David Von Pein

Huh? I'm not understanding you here. Was the moving of the jacket to the TSBD (per your theory, that is) an effort by the cops to make Oswald look guiltier or make him look less guilty? You seem to be advocating both of those positions in the two sentences I just quoted above. ~shrug~

That myth hasn't died yet either, eh? Too bad. It's highly doubtful that Oswald could have made a completely "anonymous" gun purchase in Texas in 1963. That is very likely another myth created by CTers who are in love with Oliver Stone's version of events. There are records even in this case (the JFK case) which indicate that some gun store owners in Texas definitely kept records of who was buying guns from them. Perhaps not ALL gun store owners kept such records in '63, but several definitely did, as Jean Davison's research clearly proves at the links HERE and HERE.

Thank you, Greg, for your last detailed post concerning your beliefs pertaining to Oswald's jackets. I can see that you've put a lot of time into creating that large 117-page report/essay on the jackets. You're 100% wrong regarding the Jacket Charade (in my opinion), but your diligent effort to try and clear up any confusion concerning the jackets is certainly duly noted by yours truly. Earlene Roberts, by the way, doesn't always refer to Oswald's outer garment as a "coat" (although, yes, she certainly did on Nov. 22 during her KLIF interview). But during her Warren Commission testimony, she referred to LHO's garment as a "jacket" as well. And in case you're keeping a Jacket Scorecard, the official tally I came up with after looking through Mrs. Roberts' whole WC session is: "Jacket" --- 5 references. "Coat" --- 2 references. In any event, regardless of which word Mrs. Roberts chose to use to describe the outer garment that Lee Harvey Oswald was wearing when he dashed out of his room in a hurry on November 22, 1963, the whole Jacket Charade that you, Greg Doudna, outline in such great detail in your lengthy article is something that is extremely unlikely to have occurred. And the main reason the police wouldn't have wanted to play Musical Jackets with Oswald's garments is because they just simply didn't need to --- and that's because Lee Oswald still had the Tippit murder weapon on him when he was arrested in the Texas Theater. (Not to mention the multiple eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald at or near the scene of Tippit's murder with a gun in his hands.) So, given the fact the DPD knew they had the real killer of Officer Tippit in custody (namely: Lee Oswald), why the need to play Musical Jackets? But, of course, since Greg Doudna doesn't think Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit at all (see Pages 44 and 117), that leaves open a wide variety of unsupportable theories that Greg can pluck from the sky in order to justify why the cops did this and did that. That's what's so nice about being a conspiracy believer---there's almost nothing that can't be theorized. Even a needless Jacket Charade....and, of course, the switcheroo of the Tippit bullet shells (which is a must---if we're to believe Oswald didn't shoot J.D. Tippit). I wonder if there is ANY evidence in the JFK & Tippit cases that an Internet conspiracy theorist thinks wasn't tampered with and/or manipulated by the authorities? Greg Doudna has now added Oswald's two jackets to the list of "Fraudulent Evidence". (And as far as I can recall, that's the first time those two items have been labeled as "Fake" or "Tampered With" by any conspiracist.) What's next? Oswald's wedding ring in the teacup?

Greg's jacket theory, like most conspiracy theories, is just about the opposite of the truth and the known facts. Oswald's BLUE jacket was, of course, found in the TSBD's Domino Room in December 1963. And Earlene Roberts, in the Day 1 (11/22/63) KLIF Radio interview linked below, said that Oswald left the roominghouse on November 22nd wearing a "short gray coat", not a blue jacket. Also see the following excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book concerning the two jackets that Lee Oswald owned (click to enlarge):

2023 RIFLE ADDENDUM.... We must also keep in mind this important fact.... The Klein's coupon that Lee Oswald used to order his rifle came from the February 1963 issue of American Rifleman magazine. But he didn't mail that order coupon until the middle of March. So by the time Oswald's rifle was shipped by Klein's (March 20), the April issue of American Rifleman (and other similar monthly magazines that had the Klein's ads in them) would have very likely already been on newsstands and in stores around the country. And what was the length of the Italian Carbine that was being advertised by Klein's Sporting Goods in the April 1963 issue of American Rifleman magazine? Answer: 40 inches (per this e-mail that I received from Gary Mack in 2010). Therefore, nobody should be at all surprised (not even a conspiracy theorist) that Lee Oswald was shipped a 40-inch Carcano rifle in late March of '63, since we know from the Klein's ads that the 40-inch version of the gun is the exact model (in addition to being the exact same price and catalog number) that Klein's customers would have been ordering and receiving through the mail (via the April issue of American Rifleman) at that exact same point in time—late March of 1963. And since we know that Klein's definitely did switch from a 36-inch weapon to a 40-inch model in their advertisements in the early months of 1963, it stands to reason that a customer who technically ordered the 36-inch gun might receive the 40-inch model instead. And, in my opinion, that's just exactly what happened with Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle order. Plus, the fact that Oswald ordered his gun in the middle of March while using a February coupon made it even more likely that Klein's would have had to send him the 40-inch gun instead. Related Links:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / President Kennedy's Brain

The Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) stuff is, indeed, "wheat" (IMO), but with an important asterisk and footnote after it. Yes, Vince Bugliosi in his book did, indeed, put a lot of faith in the NAA analysis of Dr. Vincent Guinn. (And I, too, would like to know how the conspiracy theorists can possibly combat the "What Are The Odds?" logic and common sense that reside in my 2007 article concerning Dr. Guinn's NAA conclusions, presented here.) But I sure hope nobody has formed the incorrect opinion that Mr. Bugliosi just totally ignored the various NAA studies that have been published since 2002, which cast doubt on the exactitude of Dr. Guinn's determinations. Because Bugliosi certainly did not ignore those scientific studies at all. In fact, he talks about those newer NAA studies at some length in his book, a discussion which encompasses four entire pages of endnotes in "Reclaiming History". You can read all four of those pages here. So, yes, Bugliosi did promote Dr. Guinn's NAA conclusions. But he also presented the opposing NAA viewpoint in his book as well.

From this July 2015 forum discussion.... DVP SAID: In order for Vince [Bugliosi] to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case as the critics of the Warren Commission would present it, Vince would have had to touch base with every single CTer who has ever posted on the Internet (or who has ever written one of the hundreds of books on the case), because almost every CTer has at least a slightly different theory or approach to the evidence in the case. A statement like Vince made -- "I intend to set forth all of their main arguments, and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to demonstrate their invalidity" [see the complete quote here] -- is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some conspiracy theorist out there who will be able to say (after reading Bugliosi's book) -- "See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a xxxx! He didn't present THIS part of the case in the exact way I think it should have been presented, and therefore I get to call Vince a cheat and a xxxx." It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("the way they, not I, want them to be set forth"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he had written 10,000 pages instead of just 2,800. But I, myself, think Vince did just fine in debunking virtually all of the major conspiracy theories connected with the JFK murder case. Many CTers, quite naturally, will vehemently disagree with me. Well, so be it. * [* 2022 DVP EDIT -- But please also note the precise words that Bugliosi used in his book -- "I intend to set forth all of their main arguments..." A key word there is the word "main". Let me also add this important quote from Vince Bugliosi's book (regarding "wheat" and "chaff"): "One of my very biggest tasks for you, the reader, was to separate the wheat from the chaff out of the virtually endless allegations, controversies, and issues surrounding the case. I believe I have done this, and it is this wheat, as it were, that constitutes this very long book." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xlv of "Reclaiming History"] ---------------------------------------- [End Quotes From 2015 & 2022.] ---------------------------------------- More about Vince Bugliosi's "pledge" HERE.

DiEugenio doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

So? Isn't that pretty much the whole point of a board entitled "JFK Assassination Debate"? You're not going to sit there and try to tell me that this board has actually PROVEN Oswald to be INNOCENT....are you? Let's be reasonable.

The problem is --- the many things you and DiEugenio insist have been "debunked" really haven't been "debunked" at all. You guys just THINK they've been debunked. Big difference. Take, for example, DiEugenio's constant refrain about the "wrong rifle". That's been fully explained--and reasonably so--in "LNer" (non-conspiratorial) terms, and Jim D. knows this full well. But he never stops with the "wrong rifle" crap. As if it has never once been reasonably explained before. And Bugliosi, of course, addresses the issue in his book (excerpted below). He doesn't ignore it or sweep it under the carpet: BTW.... Vince Bugliosi knew full well that the rifle wasn't found "in the sniper's nest", even though he says it was in the above book excerpt. That was merely an innocent mistake (even though some CTers might believe otherwise).

Joe B., To each his own. Others disagree with your assessment about Bugliosi's tome: New York Times Book Review Los Angeles Times Book Review Washington Post Book Review Boston Globe Book Review

Good Lord, what a load of garbage. Only a person hell-bent on promoting a conspiracy in the JFK case (such as Jim DiEugenio) could possibly just brush aside the massive amounts of actual evidence presented by Vincent Bugliosi in "Reclaiming History" and categorize that huge pile of evidence as merely "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, symbolizing nothing". Mr. DiEugenio, you're living in a fantasy world.

If you want to believe that DiEugenio has "demolished" Vince Bugliosi's book, fine. But you're only fooling yourself. Because — newsflash! — the evidence in the John F. Kennedy murder case (laid out painstakingly by Bugliosi in his book) clearly establishes Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt---and very likely his lone guilt.

The Dictabelt junk has been debunked, yes. No doubt about it, IMO. At the very least, the HSCA/4th Shot/Dictabelt evidence has a very dark cloud hanging over it (based on Steve Barber's "Hold everything secure" discovery alone). And even most CTers should be able to acknowledge the existence of that "dark cloud". (See the webpage below.) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / JFK Acoustics--Charles Rader Interview Re: The smell of "Gunsmoke".... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Smell Of Gunpowder In Dealey Plaza Re: Bang....Bang-Bang.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Spacing Of The Gunshots Re: The SBT and Governor Connally's reactions.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Ultimate In SBT Denial Among Conspiracy Theorists

The most "absurd" assertion made by conspiracy theorists at this forum (or any other) is the assertion that Vincent T. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" has (in any major way at all) been "debunked". Such a notion concerning Bugliosi's mammoth 20-year effort is not only utterly laughable, but also provably wrong (based on the sum total of evidence in the JFK case).

"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. Robert N. McClelland; Via this 2009 interview (at 41:25)

But Mr. Simkin was simply wrong. As Pat Speer has already correctly pointed out in this discussion, the "printing error" concerning frames Z314 and Z315 of the Zapruder Film had nothing to do with LIFE Magazine's 11/29/63 issue. Instead, it had to do with a printing error in Warren Commission Exhibit No. 885. Those two Z-Film frames (Z314-315) are printed in reverse order in CE885 (at 18 H 70-71). Here's the portion of Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book, Reclaiming History, dealing with the subject of the "reversed Z-Film frames" (click to enlarge).... Also see.... This April 6, 2016, Education Forum post written by David Lifton pertaining to the "printing error" referred to by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

Exactly. .... "In my opinion, the major reaction that I see from Oswald at his famous midnight press conference is more DISGUST and ANNOYANCE. (Poor Lee Harvey truly looks annoyed and PUT OUT when he's being removed from that room right after his brief press conference.)" -- DVP; March 1, 2010 More: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/oswald-midnight-press-conference.html

I certainly agree with you on this one, Jim. It most definitely is baloney. That's almost as bad as this theory (discussed at another forum), in which an outer-fringe conspiracy nutjob informed me that J.D. Tippit was really killed in Dealey Plaza, instead of on 10th Street, and that the "staged shooting" on Tenth Street came complete with "conspiracy-supplied witnesses". As the years pass, the number of conspiracy-happy clowns with really oddball theories seems to grow and grow.

But they've already fully supported my opinion (via their multiple investigations).

Yes, Ron, you're probably correct on this point (re: the "millions"). Let me revise my previous quote (so that it's technically more accurate): "Many people (including virtually everybody who was an integral part of the Warren Commission and the HSCA and the Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission) disagree very strongly with your above assessment [that Jim DiEugenio is the "ultimate JFK Truth warrior"]."

What disinformation are you talking about, W.?

But the autopsy findings are completely CONSISTENT with the BEST AUTOPSY EVIDENCE there is---the autopsy photographs and X-rays. The ultra-silly "wrong brain" myth refuses to die, I see. ~sigh~

A quick reminder and Reality Check (re: some of the ridiculous things that are endorsed as the truth in the JFK case by James DiEugenio, who is a person that W. Niederhut just referred to as one of the "most knowledgeable people on the planet" ) ....