(PART 84)

http://jfkfiles/51 Years Of Deception & Lies In The JFK Assassination


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







http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/Dealey Plaza Photos


(PART 871)


How is it that you put 100% faith in this witness [Howard Brennan]...


I've already said in this very thread (twice!) [which is a thread that no longer exists at Duncan MacRae's JFK Assassination Forum due to the fact that the person who started the thread, Robert Harris, has since been kicked off of Duncan's forum, which (for some stupid reason) means that every single thread that Harris ever started at that forum is now deleted from the forum's archives, so nobody can ever read those threads ever again] that Brennan's observations are not even needed to hang Oswald for Kennedy's murder. The physical evidence and Oswald's OWN actions and LIES hang him 101 times over. Brennan is merely a cherry on top.


How is this construction worker with bad vision better than all those doctors and cops?


Oh, goodie! A kook is going to revive Conspiracy Myth #403, the one about Brennan having "bad vision" on the day of the assassination.


David, why do you continue to pretend that there was only one shooter, when you know you cannot prove that to save your life?


A better question for Robert "Z285" Harris ---

Why do you keep pretending you KNOW there were multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza, when you know you cannot prove that to save your life?

The bottom-line FACT is this (and always will be) ---

There is EVIDENCE of ONE shooter. Bob WISHES there were two or more. But the only way he can shoehorn any more shooters into his scenario is via his totally SUBJECTIVE analysis of the Zapruder Film.


I want to congratulate Bob Harris -- he actually went two consecutive posts without inserting a series of annoying and incorrectly-used commas. Yay!



I don't think he [Jesse Curry] ever doubted his [LHO's] presence within the building.


And, of course, Curry never doubted Oswald's guilt until several years later when he wanted to write a conspiracy-slanted book on the subject.

Just watch these six interviews with Jesse Curry from Nov. 22 and 23, 1963, and then try to tell me that Curry thought Oswald was innocent:


I do not believe that Oswald killed Kennedy, or even tried too [sic].


And that puts you, Gary Holt, in the EXTREME minority of Americans. In fact, only 7% of Americans think Lee Oswald wasn't firing a gun at JFK (per the 1,031 people polled by ABC News in November 2003). And, btw, that number -- 1,031 -- is twice the number of people that were polled by Gallup that same year on the same subject. Let's take a gander:

ABC NEWS QUESTION --- "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%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%

Poll Source:

And yet, in my personal experience with them, a vast MAJORITY of assassination theorists on the Internet (including Gary Holt) think Lee Harvey Oswald was totally innocent of shooting John F. Kennedy.

Makes you think....doesn't it?


So, now your [sic] considering polls as evidence/proof?


No, Gary, I'm just pointing out the fact that you "Anybody But Oswald" kooks are actually in the VAST MINORITY when it comes to believing that Oswald didn't fire a shot at President Kennedy on 11/22/63.

Would you like to now add the "ABC News Polling Service" to the long list of alleged liars and/or conspirators who have been trying to cover up the truth about JFK's murder since 1963?


LHO wasn't supposed to be connected to a conspiracy. He was supposed to take the fall. Be the patsy. Therefore there would be no connection to a conspiracy.


Is that why (according to almost every conspiracy theorist in the world) the proverbial "patsy" framers decided to shoot President Kennedy from MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS and with MULTIPLE GUNS THAT COULD NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS BE TRACED TO THEIR ONE AND ONLY "PATSY"?

Think about it, Jon. And after thinking about it for 20 seconds, admit that a MULTI-GUN assassination attempt against the President of the United States in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 does not, in any way, merge with this statement you just made:

"LHO wasn't supposed to be connected to a conspiracy. He was supposed to take the fall. Be the patsy. Therefore there would be no connection to a conspiracy."


Well David, there is logic and there is logic. I don't care whether you believe it or not, just read it through. A group gets together to assassinate the POTUS. They have LHO in Dallas. They have had him buy a rifle. They have possesion of that rifle so they can leave it on the 6th floor of the building LHO works in. They kill the POTUS, leave the rifle, and it connects LHO. LHO takes the fall.


If I was planning the assassination, I would want to have multiple gunmen, firing from multiple locations, to insure success. I would plan for extracting as many as possible. I would set up someone to take the heat off the rest by being set up as the patsy.

I would use any contacts I had within the CIA/SS/Pentagon to help direct investigation away from my group. I would have the body removed to a secure/controlled site for an autopsy so I could control what was found and reported. I would especially have all documentation validate that the patsy did it.

Of course I have no experience with covert/black ops, so I obviously have no concept of what it would take, or do I?


Wow, what a convoluted mess that is, Jon. What you've theorized above is a combination of illogic, idiocy, foolish risk-taking, and the absurd notion that gobs and gobs of people could be "controlled" after the shooting (so they wouldn't spill any of the conspiracy beans).

And, incredibly, all of that speculative garbage makes MORE sense to Jon Hambleton than just admitting that Oswald did it alone.

The power of Oliver Stone in the 21st century is remarkable, isn't it?


Considering the fact that Oswald WAS connected to the CIA, WAS also likely the person who alerted the FBI there would be an attempt on Kennedy in Dallas...knew Rudy [sic; Ruby] and many others, I think it far more likely he was acting to stop the assassination rather than as a shooter.

You cannot prove your theory any more than I can prove mine...but perhaps someday when all the records are released.......??


Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano that he used to murder President Kennedy --- $21.45.

Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver that he used to murder Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit --- $31.22.

A conspiracy-happy kook who decides to turn all of the evidence in the JFK murder case completely upside-down in order to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was trying "to stop the assassination" on November 22, 1963 --- Priceless!

David Von Pein
February 15, 2010

(PART 870)


No evidence puts Lee Harvey Oswald on the sixth floor with his hands wrapped around the M-C rifle at 12:30 on 11/22/63. There is only circumstantial evidence that links him to the weapon (one of at least four) in evidence and that does not prove anything beyond a shadow of doubt.


Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon.

Oswald's prints were all over the place where the sniper was located (DEEP INSIDE the Sniper's Nest).

Oswald lied repeatedly about things he would have no reason to lie about if he was innocent. (Curtain rods, anyone? .... I never owned a rifle. .... Shelley told me I could leave. .... I bought that pistol in Fort Worth. .... I've never heard the name A.J. Hidell before. .... That's my head pasted onto somebody else's body.)

Oswald was in the building when JFK was killed.

Oswald had no provable alibi for his whereabouts at 12:30.

Oswald LIED about his whereabouts at 12:30.

Oswald was, in effect, a POLITICAL ASSASSIN seven months prior to November 22 (when he shot at General Walker in April '63).

And finally:


And I didn't even mention the name Howard Brennan or the fact that Oswald killed J.D. Tippit either.

Isn't it time for the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracists to toss in the towel and just admit that Sweet Lee wasn't all that sweet after all? You have to twist the evidence into a big pretzel to believe otherwise.


Every conspiracy theorist should be required to watch the video linked below featuring David W. Belin of the Warren Commission. His speech is loaded with ECS&F (Evidence, Common Sense, & Facts):


"The very fact that [Oliver Stone's movie] 'JFK' adopts the lies of Oswald and asserts that the [backyard] picture was part of a frame-up is a vivid example of how a movie dedicated to the truth incorporates outright lies together with misrepresentations and omissions as the movie persuades its audience that Earl Warren and the Warren Commission covered up the truth.


The truth has a long fuse, and ultimately it prevails. Please help shorten the length of that fuse by digging the way journalists are supposed to dig and exposing the more than 100 major misrepresentations, omissions, and lies that have been perpetrated by Warner Brothers, [Kevin] Costner, and [Oliver] Stone. What they have done is just plain evil. And intelligent people who care for our country should not let them get away with it, particularly when they are now trying to invade our public schools with their lies."

-- David W. Belin; March 26, 1992


Just a quick one David, a technicality really, would he [Oswald] really qualify as an assassin prior to 11/22/63? General Walker was still alive. I understood that to qualify as an assassin, one had to be successful. Perhaps incompetent, wanna-be assassin or even a possible conspirator in phony staged assassination attempts might even be arguable.

As for your other stuff, yeah he lied about some stuff, he was obviously involved in something. Does it prove he pulled the trigger? Not neccessarily. As for Brennan, he did not see the shooter, only the rifle. We've dealt with this before. [Amos] Euins was in a better position and had a better view (and younger eyes).



What do you mean Brennan never saw the shooter? Of COURSE Brennan SAW the shooter--and later IDed him as Oswald.


David, check this thread. Euins had a better angle to see the shooter.....saw him for longer also.


But to say Brennan never saw the shooter is just a lie, Colin. Simple as that.


I apologise David, I posted in haste. The inference from your initial post was that Brennan ID'd Oswald as the shooter. I would argue that Brennan could not have ID'd anyone from what he saw in that window at the time of the 3rd shot. So my statement should have read --- Brennan could not have ID'd anyone with certainty from what he saw in those seconds.


But Brennan didn't ONLY see Oswald in the sniper's window "at the time of the 3rd shot". Brennan saw the shooter (Oswald) in the window "a couple of times" PRIOR to the third shot, giving Brennan MORE TIME to see the shooter (whom he later positively said was Lee Oswald).

"I saw this one man on the sixth floor which left the window to my knowledge a couple of times." -- H.L. Brennan

EDIT: Or do you really want to argue that the "couple of times" Brennan saw Oswald PRIOR to the firing of the third shot, Brennan actually saw someone else and not Oswald? Or vice-versa?

You surely don't want to climb out on that shaky limb, do you Colin?


David, just because you said Oswald was an assassin before 11/22/63 (and he obviously wasn't), I wouldn't call that a lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and put it down to either carelessness or ignorance. ;)


Come now, Colin. I know you know a lot of the witness testimony (probably by heart). And when you said this earlier....

"As for Brennan, he did not see the shooter, only the rifle."

....What was I supposed to think? That statement IS a lie. Plain and simple. You were implying that Brennan was akin to Bob Jackson or Mal Couch (i.e., witnesses who saw ONLY THE GUN, not the "shooter"). And you certainly know better than that.


So, you hold that Brennan's I.D. of Oswald (shaky as it was, but let's not even go there) was based on him seeing someone earlier. This guy did not have a rifle. He assumed that the first guy was the same person with the rifle because they were in the same window. Other people saw 2 people on the 6th Floor as I'm sure you are aware (not Brennan though). It was an understandable assumption from someone in his position, not neccessarily a valid one.


In an earlier post, I added a paragraph regarding any potential theory of yours about Brennan possibly seeing two different people in the Sniper's Nest window; and I added those comments before I saw your last post confirming that you actually seem to believe that (silly) theory.


David, Do you still think that Oswald was an assassin prior to the death of JFK?


You don't have to harp on that, Colin. I've since gone back to that post and added two words -- "in effect".


NP [no problem] David, I am not all that easy about editing posts after the event (although I do occasionally, usually in a state of embarrassment to correct my appalling keyboard skills).

To be honest David, my read of Brennan's testimony changed a bit during my analysis of it.


It may have been one guy or 2 [that Brennan saw in the Sniper's Nest]. He was under enormous pressure and his actions were understandable. I do not think his testimony would have held up in trial. I don't believe he can be used to place Oswald in the window at the time of the last shot.


And I can understand your reservations regarding Brennan. (Heck, if I were unfortunate enough to be a conspiracy theorist, I too would probably be saying the same things you are saying about Brennan--i.e., he couldn't have possibly positively identified Oswald in that window, etc.)

But the fact remains -- Howard Leslie Brennan DID positively I.D. Lee Oswald as the man he saw firing a rifle at President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza. And conspiracy theorists will just have to live with that FACT. Just as lone-assassin believers like me will have to forever live with the head-scratching fact that many witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda seemed to think that JFK had a great-big hole in the BACK of his head (a hole that was never there, of course, and the authenticated autopsy photos and X-rays prove that there was no hole in the back of the President's head; but that's another discussion altogether).

Yes, it's true that Brennan did not positively identify Oswald as the TSBD gunman ON NOVEMBER 22ND. But he did later state to the Warren Commission a reason for his not doing so. And, IMO, the reason was a perfectly understandable one -- he feared for the life of himself and his family.

Plus, conspiracy theorists often overlook the fact that the same Howard Brennan filled out an official sworn affidavit on November 22, 1963, which includes a description of the sixth-floor assassin....and that description is a pretty decent general description of the "slender white man" named Lee Harvey Oswald.

And I'll also remind you of another witness--Marrion Baker--who also stated that it was his belief that the man he encountered on the 2nd Floor just after the assassination was a man who was "approximately 30 years old", which is an (incorrect) age estimate that perfectly matches the age estimate supplied by Howard Brennan in all of his descriptions over the years for the sixth-floor assassin.

And, of course, we know for a FACT who it was that Baker ran into on the second floor that day--Lee Harvey Oswald.

Anyway, as I also stated in an earlier post which included a nice long laundry list of "Oswald Is Guilty" items, Howard Brennan isn't even needed to hang Oswald for Jack Kennedy's murder. Howard is merely a small layer of icing on an already well-frosted cake.


Oswald was in the building when the president was shot....Oh WOW.....Better hang Oswald from the tallest tree.


Bulletin! --- In order to shoot someone from INSIDE a certain building, the shooter must be INSIDE that building when the victim is shot!

That particular item on my laundry list was, of course, merely corroborative, fitting in nicely with ALL THAT OTHER STUFF that CTers love to ignore and misrepresent constantly.

Was I supposed to LEAVE OUT the fact that OSWALD was, indeed, inside the building at 12:30 as the President was being killed with OSWALD'S rifle?


David Von Pein
February 14, 2010

(PART 869)


Dave, have you read Horne's books?


No. But a person who knows what the evidence is in the Kennedy case (and I know it pretty well I'd say) doesn't need to read a book full of fantasy to know that it is a book full of fantasy.

I truly cannot believe that any rational and sensible person could possibly buy into Doug Horne's 2,000+ pages of totally unprovable conspiracy-slanted hogwash. It's mind-boggling to think that people can be that gullible.

And you DO realize that Doug Horne believes in just about every silly theory out there regarding JFK's murder....don't you?

Plus, you can hear him talk about his insane theories for almost three hours at Black Op Radio (12/10/09).

Plus, you can read all about his silly theories in his ARRB memos as well, available for free online. Some people seem to think that Horne just now (this year) came up with these new revelations about body-altering surgery BY HUMES [LOL break], and Z-Film forgery, and X-ray tampering, and the amazingly stupid "Two Brains" theory.

But Mr. Horne's thoughts regarding those things have been in print since 1998 (at least most of those crazy beliefs have been anyway), at the links HERE, HERE, and HERE.


While I do not think you are paid by the CIA, if you are, I hope that you are being paid by the word.


I wish. But the checks from Langley have been slow in coming. And I've been trying to get Mr. McAdams' help in getting the CIA boys to give us both a raise in our "Disinfo" salaries, but to date I've had no success. ~sigh~

David Von Pein
December 20, 2009

(PART 868)


In 2010, Palamara will read Lifton's book "Best Evidence", then go on YouTube saying that he now thinks the body was altered! What a joke!



Vince Palamara almost certainly now DOES think the body was altered. And that's because Vince P. thinks Doug Horne's book is worthy of a "Pulitzer Prize". And, guess what, Doug Horne firmly believes that JFK's body was altered before the autopsy. So, surely, Palamara must now believe the body was altered as well.

Horne's theory regarding the "body alteration" is slightly different than Kook Lifton's, however, with Horne believing that it was Drs. Humes and Boswell who conducted the super-fast body-altering surgery at Bethesda....vs. Lifton's theory about the body being stolen off of Air Force One and the body taken to Walter Reed Hospital for the lightning-fast covert surgery.

Either way, the theory is impossible and all reasonable people know it.

But Doug Horne has a way of SEEMING to be "reasonable" when he tells his fantastic and utterly insane tales. And apparently Horne has been able to suck Mr. Palamara into his vacuum of silliness. And that's a shame, but it's not totally unexpected, given Palamara's track record on flip-flops, with Vincent's five-star review for Jim Douglass' 2008 book being a prime example of Palamara not knowing which direction to turn regarding the JFK murder case.

The review linked above, btw, was written by Mr. Palamara almost a full year AFTER he had gone on record endorsing Vince Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" as the book that delivered a "devastating knock-out blow" to all conspiracies connected with the Kennedy assassination; which, of course, would INCLUDE Doug Horne's theories about Z-Film alteration, "two brains", and body-altering surgery, because Horne's theories about these things certainly didn't just rise from the ashes in the last few days or weeks. Horne has touted such nonsense for YEARS, with Bugliosi even tackling Horne's theories in "Reclaiming History".

The question would now be this: Why wasn't Vincent Palamara fully aware of Douglas Horne's conspiracy theories prior to 2007?

And if you want to become a little more confused on which side Vince Palamara was on in the month of May 2008, there's this Internet post written by Palamara in which he strongly praises Vince Bugliosi's book. And that's a post that was penned by Palamara eighteen days AFTER he wrote this 5-star review for James Douglass' pro-conspiracy book, "JFK And The Unspeakable". And keep in mind that Mr. Douglass thinks that Lee Harvey Oswald was set up as the "patsy" for President Kennedy's murder in Dallas.

So endorsing BOTH Bugliosi's and Douglass' books nearly simultaneously, as Mr. Palamara did in May of 2008, is something that can only make a casual observer scratch his or her head in utter bewilderment.


David Von Pein
December 17, 2009
December 26, 2014

(PART 96)

NOTE -- This post includes comments made by other people besides just DVP and Jim DiEugenio.


This is off-topic, but it concerns a distinguished member of the JFK research community [John McAdams], who is also a member of this forum. He deserves our support. [See link below.]



Related post (and video):



John McAdams is a national treasure. He should be reinstated immediately.


John McAdams is a good guy. Very smart. Very decent. They [Marquette University] are lucky to have him. I don't see that he did anything wrong.

First, he is a Catholic teaching at a Catholic University. He could have argued against the original issue. But he didn't. He was only arguing that the instructor was wrong in not allowing the student who came to him for help to express his point of view. What's wrong with that? Am I missing something?


I agree, Greg. Maybe I'm missing something here too, but I can't see what the big "to-do" is either. John wrote something on the Marquette blog that was critical of another Marquette instructor. Big whooping deal. Some people sure have thin skin, I guess.


And I now see where Jim DiEugenio has decided to spread more utter junk and garbage concerning Professor McAdams, with super-kook DiEugenio pretending to know all about Mr. McAdams' so-called "wider agenda". The more I see anything written by this nonsensical clown named DiEugenio, the more I feel like throwing up! .....

"We reposted my two articles at CTKA, in which I proposed that looking at the McAdams case through the lens of only JFK was wrong. He has a much wider scope than that and a much wider agenda. He is a destabilization agent who wants to completely eliminate the last vestiges of the liberal state left over by Kennedy." -- James DiEugenio; December 20, 2014


In the last few years, DiEugenio has proven himself to be a complete whack job. But, then again, irresponsible windbags like DiEugenio don't seem to care how many people they smear. The more, the merrier. That fact becomes obvious when just counting up the dozens and dozens of innocent people that DiEugenio has called liars and co-conspirators in the murder of President Kennedy, all without a stitch of proof on DiEugenio's behalf.

The best service that James DiEugenio could perform for the world would be to shut his slanderous mouth.


David, all that crap from DiEugenio fits well into his imaginary, gargantuan Conspiracy and the Great Cover Up.

In DiEugenio's parallell universe, it's all part of the The Plan, and Professor McAdams, of course, is an important part of said Plan.

While I probably disagree with John McAdams on the issue here, I wholeheartedly support his right to free speech and find this incredibly outlandish.

John, fwiw, has my full support on this shoddy story.


Glenn, I totally agree with you regarding DiEugenio's "Plan" and "Great Cover-Up".

This type of controversy involving a person who also happens to be a leading spokesman for the "LN" side of the JFK assassination debate is just made to order for someone with a vivid imagination like James DiEugenio.

There's practically no end to the imaginary places that a controversy like this one involving John McAdams can take a delusional person like DiEugenio. The make-believe "agendas" can abound aplenty in Jimbo's fevered brain.


Agreed, David. Jim "more evidence of a JFK conspiracy than of the holocaust" DiEugenio is a fantasist. Simply.


And it's Pot/Kettle time for sure when we hear DiEugenio rambling on (as he does in this December 25, 2014, Black Op Radio appearance) about how John McAdams has engaged in non-stop "smears" and "slurs" against people.

In my opinion, Jimbo needs to look in the mirror if he wants to see someone who has conducted himself in a totally unprofessional and unethical manner in the last several yerars (at least when talking about the JFK assassination specifically).

I doubt I could even list all the individuals that DiEugenio has slandered with his "smears" and "slurs" and conspiratorial allegations. The list ranges from Lyndon Johnson to J. Edgar Hoover to Gerald Ford to Allen Dulles to George DeMohrenschildt to Ruth Paine to J. Will Fritz to Henry Wade to Linnie Mae Randle to Wesley Frazier, and dozens more. The list goes on and on.

And DiEugenio himself is a school teacher in Los Angeles! And yet he seems to want John McAdams' ability to speak freely cut off. But DiEugenio, also an educator in a public school system, is to be treated differently, despite the long list of people he has "smeared" and "slurred" in the past several years relating to the death of President Kennedy.

Sure sounds to me like the pot is calling the kettle black when it comes to the topic of FREE SPEECH.

David Von Pein
December 24-25, 2014

(PART 867)


On Christmas morning 2014, I received a notification e-mail concerning the following tender and heartwarming post made at the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup by conspiracy theorist David "The Body Was Altered" Lifton....

[Lifton Quote On:]

"David Von Pein is a good collector--and a webmaster of sorts. (Let's give credit where credit is due). But that's about all he is. He cannot reason very well, and--basically--he's a professional propagandist. If there had been an Internet 700 years ago, and he was around at that time, he'd be spending his time as a spokes-person for the Flat Earth Society. He's really not much better than that.

Von Pein is what happens when the readily available technology of the Internet gets into the hands of a closed mind and an intellectual reactionary.

But that's all right. We can all benefit from his website, even if he's too intellectually limited to "connect the dots" correctly.

12/25/14 - 8 am PST
Los Angeles, California"

[End Quote.]


And with the above bright and cheery greeting from Mr. Lifton, it gives me a good opportunity to reciprocate and to wish Mr. David S. Lifton a very Merry Christmas and a Happy 2015.

And if you want to see how Mr. Lifton's brilliant mind has managed to "connect the dots" in the JFK case, go to the link below. (After all, everybody deserves a good hearty chuckle on Christmas Day....or any day.)....

David Von Pein
December 25, 2014

(PART 866)

Subject: Re: Second Oswald
Date: 2/12/2010 1:31:14 PM EST
From: Richard
To: David Von Pein


I must say that this Mexico incident at the Soviet Embassy and the Odio incident shortly before Oswald entered Mexico still cause me to scratch my head a bit. How is it that the "picture of Oswald" that turned out to be clearly someone else outside the Embassy survived, while no pictures of the real Oswald at the Embassy survived?

If the real Oswald was there at the same time as the photo was taken of the "second Oswald", this does seem to raise questions about why no photos of the real Oswald were ever produced. Why would the real Oswald photos have been destroyed while the fake Oswald photos taken in the same time frame were not?

Was there any attempt to obtain pictures of the real Oswald from the Russians after the assassination? Wouldn't the Russians have pictures of persons entering the Embassy as well? Did the FBI continue to believe there was a "second Oswald" in Mexico for many years after the assassination? Is there any FBI documentation clearing up the issue and indicating that the explanation by Hosty [at the 1986 TV docu-trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"] had solved the mix-up?

Did James Hosty later claim in a 2003 book that Oswald had offered to kill JFK to the Cubans? Does this raise a question about whether Hosty can be believed in his explanation about the second Oswald?

What are your thoughts about the letter sent to the Russian Embassy in Washington purportedly from Oswald dated November 9, 1963 referencing Oswald's inability to reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana and containing the phrase "there would have been time to complete our business." Is this a genuine letter? If so, what do you think Oswald is referring to? If the letter is a fake, does this provide some further issue about the "second Oswald"?

In his recent book "JFK and the Unspeakable," James Douglass suggests that the Soviet Embassy received the letter 4 days before the assassination and that the Soviets considered the letter to be "clearly a provocation" by those who were involved in the assassination so as to place blame on the Soviets and that perhaps the letter was a forgery. (See pages 229 et seq of the Douglass book)

I certainly don't intend to vouch for the credibility of Mr. Douglass and I have many questions about his book and the conclusions he reaches, but I wanted to get your thoughts about all of this.

If Oswald did actually visit Sylvia Odio on the way to Mexico City with 2 other men who were anti Castro, and one of them called Odio the following day to say that Oswald said JFK should have been killed because of failure to provide support for the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, there seems to [be] confusion about what Oswald was up to. He is both "pro Castro" and "anti Castro" within a very short period of time prior to the assassination.

Of course none of us can know with certainty what Oswald was thinking, but all of this (Odio visit, trip to Mexico, letter to Russian Embassy in D.C., etc) lead me to wonder just where Oswald was coming from and what his motives were in portraying himself as both pro and anti Castro shortly before the assassination.

I am completely satisfied that Oswald was the lone gunman who killed JFK, but the entire "second Oswald" issue does make me wonder what Oswald was thinking and what his motives were for the assassination.

I apologize for the rambling nature of the e-mail, but I have great respect for your views and extensive knowledge about the JFK assassination and am interested in trying to understand it all.

Many Thanks.



Subject: Re: Second Oswald
Date: 2/12/2010 6:27:29 PM EST
From: David Von Pein
To: Richard



The Mexico City/Oswald/Odio/Second Oswald stuff is riddled with possibilities, no doubt about that. And it's a confusing and sometimes contradictory morass that can probably never be solved to everyone's satisfaction.

But just giving you my "gut" feelings (and interjecting some common sense into the feelings), I feel very confident in saying the following things:

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald positively shot and killed President Kennedy (and Officer Tippit).

2.) Nobody else but Oswald fired any shots at President Kennedy (or Officer Tippit).

3.) Oswald positively made a trip to Mexico City in September 1963 and visited both the Cuban and Russian embassies while he was there (the witnesses are a half-mile deep to support this conclusion).


There can be NO DOUBT whatsoever that Oswald did go to Mexico City two months prior to the assassination. Oswald, in effect, TOLD US that he went there, via his signature on various documents and the letter he would later write to the Soviet Embassy in Washington in November 1963.

And since we know beyond any doubt that the REAL Lee Harvey Oswald travelled to Mexico in late '63, then the theory about a "second Oswald" or an "imposter Oswald" ALSO being in Mexico at the very same time the REAL Oswald was there just simply makes no sense whatsoever.

5.) No "Cuban connection" to Lee Harvey Oswald has ever been confirmed or proven with regard to Oswald's murder of JFK.

6.) The best place to turn if you have questions about virtually any aspect of the JFK assassination is Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book "Reclaiming History", which is a book that contains large quantities of solid, common-sense-based information (always backed up by numerous sources and citations), such as the excerpt shown below (re: Oswald's alleged threat against JFK while LHO was in Mexico):

[V.B. Quote On:]

"In a June 17, 1964, letter to Warren Commission general counsel J. Lee Rankin, J. Edgar Hoover said a "confidential source" who had "furnished reliable information in the past" reported that Castro had "recently said" that "our people in Mexico gave us the details" of Oswald 's visit to the Mexican consulate, and when his request for a visa "was refused him, he headed out saying 'I'm going to kill Kennedy for this'."

The story doesn't make sense. Why would Oswald threaten to kill Kennedy because the Cuban consulate turned down his request for a visa? What's the connection?

Silvia Duran, the secretary at the consulate who dealt with Oswald and was present at the time of Oswald's outburst when his request for a visa was denied, said she heard no such threat by Oswald against Kennedy. And the Cuban consul, Eusebio Azcue, who was also present, also said no such threat by Oswald was made, adding that if it had, he would "have passed this information to Fidel."

It should be noted that the Warren Commission should have included in its report Oswald's alleged threat to kill Kennedy at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City, but it did not, and I have not been able to find Hoover's letter to Rankin in any of the Commission's volumes of exhibits."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 1285-1286 of "Reclaiming History"



The November 9, 1963, letter that Oswald wrote to the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C. [Warren Commission Exhibit No. 15], is most definitely a letter that was written by Lee Harvey Oswald himself. It is certainly not a "fake" (i.e., it wasn't written by a "second Oswald").

The letter seen in CE15 was signed by Oswald, and that signature was determined to be the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald. Making that important determination for the HSCA were three handwriting experts from the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners.

Those experts examined 63 documents purportedly written by Lee Oswald during the last seven years of his life, one of which was the November 9, 1963, letter to the Soviet Embassy in Washington:

"48. November 9, 1963. Photomechanical (halftone) reproduction of a typewritten letter to the Consular Division, Embassy, U.S.S.R., Washington, D.C., signed Lee H. Oswald. Location: Archives. (Photomechanical reproduction-CE 15; JFK F-500.)" -- HSCA Volume #8, Page 231

The HSCA's exhibit marked F-500, which is a handwritten draft of Oswald's 11/9/63 letter, is the same as Warren Commission Exhibit No. 103.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations said this on page 233 of HSCA Volume #8 (with respect to the more than sixty "Oswald" documents that were examined):

"SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS -- The signatures and handwriting purported to be by Oswald are consistently that of one person."

As to the specific reference in the November 9th letter about Oswald not being able to "reach the Soviet embassy in Havana" and Oswald's remark about the Havana embassy having "time to complete our business":

Those comments don't seem overly suspicious to me. Oswald was attempting to acquire an intransit visa to Cuba, which would have permitted him a short stay in Cuba before going on to Russia.

Whether or not Oswald really intended to travel on to Russia after getting to Cuba can never be known, of course. But from what Oswald told his wife, Marina, it's very likely that Lee wanted to stay in Cuba, versus continuing on to the Soviet Union.

So, I don't think the words Oswald used in his 11/9/63 letter ("time to complete our business") necessarily mean anything other than Oswald's "business" in trying to get permission to go back to Russia. Although, as mentioned, the part about travelling all the way to Russia was probably just a ruse on Oswald's part, in order to get his visa quicker, because he likely had every intention of staying in Cuba and fighting for Castro's "revolution" (if he could).

There is also this:

When comparing Oswald's final typewritten 11/9/63 letter to one of his handwritten rough drafts, I noticed quite a few differences with respect to the "time to complete our business" remark.

In Oswald's rough draft, he said this (and keep in mind, because of all the cross-outs, it's a bit difficult to read every single word accurately in this rough draft of Oswald's [Page 2 of CE103], but I think this is what Oswald originally wrote):

"Had I been able to reach Havana as planned I could have contacted the Soviet Embassy there for the completion of..."

[The sentence then breaks off and Oswald then writes:]

"...would have been able to get the necessary documents I required [to] assist me."

In Oswald's final typed version of the letter, the above verbiage was changed to this:

"Had I been able to reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana as planned, the embassy there would have had time to complete our business."

So, it seems fairly obvious to me that the "business" Oswald was talking about in his 11/9/63 letter was merely red tape (so to speak), i.e., the acquisition of further visas and documents that would aid Oswald in his travels.


Here's another good passage from Mr. Bugliosi's book (relating to James Hosty of the FBI). It's yet another example (among many) of the common sense that appears throughout Vincent's "Reclaiming History":

[V.B. Quote On:]

"One other alleged attempt on the part of the FBI to withhold key information from the Warren Commission comes not so much from the conspiracy theorists but from a quasi-conspiracy soul mate of theirs, former FBI agent James Hosty himself.

In his book 'Assignment: Oswald', Hosty says that shortly before his testimony before the Warren Commission, someone removed "two key items" (both had been sent from FBI headquarters) from his file on Oswald in his Dallas office. One was an October 18, 1963, communique from the CIA to the FBI stating that while Oswald was in Mexico City he was in contact with the Russian embassy and had probably spoken to one Valeriy Kostikov at the embassy.

The second document contained a reference to the November 9, 1963, letter Oswald had written to the Soviet embassy in Washington, D.C., in which he refers to speaking to a "Comrade Kostin" (believed to be Kostikov) at the Russian embassy in Mexico City.

Based on these two documents, Hosty said he figured Kostikov "was just a simple administrative officer at the Russian Embassy." But Hosty says he later learned that Kostikov was a KGB agent in Department 13, the department of the KGB that dealt in sabotage and assassination.

Hosty suggests that the reason the FBI (who he correctly presumes knew this fact) kept this information from him is that the bureau, in league with the CIA, the Warren Commission, and President Johnson himself, didn't want him to introduce this information into the public record when he testified before the Warren Commission, for fear, Hosty says, that it could precipitate a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

One immediate problem with Hosty's thinking is this: Hosty said he read both documents before they disappeared from his files. Obviously, neither contained a reference to Kostikov being a KGB agent. Indeed, this is the predicate for Hosty's whole argument. Since the documents did not contain a reference to Kostikov being a KGB agent, how in the world would their removal from his file, which he felt was highly suspicious, prevent him from knowing Kostikov was a KGB agent? It obviously makes no sense at all.

Moreover, if the documents had contained a reference to Kostikov's KGB status, since Hosty had already read both documents, he could have testified to their essential content before the Warren Commission even if he did not have them in his physical possession.

It is also noteworthy that unlike his published book, his earlier 1986 manuscript of the book pointed out (page 20) that right after the assassination, when he located his Oswald file, the two subject documents were "right on top" of the file. Obviously, they were important, and just as obviously, his supervising agents had a right, without his permission, to look into the file (and remove any documents they deemed important) on someone who had just been identified as the president's assassin.

Indeed, one such supervising agent, Kenneth Howe, testified to this being routine procedure in ANY case."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 1338-1339 of "Reclaiming History"


Thanks for the e-mails, Richard. I don't know if I have helped you at all with your questions about Oswald and Mexico, etc., but I've enjoyed our conversations nonetheless.

Furthermore, your recent e-mails and the questions you have raised about certain aspects of the JFK assassination and its investigation have provided the impetus for me to look a little more deeply into those specific matters being discussed. And for providing that additional incentive, I am grateful.

David Von Pein
February 12, 2010


Subject: Re: Second Oswald
Date: 2/13/2010 1:37:27 PM EST
From: Richard
To: David Von Pein


Dave, thanks so much for the generosity of your time in responding to my inquiries. I will look over the cites you provided me in your emails. I certainly agree with the numbered list of points you made in your initial response yesterday. Oswald did the shooting that day and no one else fired a shot. But why?

With regard to point 5 about the lack of a Cuban connection to the assassination, do you know what basis Hosty claimed to have for his allegation that Oswald offered to kill JFK to the Cubans?

Without the benefit of having read 'Oswald's Game' and 'Reclaiming History', I am at some disadvantage in speculating about Oswald and his motives. It would appear to me that since at least March 1963 when he purchased the rifle under a false name, he had some nefarious plan in mind. Whether that involved the assassination of JFK at that time, I certainly don't know, but it looks like he was planning to shoot somebody or somebodies.

Oswald strikes me as the type of person who wanted to be recognized as "somebody" of importance. What continues to baffle me is why he apparently engaged in the game of being both anti Castro and pro Castro within a matter of days in connection with the trip to Mexico City in September/October 1963.


I may do a little additional digging and get back in touch with you for some more sound advice. I hope you will forgive these perhaps baseless musings. Many thanks.



Subject: Re: Second Oswald
Date: 2/13/2010 4:58:47 PM EST
From: David Von Pein
To: Richard


Hi again Richard,

Re: James Hosty.....

I haven't read Hosty's book, so I don't know everything that he might have heard or theorized about certain aspects of the JFK case. But it's very likely that Hosty heard about Lee Harvey Oswald's alleged threat against President Kennedy via this method (as explained here by Vincent Bugliosi):

[V.B. Quote On:]

"British tabloid journalist Comer Clark...in an October 1967 edition of the National Enquirer...wrote that on July 15, 1967, he had an exclusive interview with [Fidel] Castro late one night in a Havana pizzeria. He quotes Castro as saying, "Lee Oswald came to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City twice. The first time, I was told, he wanted to work for us. He was asked to explain, but he wouldn't. He wouldn't go into details. The second time he said something like: 'Someone ought to shoot that President Kennedy.' Then Oswald said--and this was exactly how it was reported to me--'Maybe I'll try to do it.' This was less than two months before the U.S. President was assassinated...Yes, I heard of Lee Harvey Oswald's plan to kill President Kennedy. It's possible I could have saved him. I might have been able to, but I didn't. I never believed the plan would be put into effect."

The HSCA learned that Clark, who died in 1972, "wrote extensively for the sensationalist press in England. His articles include such items as 'British Girls as Nazi Sex Slaves' [and] 'I Was Hitler's Secret Love'."

When the HSCA asked Castro on April 3, 1978, about Clark's allegation, he responded in a blizzard of denunciatory words. Among them: "This is absurd. I didn't say that. It has been invented from the beginning until the end. It's a lie from head to toe. If this man [Oswald] would have done something like that, it would have been our moral duty to inform the United States."

Denying that he had ever met Clark or been interviewed by him, [Castro] said, "How could [this man] interview me in a pizzeria? I never go to public restaurants...I would never have given a journalist an interview in a pizzeria...What is the job of that journalist? What is he engaged in? ... You should...find [out] who he is and why he wrote it." "

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1285 of "Reclaiming History"


Re: Oswald's Mindset In Late 1963.....

I really have no idea what Oswald was "up to" in the months leading up to the assassination with respect to his seemingly "flipping sides" from pro-Castro to anti-Castro at the drop of a hat. But he did seem to like to play games sometimes.

As for Oswald's reason for buying the rifle in March of 1963 -- that one is easy:

He bought the rifle so he could kill Retired General Edwin Walker with it. Oswald's attempted murder of Walker occurred only a couple of weeks (approximately) after he received his rifle in the mail.

The Walker shooting is something that most conspiracy theorists want to totally ignore, or they want to pretend that Oswald, himself, didn't really shoot at Walker in April, which is nonsense, of course, based on his paper trail that he left behind for Marina and Marina's own testimony concerning the matter.

But it's easy to see WHY those conspiracy promoters want to deny that Oswald shot at Walker --- because if they were to admit to themselves that Sweet Lee Harvey HAD IT IN HIM TO KILL A HUMAN BEING (and a political figure at that!), then it would be much more difficult to paint Oswald as the completely innocent "patsy" when it comes to John F. Kennedy's murder.

The Walker shooting, IMO, has always been a vital key to understanding OSWALD HIMSELF. Because when Oswald took that gun and fired a shot at General Edwin Walker's head on April 10, 1963, it forever proved that the man who was charged seven months later with the murder of the President of the United States positively had it WITHIN HIMSELF the willingness to kill a human being.

In other words -- Oswald was, in effect, a POLITICAL ASSASSIN many months prior to November 22, 1963.

And, in my view, that's a very important thing to know about Lee Harvey Oswald. And it's a part of Oswald's inner character that conspiracy theorists SHOULD (but don't) pay a lot more attention to, particularly the large number of conspiracists who currently reside in the silly "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity.

Thanks again for writing.

David Von Pein
February 13, 2010

(PART 865)


Are you stating in your opinion no bullet traversed the neck?


Almost all conspiracy theorists (that I am aware of) think that the throat wound was caused by a bullet (or a poisoned dart) that ENTERED the President's throat from the front.

Which means that those CTers have DOUBLE the disappearing bullets than they'd have in trying to explain Paul May's thread-opening question about where just the ONE bullet went after exiting JFK's throat.

This is a point I've made repeatedly on the Web for years -- i.e., the absurdity in believing something that is far more unbelievable than is the Single-Bullet Theory.

Conspiracists who advocate a frontal shot for the throat wound are automatically making themselves look ridiculous, because those people must now explain why TWO separate bullets went into the President's upper back AND throat, and then just vanished WITHOUT EXITING.

And those CTers should also feel the need to explain to the world why President Kennedy had NO INTERNAL DAMAGE significant enough to even remotely suggest that even ONE bullet (let alone TWO) could have stopped dead inside his back/neck after entering.

But, in the conspiracy world, apparently there is no obligation on the part of those people advancing such nutty theories to reasonably explain why and how these bullets failed to exit and then BOTH DISAPPEAR into thin air.

In other words, the mere suggestion that something is true (like the silly-beyond-all-tolerance "Two Bullets Went Into JFK, Did Not Exit, And Then Disappeared" claptrap) is more than enough for conspiracy theorists to embrace it as the absolute truth.

Silly, isn't it?

Yes, it is.

David Von Pein
February 10, 2010

(PART 83)

http://jfklibrary.org/JFK Film (Aug. 29-Sept. 2, 1963)



http://ItsAboutTV.com/Marc Ryan Interview








http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Wringing Out A Confession





(PART 864)


Vince Palamara is beginning to get very boring. One day he will tell you something, the next day something else, and be prepared for another complete reversal on his part sooner than you can expect...

The truth is: Vince Palamara doesn't know what to think. What matters to him is that people remember his name! That's all.

He has recently read a book by someone (Horne) who claims the Zapruder film was altered (what nonsense, what crap!), and he says he saw the light????

Give me a break!

To me, Palamara is now to be put in the same group as the Liftons, Fetzers, Mantiks and Grodens: useless people who can do nothing but waste their time and spread falsehoods.

How sad!


And not only that, Vince Palamara just read a book (Doug Horne's) that claims that JFK's body was altered by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell at Bethesda Naval Center prior to President Kennedy's autopsy!

And Palamara just read a book (Horne's) that insists that there were two brains examined by the pathologists in November 1963, with one of these brains being JFK's real brain and the other one being a phony brain of some kind that--get this!--was way too big to even be John F. Kennedy's real brain!

Talk about BRAINless idiots for plotters!

And that is the kind of pro-conspiracy nonsense that Mr. Palamara evidently finds convincing.

And the kicker is: Palamara is still calling Vincent Bugliosi's book a "masterpiece" too -- at the same time that he's calling Doug Horne's conspiracy-filled tome worthy of winning a Pulitzer Prize!!

Touting BOTH Bugliosi's book and Horne's book as being of worthy of equal praise is pretty much the same thing as saying that the person engaging in such praise for those two things (Vince Palamara) firmly and genuinely believes that the sun is both hot AND cold.

Allow me to repeat my earlier comments about Vincent Michael Palamara:

"In order to believe in ANY of the conspiracy-tinged nonsense that Douglas Horne believes in, a person must AUTOMATICALLY disbelieve the things that Vincent T. Bugliosi believes in. .... Either Lee Oswald killed Kennedy alone (as Bugliosi posits) or he didn't (as Horne posits). You cannot believe that BOTH Bugliosi's and Horne's versions of the JFK story are true. They are like water and oil. They cannot co-exist. .... In short, it appears that Vince Palamara's opinions regarding the John F. Kennedy murder case are about as steady as the colors of a chameleon." -- DVP; December 16, 2009

David Von Pein
December 17, 2009

(PART 863)


Just a brief trip into the toilet bowl known as Von Pein.

"You" are [a] liar. Simple and straight: a pathetic little liar who doesn't have the guts to emerge from whatever safe-house or mommy's basement in which "you" live. Doug Horne DOES NOT implicate any specific person in the possible alteration of Kennedy's body: not Humes, not Finck, not Boswell.


You'd better do a little more reading, Eddie, because Mr. Horne most certainly DOES "implicate" specific people in his ridiculous theory about how President Kennedy's body was altered before his autopsy on the night of November 22, 1963.

In fact, Horne wrote a comment right here on the Amazon.com boards in which he directly accuses (i.e., "implicates") JFK's lead autopsy doctor of performing alterations to the President's head "before the autopsy" ever began at Bethesda. Here are Horne's verbatim words:

"Dr. Humes performed the post-mortem surgery on JFK's head wounds before the autopsy." -- Douglas P. Horne; December 19, 2009

So, as we can easily see, Mr. Kasica is grossly misinformed (even about his hero, Mr. Horne).


BTW, the quotes around "you" refer to the fact that DVP must be a conglomeration of several individuals, since no one human could possibly spend as much time disinforming on this topic. There just ain't enough time in the day.

And Von Poon, take that JFK avatar off your two billion posts across the Net. How dare you! You're nothing but an assassin as well, ex-post-facto.


Oh, goodie! Now I get to be "an assassin" too, per Kook Kasica. And why not? Everybody (and his uncle) was apparently out to murder JFK in '63, so why not 1-year-old David "Von Poon" too? (Thanks for today's laugh, Edward.)

BTW, the constant alterations of my last name by various conspiracy kooks on these Amazon boards are rather humorous too. "Von Sack" was a new one I had never seen before. But Kasica's "Von Poon" needs some work. Surely, a rabid kook such as Kasica can find a better faux moniker than that. Right, Eddie?

David Von Pein
February 10, 2010

(PART 862)



Your analysis of the Dealey Plaza photos destroys the single bullet theory.

You conceded the clothing wasn't bunched up much at all in the Croft photo, remember?


Quote me saying that, Cliff. Because I sure as heck don't remember ever saying that.

Kennedy's jacket was, of course, "bunched up" in the Croft picture. Anyone with one (bad) eye can easily see that.

Did I say something years ago to you about the clothing not being bunched "much at all"? Is that the key phrase? Or are you misstating my quotes? (Just wondering.)


In this post you acknowledge that, in the past, you've admitted JFK's clothing wasn't bunched up significantly on Houston St.

In this post you acknowledge that JFK's jacket was bunched up "a bit" in the Croft photo.

"A bit" of bunched clothing is a fraction of an inch, David, not 3 inches.

In this post you refine your analysis that JFK's jacket was bunched up "a little bit" since his shirt collar is clearly visible in Croft.

"The jacket collar could be "hiked up" a little bit and still have some of JFK's white shirt visible." -- DVP

This photo destroys the SBT.

The shirt collar is visible. The jacket collar sat in a normal position at the base of his neck. Otherwise, the full band of white shirt collar wouldn't be visible, right?

Your SBT requires 3 inches of shirt bunch-up and a near-equal amount of jacket bunch-up.

How could multiple inches of shirt and jacket bunch up entirely above the SBT inshoot at the base of JFK's neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of his neck?

Only "a little bit" of jacket could be bunched up under those circumstances.

Your acknowledgement of this fact destroys your Zombie Pet Theory, David.


Oh, brother.

Cliff Varnell thinks those previous comments I made somehow mean I can no longer believe (or in any way support) the SBT.

Cliff's middle initial must be D (for "Desperation").


David, do you really believe that both the jacket and the shirt bunched up the same amount, just as the shot was fired? Really?


This stuff about the clothing is so incredibly silly, Ray.

There's only ONE bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only ONE hole in the jacket.

So, then, ONE bullet had no choice but to pass through both of those holes.

What's the alternative? Please enlighten me on that one.

Did one bullet pass through the shirt and then a different bullet went through the suit coat? Nobody could possibly argue such a nutty theory.

Or do you think the clothing was faked too?


Now who is being the silly one, David?

I note you never answered my question.

Obviously one bullet caused both holes. Again I ask you, do you really believe that the jacket and shirt both bunched up the same amount? Really?


Of course they bunched up the same amount. Why not? You actually think such a thing is a total impossibility? (Geesh.)

The alternative is to believe that this autopsy photo below is a fake. And, in my opinion, that notion is absurd and preposterous (especially in light of what we find at 7 HSCA 41])....

President Kennedy's suit coat is unquestionably hiked up on his back in the Croft picture at circa Z161. That's not even debatable.

Now, given that undeniable FACT (unless someone wants to pretend that Robert Croft's picture has been faked too), it means the suit coat is going to have a hole in it that is lower than the wound in JFK's skin. Correct?

And since there's only one bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only one bullet hole in the upper back (skin) of John F. Kennedy's body too---well, it's pretty obvious to see where I'm going with this, right?

And, to reiterate -- Why on Earth do CTers think it would be an impossible feat to have somebody's shirt and jacket bunched up IN UNISON on a person's back?

But to hear CTers like Cliff Varnell tell it, that "double bunching" thing is more improbable than flying to the moon in a Cessna. ~big shrug~

It only goes to show--once again--the lengths that some conspiracy hounds will go to in order to inject suspicion and doubt and alleged "conspiracy" into every nook and cranny of the JFK murder case---even though there's no need to inject such things into this particular sub-topic regarding the President's clothing whatsoever.

And btw, a picture was produced by Jean Davison a few years ago (the one below) showing JFK wearing a shirt that is "bunched up" near his neck. But according to some CTers, I guess maybe this is merely an illusion I'm seeing here....

And Cliff Varnell and other Education Forum members know about the above picture, too. It was discussed right here in this thread.

Naturally, Cliff doesn't think it has any relevance at all. But I think Cliff is all wet, and I set him straight here.

FYI / BTW / FWIW....

Here's another photo, culled from Andre Leche's film (which was discovered in late 2013), showing a pretty significant bunching of JFK's jacket on Main Street....


Regarding the photo of JFK speaking to the young lad and showing his shirt bunched up, if he was shot at the collar line, at that moment, you would have three holes in the shirt, once it was laid flat. Just saying.

And the same would apply to the suit coat, if he were shot at the collar line and the coat was bunched up. The bullet would go through the fold, leaving one bullet hole on each side of the fold, and then through the collar of the coat, leaving another hole.

I count three holes, Dave.



The simple answer to your posts above is that JFK's clothes on 11/22/63 were not "bunched" to an extreme degree where "folds" or overlapping of the fabric come into play in the precise locations in the shirt and coat where the bullet penetrated.

Because if such folding of the clothing had occurred at the exact spots where the bullet entered, then--like you suggested--we would have multiple holes in each item (the coat and the shirt). But we've got only ONE hole in each article of clothing. Ergo, no "folding" and no overlapping of fabric.

Also see....


Okay, smart guy, did the bullet go above the collar, or below the collar?


As far as the SKIN wound in JFK's body, the bullet went into his body just slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders. (At least it looks that way to me.) But it certainly didn't enter way up in the "NECK", and there was no need whatever for Gerald Ford, or any other person connected with the Warren Commission, to want to start "moving" the wound way up into the neck, because, as CE903 demonstrates, a wound way up there in the "neck" of JFK would ruin the SBT trajectory entirely.

As far as the bullet hole in the coat, that hole was located quite a bit down from the collar (due to the bunching of the jacket when the shooting occurred). So, quite obviously, the "collar" isn't involved when discussing the hole in the jacket either.


Obviously one bullet caused both holes [in JFK's shirt and suit coat].


Then what's your point, Ray?

You readily acknowledge that ONE bullet must have passed through the two holes in the clothing. So aren't you therefore saying the exact same thing I am saying here -- i.e., that the two articles of clothing (the shirt and the jacket) WERE, indeed, elevated to the same level when the bullet struck John Kennedy in the back?

Otherwise, how could the one bullet have managed to travel through both of those clothing holes on November 22, 1963?

Please elaborate on how your position ("Obviously one bullet caused both holes") is any different from mine ("There's only ONE bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only ONE hole in the jacket. So, then, ONE bullet had no choice but to pass through both of those holes.").

We are BOTH stating the obvious--that one bullet went through both clothing holes. Therefore, in order for that basic fact to be true, the two items of clothing had no choice but to be "lined up" in such a manner on JFK's back to allow the one bullet to pass successfully through both of those garments. Correct?

And since everybody (including Mr. Ray Mitcham) can easily see that JFK's jacket WAS definitely "bunched up" when the shooting occurred (as confirmed by Robert Croft's photograph), then where can you possibly go with your argument that the shirt couldn't have been bunched up to the same level as the jacket?

What am I missing here? Please tell me. Because I truly don't think your position on this is any different from my own.


Are you sure you want to go with "just slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders", Dave?

Just making sure....


That seems to be about right when looking at the autopsy photo.

But to be perfectly technical and spot-on accurate, I'd insist upon the precise language of the autopsy surgeons and the detailed measurements they made. Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck said....

"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process." -- Warren Report; Page 540


No, Dave, you stated the bullet was slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders. Is that your final answer? Do you want to call a friend?


Oh, good. Bob has decided to be cute. (He thinks he's setting a cunning little trap for that stupid ol' LNer from the Hoosier State named Davey V.P., doesn't he? How clever that boy is.)


The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims, David.

But you and all the other high back wound people have found it impossible.

It's way past time for you people to put up or shut up.


What's not to love about a conspiracy buff with a pet theory to push? Pure entertainment.

Cliff Varnell's dogged refrain, year after year after year, concerning the clothing of JFK is even better than Jack Benny for laughs.

The bottom line is ----

There is no reasonable alternative to the Single-Bullet Theory (Cliff's constant whining about the clothing notwithstanding) -- and even Cliff must surely realize that fact.

So, to use Cliff's own verbiage, maybe it's time for "you [CT] people to put up or shut up" when it comes to demonstrating just exactly how President Kennedy was shot via an anti-SBT theory.

Of course that won't happen---because it CAN'T happen. And that's because the Single-Bullet Theory is rooted in solid ground (and a real bullet too--CE399, which is something the anti-SBT CTers lack completely).


Quote By DVP -- "There is no reasonable alternative to the Single Bullet Theory."

Only in your world, David.

It was "Theory" dreamt up to fit a scenario in which only three bullets were fired, one of which hit a bystander. Unfortunately you can't see that.


Then what's your alternative theory that replaces the SBT, Ray?

And does your version really fit the evidence better than the SBT does?

Don't be shy. Let's hear it.


No problem. Multi shooters.




My problem is proving where the shots came from.


Yeah, no kidding. It's difficult to prove something for which there's no evidence at all. Good luck.


One shot was from the front hitting the President in the right temple...


Not a lick of evidence to support that claim.


My theory needs no magic bullet.


Nor does mine.

But you didn't even come close to answering my previous question, which concerned only the SBT.

I'll try again....

"Then what's your alternative theory that replaces the SBT, Ray? And does your version really fit the evidence better than the SBT does? Don't be shy. Let's hear it."

[Ray never answered me. Gee, what surprise.]


I have ONE question about DVP's book [Remember the book? I believe this thread was started to discuss the book]:

Is there any NEW information in the book, or is it a restatement of old information? Because I can get refried beans at just about any Mexican restaurant.


There's some material in the book that I don't think has been published in "book" form in the past.


Stuff about the ridiculous "Secret Service Standdown" myth and the true identity of the "shrugging" SS agent at Love Field [pages 429-434 of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"]. (Don Lawton's identity WAS, indeed, revealed in the Gerald Blaine/Clint Hill book "The Kennedy Detail" in 2010, but I don't think the "standdown" topic was discussed in that book. But I'm not positive about that.)

And there's some "new" material (thanks to Gary Mack's e-mails to me) regarding Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's [pages 64-67].

Plus, the book's main author, Mel Ayton, has contacted some sources down in Florida regarding the "Castro/Cuba/Oswald" angle that I believe can be classified as "new" [Chapter 11, "The Castro Connection"; pages 313-343].

But as far as being "new" to people like Mark Knight or Pat Speer or John Simkin or Mark Lane, et al ... the answer to your question, Mark, would be, for the most part, no. Because I doubt that there's much of anything brand-new in the book that you guys haven't seen before. (Sorry, Mark, neither Mel nor I discovered another bullet or a new "bombshell witness". Instead, we have had to mostly rely on that same evidence collected by the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/63. Like it or not, that evidence IS the evidence in this case. And it all points in one irresistible direction.)

But for people who don't visit JFK online forums every day of their lives and who don't obsess about the JFK case the way I do or the way "Internet CTers" do, then I'd say, Yes, there are several "new" items of interest sprinkled throughout "Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Warren Report And Lee Harvey Oswald's Guilt And Motive 50 Years On".

And why in heck the "Add To Cart" button hasn't returned to the book's Amazon page is ticking me off greatly. It should be there by now, but it isn't (as of 1:00 AM EST on 12/15/2014). The ability to purchase it through the "Shopping Cart" at Amazon should definitely occur within the next few days. [It finally did occur on January 7, 2015.]


Since there is a chapter on the Single Bullet Theory, how is that discussion off topic?


The reference to being "off topic" was to the fact that this was sliding more towards rekindling an old "grudge match," in which neither side was ever going to convince the other, than it was towards actually being a civil discussion. Personally, I am no fan of Mr. Von Pein...but I hope that we can keep the discussions here not only civil, but informative. Snide remarks by either party, or a continuous sniping match, does little to raise the level of discourse here.

By now, I think we all know what you believe, Mr. Varnell. And I'm pretty sure we all know what Mr. Von Pein believes. And from where I stand, obviously "never the twain shall meet." So unless there is new evidence on the subject, we return to rehashing old arguments that lead nowhere, as neither of you will ever convince the other, nor concede to the other. I think that, on a thread about a new book, perhaps having the courtesy to first read the book might bring other more enlightening questions to mind.

And besides...I think there's probably more than one old thread here about the bunching/non-bunching of the shirt/jacket that might be revived, if there is some point to it other than wanting to be the man to get in the last word on the subject.

And THAT is what the "back on topic" reference was about.


DVP and I have come to characterize the clothing evidence the same way -- there was "a little bit" of jacket bunching in Dealey Plaza.

This is a significant admission from DVP.

Jim DiEugenio argued and argued with DVP over hundreds of topics and never once did Jim D get any sort of admission of fact from Von Pein.

That I have wrung said admission is a true accomplishment, if I do say so.


I've never specified the EXACT amount of jacket bunching that can be seen in the photos. Why on Earth would anyone do something like that? It's an impossible thing to know. I can't tell precisely how much "bunching" there is in the Croft picture. And neither can you. We can only GUESS.

You, Cliff, are attempting to fine-tune the "bunching" to levels of exactitude that cannot be achieved.

But it is nice to see Cliff admit that at least SOME bunching of JFK's jacket is seen in the Dealey Plaza photographs. (With a shocking admission like that one, perhaps Cliff isn't too far away from becoming an LNer after all.)


The point was to sharpen and underscore David Von Pein's startling, ground-breaking admission that there was no significant bunching of JFK's jacket in Dealey.


And who said a "significant" amount of bunching is needed in order to meet the requirements for the Single-Bullet Theory? Just because YOU say so? "Significant" is a relative term.

Once again, Cliff is pretending to KNOW with exact accuracy the degree of "bunching" that is occurring with respect to both JFK's jacket AND shirt via the photos we have to examine. (And the shirt can't even be seen at all, of course, since the jacket is covering his shirt.)

But such pinpoint precision concerning the bunching cannot be obtained by just looking at the photos. It can only be GUESSED at. But apparently Cliff thinks he can measure to the millimeter the amount of bunched-up fabric that is seen in the photos.

Such silliness the likes which Mr. Varnell is constantly engaging in regarding President Kennedy's clothing ought to scoffed at by any and all reasonable people examining the JFK case.

Bottom Line --- Cliff Varnell is pretending to know things that are just simply unknowable.



The verifiable PROOF that Cliff Varnell is dead wrong regarding the bullet holes in JFK's clothing exists in the fact that we KNOW beyond all doubt that ONE single bullet had to have passed through all three bullet holes in question --- the hole in JFK's jacket, the hole in JFK's shirt, and the hole that existed in JFK's upper back (which is located 14 centimeters below his right mastoid process, just like the autopsy doctors said).

Cliff can talk all day long (and he will) about how it's impossible for John Kennedy's clothes to have bunched up to a certain level on JFK's body. But the absolute irrefutable PROOF that the clothing DID, indeed, bunch up to that level on JFK's back exists in this autopsy picture, which has been proven to be genuine (i.e., not faked) by many experts who examined the autopsy photos for the HSCA:

The bullet hole in the above picture is perfectly consistent with the Single-Bullet Theory and is also perfectly consistent with the autopsy report and with Commission Exhibit No. 903 as well.

And since we know where the bullet entered the BODY of President Kennedy, then the shirt and jacket HAD to have been elevated to the very same level where we find the body/skin wound in the upper back of the President.

The above fact couldn't be any more obvious, of course. But, for some reason, certain conspiracy theorists are still struggling to figure out this elementary math that any third-grader would have no trouble resolving.

If some conspiracy theorists want to continue to pretend that this photo of President Kennedy is a fake, or alternatively, that the wound seen in that picture is really much lower on JFK's back than it appears to be in the photo....they are free, of course, to speculate about such things I guess. But in my opinion, neither option is a reasonable one. Especially when we factor in these findings reached by the Photographic Panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations:

"From the reports of the experts' analyses of the autopsy photographs and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA Volume 7, page 41

David Von Pein
December 2014