David Von Pein

I'm sure your knowledge concerning "the Walker note" is much more extensive and detailed than my own. I know the basic facts regarding the note, however. And those basic facts indicate that Marina Oswald found the note (with a post office key on the top of it) in Lee's "study" (i.e., closet) at the Neely Street apartment in Dallas on the night of 4/10/63. MARINA OSWALD'S HSCA TESTIMONY RE: THE WALKER INCIDENT Marina saved the note by stashing it inside a book. (I've always wondered why Lee didn't demand that Marina give him the note back so he could burn it, but evidently he didn't do that; so the note survives as CE1.) And the Russian writing we see in that note was determined to be the writing of Lee H. Oswald (sourced previously via an appropriate official FBI source--Cadigan). And Marina has never recanted her story about Lee telling her on April 10 that he had just shot at Walker. Those two things--the note and Marina's testimony--are corroborative of one another and form the proof, IMO, that Lee Oswald did, indeed, fire a shot at General Walker. Plus, the Walker bullet looks very much like CE399 (which we know came out of Oswald's rifle). The FBI could not say that CE573 (the Walker bullet) positively came from Oswald's C2766 Carcano, but on the other hand, the FBI said there was nothing to indicate that 573 did not come from that gun. And as a layperson, just looking at these two bullets, I'm struck by the general similarities in the bullets. I'm sure you can see the similarities as well. (Who couldn't?)....

Just think about it for a minute, Jon. It'll come to you.

Irrelevant.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/02/interview-with-francis-oneill.html

Not a chance. "Commission Exhibit No. 1 was written by Lee Harvey Oswald." -- James C. Cadigan (FBI); 1964 Warren Commission Testimony [7 H 437] Your other questions, Jon, are irrelevant given the above determination made by handwriting expert James Cadigan and also when factoring in this additional impossible-to-sidestep fact revealed to the world by Mrs. Marina Oswald.... "When he [Lee Oswald] came back I asked him what had happened. He was very pale. I don't remember the exact time, but it was very late. And he told me not to ask him any questions. He only told me that he had shot at General Walker." -- Marina Oswald; 1964 Warren Commission Testimony [1 H 16] Why fight the obvious, Jon? Oswald wrote that note to Marina just before he went out to kill Walker. How can you possibly believe anything else?

Addendum Re: Walker.... There is also Marina Oswald's never-wavering account concerning the murder attempt against General Walker -----> 1978 HSCA AUDIO EXCERPT WITH MARINA OSWALD PORTER

How could any reasonable person possibly come to such a conclusion based on the evidence that exists that shows Oswald shot JFK?

I would say Yes. Without a speck of a doubt. But regardless of any psychological evaluation or "historical analysis" you may wish to perform on Mr. Oswald, the clear FACT remains that the handwriting (in Russian) we see in Commission Exhibit No. 1 is positively the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald and no one else's (per the various handwriting analysts who have examined that document for the Warren Commission and the HSCA). Do you want to call into question the conclusions reached by ALL of those handwriting experts, Jon? Bottom Line --- Lee Harvey Oswald wrote the words we see in CE1. There's no good (or reasonable) escape hatch for conspiracy theorists in this regard. Which is why I said previously that CE1 is just about the best type of "circumstantial evidence" you can get. Because it is, in effect, Lee Oswald himself telling us that he's about to go out and do something of a criminal nature on the night of April the 10th, 1963. What other kind of activity could possibly explain these words written by Lee Oswald in that CE1 document?: "If I am alive and taken prisoner..." "You can either throw out or give my clothing etc. away." "The Red Cross will help you." "I left you as much money as I could." If ever a note reeked with a person's guilt, Warren Commission Exhibit Number One is it.

Oh, okay. So sorry, Jon. I forgot the "Socratic" rules for a moment. Please forgive me. (Nice dodge, btw.)

The evidence against Oswald in the Walker murder attempt is, indeed, circumstantial in nature. I'm not denying that fact. Of course it's circumstantial. But it's also fairly solid circumstantial evidence, in my view. And in some ways it is the best kind of circumstantial evidence you could get, because Commission Exhibit No. 1 (the note Lee left behind for Marina on the night of 4/10/63) was written by Lee Harvey Oswald himself. It wasn't written by somebody else. It was written by Lee Oswald. So Lee is telling us, in his own words, that something's not quite normal on the night of April 10th, 1963. Jon, why do you think Lee Oswald wrote the note we find in CE1? If it wasn't written just prior to Lee taking a potshot at General Walker, then why did Lee write such a strange "If I am alive and taken prisoner" note to his wife? He must have been planning something pretty serious in order to use those words. Right, Jon? http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0013a.htm

Two good questions off the top of my head.... 1. Did Lee Harvey Oswald lie (repeatedly) to the authorities after his arrest on 11/22/63? 2. Did Lee Harvey Oswald take a shot at General Edwin A. Walker on April 10, 1963? -------------- I believe the answer to both of the above inquiries is a resounding (and provable) Yes. And if we can all agree that Question #2 should be answered in the affirmative, then a very important fact about Lee Oswald emerges in the process -- the fact that he was willing, seven months before JFK's trip to Texas, to attempt to kill a human being by shooting him with a gun. That's an important thing to know about Lee Harvey Oswald, in my opinion.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/yXt025gjMfk/NhH4NLmTgF4J --------------

More silliness from DiEugenio. Plots; CIA agents everywhere you look; hidden "agendas" around every corner. Paranoia at its finest.... jfk-archives / dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-96 --------------

VINCENT MICHAEL PALAMARA SAID: GEORGE H.W. BUSH TO WRITE FOREWORD TO CLINT HILL BOOK. .... An inside source who wishes to remain anonymous told me that Poppy Bush is writing the Foreword to Clint Hill's new book coming out in late 2015. DAVID ROBERT VON PEIN SAID: That will make FOUR books authored (or co-authored) by Clint Hill since 2010. My gosh, what can Clint possibly have left to say in book #4? I guess Clint is making up for lost time. He was as quiet as a mouse until 2010, and now--four books inside of five years. That's rather remarkable. I wonder if Lisa McCubbin is working on this latest one too? (Do you know, Vince?) I've always liked and admired Clinton J. Hill. And I wish him the best. CLINT HILL INTERVIEWS: JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/12/kennedy-detail.html -------------

The story made FOX News. FOX interview with John McAdams -----> Facebook.com/steve.barber/posts/10205442055361593 -----------------

That's all very nice, Cliff. But I will remind you of what that very same HSCA concluded about those very same autopsy photographs and X-rays..... "From the reports of the experts' analyses of the autopsy photographs and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA Vol. 7, p.41 http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm If you, Cliff, want to continue to pretend that this photo of President Kennedy is a fake, or alternatively, that the wound seen in this picture is really much lower on JFK's back than it appears to be in this photo....well, you're free to speculate about such things I guess. But in my opinion, neither option is a reasonable one....

Cliff, When you have to resort to claims of so much fakery and dishonesty on the part of God knows how many people to make your case, I know I've won the battle. Every single thing you just said in your last post is pure fantasy....and even you must know it. Bye.

The verifiable PROOF that Cliff Varnell is dead wrong regarding the bullet holes in JFK's clothing exists in the fact that we KNOW beyond all doubt that ONE single bullet had to have passed through all three bullet holes in question --- the hole in JFK's jacket, the hole in JFK's shirt, and the hole that existed in JFK's upper back (which is located 14 centimeters below his right mastoid process, just like the autopsy doctors said). Cliff can talk all day long (and he will) about how it's impossible for John Kennedy's clothes to have bunched up to a certain level on JFK's body. But the absolute irrefutable PROOF that the clothing DID, indeed, bunch up to that level on JFK's back exists in this autopsy picture, which has been proven to be genuine (i.e., not faked) by many experts who examined the autopsy photos for the HSCA: The bullet hole in the above picture is perfectly consistent with the Single-Bullet Theory and is also perfectly consistent with the autopsy report and with Commission Exhibit No. 903 as well. And since we know where the bullet entered the BODY of President Kennedy, then the shirt and jacket HAD to have been elevated to the very same level where we find the body/skin wound in the upper back of the President. The above fact couldn't be any more obvious, of course. But, for some reason, certain conspiracy theorists are still struggling to figure out this elementary math that any third-grader would have no trouble resolving.

I've never specified the EXACT amount of jacket bunching that can be seen in the photos. Why on Earth would anyone do something like that? It's an impossible thing to know. I can't tell precisely how much "bunching" there is in the Croft picture. And neither can you. We can only GUESS. You, Cliff, are attempting to fine-tune the "bunching" to levels of exactitude that cannot be achieved. But it is nice to see Cliff admit that at least SOME bunching of JFK's jacket is seen in the Dealey Plaza photographs. (With a shocking admission like that one, perhaps Cliff isn't too far away from becoming an LNer after all.) And who said a "significant" amount of bunching is needed in order to meet the requirements for the Single-Bullet Theory? Just because YOU say so? "Significant" is a relative term. Once again, Cliff V. is pretending to KNOW with exact accuracy the degree of "bunching" that is occurring with respect to both JFK's jacket AND shirt via the photos we have to examine. (And the shirt can't even be seen at all, of course, since the jacket is covering his shirt.) But such pinpoint precision concerning the bunching cannot be obtained by just looking at the photos. It can only be GUESSED at. But apparently Cliff thinks he can measure to the millimeter the amount of bunched-up fabric that is seen in the photos. Such silliness the likes which Mr. Varnell is constantly engaging in regarding President Kennedy's clothing ought to scoffed at by any and all reasonable people examining the JFK case. Bottom Line --- Cliff Varnell is pretending to know things that are just simply unknowable.

There's some material in the book that I don't think has been published in "book" form in the past. E.G., Stuff about the ridiculous "Secret Service Standdown" myth and the true identity of the "shrugging" SS agent at Love Field [pages 429-434 of "BRD"]. (Don Lawton's identity WAS, indeed, revealed in the Gerald Blaine/Clint Hill book "The Kennedy Detail" in 2010, but I don't think the "standdown" topic was discussed in that book. But I'm not positive about that.) And there's some "new" material (thanks to Gary Mack's e-mails to me) regarding Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's [pages 64-67]. Plus, the book's main author, Mel Ayton, has contacted some sources down in Florida regarding the "Castro/Cuba/Oswald" angle that I believe can be classified as "new" [Chapter 11, "The Castro Connection"; pages 313-343]. But as far as being "new" to people like Mark Knight or Pat Speer or John Simkin or Mark Lane, et al ... the answer to your question, Mark, would be, for the most part, no. Because I doubt that there's much of anything brand-new in the book that you guys haven't seen before. (Sorry, Mark, neither Mel nor I discovered another bullet or a new "bombshell witness". Instead, we have had to mostly rely on that same evidence collected by the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/63. Like it or not, that evidence IS the evidence in this case. And it all points in one irresistible direction.) But for people who don't visit JFK online forums every day of their lives and who don't obsess about the JFK case the way I do or the way "Internet CTers" do, then I'd say, Yes, there are several "new" items of interest sprinkled throughout "Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Warren Report And Lee Harvey Oswald's Guilt And Motive 50 Years On". And why in heck the "Add To Cart" button hasn't returned to the book's Amazon page is ticking me off greatly. It should be there by now, but it isn't (as of 1:00 AM EST on 12/15/2014). The ability to purchase it through the "Shopping Cart" at Amazon should definitely occur within the next few days. If it doesn't, does someone have a Mannlicher-Carcano I can borrow so I can shoot somebody? (Thank you. And I apologize for my part in detouring this thread "off topic". But everybody should be accustomed to that happening at all JFK forums by now. It's as inevitable as Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.) -----------------

Brilliant. Yeah, no kidding. It's difficult to prove something for which there's no evidence at all. Good luck. Not a lick of evidence to support that claim. Nor does mine. But you didn't even come close to answering my previous question, which concerned only the SBT. I'll try again.... "Then what's your alternative theory that replaces the SBT, Ray? And does your version really fit the evidence better than the SBT does? Don't be shy. Let's hear it." ------------

Then what's your alternative theory that replaces the SBT, Ray? And does your version really fit the evidence better than the SBT does? Don't be shy. Let's hear it.

What's not to love about a conspiracy buff with a pet theory to push? Pure entertainment. Cliff Varnell's dogged refrain, year after year after year, concerning the clothing of JFK is even better than Jack Benny for laughs. The bottom line is ---- There is no reasonable alternative to the Single-Bullet Theory (Cliff's constant whining about the clothing notwithstanding) -- and even Cliff must surely realize that fact. So, to use Cliff's own verbiage, maybe it's time for "you [CT] people to put up or shut up" when it comes to demonstrating just exactly how President Kennedy was shot via an anti-SBT theory. Of course that won't happen---because it CAN'T happen. And that's because the Single-Bullet Theory is rooted in solid ground (and a real bullet too--CE399, which is something the anti-SBT CTers lack completely).

Oh, good. Bob has decided to be cute. (He thinks he's setting a cunning little trap for that stupid ol' LNer from the Hoosier State named Davey V.P., doesn't he? How clever that boy is.)