(PART 1159)




1.) OSWALD took OSWALD'S rifle to work on the day of JFK's visit to Dallas.

2.) OSWALD'S prints were all over the place where the assassin of JFK was located (the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor).

3.) OSWALD was identified by a witness as the person who shot Kennedy.

4.) OSWALD shot and killed Officer Tippit.

5.) OSWALD put up a wild fight in the Texas Theater and punched out a cop while drawing a revolver (the same revolver, of course, that was used to murder Tippit 35 minutes earlier).

6.) Bullets and bullet shells from OSWALD'S two guns turn up everywhere where the killer of Kennedy and the killer of Tippit were known to have been (and in KENNEDY'S CAR even!). And I won't even add "CE399" to this list, because conspiracy theorists hate that bullet so much. But, as can easily be seen, CE399 isn't even really needed to convict OSWALD, because there's so much other stuff besides 399 that convicts him too.

Yeah, that's some innocent and framed "patsy" you've got there. LOL.

Regarding Point #3:

I know you probably think Howard Brennan is worthless as a witness, but shouldn't we also consider the description that Mr. Brennan gave of the assassin in his 11/22 affidavit too? The description in that affidavit, which was written by Brennan within hours of the assassination and months before he ever talked to anybody from the Warren Commission, can, indeed, be considered very "general" in nature, but it also can fit the person who owned the rifle found on the sixth floor, especially when combined with Officer Marrion Baker's description of Oswald. And we KNOW Baker saw OSWALD, not somebody else, on the second floor.

Just look at these two descriptions in these November 22nd affidavits. One of these witnesses (Brennan) is describing the sniper on the sixth floor of the Depository; while the other witness (Baker) is describing a man he himself personally encountered--a person Baker was just inches away from in the second-floor lunchroom just 2 minutes or so after Brennan saw the man he describes in his affidavit. These descriptions are identical in several key respects, right down to each witness thinking the man they were describing was about 30 years old.

Here's a direct comparison (and keep in mind that we KNOW Baker IS describing Lee Harvey Oswald here, not some mystery person whose identity is still unknown):

BRENNAN -- "White man."
BAKER -- "White man."

BRENNAN -- "In his early 30s."
BAKER -- "Approximately 30 years old."

BRENNAN -- "165 to 175 pounds."
BAKER -- "165 pounds."

Those identical descriptions are an interesting "coincidence", huh? Do conspiracy theorists now want to claim that Marrion L. Baker wasn't really describing Lee Oswald at all in his November 22nd affidavit? Or did Marrion decide to just make up those descriptive details out of whole cloth in order to conform perfectly with the only witness in all of Dealey Plaza who actually saw the assassin firing a gun during the shooting of President Kennedy -- right down to the incorrect age and weight estimates?

David Von Pein
April 25, 2013

(PART 1158)


What hard evidence is there that LHO was at [the] 6th [floor window of the TSBD] as JFK passed?



You did not provide the answer at all. Neither did Bugliosi or Posner.

Your huge assumption he was at [the] 6th [floor] as JFK passed is as conspiratorial as any theory out there.

Also, you say Brennan was 1000% on the money when he was unsure at the lineup? Brennan's view from the street is good enough for you to send a man to the electric chair?

Your case for [a] lone nut has less weight than fence shooter. Excellent witnesses to the fence shooter ignored by [Earl] Warren, but you trust Warren?

What a joke.


You think there's AS MUCH evidence for "Fence Shooter" as there is that LHO did it? Oh, my.

OSWALD'S prints in the Sniper's Nest.

OSWALD'S rifle is the murder weapon (which was on the 6th floor).

OSWALD'S prints on the paper bag in the Sniper's Nest. (No, I don't think it was planted there. You probably do, however.)

OSWALD kills Officer J.D. Tippit in flight.

OSWALD lies repeatedly to the cops. (An innocent person lies that much?)

Fence Shooter has that kind of corroborative evidence, eh? I think not.

How anyone can think LHO is innocent is the bigger mystery.

But, to each his own.


Why do you think [Gerald] Ford adjusted the autopsy drawing to [conform] to [the] "magic bullet theory"?

Not suspicious to you?


Because the way it was originally worded was obviously stupid and impossible. Here's why (see "Addendum")...

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Gerald Ford And The SBT


I can't find the answer in all the stuff you told me to read.

Views from the street would never send him to the chair.

FBI lab found no marks on his face.

I do think he was involved at some level, but you have not provided evidence to send him to the chair.


He goes to the chair based on just the Tippit murder alone.

You surely don't deny that he killed Officer Tippit, do you?


Thank you for the reply!

Let's see...you actually acknowlege no evidence at 6th floor (LHO beyond doubt WAS there AS JFK passed)? Holy sh*t! ok.

But you say enough for the chair over Tippitt [sic]? I do not see any hard evidence to say he was the killer BUT (and this is a big step for me) I think he MAY have done the deed because WHO ELSE would leave the ID?

You see, he left the wallet there and the rifle at the bulding TO BE CAUGHT!

That's another book.

But still, although it makes "sense", there's no witnesses! I believe also that the bullets don't fit the barrel of his handgun. The chair as a result? HOW?

Here's my scenario: LHO was some kind of CIA related assassin because he most likely tried to assassinate Walker. He was also "hired" to be a stooge on 11-22-63 because a trained Marine could never make that kill shot; powers that be would never trust him after the Walker "fail".

Not a nice guy. At best, a guy convinced assassinating is ok for the good of the country.

Finally, he goes to trial: is found guilty of being an accessory. I don't know what kind of sentence.

I think my scenario is perfect!

Thanks again for taking your time to reply.



You said: "...you actually acknowlege no evidence at 6th floor...?"

But I never said any such thing. The evidence on the sixth floor of the Depository (plus the eyewitnesses) certainly point to Oswald and HIS RIFLE.

And Oswald's ACTIONS point to him. And Oswald's LIES point to him. Plus the Tippit murder points to him, which was (IMO) unquestionably part of the same murderous transaction that began in Dealey Plaza on November 22.

As Vincent Bugliosi asked....

"In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 964 of "Reclaiming History"

The evidence of Oswald's guilt is clear and spread out over multiple parts of Dallas, Texas --- from Elm Street to 10th Street to Jefferson Boulevard where he was apprehended and right on into City Hall where he lied his head off after his arrest.

To believe in Oswald's innocence requires believing in a lot of things that have been conveniently bent toward "conspiracy" and "evidence fakery". I don't travel down such paths, because they are not reasonable paths to traverse.


Bullets in Tippett [sic] could not have come from LHO pistol.


Dead wrong. Learn the evidence, Phil.

The bullets taken from Tippit's body were perfectly consistent with the type of undersized .38 Special ammunition that Oswald used in his .38 Smith & Wesson revolver.

Plus, there's testimony from the independent firearms expert, Joseph Nicol, which has Nicol concluding that one of the four Tippit bullets positively did come from Oswald's V510210 S&W revolver....

Mr. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Nicol, finally I hand you a group of four bullets marked Commission Exhibits 602, 603, 604, and 605, which I state for the record were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit, and a group of two bullets marked Commission Exhibit 606, which I state for the record were fired by the FBI through the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143. .... Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?"

JOSEPH NICOL -- "Yes; I did."

Mr. EISENBERG -- "What was your conclusion?"

Mr. NICOL -- "Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of class characteristics--that is to say, there is nothing evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be positive. However, on specimen 603...I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606."

Mr. EISENBERG -- "That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?"

Mr. NICOL -- "Yes, sir."


Two men were seen with Tippett [sic]. But there are no witnesses pointing to LHO as the shooter.


Total nonsense. Click here.

You, Phil, need to learn how to properly evaluate the TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE in the JFK case.

When you've done that, give me a shout.

David Von Pein
June 14—July 26, 2016
(E-mail conversation)

(PART 1157)


Robert Harris said this at The Education Forum on April 19, 2010:

"For years, WC critics have doubted the legitimacy of CE-399. .... Its relatively undamaged condition suggest that it wounded no-one."

Bob Harris, like all conspiracy theorists, either totally ignores or is unaware of Dr. Martin Fackler's ballistics tests in 1992, which had Fackler firing a Carcano bullet just like CE399 into the wrist of a human cadaver at the reduced muzzle velocity of 1100fps (which was probably even a little faster than CE399 was travelling when it struck John Connally's wrist in Dealey Plaza).

And what did Fackler's test bullet look like after it struck that human wrist bone at 1100 feet per second?

Take a look:

"The bullet actually made a slightly greater hole than the one in Governor Connally's wrist. That's because the experiment bullet was actually going a little faster than the 900 feet [per second] that CE399 was travelling. The test bullet was non-deformed. It was not flattened in the least and had nowhere near the damage of CE399." -- Dr. Martin Fackler; August 10, 1992, during Fackler's testimony at the American Bar Association's mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald

And since we know that John Connally's wrist bone was the hardest object that Bullet CE399 struck during its path through both Kennedy's and Connally's bodies, it's fairly obvious (when looking at the Fackler test bullet) that the current condition of CE399 in the National Archives today is not in any way unusual or "impossible", as most conspiracy theorists want to believe, after doing the damage it did to the two victims in Dealey Plaza.



Did the Fackler test use a tumbling bullet?


I'm not positive, but I assume Fackler's bullet was NOT tumbling when it struck the human wrist bone. And that's because other tests with MC/WCC bullets indicate that that type of bullet will not tumble or yaw until it hits something.

But, actually, the fact that Fackler's bullet was probably not tumbling makes the non-deformed nature of that test bullet even MORE impressive, because it shows that even when a Carcano bullet strikes a hard bone head-on at 1100fps, the nose of that bullet still won't be deformed.

What's not to like about that Fackler test? Everything about it buttresses the likelihood that CE399 could most certainly have done what both the Warren Commission and HSCA said CE399 did do on 11/22/63.


There is no indication that this projectile [CE399] had tumbled enough to be significant.


That's not true at all, Mike. CE399 was most certainly tumbling like an acrobat on steroids by the time it hit John Connally's wrist. That's obvious by the fact that the bullet left metal/lead fragments inside Connally's wrist. Therefore, it had to have hit Connally's wrist BACKWARD, with the bottom of the bullet hitting the wrist.

And since Fackler's test simulated ONLY Connally's wrist injury, it's a fair question to ask: Was Fackler's bullet tumbling?

And I just simply don't know if Fackler's bullet was tumbling or not. But, as I mentioned earlier, in my opinion, the bullet's condition after striking the cadaver's wrist is even MORE impressive if the test bullet had NOT tumbled into the wrist bone.


The fact that the bullet [CE399] can be linked to Oswald's gun makes it look all the more like a plant.


Only in the oddball world of conspiracy nuts could a statement like the above be made.

This case is filled with a bunch of "C2766 Carcano" evidence -- e.g., shells, fragments in the car, and the rifle itself being hidden behind boxes on the same floor of the TSBD from where shots were being fired at the President.

And yet Miles Scull thinks that since CE399 can be linked to Oswald's C2766 rifle too (in ADDITION to all of the stuff previously mentioned above), this indicates that CE399 is a "plant".

In other words -- According to Miles Scull: Corroborating evidence indicates "planted" evidence.

But in the real world, corroborating evidence makes it much more likely that CE399 was NOT a "plant", because CE399 blends in with all of that OTHER ballistics evidence tied to Oswald's gun.

Or is ALL of it "planted", Miles?

And if not, then why was there any need to plant CE399, since all of that OTHER STUFF would be linking the proverbial "patsy" to the crime anyway? (Particularly the items that many CTers think were planted by the conspirators on the sixth floor of the Book Depository--the rifle itself and the three shells from Rifle C2766 in the Sniper's Nest.)

Why in the world wouldn't the RIFLE ITSELF and the THREE SHELLS be more than enough to link Patsy Oswald to the crime?

Were the plotters just overactive? Or just plain reckless?


The point needs to be made from two perspectives....

Non-tumbling, the nose of the [Fackler test] bullet would have had a much greater impact percentage than a tumbling bullet. .... So if the bullet tested was tumbling, it proves the point DVP is making.

If the bullet is not tumbling, it proves his point to a higher degree.

This is a 'win win' for the test.


I agree.


Rubbish. You apparently cannot read.


Miles Scull is being an idiot, as usual.

Your silly contention, Miles, is, in fact, that CORROBORATING EVIDENCE equals PLANTED EVIDENCE.

That's exactly what you are saying, in a nutshell. And it's just plain dumb.

If the "plotters" already had the rifle and the shells in the TSBD, there simply would be no need whatsoever to add still more stuff to the "planted" pile. And if you believe that superfluity was necessary, you're crazy.

David Von Pein
May 16, 2010

(PART 1156)


Here is a forwarded question from Jeff Carter:

"[I am] watching same-day TV coverage of the assassination and I am curious when Oswald was first identified by name in the media. The earliest I have found is interesting. .... [The] footage [linked here] originates from ABC's network studio in New York, where news anchor Don Goddard is on camera with network VP and former Eisenhower press man James Hagerty.

Over the course of several segments, Hagerty had been making a case that this has the appearance of a well-planned conspiracy. He is finishing up a discussion of the difficulties of Secret Service protection in large-city motorcades when Goddard says: "Well, this adds one to the case for conspiracy then. And the Dallas Police are apparently trying to add another--they have arrested a 24-year-old man, Lee Oswald, in connection with a slaying of a Dallas policeman and presumably also the slaying of a secret service man in another part of Dallas which happened shortly before the President..."

Hagerty inhales and cuts Goddard off to praise quick reaction by the Secret Service in speeding away from Dealey Plaza. (Based on eyewitness report from ABC reporter Bob Clark, who also interestingly said that the motorcade came to a complete halt, which Hagerty does not mention). (The story of a dead Secret Service man has been attached to the news from Oak Cliff up to this time, but soon is dropped.)

This sequence occurs soon after Zapruder's appearance on the local affiliate (WFAA-TV), which began approx. 2:10 PM CST -- so the Oswald ID as delivered by Goddard happens somewhere between 2:20—2:25 PM CST (certainly before 2:30). Not only that, Goddard appears to read this information from a piece of paper which has been sitting before him since they returned to air immediately following Zapruder.

Interestingly, the local affiliate WFAA follows up about a half hour later with information attributed to DPD captain Pat Gannaway that the "suspect" worked at the TSBD and lived in Russia [again see the link above]. Oswald's name and age are not mentioned.

Would this mean that Oswald's name and age was available to ABC's network office in NYC before it was announced to reporters in Dallas?"


Thanks for this footage, Len.


Don't thank me, thank DVP, who collected and posted all this stuff to YouTube. Annoying as he can be, he has done good service here.


Jeff [Carter], who originally posited the question, has followed up:

"JFK Countercoup published an account of early AP and UPI wire service reports on March 12, 2012. AP sent out wire report mentioning Oswald by name and age at 2:35 PM CST. That is probably what is on the ABC desk in NYC. So the time of the broadcast can be pushed to around 2:40-2:45 CST.

Affiliate WFAA-TV adds the TSBD and Russia angle about a half hour later - attributed to DPD captain Gannaway.

Note: DPD are already at the Paines, and were greeted with "We've been expecting you", although it is clear that there was definitely no way of hearing LHO ID from arrest from the media."


"From the Museum's Zapruder time line

2:20 p.m.
WFAA assistant news director and chief photographer Bert Shipp called Kodak, asking them to process the 8mm color film, since the station had only 16mm black-and-white film equipment.

2:31 p.m.
Zapruder appeared live on ABC and WFAA with WFAA's program director, Jay Watson, while Schwartz stood nearby holding the camera with the film.

2:40 p.m.
Zapruder, Schwartz, and Sorrels, riding in a Dallas police car, arrived at the Kodak lab near Dallas Love Field about the time Air Force One took off for Washington with Kennedy's body.

The Zapruder appearance time is exact, according to tapes and other documentation at The Sixth Floor Museum. The very first media mention of Oswald by name came at 3:46 Dallas time. The ABC clip posted (from Dave Von Pein's site!) aired much later than the Zapruder interview.



A follow-up from Jeff Carter:

"I don't necessarily want to question the knowledge of folks who have spent a lot more time with this footage, but what is available and listed as WFAA-TV (posted on YouTube) has the appearance of being contiguous, even as it fades after the Zapruder interview as the anchor says they are returning to NY.

The reasons for saying this are that a) Jim Hagerty does not appear again after this segment; b) the following sequence after returning to the Dallas station features the host [making] direct reference to Hagerty's comments about the bubble-top; c) they are still referring to a rifle found on the "fifth floor".

None of this is consistent with this segment being done "much later", and a "much later" segment being pasted in is not consistent with how this footage plays out (i.e. it doesn't seem to happen anywhere else).

It may be simply an academic point, but I believe this is strong evidence that Lee Oswald's name first crossed the airwaves here on ABC-TV at around 2:40 PM CST. If so, there is an irony in that Oswald's name is contained in a sentence which also contains the word "conspiracy". ABC was the least watched network that day, but they scored some scoops."



I did make some edits during my WFAA-TV video series. And also keep in mind that all of that WFAA footage comes from a 1983 WFAA retrospective program entitled "The Kennedy Tapes", hosted by Tracy Rowlett.

And that '83 program, while containing a lot of "long form" segments of uncut WFAA footage from November 1963, also has been heavily edited in many areas, with Rowlett filling in gaps along the way with brief narration before moving on to another section of "long form" coverage. As I recall, however, the majority of the extensive editing comes later in the "Kennedy Tapes" program, during the November 23-25 segments.

The "fade out" that was mentioned above (right after Mr. Zapruder's complete 2:31 PM CST interview) is one that I definitely remember putting in myself. That's not an '83 edit done for "The Kennedy Tapes" broadcast. But I cannot recall how much time elapses between the time of the Zapruder fade-out and the place where I pick up the live footage once again.

I have the raw DVD-R discs from which I extracted the video files for online use, and if I should get time in the future, I would be happy to look and see what material I edited out, and how much elapsed time was edited. But offhand I can't remember. It's been about 5 years since I created that WFAA series.



I was incorrect when I said that the edit right after Zapruder's WFAA interview was wholly my own edit. I have checked my raw DVD source for that material, and the only thing I edited out at that point was some of Tracy Rowlett's narration and an intro jingle that was used in 1983 by WFAA for the "Kennedy Tapes" broadcast.

When I wrote my post yesterday on this matter, I had thought there was some footage missing after Zapruder's interview, but there definitely isn't, because after the break that was put into the '83 show, it cuts back to Jay Watson and Abe Zapruder for just a split second before the cut is made to ABC in New York and Jim Hagerty. So I can tell that the '83 show picked up the WFAA coverage again without any edits after the Zapruder interview.

In fact, the split-second of footage which shows Watson and Zapruder AFTER the edit is even included in my YouTube version (fast forward to 1:44:19 in this video, which is also embedded below).

Sorry for my earlier error, and I hope I didn't confuse or mislead anyone on this matter to any great degree.


The ABC network desk in New York ID's Oswald by (likely) 2:30 CST. It can be timed because it immediately follows Abraham Zapruder's appearance on the local affiliate.


"Lee H. Oswald" was first named at 3:46pm CST. The timing comes from the original WFAA and WBAP radio tapes, which means their source was either a local reporter or UPI.



Len is correct (almost) regarding this matter. Because that time of 3:46 CST is positively not accurate (unless the 2:31 PM CST timestamp for the Zapruder interview as shown in the "Zapruder Film Time Line" is incorrect).

I just checked my WFAA-TV footage and found that ABC News in New York is saying the name "Lee Oswald" at approximately 2:40 PM CST. BTW, the ABC anchorman doesn't say "Lee H. Oswald" at that point in time. He just says "Lee Oswald", without including the middle initial.

The 2:40 PM timestamp can be obtained by the timing of the Zapruder interview (as Len Osanic mentioned). And I can only assume that the "2:31 PM" timing for Zapruder's WFAA interview is referring to when that interview STARTED, not when it ended. Not that that would be a huge difference in real time either way, because the whole uncut interview with Zapruder lasted just a shade less than five minutes.

So if the Zapruder interview began at 2:31 PM CST (as it says on the Sixth Floor Museum website), it's easy to time other events that occur just after that interview. Following the Zapruder interview, four minutes elapse before ABC in New York announces that Lee Oswald had been arrested. And there are definitely no breaks or edits in that WFAA coverage after Zapruder's interview up until the time when Oswald's name is mentioned over ABC-TV in New York.

Therefore, we have a 2:31 PM starting point, plus five minutes for the entire Zapruder interview, plus four minutes after the interview....which would equal Oswald's name first being uttered on ABC-TV at about 2:40 PM CST (3:40 PM EST).

Bill, I wonder if someone has confused Central time with Eastern time in that 3:46 PM timestamp you and Gary Mack posted earlier. Because it was, indeed, very close to 3:46 EASTERN time when we hear ABC say the name "Oswald" on the air. That would, of course, be a common and understandable "time zone" error for someone to have made. The same type of one-hour mistake in time occurred in Wayne Hawks' transcript for the Perry/Clark Parkland press conference.

But I really can't see where some of the conspiracy theorists can go with this information concerning the first time Oswald's name was spoken on live TV on November 22. By 2:40 PM CST, Oswald had been in custody for about 50 minutes, and he had been inside City Hall for approximately 40 minutes. So there was certainly ample time there for a crack reporter or two, who would have undoubtedly been hungry for information about this guy the cops just brought into the police station in handcuffs, to dig out the name "Oswald" from somebody at Dallas City Hall.

And, quite obviously (via the WFAA footage that does exist), that is exactly what DID happen (even though there was the initial confusion as to what Oswald's real name was--Oswald or Hidell). Somebody was able to find out from someone at the Dallas Police Department, prior to 2:40 PM CST, that the man who had just been arrested in the Texas Theater was named Lee Oswald. Simple as that.

E-Mail From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
Date: 2/14/2013 1:58:33 PM EST

Hi Dave,

The Kennedy Tapes, as broadcast in 1983, has a few segments out of sequence since the original WFAA tapes were rarely marked with exact times. John Sparks produced that series and we’ve been friends and, for awhile at KXAS years later, coworkers since then. Both John and Tracy Rowlett are still active in local broadcasting.

WFAA donated all its tapes and films to The Sixth Floor Museum in 1998; five years later when we made new digital masters of the original tapes, I confirmed that the station did not record continuously that weekend or even the first day.

Finally, The Sixth Floor Museum’s collections include a copy of the ABC News log of the network’s weekend coverage, and their documentation showed the very first mention of Oswald by name came at 3:48pm Dallas time. It was preceded at 3:43 by a live WFAA report from Ed Hogan and followed at 3:54 by an audio report from Bernard Kaplan in Paris.

Gary Mack

E-Mail From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
Date: 2/14/2013 7:48:12 PM EST

Some of my previous information was incorrect. From The Sixth Floor Museum's index of the original WBAP tapes is this description (written by a former WBAP staffer who digitized them). I have no evidence to contradict his summary:

16. 2:43 pm WBAP's David Daniel interrupts for word from Dallas Police of the arrest of "a 24-year-old man, Lee H. Oswald" in connection with the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit. He's being questioned to see if he has any connection with JFK assassination. "Oswald was pulled screaming and yelling" from the Texas Theater in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. After a pistol is taken from him during a scuffle, he's quoted as saying, "It's all over now."

I must have overlooked an EST reference, for which I apologize.

Gary Mack


The WBAP-Radio news report by David Daniel at 2:43 PM CST on 11/22/63, mentioned by Gary Mack in his e-mail above, can be heard below:

E-Mail From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack
Date: 2/14/2013 8:24:30 PM EST

Thanks, Gary. I've been expecting to hear from you on this.

So, via the WBAP log, it appears that my 2:40 PM CST timestamp for the ABC-TV "Oswald" announcement (which another person, Jeff Carter, also mentioned in the forum thread) is probably spot-on accurate.

David V.P.

E-Mail From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
Date: 2/14/2013 9:15:58 PM EST

Must be. But I'm really baffled by some of this. I checked the ABC log this afternoon and I could swear the log said 4:46 was the time, which means 3:46 in Dallas. Just before I sent you and Bill [Kelly] the note tonight, I found that NBC gave Oswald's name at 3:23 Dallas time, but then I found where I sent someone else the WBAP quote months ago. So if I have the time tomorrow, I'll check the ABC log again. Weird.


E-Mail From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack
Date: 2/14/2013 9:51:28 PM EST

But isn't it possible that there was an earlier ABC report mentioning Oswald at 2:40 PM CST, along with the 3:46 PM CST report you have mentioned? Maybe somebody merely overlooked the 2:40 report by mistake.



After digging into this matter a little further, I have been able to positively confirm that Lee Oswald's name is first mentioned on the ABC Television Network (and on WFAA-TV in Dallas) at approximately 2:40 PM Dallas time (Central Standard Time).

The way I was able to confirm it is by comparing the WFAA-TV local Dallas coverage with the raw feed from the ABC-TV network footage that I also have in my collection.

They are identical when comparing the timeframe in question, starting with Abraham Zapruder's WFAA interview and continuing for several minutes after that interview concludes. And the timing on the ABC Network raw feed works out to just exactly what I said earlier -- ABC said the name "Lee Oswald" at just about 2:40 PM CST, which was precisely four minutes after Jay Watson of WFAA finished his interview with Abraham Zapruder. For confirmation of this, go to 1:44:35 thru 1:48:35 in this ABC-TV video [also embedded below].

As I mentioned earlier, the 2:40 PM CST timestamp hinges on the Zapruder interview beginning at the time when the Sixth Floor Museum chronology says it began--2:31 PM CST. But I think I can pretty much confirm that timestamp as well, via the two hours of uncut ABC-TV coverage shown above, which begins at approximately 12:51 PM CST.



As for the other two U.S. television networks—CBS and NBC—the first time that the CBS Television Network mentioned Oswald's name on the air came at 2:59 PM Dallas Time (3:59 PM EST) on November 22nd, when anchorman Walter Cronkite said that the man the Dallas police had in custody after a fight in the Texas Theater was named "Leo H. Oswald" [go to 2:29:15 in this CBS video, also viewable below].

Interestingly, Walter Cronkite's error regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's name wouldn't be the last time that Walter mangled Oswald's name on the air that weekend in 1963. In two other separate reports, aired on November 23rd and 24th, Cronkite misspoke again when saying LHO's name, telling the TV audience in one of those reports that the alleged assassin's name was "Lee Henry Oswald"; while in another report, Mr. Cronkite said the suspect's name was "Lee Harvey Osburn".

As far as the NBC-TV assassination coverage is concerned, the first time we hear the name Lee Oswald occurs at roughly 3:20 PM Central Time on 11/22/63 [at the 2:30:50 mark in this video, also seen below], when newsman Charles Murphy of NBC's Dallas/Fort Worth affiliate WBAP-TV says this on the network:

"Homicide detective Leavelle told WBAP newsman James Kerr in Dallas a few minutes ago they have little doubt that 24-year-old Lee Oswald of Dallas is the man who shot and killed Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit shortly after President Kennedy was shot to death this afternoon. Oswald was pulled screaming and shouting from the Texas Theater by officers who had gone there on a tip that Oswald was there. He brandished a pistol which officers took away from him after a struggle. Oswald was quoted as saying, "It's all over now." .... The coincidence in the case is that Oswald worked as a stockman at the Texas Book Depository, the building from which the sniper shot President Kennedy. Dallas police have declined to say whether they think Oswald is connected with the assassination."

David Von Pein
February 14-15, 2013
July 18-19, 2016

(PART 121)



















(PART 1155)


The webpage linked below contains many of my favorite quotes from Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book, "Reclaiming History". Enjoy....


Great stuff, David. A great compilation of VB's best. I've always admired how he is able to zero in like a laser beam on the conspiracy hobbyists' myths and completely destroy them. Of course they just pick up the pieces and try to put their Humpty Dumpty theories together again.


You [DVP] picked some excellent excerpts from Bugliosi's book. Those same portions resonated with me when I read the book. I can see they resonated with you, as well. The logic is compelling, to say the least.

It amazes me how anybody can read this book and say something stupid like,
"I still believe Oswald was just a patsy."

I think it's hilarious that the biggest complaint CTs have about the book is that it's so big. I blame THEM for it's thickness since it forced Bugliosi to address all their silliness. And there's LOTS of silliness!


Another common complaint is that Bugliosi is too snarky. That's his style. But it doesn't change the substance! Bugliosi was a very successful prosecutor. He's confident. He highlights ridiculous assertions. Hell, he managed to get Charles Manson locked up for LIFE and Manson neither killed anybody nor was he even present at the crime scene.

If you get a speeding ticket and decide to contest it, if Bugliosi walks in the room, you'll probably end up getting a lethal injection for doing 50 in a 35 mph zone.

"Reclaiming History" is to the CTs as garlic is to vampires.


You [DVP] probably can't remember all my complaints about Bugliosi's book. Google it.


Who cares what your "complaints" are/were? I sure don't.

And of course you've got plenty of complaints about Mr. Bugliosi's outstanding and comprehensive tome. What else would we expect from a CTer---praise for a "Lone Assassin" book? (Duh!)

For heaven's sake, you find lots of things to complain about even when you agree with somebody, Tony. So, naturally, you've attempted at various times to rip "Reclaiming History" to shreds.

But you (and all other CTers) have failed miserably in that endeavor.

Now, back on topic.....

"In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 964 of "RH"


I have complimented some WC defender books sometimes. Maybe they get as much as 2% of the facts right. [LOL.]


Tell us for the millionth time how you rudely called him [Vincent Bugliosi] a liar to his face, Tony. I'm sure he was really flustered by that broadside.


I went to his lecture [at the Brattle Theatre in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 22, 2007] and hand delivered a letter to him pointing out that HIS LIES are a major reason why so many people believe there was a conspiracy. Then when he lied in the lecture, I said, "That's a lie." He WAS flustered.


What did Vince say that you labelled a "lie", Tony? I'd be interested in knowing exactly what it was.


I know you wouldn't, but it was that the police believed that weekend that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy. The parallel to the other recent shootings is interesting. In Dallas [on July 7, 2016], the police immediately thought it was a conspiracy with multiple shooters because the shooter moved around and used more than one weapon.

One of the better experts on MSNBC even made that comparison. It took them a few hours to figure out that it was a lone shooter. Likewise in the recent shooting in Baton Rouge, the early theory was that there was one shooter and 2 accomplices. BTW, that would make it a conspiracy.


Oh, sure, Tony. The thing you labelled as a "lie" during Vince Bugliosi's 2007 Cambridge appearance must be why we have all kinds of quotes from the weekend of November 22-24, 1963, coming from the likes of Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry and Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade and Homicide Captain Will Fritz, to the effect that it was the opinion of each of those men that OSWALD AND OSWALD ALONE had murdered President Kennedy and Officer Tippit.


JESSE CURRY (11/23/63) -- "I think this is the man [Lee Oswald] that killed the President."

REPORTER -- "Is there any evidence that anyone else may have been linked with Oswald to this shooting?"

CURRY -- "At this time, we don't believe so."


HENRY WADE (11/23/63) -- "There's no one else but him [Oswald], so far."


REPORTER (11/24/63) -- "Are you absolutely sure that Oswald was the assassin of the President?"

WILL FRITZ -- "Yes, sir. No question about it."

REPORTER -- "Are you still convinced he was in this by himself when he shot the President?"

FRITZ -- "Yes, I am. .... I don't think there's anyone else."


David Von Pein
July 14-20, 2016
July 14-16, 2016

(PART 1154)


Wow!! Unsupported Assertions 'R Us, eh David?


Pot? We need a bigger kettle for Robert "Z285" Harris. He thinks I have engaged in "unsupported assertions" here. But let's take another look at the DVP quote that Bob Harris was responding to when he said I was a member of "Unsupported Assertions 'R Us":

"[James] Braden certainly wasn't a gunman who fired shots at JFK, because there's absolutely no evidence of that, and there's also no evidence whatsoever that any shots originated from the Dal-Tex Building." -- DVP; May 11, 2010

Now, Bob, just exactly what portion of that above DVP quote is "unsupported"?

The answer: None of it.

Don't you love it when a conspiracy theorist with a personal pet theory to peddle says that SOMEBODY ELSE is engaging in "unsupportable assertions"?

Holy hilarity.


How did you confirm that no such evidence exists?? And how did you confirm that Braden was not a shooter? Please be specific.


Bob Harris, of course, knows the answer to both of those inquiries already. But, like the true-blue conspiracist he is, he'll force me to beat that dead horse one additional time.

How do I know that no evidence exists of a Dal-Tex shooter?

Well, uh, let me think.....maybe because there's NO EVIDENCE of a Dal-Tex shooter in the National Archives (or anywhere else)?

That's pretty good--for starters. Isn't it Bob?

And can I confirm that James Braden wasn't a shooter?

Well, here's a pretty good place to start to confirm that fact (let's see if Robert Harris can add these images together properly):


And do you really believe that JFK first reacted just after the limo pulled in front of the west face of the Daltex building, purely by coincidence?? Or do you prefer to pretend that didn't happen, like you pretend that there were no reactions following 285?



I can see that pot is colliding head-on with kettle yet again. (Don't you ever tire of that kind of embarrassing clash, Bob?)

Mr. Harris sure possesses some Kong-sized 'nads, I've gotta give him credit for that at least. For a person who fantasizes night and day about a make-believe gunshot a Zapruder Film frame #285, it takes a really large set of family jewels to write these words in a public forum:

"Or do you prefer to pretend that didn't happen, like you pretend that there were no reactions following 285?"

If you look in the dictionary under "irony", you'll likely find a reference to Bob Harris.


Once you start evading the facts and evidence David, you're in very big trouble.


Good heavens! Holy mackerel! And for Pete's sake! It looks like Bob truly doesn't care how many times he embarrasses himself via irony in one single post. Remarkable.


If [David] Ferrie was involved in the assassination, why would he want to travel TO Texas from New Orleans on the night of the assassination? Being a pilot himself, Ferrie would have flown himself out of the country days earlier if he had been part of any plot.


What a preposterous argument. There is nothing Ferrie could have done that was more self incriminating than to leave the country.



So, Ferrie thought it would be a much better idea to make a pleasure trip TO THE STATE WHERE THE MURDER TOOK PLACE within hours of the MURDER HE CONSPIRED TO COMMIT.

Is that about the size of the situation, Robert?

~another chuckle~


Let's talk about those issues that you've been dodging for so long, David. What are you afraid of?


The only thing I'm concerned about dodging right now is my cat (he's on the stairs right now, and I'm afraid I'm going to trip over him as I sprint for the bathroom, due to my weak bladder getting ready to explode after having read Bob Harris' last post).

Excuse me....

David Von Pein
May 11, 2010
May 12, 2010

(PART 1153)


Another inaccuracy found on David Von Pein's website:

This concerns the interval of time from when Oswald was shot to when the ambulance attendants were loading him into the ambulance. David says 4 minutes. It was actually 5 and 1/2.


You're right, Ralph. It was, indeed, 5.5 minutes and not 4 minutes. When I wrote that caption for this photo at my website, I was timing it from my copy of the KRLD-TV footage, which is edited slightly (as Ralph correctly pointed out), and I failed to take note of the edit. (It was edited by whoever put it up on the FOX/KDFW site years ago; and that's where I got it from.)

I've corrected my caption on my site, Ralph. Thanks for pointing it out too---because I hate inaccurate stuff like that on my sites, and I appreciate it when someone (correctly) points out any errors.


Thanks a lot, David. But, since accuracy is vital in this field of endeavor, why round down to 5 minutes, as you have it on your website? If you could put 5.5 in this response, why not put 5.5 on your site? And why not get rid of that edited footage which you describe as "raw"? You can use the other one that I posted. Don't go half-way. Fix it completely.




I think rounding off to a WHOLE minute number (five) is fine for the purposes of my Photo Gallery site (which is the site in question).

And just because there's a small 1.5-minute edit in the KRLD footage, that doesn't mean that the footage isn't still "raw" type footage. It's raw footage regardless of the edit.

"Raw" equalling this meaning:

KRLD kept the tape rolling even though that footage obviously wasn't meant to be shown to the public.

And most of it wasn't aired. Hence, the announcers [such as Huffaker and Benton] can be heard talking to the control booth and to each other. That's what I meant by "Raw". It wasn't a reference necessarily to "Uncut" or "Unedited" footage.


Do either of you gentlemen have the time from when Oswald was shot to when the ambulance first arrived on the scene?


The ambulance arrived in the basement approx. 4 minutes and 20 seconds after the shot was fired (which makes it 11:25 AM CST). The shooting occurs 2 hrs., 45 min. into this video [also embedded below]. The ambulance is first seen on camera at 2:49:45. And I don't think there are any breaks in the footage during that time....


David, I knew I could count on you. Many thanks.


Your video conflicts with your claim.


I've now removed the video from that webpage. So there's no "conflict" at all.


Do you think I am the only person who is actually going to check it?


Well, actually, yes. Not a single other person (before you) has ever informed me that they timed it out exactly (while utilizing the unedited TV footage). And I doubt very much that anyone has ever done so (before you did it). I certainly hadn't, because if I had, you wouldn't have been able to catch that error on my site in the first place, because I would have fixed it myself.


Why don't you respect your visitors more than you do?


I do respect accuracy. Very much so, in fact. As I said in an earlier post, I despise incorrect information on my sites. I hate it more than anything. And I'll always correct factual errors whenever I see them (or when they are pointed out to me)---just like I did in this instance when I changed "four minutes" to "five minutes". And I thanked you for pointing out that error. And I still do thank you for it. Because it's such a small thing that appears on just one of my thousands of webpages, I might not have ever caught that error myself.


In a case like this, there is no excuse for not being accurate. If it's 5.5 minutes, then you can easily say 5.5 minutes. Furthermore, in Math, one typically rounds UP when you get to .5. But, you're not going to say 6 minutes, are you? Of course not. But, you'll gladly deceive by half a minute, won't you? Why?


Even if I used the round-off method, I would still say FIVE minutes, because it had not yet reached the ".5" mark of the next minute. I just timed it again, and exactly 5 minutes and 25 seconds elapse between the time of Ruby's gunshot and the time when Oswald's head disappears into the ambulance.

You can time it for yourself if you'd like, using the two videos below. The first one is from the CBS coverage that was actually aired, which doesn't show the instant of the shooting, but that instant can be determined by comparing it to the second video below, which is the raw (and mostly unaired) KRLD-TV videotape footage which shows the moment of the shooting.

In the first (aired) video, these are the stats (and I can't believe I actually did this just to satisfy a rabid conspiracy hobbyist named Ralph Cinque, but I did it anyway, just for kicks)....

OSWALD IS SHOT --- At the 2:45:21 mark in the first video (even though the shooting isn't shown live, when adjusting the time backward, it would come out to the 2:45:21 mark).

OSWALD PUT INTO AMBULANCE --- At the 2:50:46 mark in the top video below.

TOTAL TIME ELAPSED --- 5 Minutes, 25 Seconds.

Ergo, it had not yet reached the 5:30 mark since the shooting occurred, therefore rounding DOWN to FIVE minutes for this particular event is perfectly reasonable and accurate, which is just what I did for the purposes of my webpage at my Kennedy Gallery site/blog....


It's because you have low standards. It is because you are first and foremost a propagandist. You are certainly not an uncompromising pursuer of truth.


Jesus H. Christ, what a bunch of bull!

I've wasted enough time on this silliness, Ralph. You can go away now. I'm done with this ridiculous topic. I still do thank you, however, for pointing out what was a totally UNimportant error (in the larger scheme of things) that I had on my website. I've now corrected that small mistake, and the revision is perfectly satisfactory and accurate. If you disagree, that's your problem, Ralph, not mine.


You [DVP] are...a propagandist.


That's the second time in this exact same discussion that a CTer has called me a "propagandist"....

"...you [David Von Pein] are first and foremost a propagandist."
-- Ralph Cinque; 7/12/16

Have the rules been relaxed around here, John McAdams? I didn't think such a direct between-the-eyes insult was permitted here at aaj. It seems as though that term comes mighty close to coming out and calling someone an outright "liar".

However, I don't want you to misunderstand my stance on this either. I'm not crying or complaining about it in any way, John. Not for a second. In fact, I kind of like it when these conspiracy-happy clowns* call me things like "propagandist" and "shill" and "disinfo agent". I always make sure to include those laughable insults when I transfer such posts to my own archives at my site.

* I hope that term is permitted here at aaj too. If it's not, John, then please change "conspiracy-happy clowns" to just "conspiracists". Thank you.

I'm merely asking about it to gain information about what words and terms are permissible here and which ones aren't. Until today, I hadn't thought it was permissible to come right out and say "...you are a propagandist...", which is what Tony Marsh just did above.

But, maybe I'm mistaken and that term has been allowed here in the past. I just don't remember that word (while being aimed directly at a member of the aaj forum) being permitted by the moderators here before.

No big deal to me either way. I was just curious since both Cinque and Marsh decided to pull that word out of their grab bag of silliness in two different posts in this very same discussion in messages directly aimed at me.

And while we're on the subject of silly CTers....let's have a few laughs by taking a look at what one of Mr. McAdams' adversaries at Jeff Morley's "JFK Facts" site, Willy Whitten, has said about me recently:

"Von Pein is clearly a madman. .... What a dumb jerk you are, VP. .... You can keep fighting the truth of this until you drop dead, Von Pein. It's your own vile legacy." -- Willy Whitten; July 2016

Obviously, those remarks above didn't originate here at the moderated aaj newsgroup. :-) They began at Amazon.com, and ended up on my website, here.


It seems to me that John [McAdams] made an appeal a while back for people to start being more civil with one another. When that didn't happen, he seemed to give up and things got a lot more lax.

I personally don't mind a little edge.


I agree. I don't mind it either.


It [the term "propagandist"] is not really even an insult. In fact, it applies to just about everyone posting here...

"a person who promotes or publicizes a particular organization or cause."


Well, yes, speaking in a literal "dictionary" sense, you are correct, Bud.

But to look at it from another angle (i.e., from my POV as an "LNer") --- I don't recall ever having called a conspiracy theorist a "propagandist". If anyone can prove me wrong about that, maybe they can point me to a post in which I used that particular word when talking about a JFK CTer. If such a post exists, I have forgotten about it.

In short, when you call someone a "propagandist", you are most certainly NOT paying that person a compliment. You are, in effect, insulting them. And in the case of a JFK CTer calling an LNer a "propagandist", I don't think it takes a genius to figure out what they are really calling them.

In other words, when Ralph and Tony called me (point blank) a "propagandist" earlier in this discussion, I kinda doubt that either one of them possessed the following mindset when they were uttering that word:

You, DVP, are a propagandist for the Lone Assassin scenario....but you are a totally honest propagandist.


"Propagandist" is just another word for "Liar" when it comes to a conspiracy theorist's dictionary. I know it, and so does everybody else who frequents any of the Internet's JFK forums.

BTW / FWIW....

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about "Propaganda":

Propaganda is a form of biased communication, aimed at promoting or demoting certain views, perceptions or agendas. Propaganda is often associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of belief patterns.

Propaganda is information that is not impartial and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.”


David Von Pein
July 10-18, 2016

(PART 1152)


I've long known this, but I didn't know the audio existed:

Robert F. Kennedy Speaks At San Fernando
Valley State College (March 1968)

According to David Talbot, Bobby [Kennedy] expressed doubts to a lot of people privately, but all his on-the-record comments were supportive of the WC.


Thanks, John. This makes another great addition to my A/V library.

I've actually heard that RFK program before, and I've even linked to it from some of my other videos, but I hadn't realized the stuff about JFK's death was in there.

I've culled the "I stand by the Warren Commission" excerpt for this new video I just added:



Yes, you seem to be talking about only his public statements. You don't ever link to his private statements. Maybe you don't understand that some politicians will say one thing in public and believe something else in private. LBJ said in public that The Warren Commission Report was the truth, but in private he said it was a piece of shit. Hoover said in public that there was no conspiracy, but in private he told his aides and the President that Oswald was working for Castro.

Katzenbach did not say that there was not a conspiracy. He said that the public must be convinced that there was not a conspiracy. Everyone in Washington and most WC defenders thought there was a conspiracy, but for the good of the country it must be covered up. So in your mind you are just doing your patriotic duty.


Is that why he told Walter Cronkite in 1969 that he thought there might have been a conspiracy?

Or isn't that '69 Cronkite program considered to be a "public" appearance in your mind, Tony?


I find it kind of funny (and ironic) that just three minutes after RFK made his "I stand by the Warren Commission Report" remark to a college crowd in California in March of 1968, Bobby also said this:

"You say tell it like it is and tell you the truth, and that's what I intend to do in this campaign. You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but that's what I'm gonna do." -- RFK; 3/25/68

I guess Anthony Marsh must think that Robert F. Kennedy was just lying through his teeth when he said these things within three minutes of each other:

"I stand by the Warren Commission Report. .... You say...tell you the truth, and that's what I intend to do in this campaign. You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but that's what I'm gonna do." -- RFK


It's interesting that people who are in thrall of Camelot have to resort to claiming that all the public statements of RFK about the assassination (like the public statements of JFK about Vietnam) were lies.

Actually, I'm inclined to accept David Talbot's claim that RFK expressed private doubts about the possibility of a conspiracy.

To a large degree, these were probably driven by guilt over the possibility that THINGS THAT BOBBY DID (go after the Mafia, try to arrange the assassination of Castro) may have backfired.

But claiming he had any actual knowledge of a conspiracy is going way too far.

Gary Mack told some reporter (in the wake of the RFK, Jr. statements) that Bobby was much like the rest of the population. He had no evidence of a conspiracy, but he had doubts.


Of course John is right here.

Does anyone honestly believe that if RFK had real evidence of a conspiracy he wouldn't have done something?? Come on....get real.

As for questions, I think everybody has at least some.

Perhaps even some that are disturbing.

I know I do and I'm a "lone nutter."

Frankly, I still make attempts at tracking down loose ends in this case and it's been 50 years!


Conspiracists have been claiming that the statement at San Fernando State College had RFK saying that "only the powers of the presidency" would allow him to get to the bottom of the case. That was a lie.


This is just one more reason (among hundreds) why I wouldn't believe a thing uttered by a JFK conspiracy theorist if my life hung in the balance.

Distortions, lies, misrepresentations, and irrational/unreasonable evaluation of the evidence are the only things you're likely to get from a JFK conspiracy theorist. I think it's pretty much always been that way. And probably always will be. What a shame.

Take the "Secret Service Standdown" garbage that we've had to listen to and endure for lo these many years now. Even after it has been proven (beyond a reasonable doubt anyway) that the "shrugging" SS agent at Love Field was NOT Henry Rybka (it was Donald Lawton instead), there are still the very same "standdown" arguments being put forth by many conspiracists. Even though those CTers know (via Lawton's written SS report) that Lawton was NOT assigned to ride in the motorcade through downtown Dallas on 11/22/63.

But the CTers will just ignore the 11/30/63 report written by Don Lawton, wherein he states that his job on November 22 was "to remain at the airport to effect security for the President's departure". (Evidently that's yet another "fake" report, per the conspiracists.)

That's just one of the latest examples of a conspiracy theory being totally destroyed and debunked. But many conspiracy theorists just don't care. They'll pretend that the "standdown" at Love Field still existed anyway.

And now we have the statement about RFK standing by the Warren Commission Report and also saying, in no uncertain terms whatsoever, that he would NOT re-open the investigation into President Kennedy's death if he were to be elected President in the fall of 1968.

I'm sure there will be many conspiracy advocates, even AFTER listening to that recording of RFK making those statements at San Fernando Valley State College, who will still insist that Robert Kennedy's remarks at San Fernando still support the notion that RFK believed in a conspiracy in his brother's death.

A conspiracy myth is hard to kill. And I think the main reason for that is because conspiracy theorists just simply don't want the myths to die.


For the first time, the official WH photographer Cecil Stoughton was kicked out of the SS car on the Dallas leg of the trip to make room for Kennedy aides Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell. So one of the SS agents would have to sit on the rear seat, George Hickey. But one SS agent didn't understand that and he was standing on the running board. When the fourth SS [agent] walking next to the limo went back to the SS car there was no spot left for him to get on, so the agent on the running board realized his mistake and climbed into the back seat.


In addition to merely making up your own unsubstantiated version for the apparent confusion surrounding the Secret Service car at Love Field (which you just did above), none of that stuff makes a bit of difference anyway (even if it were true).


Because we know what the Shrugging Man's (Don Lawton's) assignment was on 11/22/63. He was ALWAYS supposed to remain at Love Field. Therefore, WHATEVER the reason was for his "shrugging", we KNOW it wasn't due to him being "left behind" at the airport (as many conspiracy theorists seem to believe).

Plus -- During Lawton's shrugging episode at Love Field, he doesn't make any move toward the Secret Service car -- that is, he doesn't start to get in (or on) the Queen Mary car at all. He just stands there, shrugging and smiling.

If he had really been a part of the team to ride in the Queen Mary (SS) vehicle, why didn't he move toward the car and try to hop aboard? But he didn't do that at all. Why? Because he already knew what his assignment was that day, as proven by his November 30th SS report (seen in CE2554) -- he was going to stay at Love Field.

Why do CTers want to totally ignore that fact?


Ok, maybe I missed it, but I did not see the video of his [Lyndon Johnson's] PRIVATE remarks where he said the Warren Commission Report was a piece of shit. But I have heard his private phone conversations where he talks about it being a conspiracy and the need to cover that up. Maybe you [John McAdams] haven't.


Of course John has never heard any such phone conversation which has President Johnson saying that the JFK assassination was "a conspiracy" with a "need to cover that up". And that's because no such telephone conversation with LBJ exists and never did. Not even these phone calls serve the "conspiracy" and "cover up" purposes you seem to think they serve.

You think Johnson would have RECORDED such talk about there being a need to "cover up" stuff relating to the Kennedy murder case, Tony? You must be dreaming.


I can think of a few reasons other than "truth" that RFK would publicly state that he would not re-open the Warren Report if he were elected President.


If Bobby Kennedy had really wanted to re-open the JFK investigation, don't you think that would have been a great way to garner some additional votes during his 1968 campaign for the Presidency (particularly among the young skeptical voters, like those he spoke to at San Fernando Valley State College)?

During his San Fernando talk, it seems to me that RFK shot himself in the foot (from a strategic and political POV) when he said multiple things that didn't set too well with a lot of people in March of '68 -- e.g., saying he would not re-open the investigation into his brother's death and the very unpopular stuff he said about the Vietnam war as it relates to young men who refused to go to Vietnam when drafted.

In short -- Robert F. Kennedy, in my opinion, was very likely speaking TRUTHFULLY at San Fernando State College. If he had truly wanted to re-open the JFK case, it would have been an excellent political move to say so during Campaign '68, especially given the "conspiracy" climate that was blanketing the country at that time, which was shortly after Mark Lane's "Rush To Judgment" book and film came out and also right smack in the middle of Jim Garrison's New Orleans investigation.

David Von Pein
January 21-23, 2013

(PART 1151)


Some JFK links:


Thanks for sharing -- the loony conspiracy theorists trashing you on Amazon made my day....


Um, sure thing. :)


How long have you been working on this project, David?


As far as online discussions about JFK's death, it's been an ongoing thing for me since 2003.

As for the video/audio archive, I got into that area fairly heavily when I created my first YouTube channel in 2008.


OK, a couple of things. First, congratulations David on launching this. We're happy to see fellow HTF members get an ambitious project like this off the ground.

Second, this thread is moderator / owner approved. Despite being on the cusp of both P&R and self promotion, it's fair game because it's a real product with (we sincerely hope!) behind the scenes info from its creator, just as we have welcomed similar self promotion in the past.

Third, we WILL nuke any crackpot posts that pop up. Flag 'em if they follow here from Amazon, they won't last long.

Finally, we do hope you'll post more than the linkage you started with above, David. We'd all like to know anything more you care to share about the project.



Thank you, Sam.


I took a quick peek at the Amazon reviews [for the book "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"], and surprise, there is no middle ground. The book is receiving praise and hate. That seems to be a consistent theme with the CT's. You're with me or you are stupid and very wrong. After all these years, heavy sigh.


Yes, but that's something I totally expected when the book came out in late 2014. In the "JFK" world, for the most part, there's not much middle ground, especially among people who post on the Internet. There aren't very many "fence sitters" on this topic (at least in my experience).


I used to be a JFK conspiracy theorist. I remember eating up the documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". However, most of the theories I once believed have been convincingly debunked to my satisfaction to the point that I have swung over to the "Oswald did it" side of things. However, I think a conversion like mine is rare among JFK CT fans. I don't think there is a conspiracy theory about anything that I take seriously anymore.


Actually, David, there are many people who have made the conversion from "CTer" to "LNer". I'm not one of them (as I was never really in the "conspiracy" camp), but there are several prominent authors and Internet LNers who were previously conspiracy theorists --- Dave Reitzes and Dale Myers to name just two.


I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what "LNer" means? I can figure that "CT" must be "conspiracy theory".


Sorry. I should have expanded that term. LNer = Lone Nutter. I.E., somebody who thinks Lee Harvey Oswald was a "Lone Nut" assassin and was not part of any conspiracy when he shot JFK in Dallas in 1963.


Any thoughts on Legacy of Secrecy, David, the book or film project or both, and specifically any thoughts on the Carlos Marcello theories/story?


I'm not nearly as schooled on all the "Mob Did It" theories as some other people are, but I do know that there is no hard evidence whatsoever that Carlos Marcello was connected in any way to Lee Harvey Oswald or that Marcello had JFK killed.

Here are a few excerpts from a book ("Reclaiming History") written by my favorite lawyer and "JFK expert", the late Vincent Bugliosi, dealing with the subject of Marcello:

---Quote On:---

“Remarkably, even sensible, intelligent people, such as HSCA chief counsel Robert Blakey, who personally believes Marcello was behind Kennedy's assassination, unthinkingly invoke the buffs' A-B-C reasoning to support their position [i.e., if A knows B and B knows C, then A is meaningfully connected to C, which of course is a non sequitur].

On Frontline's 1993 show "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" Blakey said, "When you find David Ferrie, who is an investigator for Carlos Marcello, being a boyhood friend to Lee Harvey Oswald, and with him that summer, and with Carlos Marcello at that very point in time, you have an immediate connection between a man [Marcello] who had the motive, opportunity, and means to kill Kennedy and the man [Oswald] who killed Kennedy."


Although common sense alone should tell conspiracy theorists that knowing someone or even being friendly with him is no evidence of a connection to his criminal activity, that you have to show the two were involved with each other in the same enterprise, there is another fascinating phenomenon that the conspiracy theorists must be aware of but seem determined not to acknowledge. I'm referring to the curious but undeniable reality that virtually any two people chosen at random can be connected to each other by the interposition of a very small number of mutual friends or acquaintances.

For instance, although most readers of this book don't know and haven't ever met President Bush, they might very well know someone who knows him, or know someone who knows someone who knows him. Hence, most of us are only two, three, or four intermediaries removed from the president of the United States. This reality is the reason why most of us, at one time or another meet someone new in a distant city or country and discover we have mutual friends or acquaintances. And what do we all say at these moments? "It's a small world."

* To dilute the connection even further, Ferrie was not an investigator for Carlos Marcello. He was an investigator for lawyer G. Wray Gill, and Gill had Ferrie work on an immigration lawsuit against Marcello in which Gill was representing Marcello. Also, there is no credible evidence that Ferrie was ever a boyhood friend of Oswald's or was with Oswald in the summer of 1963. But even if these assertions were true, so what? They certainly don't add up to a conspiracy to commit murder.”
-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 980-982 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (2007)


The above footnote written by Mr. Bugliosi is similar to something I said in one of my posts on the Internet in 2009:

“Even if we were to make the assumption (just for the sake of this particular discussion, although I'm not conceding this to be a true fact at all) that Lee Oswald WAS acquainted with the various "New Orleans" characters that Jim DiEugenio thinks LHO was acquainted with in the summer of 1963 (e.g., Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy Banister).....that would still be a million miles away from proving that ANY of those New Orleans characters had ANY INVOLVEMENT, IN ANY WAY, WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DALLAS ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963.

And the reason the above paragraph is the truth is because (once Perry Russo's lie is tossed aside, as it must be) there isn't a shred of evidence that CONNECTS any of those New Orleans individuals to the planning and/or carrying out of the murder of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. No evidence whatsoever.

Everything Lee Harvey Oswald did on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 indicates that he was a LONE ASSASSIN in Dallas. And that fact would still be true even IF Oswald had been pals with ALL of the three previously-named New Orleans-based people (Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister).

In other words -- Where is Jim DiEugenio's (or anyone's) BRIDGE and/or UMBILICAL CORD that allows conspiracy theorists to make the grand leap from this:


....to this:


Given the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists of ONLY OSWALD'S GUILT in the assassination of JFK, such a monumental leap of faith like the one suggested above is, to put it bluntly, monumentally ridiculous.”
-- David Von Pein; July 31, 2009

David Von Pein
July 4-12, 2016