David Von Pein

Nah, not really. Just keep it under your bed (alongside Wallace's Mauser).

Let me guess -- you've got Mac Wallace's 7.65 Mauser hidden under your bed? Why haven't you come forward with this bombshell earlier?! A book deal with Skyhorse Conspiracy Publishing awaits!!

I haven't the slightest idea what you're babbling about here. But, anyway, I prefer baseball, Bob.

Nobody that I know of. But so what? Does that have to mean Oswald couldn't have obtained the ammo? Obviously not. And who purchases a rifle and a revolver and then never buys any bullets to go into those weapons?

And Oswald couldn't possibly have thrown out the empty box of ammo at some point in time before 11/22/63, could he?

Same here.

Huh? What are you talking about, Ray? No "morphing" is needed there at all. Both of those descriptions are very similar. No major differences at all. (Except that one of them has a weight estimate, while the other doesn't mention weight at all.) "Young man about 25 to 35 years old" = "Approximately 30". "Average height, not over six feet" = "5-feet-10". What's the gripe? Both of those descriptions are perfectly consistent with each other. Although it does appear that Mr. Brennan decided to change around the age bracket for Oswald when he wrote his book. Because AFAIK, Brennan never placed Oswald's age in the "20s" at all. It was always "early 30s" or "about 30". But maybe I'm incorrect about that point. It could be that there is some FBI or Secret Service report somewhere in the files that has Brennan describing the sixth-floor sniper as being "25 to 35 years of age", but I don't recall ever seeing such a document. But even with a slight change in the age bracketing for his book, Brennan's "early 30s" description is still a nice match, with 30 falling right smack-dab in the middle of Brennan's 25 to 35 range (which I assume is, indeed, in his book, as quoted by Ray Mitcham above). So, again, what's the big deal? jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Howard L. Brennan

And it's also sensible from the standpoint of a guilty assassin (Oswald) wanting everything to appear normal and routine after having just shot the President. Plus, the Coke helps Oswald establish an alibi for the time of the shooting. He can say: "I just went to the second floor to get a Coke" -- which is precisely what he did try to use as his alibi. And the Bill Kellys of the world have fallen for Oswald's Coca-Cola lie. But the evidence Oswald left behind on the sixth floor is telling a different story, isn't it? (Not to mention Howard Brennan's testimony.) How do the "Oswald Was Just A Patsy" conspiracy promoters possibly get around that empty brown paper bag found on the sixth floor? I don't think they logically can. Here's what I said about that bag a few years ago--and it still applies today: "I wonder what the odds are of Lee Harvey Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor? The odds must be close to "O.J. DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22nd, 1963 AD). I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable "conspiracy" explanation that will answer the question of why that 38-inch brown paper sack (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination -- the Sniper's Nest -- and yet still NOT have Oswald present at the SN window on November 22nd, 1963. I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald's Innocent" explanation for that bag being where it was found after the shooting, and with Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints on it." -- DVP; May 2005

Translation --- Unlike many conspiracy theorists, DVP has a hard time pretending the bullet shells were in a condition that is not supported by the witness testimony. You really do have trouble following simple testimony, don't you Bob? Try this on for size (again): Mr. BALL - You think that the cartridges are in the same position as when you saw them in this picture 510? Mr. MOONEY - As far as my knowledge, they are; pretty close to right. Let me guess -- Luke Mooney is a xxxx. Right, Bobby? You seem to be implying that he is. Any particular reason?

Maybe it's time to stop believing Roger Craig's craziness. The shells were not lined up all in a neat little row. The idea that they were is just dumb....and would certainly be something no "shell planter" would even begin to want to do, since it would obviously indicate something fishy with the shells. Luke Mooney, who found the shells BEFORE Fritz ever got to the sixth floor, said: LUKE MOONEY - The minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn myself sideways to get in there, that is when I saw the expended shells and the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. .... I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window, the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground. [...] JOSEPH BALL - Now, I show you 510. Mr. BALL - Is that the empty shells you found? Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Are they shown there? Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Now, will you take this and encircle the shells? Mr. MOONEY - All right. Mr. BALL - Put a fairly good sized circle around each shell. That is the way they were when you saw them, is that right? Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. [...] Mr. BALL - Is this the position of the cartridges as shown on 510, as you saw them? Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is just about the way they were laying, to the best of my knowledge. I do know there was--one was further away, and these other two were relatively close together--on this particular area. But these cartridges--this one and this one looks like they are further apart than they actually was. Mr. BALL - Which ones? Mr. MOONEY - This one and this one. Mr. BALL - Now, two cartridges were close together, is that right? Mr. MOONEY - The one cartridge here, by the wall facing, is right. And this one and this one, they were further away from this one. Mr. BALL - Well-- Mr. MOONEY - But as to being positive of the exact distance... Mr. BALL - You think that the cartridges are in the same position as when you saw them in this picture 510? Mr. MOONEY - As far as my knowledge, they are; pretty close to right.

Nah, you'd better not do that, Bill. Because, since every JFK conspiracy theory ever invented is silly to start with, I wouldn't be able to keep up with the onslaught of pop-ups. Just make my site below "pop up" instead. That should do the trick.... "If there is absolutely no evidence against Oswald (as many conspiracy theorists seem to think), then what made the Dallas Police Department decide to charge Lee Harvey Oswald with two murders before midnight on November 22, 1963? Do people usually get officially charged with TWO murders by the police department if there is absolutely no evidence against them whatsoever?" -- David Von Pein; September 28, 2013 ------------ "The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence." -- Vince Bugliosi ------------ "Coming up with a believable and reasonable conspiracy-endorsing alternative to the Warren Commission's single-bullet conclusion is something that simply cannot be done. And that's mainly because the SBT is obviously the truth. And when you try to dismantle the truth and replace it with some kind of half-baked, incoherent "alternative theory" (such as the "TWO BULLETS WENT INTO JFK AND NEVER EXITED AND THEN DISAPPEARED" claptrap), you're not likely to find the alternative to be nearly as compelling (or reasonable) as the truth." -- David Von Pein; September 1, 2010 More examples: JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / JFK Assassination Arguments (Part 432)

Who's Richard?

Oh, okay, Bobby. Sorry, I must've missed that one.

By doing what?

Great. Now the CTers are going to pretend that the "young black couple" on the bench positively saw a gunman behind the fence on the Knoll, even though this young couple has never been identified and never said a word about anything. Typical CTer speculation.

Here's a schematic which includes the bench, Bill. It's marked "bench", just east of the Grassy Knoll steps: Larger view --- http://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/DP-schematic001_3.jpg

Yeah. Maybe it was the sight of this that frightened them. You think? .....

EMMETT J. HUDSON'S 11/22/63 AFFIDAVIT: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-um5UNKllF_w/Tvw3OwlYoQI/AAAAAAAABtk/sFZySlnOkZ8/s1200-h/Emmett-Hudson-Affidavit.gif HUDSON'S 1964 WC TESTIMONY (starting at 7 H 558): http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0283b.htm Evidently, Mr. Hudson was totally oblivious to (or just didn't remember seeing) the other man who was standing right beside him when the shooting occurred. Because Hudson doesn't mention a third person on the steps at all. ~shrug~ I wonder if that means we've got room for another theory here?--- The Muchmore Film is a fake! A third man on the steps has been added in to the film! Details at 11!! Also: Here's the picture of the bench in Dealey Plaza. This comes from Robin Unger's JFK Gallery:

I think Hudson is the man in the middle (the one who never moves a muscle in this clip from Marie Muchmore's film)....

I tend to agree with both William Kelly and Robert Prudhomme in their last couple of posts. The "slipped up" comment by Vincent Bugliosi might not necessarily have to mean that Harry Holmes is 100% correct in reconstructing Lee Oswald's exact and verbatim remarks. I can easily envision a situation where Holmes could have gotten confused about some of Oswald's comments, with one possibility being that when Oswald at one point said he "went downstairs", he might have been referring to going "downstairs" from the SECOND FLOOR in order to go outside the building. So, yes, I agree that a grain of salt should be placed next to Holmes' reports about Oswald's statements (and Fritz' reports too). However, it's also quite possible that Holmes' version is absolutely correct. But without a tape recording of exactly what Oswald said (and its context), we can never know for sure.

A related excerpt regarding Oswald's interrogation on Sunday, Nov. 24 (from Vince Bugliosi's book): "During Sunday's interrogation Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor [of the TSBD] at the time of the assassination. .... In his Sunday-morning interrogation he said that at lunchtime, one of the "Negro" employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he declined. .... He said before he could finish whatever he was doing, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he "WENT DOWNSTAIRS," a policeman questioned him as to his identification, and his boss stated that he was one of their employees. .... WHERE WAS OSWALD AT THE TIME THE NEGRO EMPLOYEE INVITED HIM TO LUNCH, AND BEFORE HE DESCENDED TO THE SECOND-FLOOR LUNCHROOM? [Answer:] The sixth floor." [All emphasis Bugliosi's.] -- VB; Page 957 of "Reclaiming History" Sources for the above Bugliosi excerpt are Page 636 of the Warren Report and Harry Holmes' WC testimony (at 7 H 302). http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Oswald's Ever-Changing Alibi

The best to go to read about all the various interrogations of Oswald is the Warren Report itself --- Appendix #11 (XI), entitled "Reports Relating To The Interrogation Of Lee Harvey Oswald At The Dallas Police Department". Here's a link (starting on WR, page 598): http://history-matters.com

Here's CE510 as it appeared in WC volume #17 (the caption is mine): 17 H 221: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm

But why do you need another clue as to Oswald's whereabouts at that point in time (i.e., from 12:32 to approximately 12:40)? Even without the Coke bottle, we KNOW Oswald walked east on Elm for several blocks, and we know he boarded McWatters' bus at about 12:40. This is the proof of that fact: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I guess having the Coke bottle with Oswald's prints on it would be nice (with maybe a discarded Carcano bullet or two inside the empty bottle, for good measure ), but I cannot see how it would provide very much additional information with which to solve the crime. Well, as I've mentioned numerous times previously, there were many witnesses who never came forward and never gave testimony. So what? And what about the two men on the steps leading up to the Grassy Knoll (the guys who were standing next to Emmett Hudson)? AFAIK, neither of those men has been identified. And they were practically in the line of fire (if there had been a gunman right behind them on the Knoll behind the fence, as most conspiracists believe). Why aren't you raising heck about the fact these guys never came forward?

You're one to talk, Bob. You've been here almost as much as I have the last few days. Which is quite evident by the way you've been following me around like a puppy dog.