David Von Pein

I have no idea why you're saying this. http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/06/dale-myers.html http://With--Malice.blogspot.com http://Single-Bullet-THeory.blogspot.com

Sure, that's 100% accurate too. JFK and Connally WERE, indeed, hit by Oswald's CE399 bullet between frames 210 and 225. The SBT occurred at Z224, IMO, which falls between those two points. BTW, I think the WC was very wise to "bracket" the SBT timing, too. It was wiser to do that than to try and pinpoint ONE specific frame and label it as the definitive "SBT frame". And Vincent Bugliosi does that same type of bracketing in his book, "Reclaiming History", too. And I can appreciate and understand that kind of approach to the SBT shot. Yes, I know that I myself HAVE pinpointed a specific SBT frame in my Internet writings (Z224). But we also have better digital techniques and gif clips, etc., with which to examine the Zapruder Film today than the Warren Commission had back in 1963 and 1964. And I'll also admit that I could be wrong about the exact "Z224" SBT hit, because it's true (as the WC points out) that JFK was almost certainly struck by the SBT bullet while he was hidden by the road sign, which makes any kind of a definitive timing for the SBT shot very difficult indeed. But I also feel that it's really JOHN CONNALLY that pretty much determines the SBT shot occurring at Z224. Because we can see all of Connally BEFORE he's hit by a bullet. And since the only REASONABLE and rational conclusion, given the sum total of evidence connected with the initial wounding of both victims, is that one bullet positively did strike both men at the same time....then it becomes fairly simple to determine at what point on the Z-Film the SBT is occurring -- and the involuntary reactions and movements of Governor Connally in the frames immediately after Z224 are unquestionably telling me (and other reasonable people who have studied Mr. Zapruder's home movie) that Connally has just been hit by a bullet an instant prior to Z225. But the Warren Commission's analysis of when JFK & JBC were hit by the SBT bullet (between Z210 and Z225) doesn't negate the WC's words that we find on Page 117, which is where the WC is admitting that they really DO NOT KNOW when the "missed" shot occurred. The WC is allowing for ALL possibilities, and they say so right on Page 117. They allow for a FIRST-SHOT miss, which, naturally, would stretch out the timing of the whole shooting. The Commission also allows for a SECOND-SHOT miss and even a THIRD-SHOT miss. The WC also allows for the possibility that the Main St. curb damage could have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. And, hence, the WC is also allowing for the head shot to be a cause for the wounding of James Tague as well. Again, that's all spelled out, clear as day, on Page 117 of the WCR. But Jim DiEugenio, who has his "Conspiracy Only" hat firmly affixed to his cranium 24/7, apparently thinks that the Warren Commission was just lying through its collective teeth when it was giving a whole range of possibilities on Page 117. Gee, you'd think that Jim would be giving the WC a few extra points for being above-board and honest by ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL POSSIBILITIES concerning the shooting. Jimbo, however, evidently thinks that by allowing for other possibilities (instead of being hard-headed and sticking to a specific scenario that the WC knew it could not prove with total certainty), the Warren Commission was STILL being as crooked as a dog's hind leg on Page 117. I guess with some CTers, the Warren boys couldn't win....no matter what they did or said.

Yeah, I can. But you seem to be having some math trouble tonight, Jimbo. You can't even subtract 210 from 313. You think it's 113. (It's only 103 frames, Jim. 104 inclusive.) And, yes, Z210 to Z313 is 5.6 seconds. But didn't you read Page 117 of the Warren Report, where the WC said the shooting could have taken as long as "7.9 seconds"? Let's take another look, shall we?: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm BTW, Jim, get your apostrophe fixed. I get tired of adding them in all the time for you. Who needs Groden's book? I've got the picture in question in my photo archives on the Internet--right here: And you actually think that just because the rifle ended up on the floor in a SCOPE-UP position, that means we can positively eliminate the idea of the scope being damaged or misaligned by way of Oswald's possible rough handling of the gun when he shoved it between those boxes? Surely you jest, my friend. The scope could very well have received some rough treatment as Oswald was hurriedly throwing it down on the floor amid those boxes. You're reaching far into your conspiracy cookie jar on this silly one, James. Nobody can say for sure whether he ever practiced with his Carcano or not. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. This argument is a CT/LN wash, and always was. WTF? I've said multiple times tonight in this thread that I would LIKE to see such a rifle test. Are you not reading my prior posts at all, James? Actually, such a test with a Carcano rifle in Dealey Plaza (which, as I explained to Jimbo twice previously, will never happen just because a couple of guys from California and Indiana have signed a letter and mailed it to Gary Mack, because Gary already explained that such on-site tests in Dealey Plaza would not be permitted) would really be a win-win situation for an "LNer" like myself -- and that's because even if the Gomer Pyle-like Marine didn't hit anything with his Carcano from the Sniper's Nest, such a failure by Gomer wouldn't suddenly WIPE OUT all of the physical and circumstantial evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination. Does Jim DiEugenio really believe such a failure (if a failed test did occur) WOULD wipe the slate clean and result in the Government suddenly ready to declare that the man to whom ALL OF THE 1963 EVIDENCE STILL POINTS is now totally INNOCENT of the shooting? Come now, James. But, of course, if such a test with Gomer (or even his cousin Goober) was successful, and Gomer/Goober fired three shots from a Carcano in 6 or 7 or 8 seconds, with two hits on the target, it certainly should make a lot of ABO CTers shut their traps for all time. (But, of course, it wouldn't. We all know that, don't we Jim?) Spoken like a true-blue Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorist. Call Jim Fetzer and have a beer together. Jim F. thinks that Oswald's rifle wasn't even a...."rifle". (Go figure.) Yeah, Jim. I'm the only one who's been derailing Jim Root's thread here, right? You haven't uttered a peep, have you?

Two more problems with Jimmy's proposed "test firing" in Dealey Plaza (as Jimbo tries to make things harder and harder for anyone who might try to duplicate the "feat" that Lee Harvey Oswald positively did perform on 11/22/63): The part about the "misaligned scope" is pure guesswork on Jimmy's part. I'm not denying that Oswald's scope on Rifle C2766 was misaligned (and it fired high and to the right) AFTER the assassination. But there is no proof whatsoever that the scope was misaligned when Oswald was using it to shoot at President Kennedy. The scope might very well have been damaged and misaligned only after Oswald threw the rifle on the floor behind the box stacks in the northwest corner of the sixth floor. Nobody can ever know for sure how roughly (or smoothly) Oswald placed his rifle on the floor that day. And I think even most conspiracy theorists will agree that if that rifle had bounced on the floor a time or two before settling (scope up) on the floor between the book cartons, such rough handling of the weapon could very possibly have jarred the very cheap telescopic sight out of alignment. You don't know whether Oswald ever practiced with his C2766 Carcano or not, Jim. Of course, I realize you want to pretend that LHO never had that gun in his hands AT ALL in the year 1963, but as all reasonable people know, that idea is just a flat-out silly one, given all of the firm evidence that indicates he did ORDER, PAY FOR, WAS PHOTOGRAPHED WITH, and therefore TOOK POSSESSION OF Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766 in early 1963. Plus, we do know for a fact that Oswald definitely "practiced" dry-firing the rifle on his porch in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Now, that's not the same thing as practicing with live ammo in the gun, that's true. I'm not saying it is the same thing. But via that front-porch dry-firing, I'm guessing that Oswald probably knew the ins and outs of working that bolt and "two-stage trigger" that you claim were ultra-crappy. And I'll bet he knew how to work that rifle pretty well too. After all, it WAS his gun (despite DiEugenio's constant whining to the contrary). So, Jim, you're going to have to remove those two biased requirements from your letter to Mr. Mack.

As I said previously....I'm all for it. Such a test would be excellent. But it'll never happen in Dealey Plaza. Didn't you read this part of Post #27 of this thread?: "As for why the test shots weren't fired in Dealey Plaza, there was no reason to do so. Such actions would be dangerous, pure exploitation and probably against the law, since the Plaza is a city park and a National Historic Landmark." -- Gary Mack; July 4, 2009 Or do you, Jim, have a lot of "pull" with the city managers in Dallas?

If you're talking about the WC saying that Oswald positively did the shooting in 5.6 seconds, you're wrong. That was their best guess, yes. But the WC wasn't confining itself to only "5.6 seconds" as most conspiracy theorists seem to want to believe. Just read Page 117 of the Warren Report and see for yourself: Oh, it certainly CAN be done--even by a Marine sharpshooter who scored a 212 on the U.S. Marine rifle range in 1956. We KNOW it can be done--because your favorite patsy DID IT in 1963, James. BTW, who's chickening out? Perhaps you missed this comment by me in an earlier post: "Actually, I'd very much like to see a test like that performed, Jim. And in Dealey Plaza too." -- DVP That comment means I'm "chickening out"? And watching you performing that childish task (even though I said I'd LIKE to see such a rifle test performed in Dealey Plaza) would do WONDERS for your stellar reputation, James. So, please, borrow these plastic chicken wings of mine and have a ball.

No need for that, Jim. Gary will see these posts right here at The Education Forum.

Actually, I'd very much like to see a test like that performed, Jim. And in Dealey Plaza too. Of course, there's one major stumbling block to the kind of test you're proposing, Jim. And Gary Mack informed me about the roadblock in an e-mail he wrote to me in July 2009. Gary's e-mail was in response to this question that I had asked about the "Inside The Target Car" documentary: "I'm wondering why the test shots couldn't have simply been done in the best possible place to perform such a test -- right in Dealey Plaza itself (and from the 6th-Floor window inside the Book Depository itself)? The Discovery people already had arranged for the police to completely close off Elm Street and Dealey Plaza for a period of time for their initial "looking through the rifle scope" tests (to see whether certain angles within the Plaza were feasible ones or not for the head shot), so I wonder why they didn't just go the whole nine yards and perform the actual test shots that were fired into the surrogate skulls from Dealey Plaza as well? I know that Oswald's Sniper's-Nest window is now technically "off limits" to visitors of Mr. Mack's Sixth Floor Museum. But surely an exception could have been made to allow Mr. Yardley to use that corner window to fire just that one shot at a dummy's head. If the test shots could have been fired right at the scene of the crime itself (Dealey Plaza), I think it would have been better all the way around, and mainly to silence even more critics of the lone-assassin conclusion. But by doing the actual shooting tests in California, the naysayers can now argue that the tests weren't set up right...or that the distances cannot be confirmed...or that the height of Oswald's window wasn't measured with accuracy...etc., etc. But I'm guessing that some legal restrictions (or some kind of roadblock anyway) prohibited the shooting tests from being done right there in Dealey Plaza. That's too bad, too, because unless I miss my guess, a head-shot test performed from the actual crime scene would have been even MORE powerful and conspiracy-refuting." -- DVP; November 2008 =============================== Gary Mack then said: "As for why the test shots weren't fired in Dealey Plaza, there was no reason to do so. Such actions would be dangerous, pure exploitation and probably against the law, since the Plaza is a city park and a National Historic Landmark." -- Gary Mack; July 4, 2009 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/jfk-inside-target-car-part-1.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/jfk-inside-target-car-part-3.html

Well, Jim, if you were to change the timing for the three shots to the accurate time of approx. 8 seconds, I'm all for it. But your "6 seconds" time is too short and you (of course) know it. Oswald's shots: Shot 1 -- Z-frame 160 (approx.). Shot 2 -- Z224. Shot 3 -- Z313. Total time = 8.36 seconds.

My goodness, that doesn't sound very friendly, James my friend. But, of course, there's no need to tell me to go back to John McAdams' forum....because I still post there daily too, including cross-posting from here, in order to inform the several very astute LNers who monitor Prof. McAdams' aaj newsgroup (e.g., Jean Davison, Joe Elliott, Bud, John Fiorentino, BigDog, Steve Barber, Dave Reitzes, Tim Brennan, and Prof. McAdams himself, among others) of the ultra-brilliant work being done here by the Education Forum's conspiracy theorists--like in this recent thread at aaj: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b0fd04d8a9ee47a9

Yes, you're right, Jim, about the 30-foot-high shooting tests done by the WC, vs. the proper height of 60 feet. And Vince Bugliosi does a little WC-bashing in his book when the topic comes around to those WC rifle tests. And the "MSM" that Jim D. thinks was bending over backwards to convict Oswald also raked the WC over some hot coals too in 1967, when Walter Cronkite ridiculed the Commission on that "30 foot vs. 60 foot high" topic. Paraphrasing Cronkite from the 1967 CBS-TV program "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report": "CBS built a tower to match the height of the sixth floor; so surely it wasn't beyond the capabilities of the FBI to do the same." But the FACT is that some of the CBS shooters (from a 60-foot-high perch) were able to duplicate (and beat) Oswald's Dallas shooting performance. One shooter (which might have been Howard Donahue, but I'm not 100% sure of that at this moment) got off three shots in 4.1 seconds, but he only got 1 hit on the silhouette target. And another CBS marksman achieved three hits on the target in just 5.2 seconds. So it CAN be done. And Monty Lutz of the HSCA Firearms Panel also beat Oswald's performance. So, perhaps it's time for the conspiracy theorists to stop peddling the "IT CANNOT BE DONE AND HAS NEVER BEEN DONE" myth when it comes to the subject of Lee Harvey Oswald's so-called "impossible" shooting feat in Dealey Plaza. Don't you think that's a good idea, Jim?

BENNY HILL REPRISE: What WCR page number is that on, Jimbo? (Oh, my weak bladder.)

The delusions never stop gushing from the fertile mind of James DiEugenio, do they? The PRE-assassination plotters who were framing Oswald as a SOLO PATSY, even though the shooting "was so difficult that you needed three professional gunmen to guarantee a kill shot", just GOT LUCKY when the cops and the MSM and the WC decided to play along and FRAME THE SAME SOLO PATSY NAMED OSWALD TOO! And yet *I* am the one who supposedly needs "help" here, per DiEugenio. Hilarious. DiEugenio's next bladder-buster will undoubtedly be: Oh, who gives a damn if the people framing Oswald didn't keep an eye on their patsy at 12:30 on Nov. 22?! What difference does it make if a bunch of people see the patsy on the first floor of the TSBD at the exact moment he's supposed to be up on the sixth floor killing the President?! The DPD and Hoover and the WC's Troika will fix everything afterwards anyway. So who gives a xxxx if the patsy garners for himself seventeen different alibi witnesses in the Depository at 12:30? Big f---ing deal, Davey Boy!

LOL. Oh, for Pete sake. Jimbo knows exactly what my question means--and it's a perfectly reasonable question, and one that no CTer can possibly answer in a reasonable, believable way. IF OSWALD WAS THE ONE & ONLY "PATSY" IN DALLAS, THEN SETTING HIM UP BY UTILIZING MANY DIFFERENT GUNMEN IS JUST PLAIN SUICIDE. Such a multi-gun, one-patsy scheme would not have been attempted by even the most bumbling of conspirators. LOL. But the plotters who were framing him didn't know this about Oswald, eh? They just hoped that nobody else would find out that LHO admired and liked JFK, is that it? Hilarious. And the "worked for him" crappola was a nice touch, Jimbo. It's pure BS, of course, but it's the first time I've ever heard one of you guys state it in such a fashion. More bullxxxx from Jim D. The shooting "feat" by Oswald was not that difficult at all. The "feat" was accomplished on camera by multiple CBS marksmen in 1967. Naturally, however, DiEugenio will dismiss those CBS tests...because CBS is part of the "MSM cover-up". Reprise (just to prove my "Patsy" point from a slightly different angle): Yeah, right, Jim. That's why your bumbling patsy-framers decided to FRAME OSWALD AS A SOLO PATSY, even though the shooting in Dealey Plaza "was so difficult that you needed three professional gunmen to guarantee a kill shot". Hilarious. Benny Hill was never funnier than the ABO conspiracy theorists.

ADDENDUM: David J., Do you really think that the following question (which I asked earlier on this forum) is an unreasonable question for me to ask of the conspiracy theorists who think Lee Oswald was being set up and framed as a "patsy" to take the fall for JFK's murder? Am I just exhibiting my "maniacal" behavior and attitudes toward Oswald when I asked this perfectly reasonable and logical question, which is a question that CTers should be pulling their hair out trying to answer in any kind of a believable and rational fashion?: WHY would any of the conspirators have even WANTED to risk the whole "patsy" ballgame by utilizing two, three, or four gunmen in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63?

David J., Oswald didn't have it in his mind to kill JFK until just a few days before November 22nd (at most). I think that is obvious via the things that Oswald could and could not have known leading up to Friday, 11/22. He couldn't have known for sure the President would drive by the front door of his workplace until (at the earliest) Tuesday morning, Nov. 19th. He might have GUESSED that Kennedy might make the Houston-to-Elm turn, but he couldn't have KNOWN it for certain until Nov. 19. Oswald's solo act of murder on Nov. 22 reeks of a "last minute" effort on LHO's part, including his unusual ride with Wesley Frazier to Irving to get his rifle on Thursday, Nov. 21 and his really crappy escape plan (if he even had one formed in his mind). But the FACTS and EVIDENCE aren't lying to us. And those facts and evidence are screaming out the name of the one and only killer of President Kennedy--and that killer's name was Lee H. Oswald. And I wonder why so many people are ready and eager to just toss all of the abundance of "Oswald Is Guilty" evidence out the nearest window. For, if ALL of the many, many pieces of evidence stacked up against Oswald have been faked or planted, then miracles truly are possible in this world in which we live. Mr. Sturdivan: "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" (c.2005)

Well, this former Secret Service agent seemed to like it: http://www.makereadyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=50341

So, if a person enjoys a book and endorses it and quotes from it (and also had a really strong inkling that the book WAS, indeed, going to be a good book even many years before it was published)....this means that that person is automatically a "shill" for that particular publication? Is that correct, Jim? Does this mean I can then start calling you a "Garrison shill" or an "On The Trail Of The Assassins" shill, Jim? (I probably already have done so, however, in one of our many Internet fights since 2008, but I'd have to check the ol' archives for verification of that.) So? As I said earlier (allow me to repeat this very good and utterly accurate statement from Post #54 in this thread): "But, yes, of course, Bugliosi was going to use 1 HSCA 454 to debunk the silly CTers of the world like you [James DiEugenio] who continue to promote the lie that CE543 could not possibly have been fired in Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano on November 22nd, 1963." -- David "Shill" Von Pein

Yes, Otto. Point taken. Thanks for your last conciliatory message. I still think that any thread that purports the notion that Lyndon Baines Johnson was a key participant in the assassination of his predecessor is, indeed, worthy of having the "silly" label attached to it. But, to each his own.

In that particular "Champagne/Lutz" instance, I have no idea....because it was obvious in that instance I was not citing any RH passages. I was citing the HSCA directly. You probably just got one of your "VB Is A xxxx" or "DVP Is An RH Shill" or "Hoover Was A Cover-Up Artist" wires crossed tonight. It must be kinda hard to keep all of that conspiracy-oriented nonsense straight, week after week. Right, James?

My POV is: LBJ had nothing to do with JFK's assassination. Period. I have no idea what you're talking about. I provide tons of facts and evidence and testimony to back up my beliefs. I link to them all the time. And because I didn't do that very thing in a really silly thread like this particular one, I'm getting the on-the-soapbox treatment from Otto? Curious.

No, Jimbo, you wanted people to think that I ran straight to RH for my Champagne & Lutz testimony--which I did not. You said the Champagne stuff was straight out of RH, which it wasn't (as far as my usage of the testimony in this thread is concerned). I was citing directly from HSCA Volume 1--and I even linked to the page. But, yes, of course, Bugliosi was going to use 1 HSCA 454 to debunk the silly CTers of the world like you who continue to promote the lie that CE543 could not possibly have been fired in Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano on November 22nd, 1963.

DiEugenio has, indeed, blown a series of gaskets this evening. He actually thinks my first word in that previous post ("Bullxxxx") was meant to mean that I thought Champagne's and Lutz' testimony was "bullxxxx". Of course, quite obviously, the "bullxxxx" remark was referring to Jimbo's quoted text as being "bullxxxx".

Notice how Delusional DiEugenio rails against Blakey -- the same guy who headed the House Select Committee, the same Committee which said that there WAS a conspiracy in the JFK case. So, Delusional Jimbo is probably fixed firmly between the ol' rock and a hard place on G. Robert -- should Delusional DiEugenio call Blakey a crook (for saying Oswald alone hit JFK with any bullets)? Or should Jimbo "Everybody's A xxxx" D. embrace Blakey because of the HSCA's "It Was A Conspiracy" nonsense? It's tough to be Jimbo here.

So what? I'm sure Vince does use that "dented lip" info provided by Champagne and Lutz. Why in the heck WOULDN'T he use it, for Pete sake? But in my prior post, I wasn't referring to RH or VB. I was citing directly from 1 HSCA 454. Huh? I never said it was "BS". You did (as usual). You are REALLY out in left field tonight. Too many green apples for dinner, Jimbo? You're delusional, my friend. Back to bed with Armstrong and your hero Garrison now, Jimbo.