David Von Pein

I'm anxious to see DiEugenio come within 100 miles of proving the above ridiculous statement. Naturally, he can't do it. But he'll still insist upon relying on make-believe "proof" that doesn't exist--and never did.

In the first place, why are you so willing to just throw out Marina Oswald's testimony? And why do you also want to throw out Marina's later statements to various people, including her conversation with Vincent Bugliosi on November 30, 2000? .... "When she [Marina] insisted on Oswald's innocence, suggesting he would never do such a murderous act, I reminded her that he had, in fact, attempted to murder Major General Edwin Walker, and she readily admitted he had, telling me she knew this because "Lee told me he did"." -- "Reclaiming History" by V. Bugliosi; Page 1487 Marina has never recanted her story about Lee telling her he shot at Walker. And since she now truly believes that Lee was, indeed, innocent of JFK's murder, why on Earth would she continue to lie about the Walker incident? Wouldn't she be telling people just the OPPOSITE, and insist that Lee didn't shoot at Walker, if she now believes that he also didn't shoot JFK or Tippit? But we really don't even need Marina's words to come pretty close to verifying that Oswald did, in fact, shoot at General Walker. The physical evidence against Oswald isn't absolute proof he did it, but it sure is close. With that evidence being the photos of Walker's home that were found among Oswald's possessions after the assassination, and (even more incriminating) the note that Lee Oswald left behind for Marina on the night of the Walker shooting [Commission Exhibit No. 1]: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0013a.htm Is that unsigned note, which is positively in Lee Harvey Oswald's own handwriting, a "fake" too? And if it's not a fake, what activity do you think Oswald was up to that prompted him to write such an incriminating note to his wife on the same day that General Edwin A. Walker had a bullet whiz right past his head? Or don't you want to believe that Marina found that note on the night of April 10, 1963? As for the bullet [CE573] -- yes, it's true that that bullet is too deformed to positively be linked to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, but CE573 is almost certainly a Carcano bullet (or at the very least, a bullet which mimics the appearance of a Carcano round, without a doubt), which is a determination that can pretty much be confirmed by just comparing its general characteristics to CE399: ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "I was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether or not it had been fired from this rifle. The conclusion went slightly further than that, in that we determined that the general rifling characteristics of the rifle 139 are of the same type as those found on the bullet, Exhibit 573, and, further, on this basis, that the bullet could have been fired from the rifle on the basis of its land and groove impressions. And, second, that all of the remaining physical characteristics of this bullet, 573, are the same as Western 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano bullets of the type normally loaded in ammunition made for this rifle, 139. However, the mutilation of the nose of the bullet has eliminated the length characteristics, and it cannot be definitely stated that Exhibit 573 is in fact a Western Cartridge Co. product, but all of the remaining characteristics of base shape, distance from the base to the cannelure, the width of the cannelure, and the overall appearance, coloration, and so forth, are similar to Western ammunition." End results (via the totality of evidence) -- Lee Harvey Oswald shot at General Edwin Walker with his own Carcano rifle, which is a rifle that he had received via mail-order no more than NINETEEN DAYS prior to April 10, 1963, which is another important point to be made.

There are DEGREES of "nuttiness", Bill (as I'm sure you'll agree). While it's true that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the raving lunatic type of nutcase who hallucinates and thinks he sees millions of rats trying to attack him (like that fellow "Renfield" in the 1931 film "Dracula"), it's definitely true that Mr. Oswald was not RIGHT IN THE HEAD when it came to some pretty serious things -- like, say, the value of human life. After all, when a man is willing to take a rifle and aim it at somebody with an intent to kill that person (as Oswald most definitely did do on 4/10/63 when he tried to kill General Walker, despite all the protests of the CTers to the contrary), well, that person has something inherently WRONG with him, IMO. And after the Walker incident in April, I certainly WOULD have classified Mr. Oswald as a "nutcase". It's just too bad nobody knew about Oswald's involvement in the Walker shooting before November 22nd. And then there's Oswald's choice of countries that he wanted to live in (and defect to) in 1959--as a mere 19-year-old kid....the Soviet Union of all places on this wonderful Earth. The Soviet Union...during the Cold War!! That's as nutty as all get out, too. I'm sorry, Bill, but I must disagree with your analysis of Oswald as a non-nut. That guy was as screwy and nutty as an 11-dollar bill. And, of course, as all reasonable people know, this same "nutcase" named Oswald killed Officer Tippit and President Kennedy on November 22. To deny his involvement in BOTH of those murders is just too silly to believe for more than two seconds. A person who thinks Oswald was innocent of BOTH the Kennedy and Tippit murders has no choice but to pretend that ALL of the physical evidence was faked or fabricated. Again, that's crazy talk. And the actions of Oswald himself speak volumes....both before and after the assassination. Evaluating his movements and actions (and his provable lies) can only lead in one direction -- guilt in the two murders he was rightly charged with on 11/22/63. As for Tom Scully's barrage of facts and articles -- none of that material is relevant to determine whether Lee Oswald was innocent or guilty. And none of it is even relevant on a peripheral basis either. Scully is merely playing the same game all "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracists have played for many years -- he throws up something that he thinks looks suspicious, and he's now going to play the "THIS FACT MUST THEREFORE MEAN THIS" game. And bringing up the Connally connection is just too funny. Does Tom Scully really think Oswald was shooting at John Connally? Or isn't that relevant at all in Scully's conspiratorial scenario? The bottom line is -- There's not a shred of physical evidence in this case that implicates anyone else but Lee Oswald. And if conspiracy mongers want to pretend that ALL of that evidence (and, somehow, Oswald's OWN BEHAVIOR) was manipulated and faked--well, go ahead and believe it. People like Oliver Stone certainly do. But I'll choose to stay on the side of reasonableness, thank you. Fantasies are better suited for the movie screen. And speaking of fantasy movies and Oliver Stone.... http://Amazon.com/gp/review/R1ZW3QU49S1AM1

Correct. And the JFK case is certainly no different. But I guess maybe the WC should have published 52 volumes, instead of their paltry 26, huh? And those 552 witnesses weren't nearly enough to "prove" anything, were they? Get real, Pat. You're smarter than most of the CT pack. I know you are. If we believe the "citizens" who have looked into the case, there would be no hope in "solving" the JFK case. Good gosh, we'd have anywhere from 4 to 12 gunshots, and 2 to 6 gunmen, and 3 to 4,798 co-conspirators. That's some "solved" crime, huh? We're better off if the conspiracy theorists stay on the bench. Because when they enter the ballgame, common sense goes out the window.

Yeah, we should never even SUGGEST that Lee H. Oswald had anything to do with JFK's murder, should we, Sterling? For that is a taboo subject around these parts. In other words--to hell with the evidence and Oswald's OWN ACTIONS on the day of the assassination. Dale Myers, another LNer that conspiracy mongers love to hate, said it very well last year..... "For forty-six years we’ve been hearing about the big conspiracy that killed Kennedy and still we’ve seen not one shred of believable evidence that anyone other than Oswald was behind the deed. And despite [Oliver] Stone’s claim that those in the media and academia are too afraid to risk their careers or positions of power to expose the truth about the Kennedy murder, numerous television networks, reporters, lawyers, and private individuals have done just that only to find Oswald alone in the sniper’s nest window. Apparently, reality doesn’t set well with the Hollywood filmmaker. Denial is so much more comforting." -- Dale K. Myers; January 25, 2010 http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2010/01/oliver-stone-says-us-is-still-in-denial.html

Good! More irrelevant garbage from Tom Scully.

Jesus Horacio Christ, what a bunch of convoluted, totally unimportant crap Tom Scully posted above. The nonsense you CTers believe in is staggering. And every time you open your mouths, you prove that Vince Bugliosi is 100% correct..... "The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi

The above quote is one of the silliest comments I've encountered in a long time. Thanks, Greg.

You and your fellow conspiracy buffs have proved no such thing. From now and for the rest of time, the Warren Commission's conclusions will stand as the best and most accurate representation of the assassination, and Lee Harvey Oswald will forever be stamped as JFK's murderer in most history books (despite the hobby of conspiracists who insist on ignoring every last piece of evidence that points toward LHO). And the WC's conclusions will live on forever because those conclusions are accurate ones -- i.e., Oswald killed Kennedy. Period. And no one on the globe has ever proved otherwise.

Via the YouTube private message service, I recently had the following interesting discussion with Mr. Mike Picardi about conspiracy theorists and the JFK assassination: ----------------------------------------- MIKE PICARDI SAID: Request for Mr. Von Pein: Date: Feb. 21, 2011 Hello Mr. Von Pein, I'm a 34 year old business owner and screenwriter. I'm currently doing research for my current screenplay that centers around the world of conspiracy buffs, kooks, authors and debunkers. My protaganist is a debunker (much like you) who bumps into many conspiracy theorists along his travels. As my main character is a man much like yourself, I think I could learn a great deal in regards to character profile/research from what your thoughts are on a number of things. Mainly, your disposition on the JFK CTers in particular. I recently phone interviewed Professor John McAdams who was very nice and generous with his time. He gave me an interesting point of view and it really helped me. I've been researching online and your fine website and blogs keep coming up. I'm a former CTer (as a youngster) who now knows that Oswald was guilty as hell. I do not have the special outlook that folks like you and Prof. McAdams have towards dealing with prominent CTers. I wanted to politely ask if perhaps I could ask you a few questions/interview you anytime that you would find convenient. I see how busy you must be and I certainly do not take offense if you are unable. I'm seeking a breif background, your spark of interest in the JFK case and your dealings with strong CTers. I'm in Chicago and can provide references to prove who I am via my company website. I only offer that as some I've requested interviews with have been afraid that I'm a kook. I really enjoy your JFK website and have gotten much needed info from it - thanks! Please respond if you have a moment and I will look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Mike Picardi =============================================== DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Hi Mike, I'd be happy to answer your questions. I'd rather do it via e-mail/written correspondence. I find that I can articulate my thoughts better in print. I can answer one of your questions right now..... You asked: What provided my "spark of interest" in the JFK case? That occurred for me in 1981 when I bought and read David Lifton's fairy tale book of nonsense entitled "Best Evidence". I have a blog on that book, here: http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com I know that that review isn't as in-depth as some who have written reviews for it, but it cuts to the chase regarding just how absurd Lifton's thesis really is. And he is still postulating that same basic "body alteration" theory 30 years later too. You can find some of Lifton's more recent interviews here (near the bottom of the page): http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/ghostwriting.html Fortunately, I wasn't persuaded by Lifton's book, but I did find it fascinating reading nonetheless. And from that point on, my interest in JFK (and particularly his assassination) grew and grew. I really haven't read all that many physical books on the JFK case, although I have read most of the "lone assassin" books, plus a few conspiracy ones too, with most of my recent information about the case coming mainly from online sources. Mary Ferrell's website and "History Matters" are invaluable resources when it comes to finding documents of all kinds re the assassination. And, of course, I have gathered a lot of (false) information from talking and arguing with the "CTers" (as we LNers call them) on the Internet. I'm sure if you've looked through some of my blogs (where I like to archive just about everything I write online), you can tell just exactly what kind of nutjobs and conspiracy kooks I've dealt with the last few years. Some of these people are just unbelievable in the things they believe. Do you realize that a prominent CTer (Jim DiEugenio) actually believes that witnesses Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle just MADE UP their story about Oswald carrying a large bag on the morning of 11/22/63? That is how desperate some of these people are to exonerate Mr. Oswald. It's crazy. In short, it's my belief after conversing with several of the kookier conspiracy theorists on Internet forums that those type of "outer fringe" CTers can never be swayed to let go of their theories, particularly their notion that double-killer Lee Oswald was merely an innocent "patsy" and never shot anyone (not even J.D. Tippit!) on November 22, 1963. That type of "Anybody But Oswald" theorist WANTS a conspiracy to exist so badly that they are willing to call EVERYONE "liars" or "cover-up agents" who block their path toward their "patsy" goal. A great example of this is the previously-mentioned James DiEugenio, who is a very smart and articulate individual who possesses an immense amount of knowledge about all of the 1960s assassinations (JFK, RFK, & MLK) -- and, btw, not surprisingly, he thinks that all of those murders were conspiracies. I've argued with him many times since 2008, and have noticed that there doesn't seem to be ANY limit to the number of plotters and co-conspirators and after-the-fact cover-uppers that he believes were involved in wrong-doing re JFK's death. He keeps adding more and more plotters and liars with each passing month and year. I've noticed that there is something inherent about the JFK murder case that makes ordinarily very smart and sensible and rational people somehow want to turn off their "common sense" switch in their brain, so that they are now open and willing to accept almost any implausible theory that comes down the pike. David Lifton is another good example. He's certainly a very smart person. I don't deny that for a minute. But he got involved in this (JFK) case back in 1966, and somehow all of his normal logic and common sense was thrown down the toilet after he talked with some witnesses who told him some things that he should have realized COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. It was physically impossible for the things Lifton theorizes about in his book to have actually happened, but Mr. Lifton thinks they definitely DID happen nonetheless -- e.g., body alteration, casket-switching, JFK's body spirited off of Air Force One in full view of many witnesses who HAD to have been there, and--get this--his belief that ALL of the gunshots in Dealey Plaza came from the FRONT! ALL of them! This, despite the BACK WOUNDS being suffered by both Kennedy and John Connally. Can it GET any sillier than this? And yet we have a very smart person like David S. Lifton writing about such silliness, year after year. It's almost as if there's a built-in mental barricade that prevents such conspiracy theorists from being able to step back and say to themselves -- 'Hey, this is kinda crazy, isn't it?' But they never ask themselves that logical question. Instead, they throw away all garden-variety common sense when it comes to so many aspects of the JFK assassination (as you have no doubt seen, if you've looked at some of the discussions I've had with people like DiEugenio and the total nutcases I've battled at the Usenet newsgroups). If you have additional questions, I'd be glad to answer your inquiries. And you picked a good man to interview previously too -- Professor John McAdams. He's a man who knows far more about the case than I do, and always approaches things with common sense and logic at the forefront. He has a new book coming this year which I look forward to seeing -- all about the way "CTers" think. It should be enlightening. For more insight into Mr. McAdams' JFK thinking, I can direct you to yet another webpage of mine that I created that includes many hours of radio debates on the JFK assassination that John participated in. Those audio files are here: http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/10/radio-debates-featuring-john-mcadams.html Thanks for writing, and thank you also for your kind words about my sites and blogs. I'm just glad to know that at least a few people out there are getting some use out of them. Best regards, David Von Pein http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com =============================================== MIKE PICARDI SAID: Do you believe it's possible that CTers (the otherwise intelligent ones) ever "wake up" and make a decision to keep the CT stuff going out of pride, books, money? What do you believe a guy like DiEugenio would do if he figured it all out today? Would he admit it? =============================================== DVP SAID: Hi again Mike, I think it's quite possible (or even likely) that most life-long (and long-time) conspiracy theorists do, indeed, "keep the CT stuff going" due to the combination of things you just suggested. And particularly "pride". It certainly isn't an easy thing to do to admit you were wrong about something that you have studied for many years (such as the JFK assassination), especially if that person has written millions of words, articles, and books about the topic of conspiracy in the case. So, I really cannot envision a person like Robert Groden, who practically lives in Dealey Plaza on the weekends trying to sell his completely-wrong conspiracy-slanted books and videos, ever being able to wake up one day and say to himself--or anyone else--"I was wrong; Oswald did it after all". He has too much to lose if he ever did that. Now, that same type scenario can easily be applied to LNers such as myself and Professor John McAdams, too. I.E., if we were to ever become convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy DID exist in the JFK case, would we be able to swallow our pride and throw away years of research and blog posts and articles, etc., and admit to the world that we were wrong and we have now joined the ranks of the conspiracists? I'll be very frank with you, Mike -- when studying upon that question, I truly cannot give you an answer one way or the other (as for me personally). I can't answer such a question, because I have never reached that point regarding my belief in any kind of a believable conspiracy (although there are JFK researchers, like Anthony Marsh for one, who have accused me of actually believing in a conspiracy--deep down--but I simply won't come out and admit it--because I'm a "propaganda" machine, per some CTers I've talked to). But I'd like to BELIEVE that I would have the integrity to admit I was wrong if the day ever arrived when I was confronted with evidence that I truly thought WAS credible evidence of a conspiracy (and not just simply another "theory" spouted by the next in a long line of CTers with a book and a theory to sell). If that day ever comes, I guess I'll find out. But thus far, I haven't been convinced of any large-scale conspiracy and cover-up, despite the efforts of people like Jim DiEugenio, Mark Lane, Oliver Stone, and Bob Groden. Those people haven't come close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that ALL of the vast amount of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald was faked, planted, or otherwise tainted. And to believe in THAT kind of "It's All Fake" theory is, quite frankly, to believe in miracles of the first order. And miracles don't happen very often. =============================================== MIKE PICARDI SAID: One more follow up question to that - I believe that you can NOT change a CTer's mind using the facts of the case at all. You must trick them into engaging into a lesson on how to think critically without their knowledge, of course, and maybe with that newfound talent, they will look at the case and their claims again with a different viewpoint. Do you agree? I would love your thoughts on this if you do not mind. =============================================== DVP SAID: That's an interesting line of thought, Mike. "Tricking" the conspiracy theorists into thinking in a reasonable and logical manner. To tell you the truth, I had never thought about approaching the conspiracy theorists in such a manner. But it does sound like a good technique to use. But I'm a little dubious about having any success at "tricking" any of the hardened and hard-boiled CTers on the Internet into thinking in a totally different manner about a murder case that many of them have practically spent a lifetime studying. From my experience with online CTers, I've learned that the thought processes of many of the conspiracy theorists about THIS particular subject (the JFK assassination) are just not the same as their thought processes when it comes to other topics. As I said in my first message to you, it seems as if THIS CASE is a one-of-a-kind subject that I have never seen duplicated (although, lately, I think the subject of "9/11" might come close, what with the various nutty kooks who now want to believe that NO PLANES AT ALL hit the World Trade Center or the Pentagon). But something weird seems to happen to certain people when the JFK assassination topic comes up. A person who would probably, under different circumstances, not be so willing to toss in the trash EVERY LAST PIECE OF EVIDENCE against the defendant (Oswald in this case), is more than happy (even eager) to accept the notion that ALL of the evidence pointing to Oswald is somehow corrupt. To me, that type of thought process is just nutty, and particularly when we're talking about TWO murders that Oswald was charged with--and not just one. Because a lot of these conspiracy kooks (the otherwise intelligent DiEugenio included) also want to pretend that ALL of the evidence that exists against Oswald in the Tippit murder is also phony and intentionally tainted -- including every one of the many eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Oswald as either the one and only killer of Officer J.D. Tippit or the one and only person seen running away from the vicinity of Tippit's murder. Crazy conspiracy talk, huh? Yes, IMO, it is. =============================================== MIKE PICARDI SAID: I did NOT know that DiEugenio made those claims about Frazier and the curtain rods - it's almost sad to me (still a bit funny). Does he guess as to why they lied about it? =============================================== DVP SAID: Yes, DiEugenio at least tries to explain his very flimsy reasons for why both Buell Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Mae Randle lied about seeing Oswald with a large paper bag -- with Jim D. claiming (without a SPECK of evidence to support this silly claim, mind you) that the Dallas Police forced Frazier to tell that whopper of a lie about the bag (and the cops apparently forced Randle to tell a similar lie). Below is a direct quote from DiEugenio on the subject (which is contained within a quoted passage that I wrote in an Internet post last year): "[Jim DiEugenio] said on Black Op Radio that Buell Wesley Frazier had been "pressured into doing what he did" by the Dallas Police Department. And the "doing what he did" portion of that quote is referring to DiEugenio's belief (at least as of January 2010) that Frazier had been "forced" (DiEugenio's word) into telling a lie about seeing Lee Oswald carrying a bag into the Book Depository on November 22, 1963. Quoting DiEugenio (which can be heard at the 5:42 mark in [the video that appears on the webpage linked below]): "I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides [Howard] Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; 1/14/2010" http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-46.html =============================================== MIKE PICARDI SAID: Again, I thank you for helping me out and I hit your website almost every night - really great stuff. I especially like the pages where you take on CTers claims, one by one. =============================================== DVP SAID: Thank you very much, Mike. I've enjoyed talking with you. Write anytime. Best Regards, David Von Pein =============================================== MIKE PICARDI SAID: Hi Mr. Von Pein, Very interesting answers to all of my questions and I really appreciate the time you spent responding to me. My own conversion story relates to some of what you wrote in regards to 9/11 truthers. I was a CTer because, as a kid, I read all of the conspiracy books. I would always skip over the books that were pro Oswald - after all, I wanted to learn about the conspiracy as that is what interested me. After years of reading and interest, I was still NOT aware of facts of the case but I sure knew most of the different conspiracy theories. I left the subject alone for years, then 9/11 happened and so did "truthers". I was disgusted at what I saw and read, but something sounded familiar - the same "passion for the truth" and the same acceptance of nearly or totally impossible things, and it was the same stuff I had read in the JFK CT books. I decided to look at the facts of the case this time and it was a matter of days when I realized what happened that day - Oswald did it. There are things we will never know...Oswald still did it. Some FBI, Dallas Cops, Secret Service, etc. could of done a better job - Oswald STILL did it. I give myself a break for believing in the conspiracy as I was young. I also had the integrity to admit how wrong I was. One point that I've formulated on my own is this - (talking to a CTer) Let's say for a minute that Oswald DID do it and it pretty much happened the way the WC said (giving a break for the human factor and imperfections), then how do you think the evidence WOULD look? Wouldn't it look JUST like it does? What would you expect it to look like if Oswald DID do it? The above worked really well on a CTer at my work and he often cites it as a spark of his conversion to a LNer. So, I just wanted to share it with you. This strange phenom of an otherwise intelligent person (like DiEugenio) suspending logic in this case alone is something that fascinates me to dig into. I actually don't mean to pick on Jim DiEugenio at all, as I only cite him as I heard him on a debate and he seemed very smart and well informed to me. I can't thank you enough for all your time and I will certainly send you some more questions as I write this screenplay. Chicago Lone Nutter - Mike Picardi =============================================== DVP SAID: Thanks for your latest message, Mike. I appreciate it. And good luck with your screenplay. And remember to have your main character in your screenplay ask the following question when confronted with every conspiracy theorist he meets who thinks that President Kennedy was struck with bullets that came from the FRONT of his limousine and who also believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was merely an innocent patsy. That very logical question is this one: If the conspirators who orchestrated the murder of President John F. Kennedy wanted to frame a lone person named Oswald for the murder, then why on Earth would those plotters/conspirators have even CONSIDERED for a single moment the idea of shooting at JFK from the Grassy Knoll in Dealey Plaza? Such a multi-gun plot that ALSO involved framing Lee Oswald (who was located in the Book Depository at the time of the shooting) is one of the most ludicrous and bound-to-fail assassination schemes I have ever heard of. But many, many conspiracy theorists (including the likes of Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, James DiEugenio, and Robert Groden) actually believe that such a plot was planned IN ADVANCE of November 22, 1963. That is just one example (among many others) of conspiracy theorists trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. And it doesn't matter how utterly illogical or outright stupid such a plot might be from the get-go, the conspiracy mongers who actually support such nonsense will pretend it is the truth from now until doomsday (with Oliver Stone actually making a multi-million-dollar motion picture that depicts just such an idiotic multi-gun, one-patsy assassination scenario). I'm always amazed by the number of people who fail to see the built-in illogic that exists within such a "multi-gun, solo-patsy" plot. More conspiracists who think Oswald was an innocent patsy and who also think JFK was hit by frontal gunshots in Dealey Plaza should ask themselves the question I posed above. If they asked that question more often, maybe some garden-variety common sense would begin to seep into their skewed thinking. Regards, David Von Pein

Gil, It's just that you can't abide the idea that Lee H. Oswald handled C2766 (which he so obviously did -- via CE637). Naturally, you think CE637 is a fake too. (Yawn.) And Waldman Exhibit 3, at 21H698, proves for all time that Klein's received Rifle C2766 from Crescent Firearms (via a Crescent document--that you also think is fake, naturally). Today's list of liars for Gilbert grows some more, with William Waldman and Louis Feldsott on the Liars List now.

Garrison prosecuted a man that he knew damn well had nothing whatsoever to do with the asssassination of the President. Naturally, that little fact of Garrison prosecuting an innocent man means nothing to the DiEugenios of the world. Oh, that's right--Garrison somehow convinced DiEugenio that Shaw was guilty (despite no evidence of him plotting any murder at all). So what? A whole bunch of kooks also think that NO PLANES AT ALL hit any buildings in Washington and New York on 9/11. Ask 100 people who believe there was a conspiracy who Buell Frazier was? Or J.D. Tippit? Or Linnie Randle? Or Harold Norman? Or Howard Brennan? I'd bet that 95 of those 100 people wouldn't have the foggiest idea who any of those people were?

No, Jimbo, to ignore the mountain of "Oswald Was Here" and "Oswald Did It" evidence and to pretend that ALL of the evidence against your prince, Oswald, was somehow faked, forged, planted, and/or manipulated is the silly thing to do. Luckily, though, the Warren Commission was made up of people who could put the pieces together in a logical, coherent way....instead of demanding to see meaningless documents that stretch way back for years prior to the rifle even getting into the hands of Klein's Sporting Goods. But, this is pure DiEugenio in action -- i.e., latch onto the chaff and toss the wheat in the trash can. No wonder Jimbo still thinks Jim Garrison solved the case. Unbelievable.

As usual, conspiracy theorists in the Anybody But Oswald fraternity are forever destined to chase their tails (while ignoring the best evidence) in their quest to exonerate a double-murderer named Lee Harvey. Gil Jesus doesn't seem to care at all that the OTHER NINE CARTONS that were part of the Feb. '63 shipment of rifles from Crescent to Klein's are also NOT LISTED on the Fred Rupp document of 8/29/62. So, if those other nine cartons aren't "faked" in some way, then isn't it fairly obvious that the tenth carton to go with those other nine is also a legitimate carton (#3376, the C2766 carton)? Just because nobody has found a Harborside document that says "3376" (or the other NINE cartons in the Feb. shipment, for that matter) doesn't mean such a document never existed. Of course, all of this wrangling about the shipping documents is totally immaterial and unimportant to begin with. Why? Because even if there were ZERO documents to verify the rifle transaction from Crescent to Klein's or from Klein's to Oswald....there would still be THE RIFLE ITSELF (C2766), with Oswald's own prints on it, staring you in the face every day from now till the end of time. Nothing and no one will change the following facts: The rifle that killed President John F. Kennedy is Mannlicher-Carcano #C2766, which is a gun that was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63, and is a gun that had Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints and palmprint on it. And there is no need for a shred of Klein's or Crescent or Harborside documentation in order to prove that the last paragraph I just wrote is the 100% truth. But keep searching for those meaningless Harborside documents, Gil. Being the Anybody-But-Oswald charter member that you are, I'm sure that pretty soon you will have yourself convinced that Oswald's rifle never even existed AT ALL. It was merely a "hologram".

Or they are the actions and words of a man who was lying his ass off after being arrested for two murders he committed with his own guns. Come now, Bill, you actually ACCEPT Oswald's blatant lies? Such as the ridiculous fairy tale he told the police about having never owned a rifle? Or the one about having purchased his revolver in Ft. Worth? Or the howler about having carried only his lunch into the TSBD on 11/22? Or the one about how he never even mentioned the words "curtain rods" to Buell Frazier? Are you truly THAT much in denial about Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt, Bill?

@Healy: Oswald's guilt has been proven a thousand times over since 1963. It's not my fault you have decided to ignore or dismiss all of the evidence. The evidence speaks for itself. And--just as importantly--Oswald's own actions and provable lies (which reek of guilt) are proving him to be a double-killer as well. And I'm still waiting for conspiracists to answer an important question regarding Lee Oswald and the subject of Mexico City: If LHO was not really in Mexico in Sept./Oct. 1963, then WHERE WAS HE LOCATED during those eight days in question? There isn't a witness in the world (that I'm aware of) who places Lee Oswald anywhere BUT in Mexico during those eight days in Sep/Oct '63. Did Lee vanish into a black hole for more than a week in order to help out his patsy-framers?

Hi Duke, Thanks for your last detailed post. I'll say this regarding Vickie Adams' timeline..... The more I think about this subject, the more I realize that even if Adams DID descend those stairs as quickly as she said she did, that particular scenario really does no harm whatsoever to the "Oswald Did It" conclusion. Why? Because if Adams and Styles really did this.... Mr. BELIN -- "How long do you think it took you to get from the window to the bottom of the stairs on the first floor?" Miss ADAMS -- "I would say no longer than a minute at the most." [After remaining at the 4th-floor windows for "between 15 and 30 seconds" (via Adams' WC testimony).] ....then Adams and Styles very likely BEAT Lee Harvey Oswald to the stairs. Hence, it's likely that Adams & Styles were always AHEAD of Oswald on their descent down the stairs. And if Adams & Styles were really THAT fast at getting to the first floor, then they could have possibly beaten Baker & Truly too, with B&T only getting on the stairs after A&S had vacated the stairwell.* * = I only offer up the above scenario as an alternate possibility. But I still believe that my earlier comment about this matter is the best explanation (repeated below), because human beings just are not very good at estimating elapsed times. And a big difference between Vickie Adams and Marrion Baker is that with Baker we have a TIMED RECONSTRUCTION of the movements he made on 11/22/63. So we can use that re-creation to form a pretty good estimate for the amount of time it took him to do the things he knows he did on November 22nd: "If Adams was really on the stairs as early as she said she was, she would have had virtually no choice but to have seen (or heard) the two men who we know for a fact WERE on those stairs within about 60 to 75 seconds of the assassination -- Truly and Baker." -- DVP Another key point regarding Baker's reconstruction times is this -- Marrion Baker made it clear via his Warren Commission testimony that his March 1964 re-creations would be the MINIMUM amount of time for performing his actions (75 seconds and 90 seconds on his two run-throughs). Baker said that it very likely took him LONGER to do the things he did on November 22 than it did when he reconstructed his movements the following March. Which would give Lee Oswald more time to get from the sixth floor to the second floor in time to encounter Baker & Truly. And, hence, it would also make it a bit more possible and feasible for Vickie Adams' WC version of her very quick trip down to the first floor to be accurate. So, really, any way you slice it, Oswald's innocence is certainly far from proven regardless of the precise time when Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles were on those stairs. And, as mentioned previously, the amount of physical evidence that Oswald left behind of his dirty deed on the sixth floor is certainly enough for any reasonable person to conclude that Mr. Oswald was not merely an innocent bystander (or "patsy") in the murder of John F. Kennedy. And in my previous post, I didn't even mention the 38-inch brown paper bag that had two of Oswald's own prints on it. But, of course, most conspiracists enjoy dismissing that bag as being "fake" and "planted" evidence too. (I wonder how they planted those prints of Oswald's on that paper bag, though? Just another one of J. Edgar's and Will Fritz' many talents when it comes to framing innocent patsies, I guess, huh?) Related articles and videos: http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-his-rifle-and-his-paper-bag.html http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/marrion-baker.html

Greg Parker, as per all hard-boiled conspiracy theorists who enjoy their fantasies much more than reality, is more than willing (and even eager) to throw away all of the "Oswald Was Here" evidence found on Floor #6 on 11/22. Right, Gregory? Just chuck all of the evidence straight into the trash, including the rifle and the three shells and Brennan's testimony and LHO's prints which littered the Sniper's Nest. I expect most online conspiracists to pretend that every piece of evidence damning to Oswald was faked. Why should you be different? Couldn't have happened. Not in the real world. Not unless Miss Adams and Miss Styles were world-class sprinters. And we know they stayed at the south-side windows for a certain period of time, too. And yet they still supposedly managed to beat Truly and Baker to the stairs?? Hogwash. In short -- It's a thousand times easier to explain away Garner's 6/2/64 statement provided by Barry Ernest than it is for conspiracists to explain away all of that incredibly incriminating evidence against Lee H. Oswald that was discovered on the sixth floor.

Thank you, Barry. That's interesting indeed. I'll just add this: The amount of physical and circumstantial evidence that exists to this day against Lee Harvey Oswald for the murders of both President Kennedy and policeman J.D. Tippit is just too massive and comprehensive to be dismissed or ignored or swept under the rug -- even with the kind of information supplied on June 2, 1964, by Dorothy Garner. And remember to keep asking yourself one important question -- If Lee Oswald wasn't the sixth-floor assassin, then how did the "real killer(s)" manage to remain completely out of the sight of Vickie Adams and Sandra Styles and Dorothy Garner and Roy Truly and Marrion Baker following the assassination of the President? Did the "real killer" somehow manage to make himself invisible to all of those witnesses right after the shooting? Or did the real killer (if it wasn't Oswald) decide to remain on the sixth floor for many minutes after he shot at JFK, running the fearful risk of being captured on the TSBD floor where Oswald's rifle and the three spent shells were found? I think even most hardened conspiracy theorists would find that latter option a little hard to swallow. http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

What Commission Document is the Stroud 6/2/64 letter in, Barry? I'll be able to find it with ease at Mary Ferrell's site if you can give me the CD number (or CE number, if it's part of a Commission Exhibit). Thanks.

This post at another forum should be of interest to Mr. Ernest:

Nonsense, Bill. With respect to Vickie Adams, the ONLY thing a person needs to accept in order to have Oswald on the back stairs within one to two minutes after the President's assassination is to accept the almost certain fact that Victoria Adams was simply inaccurate in her time estimate about when she and Sandra Styles were on the back staircase. And if she's off by a mere ONE MINUTE, or even less, then her whole story unravels and it then becomes quite easy to accept the fact that Oswald used the back stairs just after shooting President Kennedy from the sixth floor. The key to pretty much knowing without a doubt that Adams and Styles were on the stairs only AFTER Lee Oswald used the same stairs is not really Oswald himself--but Roy Truly and Marrion Baker. Because if Adams was really on the stairs as early as she said she was, she would have had virtually no choice but to have seen (or heard) the two men who we know for a fact WERE on those stairs within about 60 to 75 seconds of the assassination -- Truly and Baker. Since Adams saw nobody and heard nobody, the very likely solution is that she was mistaken about her timing (which couldn't be a more common error with human beings), and she was on the stairs AFTER all three men (Oswald, Baker, and Truly) had already utilized the same stairs. http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-14.html http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/adams_v.htm

FYI..... Update: It didn't take long for the JFK Library website to make available the two missing news conferences (62 of the 64 were available as of January 30, 2011). All 64 are now available in audio format, as of January 31, 2011: http://JFK-Press-Conferences.blogspot.com http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/01/jfk-press-conferences.html I've also found video/film versions for three of JFK's news conferences. The newly revamped JFK Library website is very nice (although it creates some minor problems with the Firefox web browser, for some reason), but it appears to me that they've concealed a lot of good audio and video material deep within the bowels of the massive site, and it takes considerable digging and searching to find some of these items, such as these three video versions of the conferences from 1/25/61, 3/1/61, and 3/8/61: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/USG-1-25-2.aspx http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/USG-1-26.aspx http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/USG-1-27.aspx The audio versions of those conferences are better, however, with clearer sound quality than the video versions, and the March 8th video conference is terrible, because the audio is totally out of sync with the video, which makes that video file pretty much worthless. More rare JFK video can be found at the link below, via the "United States Government Agencies Collection", which is another great resource to be found deep within those massive JFK Library bowels: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Search.aspx?nav=N:4294945870 Also see:

That is a great program too. You can also watch it on my JFK Channel, here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B6C3BE28FC7E34B6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu9FGJWItFk&p=B6C3BE28FC7E34B6

http://JFK-Press-Conferences.blogspot.com http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/01/jfk-press-conferences.html