David Von Pein

Yeah, right, Bob. That must be why those SAME "hacks" (the HSCA as a whole, that is) came to a conclusion that a conspiracy did exist to assassinate JFK. I'll bet you love that decision about "conspiracy" that the HSCA made, don't you Robert? But when it comes to anything suggesting Oswald shot anybody on 11/22/63, that same committee is "full of hacks" who were "bribed" and "blackmailed". Lovely.

Notice how DiEugenio, as usual, totally ignores the BEST EVIDENCE in the case: the autopsy photographs and X-rays (and the Zapruder Film too, which ALSO shows NO BIG "BOH" wound in JFK's head--so it's got to be fake too, per CTers). Jimbo will just brush the authenticated photos & X-rays into the trash, claiming that the fakery of those items would be a piece of cake for the conspirators to accomplish, and the 20 members of the HSCA's Photographic Panel were just DUPED. IOW--those 20 guys were TOTAL BOOBS and wouldn't be able to tell if a photo was authentic if their lives hung in the balance. To that type of argument, I'd ask -- Why even bother having ANY "experts" testify about anything then? What's the point? Because they COULD all have been duped. ALL twenty of them! Same basic question for DiEugenio: Does the fakery ever end in your fantasy world? Ever?

"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, Pg. 41 More lies and more (HSCA) liars, right Robert? And the above declaration about the autopsy photos is coming from a committee that DID say a "conspiracy" likely existed in the murder of JFK. (Go figure that irony.) Does the lying (and the liars) ever stop in your CT world?

Yes, of course I do. Because the two pictures shown below (plus the Zapruder Film) totally trump (for all time) Dr. Carrico's initial observations concerning the location of JFK's head wound. (And, btw, Dr. Carrico totally reversed himself in later years, placing the head wound toward the front, above the right ear; but that's another discussion entirely.) But the two pictures below tell the world that the "Back Of Head" Parkland witnesses were wrong. And excuse me if I decide to not believe these articles are forgeries. Because that notion is too silly to even begin to discuss (as we can see at 7 HSCA 41)--especially since a PRE-autopsy piece of photographic proof also exists that corroborates the autopsy photos and X-rays (that pre-autopsy item being: Mr. Zapruder's 26-second home movie):

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/commission-movie-trailer.html

I didn't bring it back, Jim. Kathleen Collins did. And when her 5/2/2013 post first appeared, it was the only post that was showing up in the whole thread (and with a different title: "Vincent Bugliosi and George W. Bush"), which must mean that a moderator merged Kathy's new thread with the one from 2008. I merely posted to inform Kathleen that she was a little behind the times regarding Bugliosi's Bush book, because it's obvious from her post that Kathy thinks Vince hasn't even published the book yet. But when I saw her thread was now merged with an older one, I deleted my previous comments (thinking Kathy would soon find out from other people that the book came out five years ago). But here's my review anyway: http://www.amazon.com/review/R29B7NYHLKV3SH http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-prosecution-of-american-president.html

...

And as part of this "sophisticated strategic deception", the conspirators decided it was a good and sensible idea to make it as difficult as humanly possible to hide the conspiracy by deliberately firing all of the shots at President Kennedy from the FRONT, while firing ZERO shots from the rear (which is where they planted their one and only patsy named Oswald). Is that correct, David L.? (Not to mention the difficulty that the plotters deliberately set up for themselves regarding the altering of the President's wounds after the shooting.) I think we can take out the word "sophisticated" in David Lifton's above quote and replace it with "idiotic". Because that latter word is much more appropriate. Please, David Lifton, explain to me what was going through the collective minds of those silly conspirators in the days and weeks before JFK went to Dallas? Were they all just nuts when they DELIBERATELY tried to frame a guy in the DEPOSITORY by firing ONLY from the Knoll? Please explain the logic of that decision? I doubt that you can reasonably explain the logic of that decision, because it defies all logic and rational thinking, and is a plan that only a total lunatic would undertake. In addition -- How do you, David L., explain away witnesses like Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, Bob Jackson, and Mal Couch -- each of whom said they saw with their own eyes a rifle sticking out of the sixth-floor window on the southeast end of the Book Depository at the exact time when the President was being shot with rifle bullets on Elm Street? Did those witnesses merely see a person who was only PRETENDING to fire a gun at JFK? You don't think that sixth-floor rifleman fired ANY shots from that gun seen by those witnesses? http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/mal-couch.html And what about Harold Norman? Was he lying when he said he HEARD the rifle being fired from directly above him in the Depository? Is Harold yet another one of the many people you must call a xxxx in this case, DSL? http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/harold-norman.html But, then again, what does silly old DVP know about logic? I'm merely, according to David Lifton, "a garden variety xxxx" who is "committed to a false reality". (Anybody got a really big "POT/KETTLE" icon I can use? I need one here badly.)

The "available evidence" in the JFK murder case, of course, shows conclusively the exact opposite to that of what Don Jeffries has stated above. There is not one single piece of physical evidence in the whole case that even suggests the existence of an assassin other than Lee Harvey Oswald. And that includes the so-called "Malcolm Wallace fingerprint", which has never been proven to be Wallace's and, more importantly, is a print that has never ever been proven to have been lifted off of a box that was located in the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository. And the verbiage that can be found in Commission Exhibit No. 3131 provides additional information to indicate that the "Wallace print" is nothing but a hoax. So for a conspiracy theorist to say that "the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin" is pretty much akin to saying that the available evidence regarding a study of the sun conclusively proves that the sun is not hot, or that a study of water conclusively proves that it isn't wet at all. And regarding the JFK case, I want to know if Mr. Jeffries is really suggesting that it is truly more reasonable to think that all of the evidence is fake and phony, vs. believing that ANY of it is legitimate and non-phony? (After all, if even a tiny percentage of that evidence IS legit, then Lee Oswald is almost assuredly guilty. Wouldn't you agree with that assessment, Don?) Furthermore, from Don Jeffries' point-of-view, would it even be possible to fake so much evidence after the assassination (or before) and make it all come together in the perfect "It Was Oswald" pile that even Don must admit is where all of the evidence falls in this double-murder case (including J.D. Tippit's murder)? If Don answers "Yes, it was possible" to my last inquiry, I'd sure like to hear Don's theory about HOW all that fakery was accomplished in a short period of time after the assassination? (Or was it all faked and planted before the assassintion?) In other words, is there any chance that a conspiracy theorist, just for once, can actually put his money where his mouth is, and PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that ALL of the evidence against Lee Oswald was faked and/or manufactured in order to frame an innocent Oswald for the murder of JFK? Which means ALL of that evidence is fake and phony too, right Raymond? From the four bullet shells that littered Tenth Street and Patton Avenue...to the dozen witnesses who fingered Oswald as either the lone gunman of Tippit or fingered him as the person they saw fleeing the immediate scene of Officer Tippit's slaying. An all-encompassing "Let's Frame Oswald For TWO Murders (Not Just The One On Elm)" plot. And yet the conspiracy theorists say that it's lone-assassin believers like me who are rewriting the history of the JFK assassination. "Guys like DVP are committed to a false reality. .... I really do believe he's just a garden variety xxxx." -- David S. Lifton; July 2011 Incredible, isn't it?

Re-release:

But, Sean, don't you think the fact that Oswald left the building at 12:33, via ANY exit, is a sign of guilt? Or at least possible guilt (esp. when factoring in the evidence that was found upstairs -- his gun, his prints in the Nest, etc.)?

But can you argue with my logic in that post? If so, go ahead. The difference in the lies is considerable, because I, of course, believe that Brennan REALLY DID see Oswald in that window. And the evidence on the sixth floor backs up my belief. So we really have a kind of REVERSE lie being told by Brennan -- i.e., he lied (at the police line-up) about not being able to do something that he almost certainly COULD have done--I.D. Oswald. But in Roger Craig's case, he lied about being able to identify something (the rifle) when we know he really COULDN'T identify it at all. And, in fact, Craig himself told us he had no idea what kind of rifle he saw on the sixth floor--in his 1968 newspaper interview:

Then I guess that means that this "Baker/Brennan" thing doesn't carry any weight with you at all, eh Martin? Even though we know that Baker IS describing OSWALD here.... BRENNAN -- "White man." BAKER ---- "White man." BRENNAN -- "In his early 30s." BAKER ---- "Approximately 30 years old." BRENNAN -- "165 to 175 pounds." BAKER ---- "165 pounds."

Read my last post.

Yes. Of course he did. But it's not the type of "lie" you think it was. Yes, Brennan lied when he refused to I.D. Oswald, even when he COULD have positively identified him. That's the "lie" he told. But, as mentioned, Brennan had what I consider to be a good reason for telling that falsehood. How can I be confident enough to make the above statement, you might ask? Mainly because the physical evidence left behind by the person Brennan saw on the sixth floor fully corroborates the theory that it was Oswald (and nobody else) who was firing shots at JFK from the Depository's sixth floor. Hence, Howard Brennan almost certainly did see Lee H. Oswald in that window--even though Brennan would not positively I.D. him on Nov. 22, due to the fears he had for his own safety at that time, and the safety of his family. Now, Sean, can you provide for me a more reasonable and more logical explanation than the one I just provided above? IOW -- Is it truly MORE reasonable for me to believe that Howard Brennan saw somebody else OTHER than Lee Oswald firing at the President--even though ALL of the physical evidence left behind by the real sniper had "OSWALD WAS HERE" practically stamped all over it (shells, prints, paper bag with LHO's prints, fibers in bag matching blanket, and the rifle itself)? If that latter option is supposedly more rational and reasonable than my explanation, I'd like to know why? (And the standard "Everything Was Planted" response doesn't hold much weight in my house. So maybe you could try another tack.)

I'll stand by my previous statement: "Brennan explained his "fears". That's why he did not I.D. Oswald. And I'm guessing that his fears grew and grew between the time he signed that affidavit and the time he went down to I.D. Oswald."

Why are you playing defense lawyer, Sean? We're not in a courtroom. Don't you care about WHY Brennan did a flip-flop? Doesn't his explanation seem the slightest bit reasonable under the circumstances? If not, please explain why not.

Sean, you're being silly. Brennan explained his "fears". That's why he did not I.D. Oswald. And I'm guessing that his fears grew and grew between the time he signed that affidavit and the time he went down to I.D. Oswald. Now, tell me why that reasonable explanation is not even remotely possible in your CT world? As for the above inquiry about Brennan being able to determine the approx. height and weight of Oswald: Brennan saw Oswald in the window PRIOR to the shooting too--- "I saw this one man on the sixth floor which left the window to my knowledge a couple of times." -- H.L. Brennan; WC Testimony Brennan could have estimated LHO's height and weight at those earlier times. Plus: The CTers have nowhere to go with that argument anyway -- because the fact remains that Brennan DID estimate the sniper's weight and age and "slender" status (but not his height) on November 22nd. It's right there in his 11/22 affidavit. Do CTers think the cops FORCED those descriptions into Brennan's mouth and, hence, into his sworn and signed affidavit on 11/22? More fakery? Did the cops EVER stop faking stuff?

Sean knows why Brennan failed to positively I.D. Oswald at City Hall on Nov. 22. But Sean wants to pretend not to know (or care) about Brennan's perfectly understandable reason for not IDing LHO. Don't you, Sean?

Re: The quotes from Mike Griffith: Typical conspiracy monger's approach -- Instead of casting ANY suspicion whatsoever on Lee Oswald (whose prints WERE on two of the boxes that were DEEP WITHIN the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest (exactly where the killer of President Kennedy must have been located, per Brennan, Couch, Jackson, and Euins) -- the conspiracy monger instead wants to know why MORE of Oswald's prints weren't on the boxes. That backward approach to the known evidence is kind of like asking this: Why in the world was Officer Tippit only shot FOUR times by Lee Harvey Oswald on Tenth Street? He had 11 more rounds of ammunition with him when the shooting occurred, so why didn't he plug Tippit with still more bullets? IOW -- Even though the evidence against Oswald is very powerful (and the fingerprint evidence on those boxes IS powerful, even though the conspiracy theorists treat that evidence like it EXONERATES Oswald instead of incriminates him in any way), what the conspiracists require is still MORE evidence to even BEGIN to suspect that Lee H. Oswald was anywhere near the 11/22/63 crime scenes on the sixth floor AND on Tenth Street. Pa-thet-ic. Footnote: I just got through watching a vomit-inducing video featuring JFK conspiracy theorist Richard Belzer (the video below). And I realized while watching it that Belzer would feel perfectly at home here on this Anybody-But-Ozzie forum, with Belzer belching out one false conspiracy myth after another -- from Oswald not having enough time to get to the lunchroom after the shooting....to the myth that refuses to die about Oswald drinking a Coke in the lunchroom during the Baker/Truly encounter....to the myth about the Mauser....to the myth about JFK being shot twice in the head simultaneously....and on and on. In short, Belzer believes ANYTHING--as long as he doesn't have to come within a country mile of accusing Lee Harvey Oswald of any wrong-doing. In short (again), Belzer is "Dead Wrong".

And if I were an Anybody-But-Oz CTer, the tons of evidence that proves Brennan DID see Oswald in that window wouldn't bother me at all. I'd just say that Brennan had bad eyesight on 11/22 (which he didn't) and I'd simply say that all of the evidence was faked to frame Oswald. Done deal. And if I were a conspiracy theorist, I wouldn't wonder why the fingerprints of Oswald were all over the place where Kennedy's killer was located, which just happened to be the exact same window where Howard Brennan says he saw Oswald. Meh. Just more fake stuff. And a lying witness named Howard. Right?

Greg, You REALLY want to be on the record saying Marrion Baker did NOT see Lee Harvey Oswald in the lunchroom on 11/22/63?? Really?? Geesh. Repeat after me -- That's absolute craziness. The man Baker saw in the TSBD was positively Oswald. There's not even a shred of a doubt about that fact. Roy Truly is the proof. (Is Truly another plotter/xxxx, Greg? That suspects list is getting longer.) And it doesn't matter one bit that Baker didn't finger Oswald at City Hall. The fact remains that the man Baker encountered in the lunchroom was, in fact, Lee Oswald, because LHO was identified DURING THE ENCOUNTER by Roy S. Truly.* * I don't mean that Truly said to Baker: "That man is Lee Oswald." I mean Truly told Baker that the man was an employee of the building, with Truly, of course, later verifying in his official statements that the man WAS Oswald. As early as his 11/23/63 affidavit, Roy Truly IDed the man in the lunchroom as OSWALD when Truly wrote these words in that affidavit -- "Lee Oswald was in there [lunchroom]. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee." So, is this affidavit a lie too, Greg?: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-djogMaF_-g0/Tvw-eAI5W5I/AAAAAAAABxg/hFmp8gCMmRo/s1200-h/Roy-Truly-Affidavit.gif Unless Truly is yet another conspirator and a xxxx, it was Oswald that Baker saw. Period. "[it was] either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007