji4pr1e7242ajo3hvd Yeah, right Ray. They avoided the Newmans, but had no problem publishing the testimony of Sam Holland, Mark Lane, Jean Hill, Jack Dougherty, Victoria Adams, Clint Hill, Marguerite Oswald, and several other "conspiracy" type witnesses. But they were just scared to death of Bill and Gayle Newman, huh? You're funny. That's not what he told Eddie Barker in Dealey Plaza in 1967: "I'm not a ballistic expert, but I believe if there were shots that were coming by my right ear, I would hear a different sound. I heard shots coming from--I wouldn't know which direction to say--but it was proven from the Texas Book Depository. And they all sounded alike; there was no different sound at all." -- Abe Zapruder; June 1967 (emphasis added by DVP) SOURCE: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report.html

Right, Ray. And "directly behind" the Newmans at the moment of the fatal head shot is....where again? Certainly NOT the famous "picket fence" on the Knoll. More..... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html During a 2003 interview, Bill Newman goes into even more detail about his observations (at the 6:20 mark of the video below), when he says that his opinion about the direction from which the head shot came was derived more from the "visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise". Newman saw the right side of JFK's head explode, and he immediately interpreted that VISUAL experience (incorrectly) as a bullet that struck the President in the right-front (temple) area of his head. And Newman explicitly says that very thing in this interview -- http://www.c-span.org/video/?287932-101/kennedy-assassination-bill-gayle-newman-part-2

Either way, Dr. Peters is still wrong, because there was no humongous hole in President Kennedy's head in either one of those "BOH" locations, as these photos clearly prove for all time: For a more accurate "hand on the head" demonstration of where the large wound in JFK's head was really located, we need to go to the witnesses who saw the assassination as it was occurring in Dealey Plaza. And the best possible witnesses among that group are Abraham Zapruder and William Newman: And there's also Gayle Newman too, who provided a hands-on account of the location on JFK's head where she saw "blood gushing out". And it sure isn't in the occipital (or rear) portion of the head:

Thank you, Pat, for your last reply. But this comment you made still makes no sense to me: Well, Pat, since we all know the autopsy started at about 8:00 PM, it's fairly obvious that David Lifton DOES indeed believe the wounds were altered BEFORE 8:00. Right? So how is Lifton's previous remark out of sync with his theory that the body was altered by somebody at Walter Reed (or wherever) prior to the time Dr. Humes started the autopsy? What am I missing here? You surely don't think Lifton is of the opinion the alleged alterations to the President's body were performed AFTER the Bethesda autopsy commenced at 8 PM. Right? Re: Groden.... I don't know if Robert Groden was being deliberately deceptive in his 1993 book or not, but this picture which I captured of Dr. Paul Peters (taken from the 1988 NOVA/PBS program) comes pretty close to matching Groden's photo of Peters, although it appears as if Peters' hand is a little lower on the back of his head in the montage posted earlier than it is in this 1988 hands-on demonstration:

I think Pat Speer's last post makes a lot of sense -- except for two things.... Huh? Pat, the remarks made by David Lifton [repeated below] that you are replying to in the above quote are not inconsistent in the slightest way with Mr. Lifton's longstanding beliefs put forth in his book. Lifton is saying here what he's always said (and it's still as far-fetched and unrealistic here in 2014 as it was back in 1966 when DSL's strange odyssey first began). He's saying the body of JFK was altered between Parkland and Bethesda. But the statement below does not imply that Lifton has embraced the additional Humes Altered The Wounds nonsense put forth by Doug Horne. Emphasis added by DVP here: Number two -- I agree with Pat Speer up to a point about some of the "BOH" witnesses. But this composite chart made by Mr. Speer is probably a tad bit misleading (IMO), because the three witnesses pictured here ARE still indicating that there was SOME kind of wound or defect extending all the way into the VERY BACK part of JFK's head. Right, Pat? Otherwise, what do you think Peters and Custer and O'Connor are doing when they have their own hands placed over the REAR portions of their heads in the photos on the right side of your montage below? Are they just scratching their heads here, and a picture was taken to mislead people? Or what?.... JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / President Kennedy's Head Wounds JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / Index -- BOH Articles An excerpt from the above links: "Of course, the CTers [Conspiracy Theorists] who think that Kennedy was shot in the head from the front can always go down "THE PHOTOS ARE ALL FAKES" path...even though the HSCA said that ALL of the autopsy pictures are "unaltered" in any way whatsoever. .... To stress my main point again (via the opinion that the [autopsy] pictures are GENUINE and are NOT FAKES, which, of course, IS the truth of the matter): How would it be even remotely possible for a bullet to leave a huge hole in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of President Kennedy's head and yet have the REAR SCALP of that same President Kennedy look like this (in the autopsy picture below) after such a shooting event? Was Kennedy's scalp made of bullet-proof cast iron or some other impossible-to-penetrate material? Lacking that type of crazy explanation, I cannot see how it would be possible for a bullet that caused the amount of damage to the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's skull that most CTers think it DID cause, to NOT have penetrated the RIGHT-REAR scalp of Kennedy's head and caused at least SOME visible damage to the outer scalp of the President. In a word -- impossible." -- DVP; April 2008

Related video (re: Klein's and Oswald's rifle purchase):

We don't know that Hidell's name wasn't on the application for Box 2915. That portion of the application was discarded. And for CTers who bring up the FBI report found in CE2585, I offered up this retort in 2010.... " "Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963." -- Via FBI Report of 6/3/64 [CE2585] But we know from all the available (and unavailable) evidence associated with the topic of Lee Harvey Oswald's P.O. Box applications that the FBI did not actually see and examine Part 3 of the application Oswald filled out for Box #2915 in Dallas, because that portion of the application simply does not exist. So, how could the FBI, in November 1963 or June 1964, have seen something that was thrown away in May 1963? Therefore, when the FBI came to the conclusion cited above on Page 4 of its report dated June 3, 1964, the FBI was relying on information OTHER than Part 3 of Oswald's application for P.O. Box 2915. And I'm wondering if possibly the FBI made the same mistake that Gary Craig and other people have made [see the link below to see Craig's gaffe]: they mixed up the two P.O. Box applications for boxes 2915 and 6225. The 6225 box application still had Part 3 attached to it, but Box 2915 did not. Maybe the FBI made the same error conspiracy theorists make when those CTers try and prop up Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 as proof that Oswald didn't list A. Hidell as a person entitled to receive mail at Box 2915. In any event, even if it was an error on the part of the FBI, the error most certainly cannot be considered to be a sinister lie. Not even conspiracy theorists could consider such an error to be conspiratorial or sinister. Why? Because J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is almost always thought to be one of the major forces behind a "cover-up" in the JFK assassination investigation by conspiracy promoters. And this possible mistake about the P.O. Box application of Oswald's is a mistake that makes it appear LESS likely that Oswald could have received the assassination weapon through the mail. So, if Hoover's boys were making up stories, then they would have lied in the OTHER direction and would have claimed that Oswald definitely HAD listed A. Hidell as a person who could receive mail at P.O. Box 2915. Instead, the FBI concluded that he definitely had NOT listed Hidell on the application. [...] BTW, it also makes no sense for Oswald to purchase guns under the name HIDELL and have them shipped to a P.O. Box where he DID NOT have the name HIDELL listed as a person authorized to receive mail. But, on the other hand, since the post office delivers to ADDRESSES and not specific PEOPLE, it's very likely that Oswald would not have had any problem getting a package addressed to HIDELL even if that name was not on any kind of official authorization form." -- DVP; July 2010 JFK Archives / Oswald's Post Office Applications

As Bob said above, Bill Sharp was evidently the ONLY gunsmith in the Klein's warehouse. Therefore, who ELSE could have mounted Oswald's scope? Furthermore, Sharp said in his 2013 interview that he said this to his boss on 11/23/63 (he must have worked on Saturdays), “It’s my rifle, I put the scope on it.” Grain of salt disclaimer -- Yes, Sharp was an 82-year-old man when he said the above quote. And nobody's memory is perfect after 82 years. But the whole "Klein's never mounted Oswald's scope" argument made by CTers is just ludicrous on its face, IMO. Here's why.... "To say that Klein's never mounted scopes on its 40-inch rifles is practically the same as totally ignoring all of the many ads that Klein's Sporting Goods was placing in magazines in mid to late 1963. Was Klein's lying to its mail-order customers when it said that a customer could purchase a 40-inch carbine with scope ("as illustrated") -- i.e., the scope is attached to the gun itself?" -- DVP; Aug. 2012

Maybe David Josephs should take a pill before reading this Nov. 2013 interview with gunsmith William Sharp.... http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=226036 “It’s my rifle, I put the scope on it.” -- William H. Sharp http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html

..........

Robert thinks a bullet hitting water is the same as hitting a human skull. Brilliant, Bob. And Bob will also totally ignore the various tests done with 6.5mm WCC/MC bullets fired into human skulls, with the result always being a mangled and fragmented bullet: Well, you just blew your own theory. Unless you think CE567 and 569 "disintegrated into miniscule pieces". Try again.

You'd better go inform your other CT buddies about the "water tank" thing, Bob. Because we've heard that argument for decades -- i.e., CE399 never touched any victim on 11/22/63; it was probably fired into a water tank or cotton wadding by the evil FBI. Looks like there are a lot of CTers who don't have Robert's water tank expertise either, huh? Because CTers have been using that argument for years.

Robert Prudhomme doesn't like the evidence in the case, so he's decided to do just what Jim DiEugenio (et al) has done -- he's decided it's all fake. Of course, he hasn't come close to proving that ANY of it is fake, but he's decided that ALL of it is fake anyway. (Lovely tactic.) Such a blanket theory about all of the evidence against Oswald being faked, forged, or planted is patently absurd, and it's just the kind of argument a defense attorney who wants to get a "Not Guilty" verdict from a jury would have no choice BUT to argue. Because without the bullet shells being planted and without CE399 being planted and without the front-seat fragments being added to the evidence pile---then Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon. And who else is MORE likely to have used Oswald's rifle on November 22nd--or any other day--especially since we know that the rifle's owner worked in the building and was present in that building at the time of the assassination? (Not a difficult question, is it?) And I love the statement above by Robert P. about the front-seat bullet fragments possibly being produced by the evil authorities after the assassination by firing a bullet from Oswald's rifle into "a tank of water". The "water" supposedly resulted in these banged-up pieces of bullet: The "water tank" argument is usually reserved for the CTers' lame and wholly-unprovable argument regarding CE399, not CE567 & 569. But maybe Robert's water is rock hard with a lot of resistance to it. And because some CTer named Robert P. says so, I'm supposed to believe the bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest "mean nothing". And even though the LNers have ALL of the evidence to convict Oswald ten times over, Robert Prudhomme, without displaying a hint of embarrassment while saying it, claims that I've "got nothing". The hilarity exhibited day after day by certain conspiracy seekers is still strong....even after 50 years of the evidence staring them in the face. Go figure. Addendum re: CE399...... "If a person digs into the records deep enough, that person can and will find documentation to support the idea, which is totally foreign to most conspiracy theorists, that Bullet CE399 was the bullet that made its way from Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas to the FBI laboratory in Washington on November 22, 1963." -- DVP; 9/28/2012 [more below] The Secret Service And Bullet CE399

Huh? What the heck are you babbling about here? Who cares about YOUR rifles? We're talking about the three bullet shells found below the SNIPER'S WINDOW in the Depository and the bullet fragments FOUND IN THE LIMO being conclusively linked to OSWALD'S rifle. And somehow you just dismiss all that ballistics verification with a wave of your hand and something about a box of shells being matched to YOUR rifles. (As if that means anything important at all when discussing the JFK case.) To clarify your oddball remark above, are you saying that you think the three spent rifle shells found in the TSBD (CE510) could somehow be matched to YOUR rifles (plural even!) too? You must be dreaming. Time for a second one of these --- Huh????!!! (And a "WTF?" wouldn't hurt here either.) Looks like it's WTF? time again. Does anyone have the slightest idea what Robert P. is talking about here? Oh sure, Bob. We've only got shells from OSWALD'S gun in the Sniper's Perch....and CE399 from OSWALD'S gun in the hospital where the victims were taken....and two large pieces of a bullet from OSWALD'S gun right there in the same car where the victims were shot. Why should I even BEGIN to believe that OSWALD'S rifle was being fired at President Kennedy with flimsy, half-baked evidence like all that stuff, right? But, like all CTers who pretend that Oswald's gun wasn't fired at JFK, you have no choice but to try and explain away all the evidence that proves you're dead wrong. And based on your last post, you're doing a miserable and pathetic job of doing that. Since you're obviously in a full-fledged "Dream" mode, I think I'll join you now, because your last ridiculous comment makes me want to .... ~yawn~.

The 3 shells from that gun and the 2 bullet fragments in the limo provide the proof that C2766 was fired from the TSBD on Nov. 22nd. How can it get any easier than that combination of things to prove that C2766 was being used on 11/22? To repeat this critical point that is often totally ignored by conspiracy theorists: Bullet fragments linked conclusively to Oswald's Carcano were found in the very same car where JFK was shot with rifle bullets. But I've provided you with two much bigger clues that prove it was fired from the TSBD (the two I just mentioned above). And I didn't even mention CE399. But 399 isn't even needed to win this argument. And you think that a sticky clip somehow trumps the three bullet shells and CE567/569, eh? That's very bad thinking, Bob. If you can't figure out the easy ones like Was Oswald's rifle fired at all on November 22nd, 1963?, you probably shouldn't even be looking into this murder case at all. Because that one was solved on Day 1.

I haven't the slightest idea. But am I really supposed to believe there's something "phony" about the Carcano rifle being found in the TSBD because of the conspiracy theorists' continual complaints about the clip? That's silly. Does everything have to lead down Conspiracy Blvd.? It's an especially silly idea to think that the "clip" controversy brought up quite often by CTers has any bearing on what rifle was found on the sixth floor, because the Alyea Film is showing us the proof that it was a Mannlicher-Carcano being lifted off of the floor by Carl Day. What more proof do you need? You'd think that having a FILM of the Carcano rifle being found in the Depository would be enough to put this stale matter to rest. But, as with all discredited conspiracy theories surrounding this case, it is not. Also -- Was the FBI's Robert Frazier lying when he confirmed that the clip seen in CE574 and CE575 was the clip from Oswald's rifle (when answering "Yes" to this question by Melvin Eisenberg)?.... Mr. EISENBERG - You have shown us photographs of a clip--the clip from the Exhibit 139 rifle? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - One photograph loaded, and one unloaded? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. In one instance I put six cartridges in the clip and photographed it. Mr. EISENBERG - Did you take those photographs? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

I know of no LNer in the world who has ever stated that "Oswald, in a fit of madness, smashed the rifle against a post on the 6th floor just before he hid it". Where on Earth are you getting that notion, Robert P.? Furthermore, why would anybody think that Oswald would have needed to "smash" the rifle against anything in order to knock the scope out of alignment? For Pete's sake, I've been told by some conspiracists that a scope on a rifle like Oswald's (or on any rifle) would need to be "sighted in" before using it to ensure the proper scope alignment. With those same CTers informing me of their opinion that Oswald, after assembling the pieces of his rifle there on the sixth floor of the Book Depository, would have required at least 3 or 4 practice shots (maybe even more, I can't recall the exact number cited by CTers as being the minimum) in order to make sure the scope was aligned properly--and he'd need to make any adjustments that were needed to the crosshairs on the scope if his practice shots were not hitting his target properly. Of course, no one can know for sure whether Oswald used the 4x telescope or the iron sights when he was shooting at President Kennedy in Dallas. Since Oswald didn't tell anybody this information before Jack Ruby bumped him off two days later, it's a guessing game as to which sighting method LHO employed on November 22nd. But as far as I am aware, the common "LN" theory regarding the defective telescope on Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is, I believe, that Oswald might very well have knocked the scope out of alignment as he hurriedly dropped the rifle between the book cartons near the stairs on the sixth floor just after shooting the President with that gun. And, IMO, that is a perfectly reasonable scenario regarding the possible way in which the scope became defective. There is no proof that the scope was misaligned prior to the assassination. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. One of my theories has been (and yes, this is a guessing game too--it can't be anything else when this subject comes up) that one of the reasons Oswald's first shot missed the whole limousine is because the scope was out of alignment (without Oswald knowing it), and hence his first shot (possibly taken through that scope) struck a portion of the oak tree, which was a tree that would have, indeed, been located to the RIGHT of Oswald's rifle muzzle if he had fired his first shot at approximately Zapruder Frame 160 (as I believe he did). And according to the FBI experts, the rifle was firing shots high and to the right of the target when it was test-fired after the assassination: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/missed-shot-controversy.html

David Josephs' nice little rant above doesn't change the basic "rifle" facts concerning Lee Oswald's purchase of Carcano #C2766. In order for Oswald to NOT be the purchaser of Carcano Rifle #C2766, it would mean that ALL of the paperwork associated with Oswald's/"Hidell's" rifle purchase was faked and manipulated (right down to Oswald's "fake" handwriting on ALL of the various documents pertaining to said purchase). And no conspiracy theorist (not even David Josephs of northern California) has ever come within six miles of being about to prove that ANY of the Klein's paperwork was forged or planted or tainted to frame LHO. And believing that all of that CORROBORATIVE paperwork (including the U.S. Postal Money Order made out in the exact amount needed to purchase the rifle [with scope] from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago) has somehow been falsely manufactured in order to frame an innocent man for the President's murder is--quite frankly--a very very silly idea. And I always get a kick out of the conspiracy mongers who like to prop up Mitchell Westra's statement about Klein's never putting scopes on the 40-inch rifles. The CTers will always, invariably, leave out the part of Westra's statement where he says this: "Undoubtably Klein's mounted some..." But it's probably best if conspiracy theorists like David Josephs totally ignore that part of Westra's remarks in this 1978 report below: So the very person (Mitch Westra) that the CTers love to prop up in their never-ending efforts to try and exonerate a double murderer is actually providing information that indicates that Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago DID "undoubtably" (usually spelled "undoubtedly") mount "some" scopes on the forty-inch rifles they shipped to customers in 1963. The irony there seems to be quite thick....isn't it David J.? For more "Rifle" common sense, go here: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6780.msg177233.html#msg177233 "To say that Klein's never mounted scopes on its 40-inch rifles is practically the same as totally ignoring all of the many ads that Klein's Sporting Goods was placing in magazines in mid to late 1963. Was Klein's lying to its mail-order customers when it said that a customer could purchase a 40-inch carbine with scope ("as illustrated") -- i.e., the scope is attached to the gun itself?" -- DVP; August 2, 2012

Interestingly and ironically, I have previously used that exact same type of argument to EXONERATE the police of any wrong-doing or evidence-planting, etc. Because if the cops were up on that 6th floor planting evidence and switching rifles around (and God knows what else), as many conspiracists seem to believe WAS happening shortly after 12:30 on November 22nd, then the LAST thing they'd want is a TV news cameraman FILMING all of this type of sinister activity. Does anyone think they'd WANT it on film?? That's kinda crazy. I do, however, think it was a bit crazy to allow Alyea to stay on the sixth floor--smack in the middle of the crime scene. He was allowed access to everything on the sixth floor, it would appear. And the excuse used by reporter Kent Biffle (who was also allowed to roam freely in the building, along with Alyea) that the police "were stuck with us; what were they going to do, throw us out a window?" is totally ridiculous [see "JFK: Breaking The News"; PBS-TV; 2003]. All the police needed to do, even after the building was officially "sealed off", would be to escort those two gentlemen (Alyea and Biffle) to the front door, then open the door to let the men exit the building, and then lock the door again after the men had left. Why on Earth was that impossible to do? And yet they didn't perform that simple door-opening task. Or at the very least, the police should have kept Alyea off of the "crime scene" floor. But they didn't perform that easy task either. ~big shrug~ In summary, I do not believe for even a second that the Dallas police and Sheriff's officers were on the sixth floor monkeying around with the evidence connected to the President's murder. And therefore, I certainly don't subscribe to the unsubstantiated theory that Tom Alyea filmed merely a "re-creation" of the rifle being discovered. It's particularly far-fetched to believe in such sinister and underhanded actions on the part of Dallas law enforcement officers when factoring in the SPEED in which such sinister actions would have been taking place. Do conspiracists actually believe that the Dallas cops were so swift and effective (and downright evil) that they wanted to frame Lee Harvey Oswald within literally minutes of the assassination taking place? Again, that's fairy tale time. Plus, do CTers think that the DPD just happened to have at their disposal Oswald's own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to plant in the building very shortly after the shooting, so that Tom Alyea could film its discovery and then throw the film out a TSBD window so that the world would quickly be able to see that it was a Carcano being dusted by Lt. Day instead of the Mauser that many conspiracy theorists believe was first found on the sixth floor? How far down "This Is Insane!" Avenue is a person supposed to travel before slamming on the brakes and restoring their common sense?

For the record, I'll add this WC testimony from J.C. Day of the DPD, with Day stating that he thought that at least one "trigger housing" print was Oswald's, but he couldn't say definitely whether it was or not.... Mr. McCLOY. Can you restate again for the record what you can positively identify in terms of fingerprints or palmprints and Oswald's---- Mr. DAY. The palmprint on the box he apparently sat on I can definitely say it is his without being in fear of any error. The other, I think it is his, but I couldn't say definitely on a witness stand. Mr. McCLOY. By the other, you mean the other palmprint? Mr. DAY. The palmprint and that tracer print aside the trigger housing or the magazine housing. --------------- Earlier in his testimony, Lt. Day also said: "Your No. 637 is the right palm of Oswald." I have no idea why Day didn't include the CE637 LHO rifle palmprint when answering John McCloy's question above.