David Von Pein

VIA ANOTHER JFK FORUM (FROM APRIL 2009): http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ecfae05e92eaf9f2 DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Per a 2003 ABC poll (which included twice the number of respondents than the Gallup Poll), only 7% of people asked thought that Oswald was completely innocent (i.e., only 7 of every 100 think that Oswald didn't fire a shot at JFK). Compared to the paranoid fringe that appear on Internet sites, that's quite a difference. Because probably better than 85% of those paranoid kooks seem to think Oswald never fired a shot. 2003 poll: http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy PAT SPEER THEN SAID: David, your interpretation of the poll results is incorrect, and reflects an obvious bias. Although only 7% of conspiracy theorists thought that Oswald was "not involved"[,] that by no means means the rest thought he was a shooter. The majority of conspiracy theorists believe he was involved on some level; some believe he was a lookout, others believe he was infiltrating the plot on behalf of an intelligence organization. Only a minority believe he fired a shot at Kennedy. DVP THEN SAID: Yes, it does mean exactly that...because of the specific way ABC News worded that particular question. Better look again. 83% of the 1,031 people polled think Oswald was definitely firing a gun at JFK via that "gunman" polling question: http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy NICK KENDRICK THEN SAID: As usual, David is right and you [Pat Speer] are wrong. Question, ABC news poll, November 5-9th, 2003. "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?" Only Oswald - 32% (All of them CIA, presumably - NSR) Another Gunman - 52% [it was actually 51%] Oswald Not Involved - 7% No Opinion - 10% Source: http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy Plainly, the question is phrased so that people who (are insane enough to) believe that Oswald was a "lookout" or a "government operative" but (are insane enough to) believe that Oswald didn´t fire a single shot, would answer "Oswald not involved". The figure for those who (are insane enough to) believe Oswald wasn´t involved is clear - an unlucky seven percent. When it comes to sheer arrogance and pomposity, patspeer, you take the cake. You owe David an apology and you owe yourself a reality check - either Oswald was innocent, which goes against all the evidence, or he acted alone. PAT SPEER THEN SAID: Here is the question, David: "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?" By asking whether or not "Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all" as opposed to the more logical third alternative "Oswald was not a shooter on 11-22-63"[,] the question becomes blurred. The words "at all" bit extend way beyond merely shooting. FWIW: There is a book called "Tainting Evidence" which deals with this very phenomena--the skewing of poll results via adding bits like "at all" at the end of the question. Over the years, I have discussed the Kennedy assassination with at least 1,000 people beyond those I've met online or at conventions. The vast majority have no real opinion on the assassination; many saw [Oliver Stone's] JFK and were half-convinced but then saw the ABC or the Discovery Channel and were half-convinced, etc. IMO, this represents the bulk of Americans. Most of them--rightly or wrongly-- have doubts that Oswald could have fired the shots. A large percentage--perhaps a majority--believe he was involved in some way, however. So, bottom line. You are correct to point out that the number of people thinking Oswald was some innocent guy framed because he was a leftist is small. But you are totally incorrect if you think the vast majority of Americans think Oswald shot Kennedy. NICK KENDRICK THEN SAID: Now now, Pat Speer, it's very simple - David was right, and you were (once again) wrong. Pompously, arrogantly and stupidly wrong. That's all there is to it. Naturally, I didn't really expect you to have the class to apologize to David, but at the very least, you could have avoided compounding your stupidity. Oh well. PAT SPEER THEN SAID: Geez, Louise. Let's be CLEAR about this. David and Nick (assuming they're not the same person--ha) are now BOTH claiming that 93% of Americans think Oswald shot Kennedy. Is this right? If so, I suggest they both get out a little bit, and talk to people other than themselves (ha). DVP THEN SAID: Again, Pat Speer misses the boat (and point). I was talking about the SPECIFIC POLL done by ABC News in Nov. 2003. And that's a poll (whether you like its results or not) that shows, undeniably, that 83% (not 93%, because 10% had "no opinion" one way or the other) of the respondents--which numbered 1,031 people, twice the number of the Gallup Poll, btw--were of the opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald was firing a gun at JFK on 11/22/63. Live with it, Pat. http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy PAT SPEER THEN SAID: Weak sauce, David. You prop up a poll with misleading data and then run from it when I ask you to say you believe what it implied. Once again...It was a flawed poll because it had a flawed question. Think of it in the reverse. If the same group of people had been asked if they 1) thought the Warren Commission deliberately misled the public, or 2) thought the Warren Commission told the truth ABOUT EVERYTHING, how many do you think could bring themselves to go along with #2? Almost no one, right? It is the use of the absolute that steers the vote. Same thing with the ABC poll. By saying "not involved at all"[,] the pollsters knew damn well they were steering their subjects in the opposite direction. DVP THEN SAID: Pat, you must be totally blind not to recognize that the first two parts of the question (within that particular 2003 ABC Poll question being discussed here) have the word "GUNMAN" in them: 1.) "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination." 2.) "Do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day." 32% of the 1,031 people responding voted for #1 above, while another 51% said #2 was their choice. Which means, by definition, Pat, that 83% total thought that Oswald was, indeed, shooting at Kennedy. You cannot slide by those figures and pretend that that 83% really didn't understand the question or utilize some other excuse to skew the plain-as-day figures regarding the "GUNMAN" topic in the JFK assassination. The fact is that more than 8 out of every 10 of those respondents said they thought that Oswald was either the lone gunman in Dallas or that Oswald was one of the gunmen -- hence, the words "ANOTHER GUNMAN" in the wording of the second part of that particular question. And since the words "ANOTHER GUNMAN" are followed by the words "IN ADDITION TO OSWALD" in the wording of the poll's question, those respondents who fall into that "Another Gunman" category are telling ABC News that Oswald was ONE OF THE GUNMEN they thought were shooting at President Kennedy. Get it now, Pat? Or should we dance around this Mulberry bush a few more times before the obviousness of this whole thing sinks in? http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy "BOOGIE KNIGHT" THEN SAID: Pat, once again proving that a self-taught man has an idiot for both a teacher and a student, is showing that polling, like other topics such as "science" and "forensics", is just beyond his grasp. PAT SPEER THEN SAID: I see your point, David, but I assure you that the question is deceptive. DVP THEN SAID: Well, your "assurance" doesn't mean much. PAT SPEER THEN SAID: If asked, point blank, "Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy?"[,] do you REALLY believe 83% of those asked would say "yes"[?]" DVP THEN SAID: Yes. Absolutely. But you don't need my opinion on that matter, because we have the results of just such a "Do You Think LHO Shot JFK?" inquiry in black- and-white via the ABC News poll from 2003: http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy The "gunman" question in that ABC poll couldn't be any clearer, with ABC asking those 1,031 people if they thought Oswald was the "ONLY GUNMAN" or if there was "ANOTHER GUNMAN IN ADDITION TO OSWALD" or if Oswald was "NOT INVOLVED IN THE ASSASSINATION AT ALL". I think you're probably confusing the answer you'd get from kooks at Internet forums like this one with the answer you'd get to that question from the vast majority of Americans who don't frequent pro- conspiracy Internet boards. The Anybody-But-Oswald nuts that are abundant online certainly do not reflect the thinking of the majority of America. Probably 85% of the kooks online think Oswald never fired a shot. But, as the ABC poll demonstrates, the majority of people in the mainstream who have an opinion on the subject believe Oswald was firing a gun at JFK. That doesn't mean, however, that that same mainstream doesn't believe in a conspiracy, as these numbers from the exact same 2003 ABC News poll readily suggest: "Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man, or was it part of a broader plot?": One Man -- 22% Broader Plot -- 70% No Opinion -- 8% Also, let me add this: You, Pat Speer, seem to think the ABC poll's "gunman" question is deceptive and misleading. But let me ask you this: If the 83% of people who comprise the first two categories of that "gunman" question really DIDN'T believe that Oswald was a "gunman" at all, then why on Earth would they have responded the way they did to that poll's question (which, as I said, couldn't be any clearer with respect to the first two segments of that inquiry, with the word "gunman" appearing in both segments)? Why would 83% say that LHO was a gunman if a certain percentage of those respondents really DIDN'T believe such a thing? I'll leave you to sort out my last question in your own mind.

I said no such thing, Dean. Nor did I ever imply that LNers were even close to being in the majority. My earlier post was to merely point out that Jim DiEugenio is dead wrong when he has implied in the past (and he has done so on multiple occasions) that VB, McAdams, Bugliosi, Hanks, and Von Pein are pretty much the only people on the planet who accept the "lone assassin" findings of the Warren Commission. That's simply not true. And not even close to being true. Out of the 533 Gallup respondents in 2003 alone, somewhere between 100 and 106 people said they think that "one man" and only "one man" was responsible for JFK's murder. (And, quite obviously, that one man is Oswald.) Extrapolate and multiply that 100+ figure by the entire adult population of the USA, and you can see that the number of LNers in the country as a whole (as of Nov. 2003) would certainly equal tens of millions of people. DiEugenio would have us believe, however, that there are probably about a dozen LNers worldwide. Silly Jim. And the silliness of Jimbo's Anybody But Oswald position is far greater when we examine the ABC News poll from 2003.....with a mere 7% of 1,031 respondents saying that they believed Oswald was not involved as a gunman in Kennedy's death: "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?"..... ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32% ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51% OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7% NO OPINION ------------- 10%

I guess Mike Hogan actually thinks that 100+ people answered "One Man" in 2003 without even knowing who the "one man" was. They just said "one man" for the hell of it. Mike, you're a hoot. Have another cookie. You deserve it after your stellar Gallup interpretation.

Hilarious, Michael. Just hilarious. Hogan is reaching into his cookie jar of silliness again. Mike thinks that since the qualifier, "Lee Harvey Oswald", was omitted from Gallup's wording of the question in 2003, this apparently means that the "ONE MAN" that 19% of the respondents said was responsible for Kennedy's death was John Q. Doe from Walla Walla, Washington (or somebody ELSE other than Lee H. Oswald). Quite obviously, the "ONE MAN" = Lee H. Oswald, even if the name wasn't presented to the respondents by the Gallup pollsters. To think otherwise is to belong to Club Silly.

Michael Hogan is the one who can't interpret the Gallup 2003 poll. 19% of the 533 people polled by Gallup said that "one man" (who would obviously be Oswald) was involved in the JFK murder, vs. the 75% who said that "others" were involved in a "conspiracy". The question below the main Gallup question is a totally different question, and also (from the looks of the number of people questioned) could have been a completely different batch of people polled. http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

Bernice, Why on Earth would anyone want to kill Roger Craig AFTER he had already spilled his guts about various things that seem to lead toward "conspiracy" in the case? The same logical question needs to be asked about Lee Bowers too? Why wouldn't "they" have knocked off Bowers BEFORE he was filmed by Mark Lane spilling his guts in the movie version of "Rush To Judgment"? It makes no sense to let these witnesses live for years and years -- and in the case of both Craig and Bowers, to let them go in front of cameras and preserve their tales on film and videotape. "They" can bump off the President, with tons of Secret Service and cops all around, but they can't manage to bump off unprotected witnesses like Lee Bowers and Roger Craig until YEARS after the assassination? That's crazy.

Are you saying that most researchers have reached the conclusion that Ruth and Michael Paine thought that Oswald was innocent? And most researchers have concluded that Clay Shaw really did call up Dean Andrews on Nov. 22? That's nonsense, Steve. True. But this place needs a resident "LN voice", if only for a tiny bit of balance. There are, indeed, a lot of "LNers" in the world, although Jim D., for some reason, seems to think that only myself, VB, John McAdams, and Tom Hanks (and perhaps a small handful of others) belong in the LN category. But, in fact, almost 1 out of every 5 people think the Warren Commission got it right (as of November 2003). 19% is far from a majority, that's true enough. But the percentage of LNers is certainly not as small as DiEugenio and others want to believe: http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

Thank you, Bernice. Since my last post about that Craig article, I've found out a little more about it via two sources -- Vincent Bugliosi's book and John McAdams' website. The latter has an excellent article all about Roger Craig's lies (and the McAdams page is something I have read before, but I had forgotten all about it when this topic came up here at this forum). I've now discovered the L.A. Free Press interview with Craig (and Penn Jones) occurred in March of 1968, six years before Craig added his "7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel" lie to his already-lengthy list of lies. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm http://img36.imageshack.us/i/craigandjonespage10.jpg/

Who cares? Spout all the conspiracy nonsense you want, Jimbo. I wouldn't believe a thing Jim DiEugenio ever said anyway. No reasonable person could possibly even begin to believe all of the stupid things Jim DiEugenio believes when it comes to his ludicrously elaborate and impossible conspiracy theories re JFK's death. You're only good for laughs, Jimmy. BTW, for those lurkers who might be unaware, Delusional DiEugenio is the same conspiracy-hungry monger who thinks Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were liars and just made up out of whole cloth the story about Oswald carrying a large brown bag on the morning of November 22, 1963. (The evil DPD "forced" them to make up the paper bag, per Jimbo. How's that for ludicrously elaborate?) "Blinkered", indeed. Jimmy D. is so bent on having a JFK conspiracy that he can't even see that his latest list of 10 items in his last post is totally laughable from beginning to end. Numbers 2, 9, and 10 are particularly hilarious. And Jimbo has surely got to know that those things are hilarious. But that won't stop him from spouting such crap, 24/7. Pathetic, as usual.

Oh, brother, what a goofy and idiotic title that is. Of course Bugliosi "acquitted everyone but Oswald", and he should have done so. Why? Because everyone was innocent except Oswald. (Duh.) I think Vince B. should have probably had a similar chapter in the second half of "Reclaiming History", entitled "How The Conspiracy Kooks Have Convicted Everyone Under The Sun EXCEPT Oswald". I wonder if Part 11 of DiEugenio's never-ending series of VB-bashing tripe is going to be: "Bugliosi's A Boob For Not Throwing Out All Of The Evidence Against Oswald, Which Is What I (James DiEugenio) Have Done In The JFK And Tippit Murder Cases"

Well, Ian, it's more like the "DUMB OL' SHERIFF'S DEPT." card, since Boone and Weitzman were with the Dallas County Sheriff's Office. But, yeah, Fritz was DPD, and he apparently thought the rifle was initially a Mauser too. But none of the officers were allowed to make an honest mistake, right Ian? Every error HAS to be of a sinister nature, right?

The whole "Mauser" business has been blown up to absurd levels by conspiracy theorists since 1963. The fact is (and always was) that the police just simply goofed on 11/22/63 when multiple officers thought (incorrectly) that the rifle pulled from the box stacks on the sixth floor of the TSBD was a Mauser. And both Eugene Boone and Seymour Weitzman have stated publicly that they were both in error regarding their respective initial "Mauser" identifications (and these retractions don't even count both Boone's and Weitzman's Warren Commision testimony, wherein they each corrected their initial "Mauser" mistake): SEYMOUR WEITZMAN (ON CBS-TV IN JUNE 1967) -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser, which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw, was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement was a mistake; but it was an honest mistake." EUGENE BOONE (IN 1986): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Addsk7GpnaA&p=974A39F551630434 Plus, I think it's also worth noting that the initial "Mauser" error was corrected in the media just a little more than 24 hours after the assassination, because I have the video of CBS-TV's Walter Cronkite announcing to the world on the afternoon of November 23rd that the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was not a Mauser at all, but instead it was an Italian Mannlicher-Carcano (or, to use Cronkite's hilarious mispronunciation at the 4-minute mark of the video below -- a "Mann-lisher Car-CHANT-o"): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrtLLQpA4uU&p=364F4A4B1BBC9DC6 And, btw, Bernice, there is no date on this article at all -- unless the "_68.jpg" at the tail end of your image file is supposed to signify the date--as in "1968". Is that the date you're talking about? And I have no idea where the SECOND date notation would be on that article. ~shrug~

Glenn, Oh, okay. That must be only for the very few Hulu videos I have embedded. But 99% of my embeds are through Blogger.com. You can surely play those, can't you?

Roger Craig was a 10 on the xxxx Scale. No doubt. Gerald Ford was a 0, of course. He didn't lie about a damn thing, including the back wound. J. Edgar was probably about a 2 or 3 (for his career). For the JFK case, however, he was a 0. He was just plain stupid and ignorant about a lot of the evidence in the early going of the JFK investigation. But he wasn't a xxxx. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/fbi-errors.html (Awaiting the roars of laughter from all the lifelong "Hoover Was The Devil In Disguise" CT fanatics.)

That's news to me, Glenn. I'm confused. What happens when you click on the play buttons? Nothing? The videos just don't play?

Bill Kelly, FYI -- For a slightly better-quality version (640 x 480) of "JFK In Ireland", and to play it in a bigger video player, you can go to my YouTube version of that program, here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B5C44717828AE67D

Nah, I doubt that. I'm just a goofy LN freak. But that doesn't mean you can't enjoy my video links, Bill. Many good and rare items in there. And HERE. Have you ever seen JFK's very first archived interview on NBC-TV (from 1951)? --- http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/10/nbc-news-time-capsule-john-f-kennedy.html

I wouldn't believe a single thing uttered by Roger Dean Craig under any circumstances. I just proved above that Craig lied like a cheap rug re the 7.65 Mauser BS. But Craig's obvious lies don't bother CT monger Jim Di. in the least. And that's because R.D. Craig was a conspiracy nut....and that makes his stories okay in Jimmy DiEugenio's book. And note how DiEugenio totally ignores the timing for when Craig says he saw the "7.65 Mauser" stamp. Craig said he saw it just after Day took it from between the boxes on the sixth floor. So as far as his 7.65 Mauser lie is concerned, what difference does it make exactly WHEN Craig got to the sixth floor? And also note how DiEugenio actually seems to believe Craig about there being another rifle "brought down" from the roof. Of course, as we all know, there was no other rifle to be brought down from the rooftop, because no rifle (Mauser or otherwise) was found on the roof of the Depository. And Jimmy Boy knows this. He just likes the idea of supporting a Big Fat xxxx like Roger D. Craig. Pathetic. Roger Craig lied. And he lied about multiple important things associated with the JFK murder case. And DiEugenio has to know he was a xxxx. But Jimmy just doesn't give a damn, as long as he can support another ABO conspiracy monger.

More BS from Jimbo, of course. After Roger Craig invented his bald-faced lie about seeing "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the rifle, he always maintained that it was stamped on the rifle that Lt. J.C. Day had just lifted out of the boxes on the northwest corner of the sixth floor. Craig never claimed to see the stamp on a rifle that had later been carried down from the roof. Craig's 7.65 Mauser lie is exposed in this article that Bernice Moore linked to earlier (even though Bernice undoubtedly thinks that that article she posted is further proof that Roger D. Craig is the Saint to end all Saints.) But here's the proof (in the video below) to prove for all time that Craig's lies evolved over a period of time. In the article Bernice posted, "RC" (Roger Craig) said this: QUESTION: "Did you handle that rifle [that was pulled from the boxes on the sixth floor of the TSBD]?" ROGER CRAIG: "Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles." But in Mark Lane's video "Two Men In Dallas" (linked below), Roger Craig specifically says that he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the rifle that had just been lifted from the box stacks on the sixth floor. The combination of that Craig interview posted by Bernice and the video below exposes Roger Craig's "7.65 Mauser" lie like never before. But I'm sure conspiracy mongers like James DiEugenio and Lee Farley will continue to pat Roger Craig on the back and treat him as a perfectly truthful and upstanding witness when it comes to this 7.65 Mauser bullxxxx and his tale about the bullet shells being only about three-fourths of an inch to one inch apart and all facing the exact same direction (and who would even want to PLANT shells in such a silly manner anyway?), etc. Plus, there's also the fact that Roger Craig never said a single word about seeing any rifle with "7.65 Mauser" stamped on it during his testimony in front of the Warren Commission either. Which is, of course, yet another indication that Deputy Sheriff Craig invented his "Mauser" story only after appearing before the Warren Commission. The word "Mauser" is not mentioned once during Craig's 1964 WC session, even after David Belin said this to Craig right after Craig told the WC about the discovery of the rifle on the sixth floor: "Anything else happen up to that time that you haven't related here that you feel might be important?" Roger Craig's answer to Belin's above question: "No." In addition, Craig never said a word about seeing the Mauser stamp on the sixth-floor rifle during his 1969 Clay Shaw Trial testimony either. And also contradicting the interview supplied by Bernice, Craig never mentions handling the rifle during his testimony at Shaw's New Orleans trial either. In short -- Anyone who supports Roger Dean Craig is supporting a known xxxx.

Why leave me out, Jimbo? I'm deeply hurt by the omission.

Oh, for Pete sake, Jimbo. Why the hell can't you start your own thread linking to your conspiracy-happy nonsense? Why are you using my thread for your junk? Start your own.

You're strange.

Take note of Roger Craig's comments in the article posted by Bernice above: Craig claims he had no idea what type of gun was recovered from the boxes on the 6th Floor, even though he said he HANDLED the rifle himself (another big fat lie from Craig....and I am assuming the "RC" in that text is, indeed, referring to Roger Craig; correct, Bernice?). Craig also talks about a Mauser being found on "the roof" of the TSBD (another ridiculous statement). I guess Craig later decided to add his tall tale about actually seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on a rifle that was supposedly (per the above article) found ON THE ROOF, and not on the sixth floor at all. That's the trouble with evolving lies like Roger Craig told. It's hard for the big fat xxxx to keep all of his lies straight....as we can easily see via that interview with Craig. When was that bullxxxx article printed, Bernice? There's no date mentioned.

Who cares? Why do you even ask? Just do it. A goodly percentage of Bernice Moore's posts are "FYI: Here's A Video" type of posts. So, obviously there's no Education Forum law against posting links to such material, or posting the embedded videos themselves. And, btw, there's a heck of a lot of good stuff in the links I posted in my thread-starter above. So, I figured a few people who visit this JFK forum might be interested in JFK video and audio material. (Silly me, huh?)

Some people here might be interested in some of the following links, which contain several JFK-related programs that I have added to my audio and video archives over the last several weeks and months: =================================================== RADIO DEBATES WITH JOHN McADAMS: http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/10/radio-debates-featuring-john-mcadams.html http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1cf81acef82d5b94 WLW-RADIO COVERAGE OF NOVEMBER 22-23,1963 (34 HOURS): http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/wlw-radio-11-22-63.html WBAP-RADIO COVERAGE OF NOVEMBER 22, 1963 (4+ HOURS): http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/wbap-radio-11-22-63.html KRLD-RADIO COVERAGE OF NOVEMBER 22, 1963 (4 HOURS): http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/10/krld-radio-11-22-63.html "JOHN F. KENNEDY: YEARS OF LIGHTNING, DAY OF DRUMS" (1964 DOCUMENTARY): http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/10/years-of-lightning-day-of-drums.html "FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER" (1964 DOCUMENTARY): http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/four-days-in-november.html LYNDON JOHNSON TELEPHONE CALLS (1963-1964): http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/lyndon-johnson-phone-calls.html "KENNEDYS DON'T CRY" (1975 DOCUMENTARY): http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/10/kennedys-dont-cry.html "A YEAR AGO TODAY" (SPECIAL PROGRAM AIRED BY WFAA-TV ON 11/22/64): http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/year-ago-today.html "THE WARREN COMMISSION" (1999 HISTORY CHANNEL DOCUMENTARY): http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/warren-commission-1999-documentary.html "JFK IN IRELAND" (1993 DOCUMENTARY): http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/10/jfk-in-ireland.html "THE MAKING OF THE PRESIDENT 1960" (DAVID L. WOLPER DOCUMENTARY): http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/making-of-president-1960.html DALLAS POLICE RADIO TAPES FROM 11/22/63: http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/dallas-police-radio-tapes-nov-22-1963.html JFK'S ASSASSINATION--THE AFTERMATH: http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/jfk-assassination-aftermath.html PRE-ASSASSINATION RADIO NEWSCASTS FROM NOVEMBER 22, 1963: http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/pre-assassination-newscasts-11-22-63.html CBS-TV INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT KENNEDY (SEPTEMBER 2, 1963): http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/jfk-interview-cbs-tv-september-2-1963.html NBC-TV INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT KENNEDY (SEPTEMBER 9, 1963): http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/jfk-interview-nbc-tv-september-9-1963.html VINCENT BUGLIOSI VS. CYRIL WECHT (JUNE 2007 RADIO DEBATE): http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/bugliosi-vs-wecht.html INTERVIEW WITH JOSIAH THOMPSON (DECEMBER 29, 1967): http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/josiah-thompson-interview-december-1967.html HENRY WADE'S 11/24/63 PRESS CONFERENCE: http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/henry-wade-press-conference-11-24-63.html SENATOR JOHN F. KENNEDY ON "MEET THE PRESS" (OCTOBER 1960): http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/jfk-tv-appearance-october-1960.html NBC NEWS TIME CAPSULE FEATURING JOHN F. KENNEDY: http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/10/nbc-news-time-capsule-john-f-kennedy.html ======================================================