David Von Pein

Oh, good! Now Marrion Baker is on the ever-growing list of people who were out to frame the poor sap named Oswald. And probably Roy Truly too. Right, Richard? When a person has to add one plotter on top of another, until the list grows to absurd and outlandish proportions, isn't it just time to admit that Oswald is probably guilty? After all, how likely is it that the 1,358 suspects that appear in all of the conspiracy theorists' books are actually ALL guilty of framing that snow-white Communist sympathizer named Oswald? Or, to put it another way, here are some excellent quotes that I've culled from the alt.conspiracy.jfk Usenet Newsgroup over the last several years (all written by a very astute LNer named Bud). He's hit the nail right squarely on the head too: "[it was] either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007 "Keep heaping those witnesses on. A cast of thousands, cutting across all walks of life, all working against the poor patsy, all quiet to this day. Just because it can't happen won't stop kooks from insisting it did." -- Bud; August 11, 2007 "When you are desperate enough, and you scour the evidence thinking real hard how each thing could be fishy or suspicious, you will come to the conclusion that everything you look at is fishy and suspicious. It's inevitable." -- Bud; June 21, 2010 "To kooks, all the Dallas Police are suspects in the conspiracy also. The world vs. the patsy." -- Bud; April 27, 2006 Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

To mimic Jack Paar.... As I was saying.... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20147&st=15#entry272544

Another brilliant say-nothing post from David "Zapruder Wasn't Even On The Pedestal" Healy. If we were to remove the terms "hon", "poo", "deep fryer", ".John wannabe", and "carry on, son" from Healy's vocabulary, we'd have nothing left at all. And this is a guy who actually had something he wrote PUBLISHED in a JFK book? Yikes! Those poor readers!

Richard, 1.) OSWALD took OSWALD'S rifle to work on the day of JFK's visit to Dallas. 2.) OSWALD'S prints were all over the place where the assassin of JFK was located (the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor). 3.) OSWALD was identified by a witness as the person who shot Kennedy. 4.) OSWALD shot and killed Officer Tippit. 5.) OSWALD put up a wild fight in the Texas Theater and punched out a cop while drawing a revolver (the same revolver, of course, that was used to murder Tippit 35 minutes earlier). 6.) Bullets and bullet shells from OSWALD'S two guns turn up everywhere where the killer of Kennedy and the killer of Tippit were known to have been (and in KENNEDY'S CAR even!). And I won't even add "CE399" to this list, because CTers hate that bullet so much. But, as can easily be seen, CE399 isn't even really needed to convict OSWALD, because there's so much other stuff besides 399 that convicts him too. Yeah, that's some innocent and framed "patsy" you've got there. LOL. Regarding Point #3: I know you probably think Howard Brennan is worthless as a witness, but shouldn't we also consider the description that Mr. Brennan gave of the assassin in his 11/22 affidavit too? The description in that affidavit, which was written by Brennan within hours of the assassination and months before he ever talked to anybody from the Warren Commission, can, indeed, be considered very "general" in nature, but it also can fit the person who owned the rifle found on the sixth floor, especially when combined with Officer Marrion Baker's description of Oswald. And we KNOW Baker saw OSWALD, not somebody else, on the second floor. Just look at these two descriptions in these November 22nd affidavits. One of these witnesses (Brennan) is describing the sniper on the sixth floor of the Depository; while the other witness (Baker) is describing a man he himself personally encountered--a person Baker was just inches away from in the second-floor lunchroom just 2 minutes or so after Brennan saw the man he describes in his affidavit. These descriptions are identical in several key respects, right down to each witness thinking the man they were describing was about 30 years old. Here's a direct comparison (and keep in mind that we KNOW Baker IS describing Lee Harvey Oswald here, not some mystery person whose identity is still unknown): BRENNAN -- "White man." BAKER ---- "White man." BRENNAN -- "In his early 30s." BAKER ---- "Approximately 30 years old." BRENNAN -- "165 to 175 pounds." BAKER ---- "165 pounds." http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jTmnYgFvqzM/Tvw3vTpzhsI/AAAAAAAABuI/QJ__Z34iHho/s1200-h/Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4oxRP0t5ZBM/Tvw52B7FIGI/AAAAAAAABwU/QbBHYHhIM4Q/s1200-h/Marrion-Baker-Affidavit.gif Those identical descriptions are an interesting "coincidence", huh? Do conspiracy theorists now want to claim that Marrion L. Baker wasn't really describing Lee Oswald at all in his above affidavit? Or did Marrion decide to just make up those descriptive details out of whole cloth in order to conform perfectly with the only witness in all of Dealey Plaza who actually saw the assassin firing a gun during the shooting of President Kennedy -- right down to the incorrect age and weight estimates?

I guess it depends on your definition of "non-distinctive". To some, Roger Stone's loony book up there about LBJ might be considered a classic. (Robert Morrow probably will think so.) While to others, it's not worthy to line the bird cage. Take Vince Palamara's overboard critique of Doug Horne's five volumes of body-altering garbage (with this review being written in 2009, after Vince P. had already fully endorsed and praised Vincent Bugliosi's book two years earlier): "Douglas P. Horne, the author of this latest masterpiece, "Inside The Assassination Records Review Board," has achieved a literary feat worthy of a Pulitzer Prize. His 5 volume study (5 books in one, so to speak) reads almost like the Defense's side of the case; the perfect answer to the Prosecution's ("Reclaiming History") masterful plea to the bench. I am amazed and highly impressed with the book as both a very inspired, well put together piece of art (it's a great read!) AND for the substance--and length---of the (counter) argument." -- Vincent M. Palamara; December 16, 2009 Complete review (full of hilarity): http://www.amazon.com/review/R23U3HRSNOQ2X3 So, as we can see, one man's Pulitzer Prize winner is another man's trash.

Good point. But maybe he was able to find 20 or 30 more people that he can pretend had direct "connections" to the assassination. After all, the well of imagined suspects never runs dry for CTers. Two of them (in late 2010 and April 2012). Or what.

Well, Pat, you had to know that the list of new books for the 50th was going to be considerable, right? So why are you surprised at all? I'm not. Even on non-"round number" anniversary years, there are a bunch of new JFK-related books entering the market. So for the 50th, could you expect anything less than a tidal wave? http://kennedy-books-videos.blogspot.com/2011/03/kennedy-catalog.html#New-Releases

Because it's still a fairly "new" release, that's why.

The Tague hit could very well have come from a fragment from the head shot. The angle's almost perfect for that to happen. I, myself, favor the first (missed) shot being the Tague shot, but the theory that Tague got hit by a head-shot fragment is certainly not out of the question at all. And, in fact, the Warren Commission fully acknowledged that possibility regarding the head shot on Page 117 of the WCR, thereby destroying the crazy notion that the WC was FORCED into adopting the SBT because of James Tague's injury. More Jim Leavelle stuff: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/james-leavelle.html

Amazon's Blurb: Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past fifty years, you’re aware of the many hypotheses that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was not done by one man. Whether you’ve read one or a dozen of the books on this topic, there’s no way to fully grasp the depth of this conspiracy. For the first time ever, New York Times bestselling authors Jesse Ventura and Dick Russell have teamed up with some of the most respected and influential assassination researchers to put together the ultimate compendium that covers every angle—from the plot to the murder—of JFK. They Killed Our President will not only discuss the most famous of theories, but will also bring to light new and recently discovered information, which together shows that the United States government not only was behind this egregious plot, but took every step to make sure that the truth would not come out. With 2013 marking the fiftieth anniversary of JFK’s assassination, this is the perfect time for They Killed Our President to be available to readers. The research and information in this book are unprecedented, and there’s nobody better to bring this to everyone’s attention than the former governor of Minnesota and US Navy SEAL, Jesse Ventura.

THE KENNEDY CATALOG (Over 600 Titles)

NOTE -- The notes taken by Captain Will Fritz, of course, were not destroyed (as suggested by the participants of the above radio debate). They were found years later, and are available to see here: http://jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X3r5rCvoYs The video above features the majority (but not quite all) of a radio program hosted by Jack McKinney of WCAU-Radio in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in November of 1965. The topic of discussion during this show is the JFK assassination, with Sylvan Fox, author of the 1965 book "The Unanswered Questions About President Kennedy's Assassination", presenting his criticisms of the Warren Commission. The audio comes courtesy of Gerry Wilkinson and the Broadcast Pioneers of Philadelphia. MORE JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATES: http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jfk-assassination-debates.html

Well said, Pat.

Here's the short version of why the HSCA's Dictabelt evidence is bunk: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html Take a guess, you silly little man. Ask me a reasonable one about the evidence. I'll be happy to answer it. You're getting sillier by the sentence. (BTW, it IS okay to occasionally utilize that shift key on your keyboard. It appears you have no idea it's even there.) You fired the first shot (twice), via your "childish" remarks from earlier today. So stop whining. >>> "so in short, when asked to provide "evidence" , your excuse is that everyone is a CT'r and that unless we trust HSCA and the WC, we are deluding ourselves...and you have nothing as usual." <<< Yeah, I've only got all the physical evidence, which all points to your prized patsy. That's all. What have you got (except a broken shift key)? >>> "by the way, for such an educated and opiniated [sic] genius such as yourself, where do you find the time to upload a few thousand videos to you tube?" <<< I don't. I get my CIA partner, Ruth Paine, to upload them for me. Any more arrows you'd like to sling my way? Or have you stomped your feet enough for one day? (And yet Blair Dobson has the guts to call OTHER forum members "childish". Yet another classic example of Pot colliding head-on with Kettle here at the Edu. Forum. What a surprise!)