David Von Pein

Hi Bill, Well, actually I think you've misrepresented my position a little bit on that particular matter. I never said I "supported John McAdams" and his decision to reject any posts over at his aaj newsgroup. In that discussion with you, I was merely pointing out the basic rules that McAdams lives by at that forum--i.e., you can't get by with calling a current forum member an "idiot" or a "kook" or a "xxxx", etc. He just won't allow it. But I don't recall ever saying that I, myself, endorse such restrictions on posts. In fact, I'll tell you right now that I, for one, think Mr. McAdams is a fool for wanting to take on the task of "moderating" a JFK forum like he does every single day. IMO, such a moderation job is just silly and needless. I would absolutely dread the task of turning on my computer and finding 76 new posts in the queue for moderation (or even 6). And then being forced to read all of them to make sure that no "liars" or "kooks" or "you're a WC shill" slip through the cracks. Yuck. What a horrible job. I can, however, kind of admire McAdams for taking on such a xxxxty job. But, IMO, he's nuts for even WANTING to do it every day. BTW: I got a kick out of this part of your above comments, Bill: "I came to his [McAdams] defense and said that he wasn't a Disinformation Agent, but a Disinformation Idiot..." If coming to someone's "defense" is achieved by calling them an "idiot", then remind me to never hire you as my defense lawyer the next time some conspiracy-loving "cracker" takes me to court on the charge of my being a dirty rotten CIA Disinfo Agent. ~wink~ BTW #2: Just "for the official record", here's exactly what I said to William Kelly, via two recent e-mails, regarding the topic of John McAdams and the alt.assassination.jfk Internet newsgroup: Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots" Date: 7/30/2010 6:26:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Bill Kelly [exact e-mail address deleted] BTW, Bill, After looking over the post that McAdams rejected at aaj, I can only ask you: Why on Earth are you the least bit surprised that such a post of yours was rejected at McAdams' moderated aaj newsgroup? You, in effect, called John McAdams an "idiot" in your post. Of course it was going to get rejected. What did you expect? [A portion of Bill's post that was rejected by McAdams is quoted below:] "Unless the CIA is paying McAdams to play at his fourm [sic] and publish his book, he's not a disinformation agent. He could be a disinformation idiot, though I like the word Cracker." -- William Kelly DVP ======================== Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots" Date: 8/1/2010 11:46:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Bill Kelly Yes, he did. That's exactly why he rejected that post of yours. I'd almost bet on it. John McAdams doesn't allow anyone to use that type of remark ("idiot") at the moderated aaj newsgroup if it's aimed directly at a CURRENT MEMBER of the newsgroup/forum, which McAdams, himself, is. I can call DiEugenio and Fetzer "kooks" all day long at aaj...and the posts won't get rejected--because those people aren't current members at the a.a.j. forum. But I can't ever say that you're a "kook" anymore at aaj, because you're a currently-active member. That might seem like an odd rule--being able to only call people "kooks", "liars", and "idiots" who aren't around to defend themselves from the aaj onslaught, while not permitting those types of descriptive terms to be utilized against people who ARE members, who CAN defend themselves on the forum--but that's the way it is at McAdams' aaj. DVP

What good would it do you, Jim, even if a signed receipt for the revolver with the name "A. Hidell" or even "Lee Harvey Oswald" existed? You know what would happen. I sure do anyway: You would merely say that THAT document has been forged too. You think EVERY document connected with BOTH firearm purchases made by Oswald in 1963 is fake. Every one! From the money order for the C2766 rifle...to the order form for the rifle...to the envelope the order form for the rifle was mailed in...to the order form for the revolver. All of the above is FAKE and PHONY, per Jim DiEugenio. Admit it, Jim--you think all of that stuff is fake, despite EVERY item listed being said by handwriting experts to be in the writing of LHO. So, having an extra receipt or two is meaningless to a conspiracy theorist like you, James. It would just be more stuff that you would pretend was faked by the evil patsy plotters.

Just like I said before, Dale Myers provided additional info from the Vice President of Railway Express. Can't you read? Nope. It was called Merchanteers. Didn't know it. And I really don't care. It's a meaningless fact--SINCE OSWALD HAD THE TIPPIT MURDER WEAPON ON HIM 35 MINUTES AFTER TIPPIT WAS SHOT. Maybe I should make that last sentence 70 feet tall and in blinking neon letters so that Mr. DiEugenio will get the message. So far, that little tidbit of a fact has apparently gone sailing right past his chaff-seeking nose. Mr. Michaelis did just fine. It's the conspiracy theorists who are the major problem in this case. They couldn't find oil in their own backyard if it was gushing through their windows. A certain Mr. DiEugenio can't even figure out that Oswald shot Tippit, even though Oswald HAD THE MURDER WEAPON IN HIS HANDS 35 MINUTES AFTER TIPPIT WAS SHOT.

It's very easy to understand Terminal DiEugenio Disease: If any evidence points to Lee H. Oswald, that evidence must be thrown straight in the garbage can (no matter how much of it there is). And it doesn't matter how many people you have to call liars in order to keep Saint Ozzie's skirts clean and starched -- Jimbo's always ready and eager to do it.

Firstly: I certainly would take the word of Dale Myers (who is a person I respect greatly) over the word of an Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorist any day of the week. That goes without saying, of course. (Duh.) Secondly: There's some additional information provided by Myers in his 1998 article re this matter that you didn't provide, which pretty much seals the deal about Oswald's REA pick-up: Quoting Myers: "REA Express VP, Robert Hendon, testified that in a similar case, "a card was sent to the name and address" on the package. Presumably, a card was sent to Oswald's P.O. Box, notifying him that a package was to be picked up at the REA Express Office." Myers' source for the above quote: "Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, S1448-11, op. cit., p.3465" (The remainder of DiEugenio's latest post has all been addressed in earlier posts. No need to beat Jim's dead horse for a fourth time. Jim knows Oswald ordered, paid for, and picked up the Tippit murder weapon. He just wants to concentrate on the chaff...as per usual.)

Yeah, if you conspiracy-happy theorists take another 46 years, you'll probably be saying that the assassination never really occurred at all. It was probably some kind of "Bobby Was In The Shower" dream or something. Brian David Andersen is one step ahead of you guys though -- he knows JFK wasn't killed at all. It was merely an "incident" on Elm Street, not a killing. JFK was wearing a pyrotechnics device on his head to simulate his brains being blown out: http://MyGodImHit.com

Jim, Of course I was fully aware that Dale Myers' article said the opposite of what I said to you in our exchanges about this REA matter in this thread. That was the whole purpose for my posting it in the first place--to get it straightened out. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that the quoted passages I used from Myers' article were saying the exact same thing I had said about the revolver earlier this week in this forum thread. (Duh.) BTW, here's an "Edit" that I wrote this morning, which I have added to my archived blog version of this "revolver" discussion: Quoting from my blog post: "EDIT --- Since writing the above remarks, I've come into possession of additional information concerning the method by which Lee Harvey Oswald likely came into physical possession of the .38 Smith & Wesson mail-order revolver he ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc. "This information comes from the person who probably knows more about the J.D. Tippit murder (and, hence, more about the gun that was used to kill Officer Tippit) than anyone else on the planet, Dale K. Myers, the author of the excellent 1998 book "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald And The Murder Of Officer J.D. Tippit"." -- DVP [End quote.] I then added excerpts from Dale Myers' article directly underneath the words quoted above. BTW #2 (and just "for the record"): I'll remind Jim DiEugenio that I also made the following remarks in this Education Forum post four days ago, on August 3, 2010 (and please note that the post has not been edited by me since August 4, 2010 [via my local time in Indiana], three days ago): "I suppose it's possible that I'm wrong about how these types of "COD" transactions worked when companies shipped merchandise to P.O. Boxes, but if the PHYSICAL ITEM itself was actually shipped to P.O. Box 2915 (and Heinz Michaelis said it was in his WC testimony), then it means that the post office employees would be initially handling the money from Oswald (since, quite obviously, Oswald didn't set up camp and live right there inside his post office box as he waited for the delivery truck to show up with his pistol)." -- DVP Therefore, via the above remarks, I was essentially admitting several days ago that I wasn't absolutely certain as to the exact location where Oswald picked up his Smith & Wesson revolver in 1963. Right. And thanks for posting that passage from Page 174 of the Warren Report, because it further clouds and confuses the very same issue about WHERE the physical gun was sent. I.E., was the revolver sent to the post office or was it retained at the REA offices? But you should also take note of the source note (#588) that appears on page 174 of the WCR concerning that quoted passage -- it leads to the various Michaelis exhibits and to Heinz Michaelis' WC testimony at 7 H 376-378, which is the exact testimony that I found confusing regarding this precise "Where Was The Revolver Shipped?" topic. I think it's quite obvious that even the Warren Commission itself was confused about it. But that confusion is pretty well ironed out in Dale Myers' article. But I certainly agree that it seems a bit confusing. In fact, that very thing about Heinz Michaelis saying to the Warren Commission that the GUN ITSELF was shipped to P.O. Box 2915 is the main thing that made me say this to you (Jim D.) the other day: [DVP Quote On:] "There was very likely no need for Oswald to go to the Railway Express office to pick up the revolver. The gun itself was physically shipped by REA to Oswald's Dallas P.O. Box. We know that via Michaelis Exhibit No. 4 and the testimony of Heinz W. Michaelis [at 7 H 378]: JOSEPH BALL -- "I will show you another document here which is a slip of red paper marked "Railway Express Agency" which has been heretofore identified with an FBI Exhibit No. DL-29 [which was marked by the Warren Commission as "Michaelis Exhibit No. 4"]. What is that document?" .... HEINZ MICHAELIS -- "That is a copy of the receipt which we got from the Railway Express Agency showing that on March 20, 1963, one carton with a pistol was shipped to A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." " [/Quote off.] But in Myers' article, we can see that it's very likely that only a NOTIFICATION CARD was actually put into Oswald's P.O. Box -- and the physical gun itself was probably never inside the Dallas post office at all. Which does make sense too, because it eliminates the post office employees from having to handle any money from the person who is claiming the package. Which, of course, is something you yourself were saying the other day too--i.e., it would be odd for the post office to have to handle the money that is really supposed to go to Railway Express (and then to Seaport Traders). And you're right--it does make more sense for the C.O.D. cash transaction to be handled by the REA people themselves. But when looking at Heinz Michaelis' testimony shown above about the GUN PACKAGE ITSELF being physically sent to PO Box 2915, I deferred to that explanation. And, quite obviously, so did the Warren Commission on page 174 of the WCR. But it's probably not entirely accurate. What Michaelis should have said is that a card of notification of delivery gets sent to the P.O. Box, but not the merchandise itself. It would have been nice if Joe Ball had asked Michaelis this question (but he never did): "Now, Mr. Michaelis, what would Lee Oswald have had to do in order to physically take possession of the revolver he ordered through Seaport Traders after that gun was shipped by you via Railway Express? Would he have picked up the package at his post office box, or is there some other method by which he would get his package in a C.O.D. transaction like this one?" Unfortunately, no question similar to the one simulated above was asked of witness Heinz Michaelis. Oh, come now James! You can't be serious here! The Railway Express notification card that would have been put into Oswald's post office box isn't among the documents pictured on Page 173 of the Warren Report. That notification card no longer exists. And that's very likely because it was thrown away by the Railway Express people shortly after Oswald picked up his revolver at REA. That card had served its purpose, and there was really no reason for anybody to keep it. It's also reasonable to assume that the notification card that was put into Oswald's P.O. Box had the address of the REA Express office on it. Hence, Oswald knew where to go to get his revolver. For Pete sake, Jim, isn't this obvious?! Plus, Heinz Michaelis testified that there was proof that REA remitted the $19.95 to Seaport Traders. Which, quite obviously, would indicate that SOMEBODY PAID RAILWAY EXPRESS the amount of the C.O.D., and that "somebody" was undoubtedly the same person who ordered the gun in the first place--Lee Harvey Oswald. Quoting from Michaelis' WC testimony: JOE BALL -- "Is there anything in your files which shows that the Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95?" HEINZ MICHAELIS -- "The fact that the exhibit number...was attached to the red copy of the invoice...indicates that the money was received." In addition, as I mentioned the other day, the word "Paid" is written in on Michaelis Exhibit No. 2. And why would this order be marked as "Paid" if it wasn't really "paid" by the person who ordered it?:

1998 article by Dale Myers: Oswald’s Mail-Order Revolver Purchase: Critical Allegations Prove False After reading Myers' article above, I've made the appropriate addendums to this related article below regarding how Oswald came into physical possession of the V510210 revolver. Thank you, Dale Myers, for some great info here: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

No way, Jose. The winner is always supposed to go on top. Didn't you know that, Jim?

That's a nice piece of backpedaling that Jim D. has done there regarding Oswald carrying a package into the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination. (And I assume Jim isn't talking about just a small "lunch" type of paper sack in his quote above. Because if he is referring to that type of small package, he's going to end up looking sillier than he already does concerning this "paper bag" subject.) Apparently Jim has reversed his opinion on this matter somewhat since January 14, 2010, when he 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. DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Part 7) Quoting DiEugenio (which can be heard at the 5:42 mark in the video linked above): "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 Along the same lines, DiEugenio said the following in Part 6 of his review of Vincent Bugliosi's book, which are comments made by DiEugenio that certainly lean toward Jimmy D. believing there was NO PACKAGE AT ALL taken into the Depository by Lee Oswald -- because why on Earth would the cops have needed to coerce or "force" Wesley Frazier into inventing a story about Oswald carrying a paper bag if Oswald really HAD carried a paper bag (ANY paper bag) into the TSBD on the morning of November 22nd?: "The story of this (these) paper bag(s), Wesley Frazier, his sister, and the curtain rods can be challenged every single step of the way. .... By the early evening of [November] 22nd [1963], the DPD had very little besides the notorious Howard Brennan. Shaky eye witness Howard Brennan couldn't be relied upon to put Oswald on the sixth floor. As Police Chief Jesse Curry later admited [sic], they had no one who put Oswald in the building with a gun in his hand. Therefore, they needed Frazier and his "Oswald carrying a package" story. With what we know about this story now, we also know why Frazier needs to be handled by the likes of Dave Perry and Hugh Aynseworth [sic]. If this case were ever reopened, he would be one of the first witnesses called to the stand. And he would be there a long time. The reason is easy to understand: If there is no bag, there is no rifle." -- Jim DiEugenio I guess maybe that's part of the problem with being an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorist like Jim DiEugenio -- he has invented so many ridiculous theories and fantasies about the JFK assassination, perhaps it's hard to keep all of his delusions straight from one week to the next.

Thanks, David W. I have seen that Ian Griggs piece in the past. I'd forgotten about that. Well, anyway, Jim D. should be happy. At least he knows he's not completely alone when he continues to peddle his "There Was No Bag At All" fiction.

It's just too bad that the subject (and the crap) you've just introduced doesn't have the slightest resemblance to the truth and the facts surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy. You don't seem to have the slightest idea how to properly evaluate evidence in the JFK case. And you certainly haven't got a clue as to how to separate the wheat from the chaff. (You ALWAYS prefer the chaff, it seems. Typical of rabid conspiracy believers, of course.) You CONSTRUCT crap from virtual nothingness and then you prop up your mush as a rock-solid foundation of Anybody-But-Oswald truth. For example--- Let's take your recently invented theory about how Buell Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Mae Randle were coerced by the evil DPD into creating their paper bag stories out of thin air. That theory is pure bunk--and every reasonable person who has studied this case knows it. Wesley Frazier never EVER has recanted his story about Oswald having a bag, or about Oswald saying that there were curtain rods in that paper bag. (Wesley never had a pang of conscience strike him in all these years about that whopper of a lie he told? Is that it, Jim?) It is YOU--Jim D--who invents crap out of thin air. And more people should really slap you down when you do it. Of course, no CTer will ever dare slap down the great and all-knowing James DiEugenio, who has evidently memorized every book ever written about every assassination that has ever occurred since the beginning of time. Therefore, unless someone like myself or John McAdams or Francois Carlier comes along to expose your nonsense (such as your ridiculous Frazier/Randle fairy tale), then you've got a clear field to run with your BS to the CT Endzone. In short -- You're a CT caricature, Jim DiEugenio. And the funniest part of all is -- you don't even realize it.

I'm not going to ever "report" anything that anyone says on this forum (or any other public forum). I'm a believer in free speech. Peter McGuire can call me a "traitor" all day long for all I care. I'll just pull out my favorite LOL icon and go on to the next silly post written by the many conspiracy theorists here. The only reason I brought up the "traitor" thing at all is because of the "forum rules" that Martin Hay pointed out yesterday after I posted something that was deemed offensive that was written by another person on another forum (and I hope you, Kathy, saw my public--and private--apologies that I made regarding that post--it was indeed out of line, per this forum's rules). But I will never use the "Report" button. I never have, and never will in the future -- no matter how many times I'm called a "traitor" or an "accessory after the fact". In fact, I wish you'd re-post Peter McGuire's message that you've now deleted entirely. Let Free Speech reign! Put Peter's post back up! You're welcome. And I also wish there were more women who had an interest in the JFK case. I wonder why this topic is so dominated by the male of the species? But there's no question that it is dominated by men. Kathy is probably outnumbered 30 to 1.

Jim DiEugenio is a howl! A real screamer! His ABO [Anybody But Oswald] tricks never cease. No matter how much evidence needs to be ignored (or deemed fake), Jim's right there on the job. There's a word for that, Jim. It starts with a "P".

Kathy's edits are hilarious here: she removes only the word "ass" from McGuire's post, but leaves in "traitor" and "accessory after the fact". As if it's the "ass" that was the worst part of McGuire's diatribe. I love it.

Funny. Jim DiEugenio doesn't think Oswald did ANYTHING wrong in the calendar year of 1963. Per Jim: Oswald DIDN'T order the C2766 Carcano rifle via mail order. Oswald DIDN'T order the S&W revolver via mail order. Oswald DIDN'T pose for the backyard photos. Oswald DIDN'T take a shot at General Walker. Oswald DIDN'T go to Mexico City. Oswald DIDN'T take a big package into the TSBD on Nov. 22. Oswald DIDN'T shoot John Kennedy. Oswald DIDN'T shoot J.D. Tippit. Oswald DIDN'T take a gun into the Texas Theater. Despite the rock-solid evidence that Jim D. is dead wrong about ALL of the above things, that won't stop Jim from pushing his fantasies about a double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald. Pathetic.

My explanation about Kirk and Z190 makes much more sense than Jim's.

Thanks, Robert, for confirming what I always thought to be true: Hence, "conspiracy" is a part of the Sixth Floor Museum's world. Thank you. Well, it would be a little difficult to find any of the first bulletins that DIDN'T say "Three shots were fired" -- because every one of those initial radio and television reports said that 3 shots were fired. In fact, I always encourage people to listen to (or watch) the first-day radio and TV coverage -- because when you perform that task, you will be saying to yourself (as I always do): Where in the heck do the conspiracy bozos like Oliver Stone get the crazy idea that SIX SHOTS were fired from THREE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS in Dealey Plaza?! That's nuts! And this original, as-it's-happening 11/22/63 footage that I've been watching proves that those conspiracy-happy bozos are nuts! Everybody should try it. It works wonders for curing the "Oliver Stone Triangulation Of Crossfire Disease" that many people currently are afflicted with:

Anyone who uses David "Body Alteration" Lifton as a reliable source for ANYTHING has a serious problem, IMO. But, YMMV.

~yawn~

So much for the forum rules of decorum. (I guess the rules only apply to the lowly "traitors", like us scumbags known as "LNers", right McGuire?) PS -- Does this mean the gloves are off, and I can utilize my favorite "K" word in my posts here from now on? I sure hope so, because being forced to keep the "K" word off the table is getting to be unbearable when conversing with the ridiculous batch of Anybody-But-Oswald theorists that inhabits this place at The Education Forum.

Why in the world is it strange to you, Pat? For one (very big!) thing: A shot from Oswald's window in the Z190s means that Oswald was SHOOTING THROUGH THE OAK TREE! And that, IMO, is just silly (even though LNer Mark Fuhrman promotes such nonsense in his 2006 book, and the HSCA, incredibly, thought Oswald was shooting through the tree too). That's easily explainable, Pat. And you surely know the answer to this: At the mock trial in England in 1986, Bugliosi was in kind of a tough spot regarding the photographic expert he put on the stand--Cecil Kirk of the HSCA. It's possible that Vince, HIMSELF, as of the time of the London trial in July 1986, might very well have accepted as fact Kirk's explanation about an early (circa Z190) SBT shot that Kirk presented to the jury in London. But as Vince studied the Zapruder Film later on (after the trial), my guess would be that he "wised up" in a sense (at least partially), and grew to believe that the SBT shot had occurred quite a bit later than the Z190s. (Although Vince still gets it wrong in his book, saying that the SBT occurs at around Z210, but he never mentions an exact frame. So, after the 1986 London trial, at least VB got closer to the actual SBT frame of Z224 than he was in '86.) But even if Bugliosi had truly believed, in July 1986, that the SBT occurred at a time other than the Z190s, Vince was still on a spot as prosecutor of Oswald at the London trial -- because he could not subpoena witnesses, and he could not force anyone to testify at the docu-trial against their will. So, in effect, VB was pretty much stuck with accepting the witness he was able to get regarding the photographic (Zapruder Film) evidence--Cecil Kirk of the HSCA, who endorsed the early (and silly) SBT timeline of around Z190 (although no specific Zapruder frame numbers were ever mentioned for the SBT shot when Kirk was on the stand; never once does Kirk say that he was talking about Z190 or Z200, or whatever, during his mock trial testimony; but we all know he was talking about a circa Z190 SBT hit). If Bugliosi had been able to get any witness he wanted for this "SBT timing" aspect of the case at the London trial, I'm guessing he would have selected Robert Frazier, who performed extensive tests with Oswald's rifle from the Sniper's Nest during the Warren Commission's reconstruction of the assassination in Dealey Plaza on May 24, 1964. Whether or not Bob Frazier was ever asked to participate in the London court proceeding, I have no idea. But he certainly would have been my first choice, instead of Cecil Kirk. Footnote--- I do think Vince Bugliosi should have explained to his readers in "Reclaiming History" why he was no longer supporting Kirk's earlier timeline regarding the Single-Bullet Theory. I don't think, however, that Vince says a word in his book about this discrepancy. And I think he should have. And if he had done so, I'm pretty confident that the explanation I just laid out above would have been Vincent's explanation as well. Cecil Kirk's testimony at the 1986 television mock trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald") can be seen below: http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/cecil-kirk.html

And after reading Mr. DiEugenio's tripe, I invite people to read these Internet posts linked below, which all deal with the "Target Car" documentary (I can't comment on the "Ruby Connection" program; I have never seen it): "JFK: INSIDE THE TARGET CAR" (THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL): http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/24ba8fc851da4e27 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/701242d562279b80 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8217880bc4f4e937 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1d577ad86ff5acf8 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2f843a6965aa4e3b http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/65bdbdfdd1d2a571 http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/jfk-inside-target-car.html

This is undoubtedly another of the hundreds of silly myths started by conspiracy theorists. I've never been to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, but I'd be willing to bet the farm that there are plenty of displays and exhibits (etc.) within the museum that talk about "conspiracy" and the various conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists connected to the JFK assassination. I know that the Sixth Floor Museum rotates its visual displays and exhibits that visitors can see there, and it's highly likely that "conspiracy" works its way into some of those exhibits and displays throughout the museum. I'm just wondering if many of the conspiracy theorists who continually love to ramble on and on about how "one-sided" and biased the Sixth Floor Museum is have ever even been there to see the displays and exhibits? My guess is that a whole lot of those whining CTers have not been there at all. And even if they have, they probably have no idea what type of exhibits are being "rotated" in and out by the Museum's staff.* * = Yes, I know I just said that I myself have never been to the Museum either, which is true. So I'll admit that what I just said about the conspiracy theorists never having been there (and, hence, having no idea at all as to the content of the exhibits that are available at the Museum from day to day and week to week) is nothing but sheer guesswork and speculation on my part, and I want to identify it as such before going any further. And in addition to the physical museum itself at 411 Elm Street in Dealey Plaza, the Sixth Floor Museum also runs this Internet website, which includes multiple "Oral History" interviews that definitely contain comments that lean toward "conspiracy", such as the interviews with Bill and Gayle Newman and Gordon Arnold. Footnote--- I also always get a big kick out of the whining and bitching conspiracy theorists who take great pleasure in calling Sixth Floor Museum curator Gary Mack just about every derogatory name this side of Hitler and Charles Manson. It's utterly ridiculous, particularly the way Black Op Radio host Len Osanic tears down Mr. Mack on almost a weekly basis on his Thursday-night Internet radio program. Truly despicable behavior, especially due to the fact that Gary Mack is not really a so-called "Lone Nutter" at all. He's more of a "Fence Rider". Gary M. certainly believes Lee Oswald was a gunman firing his Carcano at JFK from the sixth floor of the TSBD, that's true enough. (But, given the undeniable evidence of Oswald's guilt--what else COULD a reasonable person like Gary Mack believe when it comes to the topic of "Lee Harvey Oswald" and his participation in the crime on Elm Street?) But Mack, as far as I am aware, has not discounted ALL notions of a possible conspiracy in the case either. And why some (or most) of the Internet conspiracy whiners seem to think Mr. Mack is "All LNer" is a mystery to me. I guess perhaps we can chalk that one up as Conspiracy Myth #2,119.

Oh, for Pete sake. How silly.