Many, many people believe Lee Harvey Oswald was completely innocent of
murdering President Kennedy in November of 1963. They think Oswald was
nothing more than an unwitting "Patsy", set up and framed to take the
fall after the tragic assassination of America's 35th President.

This "Patsy" viewpoint is just pure nonsense, IMHO. There is so much
evidence verifying Oswald's guilt (evidence that any "Patsy plotters"
themselves could not possibly have "controlled"), that any such "Patsy"
notions fall completely apart upon even a cursory glance at the
evidence in the case.

Oswald's own rifle was found on the 6th Floor of the Texas School Book
Depository Building. .... Oswald (or someone who resembled Oswald) was
seen by witnesses in the sniper's window on that same 6th Floor. .... And
Oswald's fingerprints were found on boxes within the Sniper's Nest.

In addition to the above, there's also another very incriminating set of
Oswald prints found on that sixth floor of the Depository:

Oswald's fingerprints were on the homemade paper bag which was found
right next to the Sniper's Nest window. ..... This information re. the
bag is detailed on Page #135 of the Warren Commission Report.

Three different fingerprint experts identified the TWO prints lifted
from the paper bag as those of Lee Harvey Oswald. Sebastian F. Latona
of the FBI first IDed the prints as positively being Oswald's. Then, in
a separate independent examination of the prints found on the bag, two
other experts (Ronald G. Wittmus of the FBI and Arthur Mandella of the
New York City Police Dept.) came back with the very same results.

It's also very interesting to note just exactly which prints of Oswald's
were discovered on the paper bag and WHERE, in particular, one of the
prints was located. The two prints discovered on the bag were Oswald's
left index finger and the other (the key one in a crucial respect) being
Oswald's right palmprint.

LHO's right palmprint was found on the END of the CLOSED side of the
bag -- indicating that Oswald had held the bag in such a manner where
his right palm was supporting the weight of whatever was inside the bag,
just exactly matching Wesley Frazier's testimony of how Oswald carried
the bag into the TSBD back entrance the morning of November 22 [2 H 239].

Via Wesley Frazier's Nov. 22 affidavit (providing solid evidence that
Oswald did, indeed, WALK INTO the back door of the Depository WITH
PACKAGE IN HAND, rather than empty-handed) --- "I saw him go in the
back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he
still had the package under his arm."

In my view, this valuable and incriminating evidence against Oswald is
quite possibly the BEST "print" evidence there is in the whole case.
Oswald's own prints being found on his very own rifle ARE rather
incriminating, yes. But, as conspiracy promoters like to point out with
zealous glee, it's possible that the print taken from the rifle by the
DPD might have been left there by Oswald at some time prior to November
22 (since he was the owner of the weapon since March of 1963).

And the other hard, physical evidence that exists (fingerprint-wise)
suggesting very strongly that Oswald was at the sniper's window at
some point on November 22nd is the evidence of Oswald's prints (three
of them) being found on two of the boxes that were found INSIDE THE
SNIPER'S NEST ITSELF [see CE1301 and CE1302].

This "box" evidence is very strong to support the idea that Oswald was
present at that southeast corner window on Nov. 22nd, but (as CTers
will also point out) it doesn't HAVE to mean that LHO "constructed" the
"Nest" or that he was at the window with a rifle at precisely 12:30 PM
shooting at anybody. This due to the fact that, as an "order filler" for
the Depository, Oswald obviously COULD conceivably have touched
or handled those exact cartons sometime prior to the assassination.
Although the LOCATION of the prints on the cartons, IMO, is quite
compelling and interesting (in an "Oswald-did-it" kind of fashion).

PLUS: As I said, the cartons with LHO's prints were NOT just the
cartons stacked high up all around the "Nest" (i.e., the "shielding"
cartons on the outside of the SN).

But, instead, the Oswald prints were found WITHIN the Nest itself --
on the box the sniper would have used to probably SIT on while
aiming his rifle; AND two prints on one of the exact boxes that was
used as a 'rifle rest' by the assassin.

I'd like to know the odds that ONLY Oswald's prints would have been
found on those PRECISE boxes, while no other DISCERNIBLE prints could
be lifted off of them?

Did the "plotters" who many conspiracy theorists say framed Oswald
as their patsy just get extremely lucky and PICK AT RANDOM two boxes
to place INSIDE the bowels of their Sniper's Perch which just happened
to have three of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on them?

Just exactly HOW did these crack conspirators orchestrate this "plan"
so perfectly to ensure that ONLY OSWALD'S fingerprints and palmprints
would be found on those particular boxes? How did they KNOW for certain
which cartons on the sixth floor Oswald touched and which ones he had
not handled? More incredible foresight on the part of the plotters it
would appear.

The fingerprints on the paper bag are also very damaging to Oswald
and indicative of guilt (more so than even the prints on the rifle or his
prints on the boxes), because it places Lee Harvey Oswald -- via his
identifiable, verifiable fingerprints -- at just EXACTLY the same location
where three cartridge cases were also found (with all of these shells
being linked to Oswald's rifle) and just exactly the same location --
the 6th-Floor Sniper's Nest -- where witnesses saw a man who
resembled Oswald.

Plus: The "bag" prints place Oswald's fingerprints on an item (the
brown bag) that has no logical or explainable or valid reason to be
where we find it after the assassination -- just lying on the floor below
the window from where rifle shots were fired at President Kennedy.

I cannot see ANY possible wiggle room for CTers with regard to this
very strong fingerprint evidence on the paper bag itself -- given the
location of the prints on the bag, plus WHERE the bag was found, plus
Wesley Frazier's testimony about seeing Oswald carrying a very
similar-looking paper bag into the Depository at approximately 8:00 AM
on Nov. 22nd, plus the OTHER "Oswald print" evidence found on the very
same sixth floor (on the rifle itself and on the two SN boxes).

HOW can this evidence be twisted and turned into a conspiracy-favoring
argument which has Oswald NOT at that Sniper's Nest window at some
point during the day of November 22, 1963? How?

Do conspiracy buffs think that Oswald just happened to unwrap his
"curtain rods" right beneath the sniper's window, and then just left
the bag in the Nest (and also, evidently, just DITCHED these "rods"
somewhere, because we know he didn't enter his roominghouse with
any curtain rods at 1:00 PM; nor were any rods found inside the TSBD
after the shooting)?

One way some conspiracy kooks have tried to wrangle out of Oswald's
obvious guilt and obvious presence at that 6th-Floor window on 11/22/63
has been to claim that the Dallas Police "planted" the bag underneath
the sniper's window after the shooting in an effort to frame Oswald.

This theory is about as believable as the "Patsy" theory as a whole (which
is wholly-UNBELIEVABLE right from the get-go, IMO). Because -- we'd
then have to believe that the DPD had somehow been able to "plant"
Oswald's prints on a "fake" bag (without any non-plotters noticing of
course, as per the norm with ALL conspiracy theories -- no non-conspirators
ever notice a thing, amazingly).

Or, we'd have to believe that the DPD just MADE UP from whole cloth the "fingerprints" story concerning the bag. Which, of course, also must mean
that the THREE fingerprint experts mentioned earlier (Latona, Wittmus,
and Mandella) are part of the "Frame The Patsy" plot, because they ALL
three said they had examined the bag [CE142] and found Oswald's prints
on that particular brown paper bag.


I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable explanation from
conspiracy theorists that will answer the question of why that 38-inch
brown paper sack (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled
rifle [as we can see here]), with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the
place where it was found after the assassination -- the Sniper's Nest --
and yet still NOT have Oswald present at the Sniper's Nest window on
November 22nd, 1963.

I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald's Innocent" explanation for
that bag being where it was found after the shooting, and with Lee Harvey
Oswald's fingerprints on it.

David Von Pein
May 2005


(PART 23)


James DiEugenio continues to do the thing that conspiracy-loving kooks
do best. They (and he) keep resurrecting already trashed theories, and
then they (he) apparently hope that nobody remembers that each of these
stupid theories has already been thoroughly explained in non-conspiratorial

As many conspiracy theorists try to do, DiEugenio also tries to maneuver
and re-work the Zapruder film's head-shot sequence into a "Conspiracy Only"
type of framework.

But what DiEugenio specifically does in his anti-Bugliosi review (and
during his frequent appearances on "Black Op Radio") is pathetic and
reprehensible, IMO.

It's actually kind of a triple-bill of absurdity and distortion on Jim's
part, too. Here's the "triple-bill" I'm referring to:

1.) DiEugenio has the gall to imply that JFK's head is in the
"exact position" in Z-Frame 313 as it was 1/18th of a second earlier
in Z312....which is total rubbish, of course. And DiEugenio has got to
know it's rubbish, too, because we know he's seen the Z-Film
IN MOTION many, many times in his life.

Therefore, since we know Jim's seen the film many times (and
undoubtedly has viewed frames 312 and 313 in super slow-motion,
like all of us have done many, many times, such as the clip provided
below) -- then we know that Jim doesn't have a leg to stand on when
he said to the sparse "Black Op Radio" audience that JFK's head is in
the "exact position" in Z313 as it was in Z312.

Also -- When DiEugenio said those words ["exact position"] on
Black Op Radio on November 27, 2008, he prefaced the remark by
misrepresenting Vince Bugliosi's REASON for putting a picture in his
book of the "high contrast" picture of Z313, with Jim, for some stupid
reason, saying that Vince uses that high-contrast version of Z313 to
show that the President's head is "leaning forward" at the moment of
the head shot.

Of course, as anyone can easily see by reading page 486 of VB's 2007
book, "Reclaiming History" (which is, indeed, the exact page number
cited by DiEugenio when Jim discusses this topic in Part 4 of his "RH"
review on Jim's website), Bugliosi is certainly NOT talking about the
forward lean or tilt of Kennedy's head when VB refers to the high-
contrast photo of Z313.

Vince, instead, utilizes the high-contrast picture to emphasize the
fact that all of the blood and brain tissue is seen to the FRONT of
JFK's head, indicating (of course) the likelihood that the bullet that
just caused that terrible spray of bodily fluid came from BEHIND the

For DiEugenio to totally misrepresent Mr. Bugliosi with regard to this
important matter is, IMO, just about as disingenuous (and sneaky) as
you can get.

And Jim's "exact position" remark is just flat-out dead-wrong too, as
we all know. And even if Jim wanted to come back with the argument
that he was ONLY talking about the degree of "lean" or "tilt" of JFK's
head in both Z312 and Z313, his argument wouldn't go very far either.

Because even THAT argument would be invalid, because when JFK's head
moves forward between 312 and 313, the "forward lean" of his head DOES
change slightly too (i.e., in Z313, Kennedy's head can certainly not be
said to be in the "exact position" it was in in Z312...even from JUST
a "leaning forward" standpoint).

But it was obvious to me that DiEugenio's distortions (and his
misrepresentations of what Bugliosi meant by certain things relating
to Z-frames 312 and 313) are part of a concerted effort on his part to
try and REMOVE (or just DENY) as much of the verified Z-Film evidence
that exists that tells a reasonable person that JFK was shot FROM
BEHIND at the important moment when the bullet struck him at Z313.
And numbers 2 and 3 below go toward meeting that desired goal of
Jim's as well.

2.) DiEugenio's comment about how it looks like only "the front" part
of JFK's head is "being impacted" at Z313 is a real "WTF?" moment.

Jim must think that an ENTRY hole for a bullet is the HUGE hole, vs.
EXIT holes being the large and irregular-shaped ones.


And, again, as with Jim's distortions in #1, this #2 item is designed
to re-write the history of this murder, as James tries to impress upon
people something that is just plain dumb -- that is, that the great-big
hole at the right-front of JFK's head was the "impact" (or entry) point
for an incoming bullet fired from the front.

How stupid does Jim think his listeners are? Granted, a lot of conspiracy
kooks are mighty stupid....but geez.

3.) With Black Op host Len Osanic's help (it was Osanic who first
mentioned this #3 item, with DiEugenio, right on cue it would seem,
jumping in with both feet firmly in his mouth to completely agree with
the incredibly wrong thing that Len just uttered), DiEugenio actually
had the additional audacity to suggest that both of the Connallys
(John and Nellie) WEREN'T splattered with debris from the fatal shot
that struck JFK in the head.

Talk about misleading people. This one is a beaut in that regard.

Of course, as virtually all JFK researchers know (without even having
to think about it and without even needing to look up any of Nellie's
or JBC's testimony), both John and Nellie Connally were definitely
"covered" with debris from the fatal gunshot that hit JFK's head. To
quote John Connally himself:

"I could see blood and brain tissue all over the interior of the
car and all over our clothes. We were both covered with brain tissue."

So, we can see from the above three points that James DiEugenio (like
many other conspiracists) is practically DESPERATE to re-write the history
of this assassination.

And while he's attempting to re-write history, Jim is obviously willing to
just toss the testimony of both John Connally and Nellie Connally out
the nearest window (and I don't believe for one second that DiEugenio
could have possibly gone this long without hearing at least ONE of the
many, many interviews [or WC/HSCA sessions] with the Connallys, where
they each have stated many times that they were splattered and "covered"
with JFK's brains and blood).

When I hear a CTer like Jim DiEugenio make blatantly incorrect remarks
like he has done on multiple recent Black Op Radio shows, I have to ask
the following question:

Since Jim is perfectly willing to totally misrepresent and mangle
certain KNOWN FACTS regarding the assassination of President Kennedy,
then why in the world would anyone take seriously anything else he
might say about a "conspiracy" in the JFK case?

David Von Pein
December 2008




Here is another instance that [Gerry] Spence let go by [at the 1986 mock Oswald trial]....

If you can believe it, Bugliosi had his photo expert Cecil Kirk testify on a medical matter. He had Kirk testify that because the Z film depicts JFK slightly tilted forward at Z 313, and the head burst appears to go straight up at that point, this means that the bullet entered from behind.


What in the heck are you talking about? Cecil Kirk didn't testify about any "medical matter" at all. He testified only about things relating to photo interpretation. Why Jim DiEugenio is saying otherwise is a mystery.

In addition, Kirk didn't say a single word about JFK's head being "tilted forward" at the time of the head shot. Not a word. And neither did Bugliosi. They did, however, talk about how President Kennedy's head was seen by Kirk and the rest of the HSCA's Photographic Panel to move slightly FORWARD an instant after the bullet struck JFK in the head. Here is that testimony:

VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "In addition to the spray of brain matter--all to the front--do frames 313 and 314 [of the Zapruder Film] actually show the President's head being pushed forward slightly by the momentum of the bullet?"

CECIL KIRK -- "Yes, it does."

Kirk's testimony at the 1986 mock trial can be seen below. And we can easily see that Kirk is not testifying about any "medical matter" at all. His testimony deals only with photo and film interpretation.* (And, btw, I did, indeed, check every reference to "Cecil Kirk" in my searchable PDF version of Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History", because I know there are a lot of excerpts used by Mr. Bugliosi from the over 1,000 pages of the transcript for the '86 mock trial, with many of those excerpts and witness quotes not showing up when the trial was shown on television in 1986 and again in 1988. But I did not find any references in Vince's book to Kirk testifying to any "medical matters" at all. He only talked about matters of photo interpretation.)

* And it would certainly seem as if Cecil Kirk was definitely qualified to interpret the photos and films in the JFK murder case, including the interpretation (from the standpoint of a photographic expert only, not as a "medical" expert) of what it means when we see all that spray of blood and brain tissue coming out the front of the President's head just after Zapruder frame #313.**

Here's what Vince Bugliosi had to say about Cecil Kirk's qualifications as a photographic expert:

"Kirk had been the sergeant who headed the Mobile Crime Lab and Photographic Services Unit for the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. This unit was responsible for the preparation of the photographic exhibits for the HSCA hearings and final report. .... Kirk, considered one of the nation's leading experts in forensic photography and forensic crime-scene technology, and a former lecturer on forensic crime photography at the FBI Academy, was now [in May of 1986] director of the Support Services Bureau for the Scottsdale Police Department." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 485-486 of "Reclaiming History"

** But despite Kirk's qualifications, I strongly disagree with him and the HSCA Photo Panel's conclusion regarding the timing of the "Single-Bullet Theory" gunshot. More on that here.


Anyone can read Bugliosi's book on this, which DVP apparently has done.

He and Kirk decided that because the Z film shows Kennedy's head tilted slightly forward at the moment of impact and the spray is slightly forward then the impact came from behind.

It is utter flatulence on Davey's part for him to deny that Bugliosi and Kirk made a big deal of this. Just look in the door stop, i.e. Bugliosi's book, on page 486. He actually compares its visual effect with the Zapruder film head snap!

He then says that "...it shows vivid, graphic evidence that the fatal shot to the head at Z 312-313 was fired from the rear." And he bases this on the head burst. Bugliosi plays this up like Archimedes and his eureka moment. Anyone can read this and the following page for themselves. I am not at all exaggerating. Davey either forgot it or he is trying to discount it, because clearly Kirk and Bugliosi were not informed about DeMaio [sic] and cavitation. In fact, I could not find the word cavitation in the index for RH. And whatever one thinks of the door stop, it has a good index.

That is the reason the head burst appears as it does. Nothing to do with directionality. Bullet comes in the front, same cavitation phenomenon.

Spence could have nailed them both on this.

BTW, I am not done with Kirk. (Has anyone read Reclaiming Parkland? I guess Davey has not. For good reason.)



Why are you continuing to misrepresent some of the things that Vince Bugliosi has said? As I pointed out to you in December of 2008 [above] and again yesterday [March 9, 2017], NOWHERE within Bugliosi's arguments (either in his book on page 486 or at the 1986 mock trial) does he even mention the fact that JFK's head is "tilted forward". That is NOT part of Vincent's argument at all. Nor was it part of Cecil Kirk's argument either.

In addition....

Let me also add the following pertinent quotes that appear in Vince Bugliosi's book, which include some very important points made by Mr. Bugliosi that should be ADDED TO THE SUM TOTAL of all the other evidence in the case, which is a "sum total" that will inexorably lead a reasonable person to the only possible conclusion he could reach regarding the directionality of the fatal head shot, with that conclusion being: that fatal shot came from BEHIND the President (which is a conclusion that conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio want to stay away from like it was the plague). And keep in mind, these quotes below from Bugliosi's book don't even touch on the VERY BEST evidence we have to prove beyond all possible doubt that the fatal shot to JFK's head came from behind---the autopsy photos and X-rays and the autopsy report. ....

"As can be clearly seen, the terrible spray of blood, shell fragments, and brain matter a millisecond after the president was shot appears to be to the front. .... And indeed, from Governor Connally's wife, we know that the shot to the president's head caused "brain tissue" to land on "both of us" (she and her husband), each of whom was seated in front of the president (4 H 147). .... Not only were the blood, brain tissue, and skull fragments all blown to the front of the president's body, but the five bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine were all to his front. .... Also, the three skull fragments found inside the limousine were all to the president's front. .... The main argument from conspiracy theorists that the "law of physics" requires that an object hit by a projectile has to be pushed in the direction the projectile is traveling, and therefore, the head snap to the rear compels the conclusion of a shot from the front, can easily be used against them. In addition to the fact that the president's head moved forward at the moment of impact, how do the conspiracists explain what would be the ridiculous anomaly of blood, brain tissue, three skull fragments, and five bullet fragments all flying to the front of the president's body at the same precise time they claim Kennedy's head was being propelled backward by a shot from the front? They don't. And can't." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 486 of "Reclaiming History"


More baloney.

Davey evidently could not pull back one page. On page 485 is where VB makes his big argument about the head tilted forward and downward.


One paragraph after that is when VB has his eureka moment about his (false) conclusion concerning the directionality of the head shot and bloodburst. And he specifically mentions the position of JFK's head. It's in the last paragraph on that page.

This, of course, is a non sequitur based on the forensic work of DiMaio. And only a layman like Bugliosi and a photo man with no expertise in forensic medicine, but with a matching agenda to his, like Kirk, would go for it.

VB does not reveal on those pages the fact that Kirk worked for the WC. He was only 25 at the time. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 59)


Dead wrong (as usual). There isn't a single thing on page 485 where Bugliosi makes any mention of the President's head being "tilted forward". So why are you making this up, Jim?

You seem to be confusing Bugliosi's argument about JFK's head MOVING FORWARD (or being PUSHED FORWARD by the impact of Oswald's bullet) with your terminology when you repeatedly use the words "TILTED FORWARD".

Do you really mean "pushed" or "moved" when you say "tilted", Jim? If so, you shouldn't be using the word "tilted", because it's not a word used by either Bugliosi or Kirk in their arguments about the direction JFK's head moves at the moment of impact at Z313. "Tilted" does not necessarily imply "Movement".

Plus, you aren't actually going to DENY that JFK's head DOES, indeed, MOVE FORWARD between Z312 and Z313, are you Jimmy?

EDIT -- I realize now, after thinking about it for a few more minutes, that DiEugenio HAS in the past (in 2008) actually denied the obvious forward movement of President Kennedy's head between frames 312 and 313. You can hear him denying this undeniable fact in this radio interview.


PS Uh Davey, was not most of the blood in the back seat? I mean is that not where the SS man at Parkland was wiping up? According to VB, none of it should have been there.


How incredibly silly of you to say something so utterly ridiculous. Vincent Bugliosi never said (or even remotely implied) that there shouldn't have been a large amount of blood in the back seat of the limousine. Vince knew that JFK remained inside the car, bleeding profusely, for at least five minutes after being shot. So, of course a lot of blood was going to be present in the back seat of the car.

Vince never suggested that every last drop of blood in Kennedy's whole body should have been propelled forward at the moment of the bullet's impact. So why are you suggesting that Vince DID suggest such a ludicrous thing, Jim?


Davey, this is really below even you.

On page 485, Bugliosi spends five paragraphs, and part of some excerpted dialogue from the CBS special explaining the head tilted forward that Tink Thompson talked about way back in 1967.

Right after those five paragraphs--in fact in the next paragraph--he says he drove to see Kirk in Arizona. IN THAT SAME PARAGRAPH HE TALKS ABOUT HIS SHOCK WHEN HE SAW THE PHOTO ON KIRK'S DINING ROOM TABLE!

Do I have to quote the reaction: "Five or so minutes into my necessarily indiscriminate perusal of the photographs, one photograph suddenly stood out, startlingly so."

And that is the pic he is talking about, the high contrast 313. He puts both in his photo section, the regular z film plus the high contrast. And he says that this proves the fatal impact came from the rear. Because of the reasons I stated above. And it's completely false, since cavitation is non directional. Davey, I know this book better than you do. I wrote a 400-page critique of it and I took over 75 pages of notes while doing so.

Now, let me add, Tink Thompson, who is given credit for this discovery--although Ray Marcus found it earlier--does not believe it anymore. Based on the work of Daryl Weatherly, he thinks today that this is part of a smear on the film. And he argued this at the Duquesne seminar in 2013. This will be a big part of his new book, One Second in Dallas. As will be the idea that Z 312-313 was not the final shot.

Let me add: if Tink is right about this, then it's pretty much all over. (For people like me it was over a long time ago, but this will be more dirt on the casket.)

And Bugliosi looks even more like a court jester than I described in my book. Which is kind of sad, since I liked Vince. Until I read the door stop.


I guess I'll just have to get accustomed to Jim DiEugenio meaning "PUSHED FORWARD" whenever he says "TILTED FORWARD" when referring to what Vincent Bugliosi was actually talking about on pages 485 and 486 of "Reclaiming History". ~shrug~

And, quite naturally, as he should have done in his book and at the 1986 mock trial with Cecil Kirk on the witness stand, Vince Bugliosi did, indeed, utilize the very important fact that JFK's head was "PUSHED FORWARD" at the instant of the head shot at Z313.

Because only a fool would argue that the FORWARD MOVEMENT of President Kennedy's head at the moment of impact somehow is indicative of that bullet entering JFK's skull FROM THE FRONT. That type of crazy argument is almost as ludicrous as Jim DiEugenio's laughable comments concerning the position of JFK's head that Jim made on Len Osanic's radio show on November 27, 2008 (45 minutes into the interview), which is when Jimmy actually claims that JFK's head remained in the exact same place between Z312 and Z313.

I guess Jim has just decided to totally ignore this Z-Film clip below, or Jim will just pretend that the obvious forward movement of JFK's head in this clip is merely the result of a "blur" or a "smear". (In case anyone needs the definition of such behavior, it's called Denying The Obvious.)....

And why on Earth DiEugenio seems to want to merge and meld the TWO separate things that Vince Bugliosi talks about on pages 485 and 486 of his book is beyond me.

That is, DiEugenio seems to be saying that Vincent's argument about JFK's head being "PUSHED FORWARD" (or, as Jim D. wants to put it, "TILTED FORWARD") and Bugliosi's separate argument about all of the blood and brain tissue being ejected to the FRONT of Kennedy's head just after the fatal shot are somehow tied together and inseparable.

When, in fact, one argument really has nothing to do with the other. Vince treats each of those things as separate (yet corroborative) arguments. He's not saying that the blood spray has anything to do (physically) with the forward head movement. They are independent of one another, with each separate argument being highly indicative that the head shot came from the rear. (Plus the added facts presented by Bugliosi in his book concerning all of the bullet fragments and skull fragments being found to the FRONT of the President in the car, which apparently are facts that CTers like Jim DiEugenio would rather not discuss at all.)

And it's THAT kind of from-the-rear head shot CORROBORATION that Vince Bugliosi was pleased to present to the jury in London in 1986 and to the readers of his book in 2007.

I'd like to also add the following video clip from Part 2 of the four-part 1967 CBS-TV "Warren Report" special, to help combat DiEugenio's "cavitation is non directional" argument. Quite obviously, not everybody agrees with James DiEugenio or Vincent DiMaio on this topic:


Vince [Bugliosi] says on p. 485 that JFK's head was pushed forward and downward. (See fourth full paragraph.)

In the real world, this means it is tilted forward. For some reason you don't like that word, but forward and downward means tilted.


Yes, I can agree with you on the fact that "forward and downward means tilted". But "tilted" does NOT necessarily imply MOVEMENT of the head FORWARD. That was my point. And that is the HUGE point Bugliosi was making in his book when he talks about the positions of JFK's head in Z312 as compared to Z313.

If Vince were to have just used the word "tilted", he would not have conveyed the important point he needed to convey to his readers -- i.e., that JFK's head physically moved forward between frames 312 and 313, which is something I know you, James, do not believe (see, again, the 11/27/08 Black Op Radio broadcast for confirmation of Jim's denial of the forward head movement), but even so, the point Mr. Bugliosi wanted to convey was that Kennedy's head MOVED forward by about 2 inches at the moment of the head shot. And, IMO, the word you keep using ("tilted") does not convey the motion of the head that was absolutely essential for Vince to convey to his readers when he discussed this topic in his book "Reclaiming History".

BTW, Jim didn't use the word "tilted" when he discussed this topic in his radio interview with Len Osanic in November 2008. Instead, he used the words "leaning forward" to describe the positioning of JFK's head at Zapruder Frame #313, which are words that most certainly do not convey the sense of MOTION or MOVEMENT between Z312 and Z313 that Vincent Bugliosi was attempting to convey in his book (and which Vince did, of course, successfully convey to his readers via the language that he used in "Reclaiming History"). And that critical forward motion of JFK's head is something that Jim DiEugenio doesn't even bring up at all in that 2008 radio broadcast. Not once! In fact, as I said, Jim then goes on to DENY that there was any forward movement of JFK's head at all! The way Jim discussed the whole matter on that radio show was extremely misleading and completely misrepresents the things Bugliosi wrote in "Reclaiming History", with the FORWARD MOTION of Kennedy's head being completely ignored--as if Vince never even argued that point in his book. Shameful, Jim.

David Von Pein
March 9-11, 2017

(PART 22)

Subject: Jim DiEugenio, Vince Bugliosi, Dave Von Pein, & Assorted Miscellany
Date: 8/29/2009 11:11:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio



Hmm. Talk about a distinction without a difference. In your first review yes, you did point out some errors in RH ["Reclaiming History"]. BUT NONE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE JFK ANGLE! They were essentially trivia. Things like birthdays. Not one thing about the main focus of the book: which takes up about 2500 pages.


Nonsense, Jim. I have talked about what I perceive to be Vincent's
errors with respect to several different things of a substantive

I quote now from my September 2007 Internet article:

""Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi has, in my
opinion, written a very factual book, with only a very few mistakes
cropping up here and there (that I noticed). That doesn't mean I
always agree with everything VB says in his JFK book. Because that's
not the case at all. In fact, I disagree with him on several different
issues re. the Kennedy case....e.g., the timing of when the SBT bullet
struck the victims; the specifics of what happened to the bullet from
Oswald's first (missed) shot; the very strange flip-flop that Vince
seems to do on pages 423-424 re. the HSCA's insane "upward" trajectory
of the SBT bullet path through JFK's body; and VB's criticism of
Gerald Posner in a couple of places (particularly with respect to a
JBC bullet-fragment issue)." -- DVP; September 8, 2007


...You were trying to intimidate people on Lancer [www.JFKLancerforum.com] with how Bugliosi was going to magically erase all the doubts about the WC [Warren Commission], even though he worked from the same knowledge base we all did. You then amended this to VB making an error about his book containing certain Z film frames. Again, it's trivial. And then you loudly proclaimed how this did not touch on VB's book's credibility.


If you're talking about Mr. Bugliosi's obvious error when he said
(over and over again in 2007) that his book was the first book to ever
print Z-frames 312 and 313, then I'll emphatically say -- Such an
error certainly does not affect Vince's credibility regarding his
bottom-line "lone assassin" conclusion.

Are you, James, actually trying to say that that error of Bugliosi's
regarding the publishing of Z312 and Z313 affects his credibility when
it comes to the big-ticket question of whether Oswald alone killed

Surely you jest.


Davey: Why not talk about VB's four Magic Bullets. Huh?


You took the word right out of my own mouth, Jim. And that word is:

"Four magic bullets"? What the hell are you talking about? The only
people who have ANY "magic bullets" are the conspiracists. They've got
up to 4 of those--to replace the SBT alone! And all of those "magic"
bullets disappeared without a trace. Even you should realize how
stupid that type of anti-SBT theory sounds.


Or two within six seconds.


It appears to be time for another "HUH?" here. You think Vince has two
"magic bullets" within "six seconds"? WTF?

Vince, just like me, thinks the total time for the shooting was 8.4
seconds (8.36 seconds to be more precise) -- from Z160 to Z313.

As I've said several times on the Internet, Vincent's SBT timeline is
wrong, IMO (but that doesn't affect VB's overall time of 8.4 seconds
for all three of Lee Oswald's gunshots).

Vince thinks the SBT shot occurred at Z210 (or "within a split-second
of Z210"), which is obviously too early. The SBT occurs at exactly
Z224, IMO.

But even with a Z210 SBT shot, there is still ample time for Oswald to
fire that shot (after his first shot misses the car at Z160). The
difference between Z160 and Z210 is 2.73 seconds, which is more than
enough time when using Oswald's Carcano.

And the time between shots 2 and 3 (per Bugliosi's timeline) is 5.63
seconds. In my opinion, the time between those two shots was 4.86
seconds. But either timeline affords Oswald sufficient time to get the
job done.


Or his [Bugliosi's] displaying of the altered Dox drawing of the back of JFK's skull and proclaiming it the "entrance wound".


It would have been better if Mr. Bugliosi had simply provided the
actual autopsy photos in his book (vs. merely relying on the Ida Dox

I think that was another mistake made by VB. The autopsy pictures
should definitely have been included in such a "book for the
ages" (which "Reclaiming History" undoubtedly is).

It was a mistake not to include the autopsy pictures, and it was a
mistake for Vince not to include a lot more photographs, too. And he
certainly could have done so, even if only on the CD-ROM. That kind of
"reference" book about the JFK case should have more photos in it than
"Reclaiming History" contains, IMO.

But I don't know why you have such a problem with the Dox drawing of
the back of JFK's head. Dox has the entry wound placed properly in her
HSCA drawing.

Why you think otherwise is a bigger mystery. And I assume you're
talking about this Dox drawing below [HSCA JFK Exhibit F-48], right
Jim? Ida Dox made this drawing, btw, by TRACING directly over the top
of the actual autopsy picture of JFK's head:

Ida Dox's other drawings that depict the entry wound in Kennedy's
head look very accurate too, IMO, with the entry wound being HIGH on
JFK's head, near the cowlick, which is, of course, just exactly where
EVERY SINGLE PATHOLOGIST who has examined the official autopsy photos
and X-rays since 1963 has said the wound is located.

Naturally, though, being a firm believer in the make-believe "Grassy
Knoll Killer", you (James DiEugenio) are forced to disagree with the
more than ONE DOZEN doctors who examined the autopsy photographs for
THREE separate U.S. Government panels and committees since the
assassination -- The Clark Panel in 1968, the Rockefeller Commission
in 1975, and the HSCA/FPP in 1978.


Or his [Bugliosi's] error on the spacing of the jump seat inward?


There's definitely some confusion and contradiction in the record
regarding the distance between the car door and Governor Connally's
jump seat. The Hess & Eisenhardt schematic definitely shows the
distance to be just "2.50 inches", whereas Thomas Kelley's Warren
Commission testimony indicates a 6-inch gap.

In May of 2008, I had THIS online discussion with Pat Speer regarding
this "Connally Jump Seat" topic.

As with all things that conspiracy theorists prop up as meaningful and
substantial, the "Jump Seat Measurement" issue is a great-big "TO-DO
ABOUT VIRTUALLY NOTHING", as I fully demonstrate via ample doses of
common sense and logic in the above-linked Internet article.


Maybe because those would undermine the book's credibility? Which you vouched for two years before the book was published, and called it by the wrong title?


I didn't refer to Vincent Bugliosi's book by the "wrong title" at any
time, Jim. Maybe you should (once again) look before your mouth leaps
into action.

The book went through three different titles, with "Reclaiming
History" finally winning out as the book's published title (it was
Vincent's wife, Gail, btw, who came up with that title).

Prior to the title being changed to "Reclaiming History" in 2006, the
book's moniker was "Final Verdict" (which I'm positive you are fully
aware of, Jim, since you even mention that early title in Part 1 of
your never-ending anti-VB review/tome).

The two (full) titles that were used at one time or another for Mr.
Bugliosi's masterwork prior to its 2007 release were these:

1.) "Final Verdict: The True Account Of The Murder Of John F. Kennedy"

2.) "Final Verdict: The Simple Truth In The Killing Of JFK"


For ITC ["JFK: Inside The Target Car"], you did the same. You did your usual press release, then you amended it when so many others found so many errors in it--which somehow you managed to miss. But here, you only go as far as the positioning of Jackie. And again, you say it does not really touch on its credibility.


It doesn't.

Please tell me, Jim, how JACKIE'S position in the limousine IN ANY WAY
nullifies the rifle tests that were done in California by Michael

I'll answer that question myself -- It doesn't nullify or undermine
those test shots.


How about the wrong exit spot on the head, Davey? Does that mean anything in a trajectory analysis? Or the bullet not fragmenting to leave a large fragment behind, as Mack's HSCA x-rays said happened? And Mack was using the HSCA analysis for his comparison.


As I've stated in my articles online regarding the "Target Car" rifle
tests -- I really don't care too much about anything in that
particular Discovery Channel program except the two simulated "From
The Grassy Knoll" tests that were performed by Michael Yardley in

Those two "Knoll" test shots (using two different types of rifles--a
Winchester and a Mannlicher-Carcano) prove beyond ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT
that President Kennedy could not possibly have been shot in the head
by a gunshot coming from the front or right-front (which is a shooting
scenario that a vast majority of conspiracy theorists firmly believe
to this day, including Mr. James DiEugenio).

Naturally, those two "Knoll" rifle tests are WORTHLESS to a hardened
CTer like you, Jim. And that's because you've invested way too much
time and too many words on promoting the make-believe "Grassy Knoll
gunman" theory.

You don't care that Yardley's shot from a Winchester rifle completely
blew the simulated JFK head clean off its neck!

And you also don't give a damn that Yardley's second "Knoll" shot,
using a Carcano rifle, created undeniable damage to the LEFT side of
the surrogate JFK head (i.e., damage that even all conspiracists admit
DID NOT EXIST with respect to the head of the real John F. Kennedy at
his autopsy in 1963)!

So, as all conspiracy theorists have to do, you will find ways to
discredit and undermine the importance of those two "Knoll" shots that
were fired by Mr. Yardley for the "Inside The Target Car" documentary

I'll repeat the following comment that I first made in late 2008,
because it seems fitting here:

"The more scientific and ballistics tests that are done (like
the Discovery Channel's tests and Dale Myers' excellent computer
animation projects relating to both the Single-Bullet Theory and the
acoustic/Dictabelt evidence), the further and further away from a
multi-gun conspiracy we get in the JFK case. Shouldn't that make even
the staunchest conspiracy theorist pause and ask -- I wonder how this
can be...if JFK was really hit from the front and rear, like Oliver
Stone, Jim Garrison, et al, insist he was?" -- David Von Pein;
November 1, 2008


Why not debate me so we can address these and many, many other issues.

/s/ JD [Jim DiEugenio]


You never can tell, maybe I will feel like doing just that at some point
in the future.

Of course, in a very real sense, I already have "debated" you on many
key issues relating to JFK's assassination....on the Internet (and in
my 6-part [now 8-part] video series).

David Von Pein


Subject: The Strap Muscles (Again)
Date: 8/29/2009 11:11:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio



I don't know who sent you that quote but it was not me. I was on the road to Santa [B]arbara for vacation with my sister. Davey, you did say this in one of your early versions of your counterattack on my VB review, which is driving you batty. .... Humes and Specter were specifically talking about the strap muscles. When they both knew the bullet came in the back. In other words they were deliberately covering up its real location--which they both knew of--in order to make the SBT viable. Which it is not.



I guess I'm going to have to go around the "strap muscles" mulberry
bush with you for the 12th time. Apparently the previous 11 times I
proved you were dead-wrong on this issue weren't enough for you.

Anyway, you need to listen to the Black Op Radio broadcast of
July 16, 2009, wherein you said that I had earlier quoted "Specter
examining Humes" (your verbatim quote from 7/16/09) regarding
the "probing" issue as it relates to the strap muscles:

But, quite obviously, I never quoted Specter or Humes talking about
any such thing relating to the "probing" topic. How could I have quoted
AT ALL. It does not exist. You INVENTED it, Jim, for your own "CT"
purposes. And you surely MUST realize that by this time.

You must also believe that Arlen Specter was somehow able to wave his
"magic coercion wand" and miraculously was able to get Dr. Humes to
follow him down "Strap Muscles B.S. Avenue", because it's HUMES who
said the strap muscles WERE, in fact, "bruised" by the passage of the
bullet...not Specter!

So, how did Specter get Humes, on the record, to LIE HIS ASS OFF in
front of the Warren Commission, Jim? You never did state how that neat
little trick was accomplished.

BTW, I also must assume that you really DON'T think the strap muscles
of JFK were "bruised" by the passage of the bullet through his body,

Because if you DO think that the strap muscles were bruised (and, of
course, they definitely were, because Dr. Humes was very clear on that
point in his WC testimony), then your whole argument about how Specter
made up the "B.S. story" (your direct quote) concerning the strap
muscles is a totally-moot and useless argument altogether.

Better luck next time, James. You've lost this round.



(PART 21)

Subject: More DiEugenio Errors
Date: 8/28/2009 5:49:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio


Hi Jim,

It would be nice, Jim, if you could get your facts straight (at least
once in a while) with respect to things that I supposedly have said
and done in the past. To date, you have totally failed to do so.

The latest examples being:

During your pre-recorded August 27, 2009, Black Op Radio segment,
when referring to me and Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History",
you stated that I "couldn't find one thing wrong with the whole book".

Well, Jim, I've got news for you. I found several things that Vince
gets wrong in his book. And I've talked about them (many times) on the

None of the errors affect Bugliosi's obviously-correct "Oswald Acted
Alone" bottom-line conclusion, of course; but I have documented
several mistakes that Vincent makes in "Reclaiming History".

And if you would bother to actually READ something that I have written
before wagging your tongue on Black Op Radio, you would know these
things first-hand.

But since you evidently refuse to do that little bit of legwork, I
guess perhaps I should give up all hope of you being fair when it
comes to the wrong things you have repeatedly said about me on Len
Osanic's Internet radio program.

Anyway, just for your information, here are two articles concerning
some of the errors I have documented within Mr. Bugliosi's otherwise-
exemplary magnum opus known as "Reclaiming History: The Assassination
Of President John F. Kennedy":


Along similar lines, you are also dead-wrong when you said on the
August 27th Black Op broadcast that I "couldn't find one thing wrong
about 'JFK: Inside The Target Car'".

To the contrary, Jim, I've documented my thoughts on that subject as
well. And I have talked about some of the mistakes in that program
(plus some other really weird things relating to the 2008 Discovery
Channel "Target Car" documentary that wouldn't really go under the
heading of "mistakes" or "errors", but should probably be placed in
the file drawer marked "Really Dumb Stuff").

Here is one of my "Target Car" articles.


Jim, I also noticed during your 8/27/09 Black Op appearance that you
provided some additional laughs when you seemed to be endorsing
certain elements of John Armstrong's insane "Two Oswalds" theory
(which is a theory that has the CIA, years before JFK's assassination,
recruiting two different "Oswalds" who looked exactly alike).

I know you hate Vincent Bugliosi's book with a passion, Jim, but I'm
going to include an excerpt from Vince's excellent book here anyway,
because a little bit of CS&L (Common Sense & Logic) is certainly
needed when discussing John Armstrong and his 2003 book, "Harvey And

"[John Armstrong] carries his fantasy about a double Oswald to
such absurd lengths that not only doesn't it deserve to be dignified
in the main text of my book ["Reclaiming History"], but I resent even
having to waste a word on it in this endnote. ....

"Obviously, if Armstrong had a source for any of the things he
charges, he would be only too eager to give it. Instead, his only
source is his exceptionally fertile imagination. ....

"Perhaps most important, Armstrong doesn't deign to tell us why
this incredibly elaborate and difficult scheme was necessary. I mean,
if the CIA were willing to frame the Russian refugee for Kennedy's
murder by setting him up as a patsy, why not simply frame the real Lee
Harvey Oswald? After all, both the real Oswald and the imposter Oswald
were, per Armstrong, recruited by the same conspirators at the CIA and
both were being "handled" by them. ....

"So before Armstrong even writes the first word of his long
tribute to absurdity, the premise for his whole book is seen to be
prodigiously ridiculous." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 565-567 of
"Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)


Then there is also your belief, Jim, that the United States Government
was on a mission to "cover up" the truth of the assassination after it
occurred. Which brings up another point that no conspiracy theorist in
the world has ever been able to reconcile in a satisfactory and
reasonable manner:

Are we really to believe that a group of behind-the-scenes
conspirators was attempting to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder
of President Kennedy MANY WEEKS AND/OR MONTHS prior to 11/22/63, with
that group of plotters succeeding in that endeavor (per many
conspiracy theorists of Planet Earth)....and then, immediately after
the assassination, the U.S. Government (plus the local police
department in Dallas) exhibited an incredible like-mindedness by
wanting to falsely accuse the EXACT SAME "PATSY" NAMED LEE HARVEY
OSWALD that the pre-assassination group of plotters was attempting to
frame for Kennedy's murder?

It seems to me, Jim, that many conspiracists have no choice but to
answer "Yes" to the above question. Because if those conspiracy
theorists don't think those two "like-minded" things occurred, and if
the Government really wasn't involved in some kind of "Let's Nail
Oswald" mission, then Lee Oswald is most certainly guilty of killing
JFK and Officer Tippit.

And let's be reasonable here, Jim....answering "Yes" to my above
question is just plain silly.


Mr. DiEugenio, if your overall research into the murder of President
Kennedy is as inept and willy-nilly as your consistently inaccurate
and haphazard research concerning my personal statements and beliefs
relating to certain matters associated with JFK's assassination, I
think it's safe to say that John McAdams could likely defeat you in a
debate even if Professor McAdams were half-asleep throughout the
entire radio encounter.

David Von Pein
August 28, 2009

(PART 20)

Subject: Jim DiEugenio Vs. Vince Bugliosi And David Von Pein
Date: 8/22/2009 5:30:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: James DiEugenio
To: David Von Pein


Dear DVP:

You did a cover-up job on the strap muscles and you know it.

But keep it up and keep on running from a debate.

You look more and more like what you are: a chicken.



Subject: Re: Jim DiEugenio Vs. Vince Bugliosi And David Von Pein
Date: 8/22/2009 5:52:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio


Hi James! Good to hear from you, my friend!

While I have your attention.....

You know damn well that the whole "strap muscles" thing began when you
said on the 7/16/09 Black Op (retard) broadcast that I said something
that I never ever said about Humes' testimony as it related to
Specter's "B.S. story" (your quote) as it related to the "PROBING"
issue ONLY. Nothing else. It was ALL ABOUT THE "PROBING" ISSUE.

Now, you want to move those goal posts closer to your CT goal line, so
that you can pretend that you weren't wrong when you said that Humes
and Specter discussed the "strap muscles" as they related to the
PROBING of John Kennedy's upper-back wound.

But, as you obviously have to know by this time (if you're any kind of
a "researcher" at all), Humes and Specter never ONCE talked about the
"strap muscles" as those muscles relate to any "probing" issue at all.
It never happened. Period.

But, Jim, keep pretending you won that mini-debate with me. I'm sure
it satisfies your enormous ego to think you've defeated another lowly
LNer who does nothing but write out his "paper debates" on John
McAdams' "pigpen" 24/7.

BTW, Professor McAdams' "alt.assassination.jfk" forum is a totally-
different forum from the "pigpen" you keep referring to on Len
Osanic's weekly "Black Op [Retard] Radio" shows.

The McAdams forum is a moderated forum that will not allow personal
attacks or hateful remarks toward its members, while the
"alt.conspiracy.jfk" newsgroup/forum is unmoderated (hence, it is
crawling with conspiracy-happy kooks), and the primary reason I go
there at all is because it's the best unmoderated online JFK forum I
know of where I can easily and instantly archive individual messages
for my JFK Blog.

You should visit my blog and JFK-related webpages sometime, Jim. You
might learn something. And that "something" just might be an added
dose of "common sense". Lord knows, you and Mr. Osanic could use a
helping of that stuff when it comes to your beliefs about President
Kennedy's assassination.

You're beginning to look more and more like what you are: an "Anybody
But Oswald" conspiracy-happy nut. And that fact is illustrated very nicely
within this article that I penned on 8/22/09, dealing with your latest
crazy conspiracy-flavored notion regarding Buell Wesley Frazier and
Linnie Mae Randle.

David Von Pein
August 22, 2009

(PART 19)


>>> "Mr. Carlier: Did you look at the footnote in the Warren Report to the material I quoted from? Or did you just robotically relay what Von Pein said on the McAdams forum? Please answer this question honestly before I agree to debate you. .... Why didn't you ask him [DVP] why he did not site [sic] the footnote? Isn't that what critical thinking is all about? [Signed:] JIM D. [James DiEugenio]" <<<


Subject: DiEugenio, Humes, And The WCR
Date: 8/2/2009 12:47:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Francois Carlier


Hello Francois,

Thanks for your e-mail. I greatly appreciate it, and I enjoyed reading
it very much.

Just a few things "for the record" here (as they relate to the e-mail
you sent to me on 8/1/09):

You do not need to own the 26 physical volumes issued by the Warren
Commission in order to look at every single page of those 26 volumes.
Every volume is available for free on the Internet, as well as every
volume of the HSCA report (and other JFK reports) too. Right here
(and here too).

So, you could have checked out the source note that appears at the top
of Page 89 of the WCR, which is something that I did, indeed, do for
myself immediately after hearing James DiEugenio quote that passage
from the WCR about the bullet sliding between "two large strap

The source note is Note #171 and it leads to 2H363. And at 2H363, we
find these words spoken by Dr. James Humes:

"The missile traversed the neck and slid between these muscles
and other vital structures..."

Now, DiEugenio is probably going to claim that because the specific
word "strap" doesn't show up anywhere on Page 363 of Vol. 2 (and it
doesn't), this must mean that Arlen Specter and Dr. Humes (and the
Warren Commission in general) were trying to pull off some kind of
"B.S. story" [DiEugenio's quote] because the word "strap" DOES appear
on Page 88 of the WCR.

But DiEugenio doesn't have a leg to stand on there.


Because Humes DOES say "strap muscles" on Page 368 of Vol. 2 when
talking about the exact muscles that were "bruised" by the passage of
the bullet through JFK's body (which is testimony that perfectly
aligns with Humes' testimony on Page 363).

The only complaint that DiEugenio can possibly make is that the Warren
Commission didn't expressly cite TWO different pages from Humes'
testimony in source note #171 on page 89 of the WCR. They only cited
2H363 there (and not 2H368).

And the obvious reason that the Warren Commission ONLY cited 2H363 is
because the MAIN POINT being revealed via source note #171 on pages 88
and 89 of the WCR concerned the fact that the bullet passed between
two muscles of JFK's body without creating a channel, which is
information that can be found at 2H363, but not at 2H368.

The WCR could, of course, have also cited 2H368 if they chose to, and
that would have been okay too, but the ONLY thing that 2H368 adds to
the information that can be obtained in 2H363 is the single word

Humes said "strap" on Page 368, but he did not use the exact word
"strap" when talking about the missile sliding between the muscles on
Page 363. That's the ONLY difference. And DiEugenio, as usual, wants
to make a huge mountain out of this silly little molehill.

Plus, let me add this:

This whole discussion regarding Page 88 of the WCR and 2H363 is really
NOT addressing DiEugenio's blatant falsehood (that he told on Black Op
Radio on July 16, 2009) at all. And that falsehood was this (which I know
you heard for yourself):

DiEugenio claimed on 7/16/09 that Specter examined Humes with respect
to the "PROBING" issue, as that probing topic related to the "STRAP
MUSCLES" of President Kennedy.

But, as I pointed out strongly in my online article refuting this
stuff, DiEugenio is wrong when he claimed such a thing, because as I
said before, the word "strap" only comes out of Humes' OR Specter's
mouth ONE SINGLE TIME during Dr. Humes' entire WC session, and that's
the already-mentioned passage on 2H368 when Humes was talking about
the bruising of those muscles ONLY. He wasn't talking about "PROBING"
at all.

So DiEugenio is just plain wrong. And he's got to know he's wrong on
that "probing"/"strap muscles" point. So, Jim decides to move the goal
posts and alter the subject, so he can pretend he was right and I was
wrong. (And Jim also no doubt hopes nobody else notices his mistake.)

Plus, I'll add this -- Specter elicited NO INFORMATION AT ALL from Dr.
Humes about the muscles of JFK (ANY muscles) tightening up and
closing. And Specter elicited no testimony from Humes at all about
those closed-up muscles being the primary reason for why no probes
could be placed through JFK's upper back and neck.

In addition -- As I also pointed out in my rebuttal article, DiEugenio
is also wrong on another related point concerning the "strap muscles"
when Jim implied on Black Op Radio that the strap muscles in JFK's
neck were "ABOVE" the areas where Kennedy was wounded by a
bullet....which is just flat-out wrong.

We know Jim's wrong there because Dr. Humes testified that the "STRAP
MUSCLES" were "bruised" by the passage of the bullet through Kennedy's
neck. So obviously the strap muscles were not "above" the location
where JFK suffered a bullet wound.

In fact, I'll even go a little bit further in debunking DiEugenio's
"above" verbiage -- On that same Page 368 of Volume 2 that I've been
discussing, Dr. Humes states that the bruised strap muscles were "just
below this wound" [he means the throat wound, of course].

So the strap muscles that were bruised were positively a little bit
BELOW the bullet hole in Kennedy's throat, contrary to what James
DiEugenio seems to think.

Whew! What a chore it is to straighten out somebody else's obviously
skewed perception and interpretation of things. It seems as though I
spend three hours having to fix something that it took DiEugenio three
seconds to say and mangle.

It's ridiculous. And so is DiEugenio's farcical attempt to turn one
single word -- "STRAP" -- into a "B.S. story" started by Arlen Specter
(with Humes evidently just following Specter's lead like a little
puppy dog on a leash). Unbelievable.

Anyway, I hope this lengthy post straightens out a little bit more
of Jim DiEugenio's pro-conspiracy crap.

David Von Pein
August 2, 2009

(PART 1)

An author by the name of Orlando Martin was a guest on Len Osanic's "Black Op Radio" program on June 24, 2010. The interview can be heard below:

Martin has written a new 208-page pro-conspiracy book on the JFK assassination called "JFK: Analysis Of A Shooting: The Ultimate Ballistics Truth Exposed" (published by Dog Ear Publishing on January 21, 2010).

Martin's examination of the ballistics evidence in the case has led him to the "undeniable" conclusion "that three gunmen fired five shots at President Kennedy. These men took their shots from varied distances and heights around Dealey Plaza."

The quoted words above come directly from Orlando Martin, via the Introduction chapter in his book, an excerpt of which can be read here. The main (home) page of Martin's nice-looking website is linked below:


In the early portion of Mr. Martin's Black Op Radio appearance, he talks about what apparently he deems to be his Number One reason for disbelieving the Warren Commission's single-assassin and Single-Bullet Theory conclusions. And that reason is a real whopper, folks. Get this:

Martin insists that all of the pre-surgery X-rays that were taken of Governor John B. Connally's body (the X-rays of his right wrist, chest, and left thigh) are now "missing" and "have been destroyed" [Martin's quotes from 6/24/10]. Martin also thinks that the Warren Commission "completely ignored the pre-surgery X-rays of Connally" [Martin; 6/24/10].

Now, when I heard Mr. Martin make these ludicrous claims on the Black Op Radio program, I could only stare at my computer screen for a minute or two and say to myself: What the hell is this guy talking about? He must be nuts.

Contrary to Martin's beliefs, Governor Connally's pre-operative X-rays have certainly not been "destroyed" at all. Those X-rays are part of the official Warren Commission records, and were all assigned specific Commission Exhibit numbers, and all of them are available to view in WC Volume 17.

Commission Exhibit numbers 690 and 691 are the pre-operative wrist X-rays; numbers 694, 695, and 696 are the pre-operative X-rays of Connally's left thigh; and number 681 is the chest X-ray which was taken on November 22, 1963 (which is an X-ray that Dr. Robert Shaw told the Warren Commission was actually taken DURING the surgery that was conducted on Connally's chest wounds).

But the lack of a definitive and provable PRE-OPERATIVE X-ray of Connally's chest cannot be used by Martin (or anybody else) to discredit the Single-Bullet Theory or the validity of Stretcher Bullet CE399. And that's because of the testimony provided by Dr. Shaw.

Author Martin suggests that the bullet which went through John Connally "probably left a bunch of fragments in the Governor's chest" [Martin; 6/24/10].

Well, evidently Mr. Martin has decided to totally ignore the testimony of Dr. Robert R. Shaw, who was the Parkland surgeon who operated on Connally's chest.

If Mr. Martin had bothered to look at Page 105 of WC volume #4, he would have found the following words coming from the mouth of Dr. Shaw (and maybe Martin does realize this testimony exists in the WC volumes, but has decided that Dr. Shaw was a liar and a cover-up agent):

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Was any metallic substance from the bullet left in the thoracic cage as a result of the passage of the bullet through the Governor's body?"

DR. ROBERT SHAW -- "No. We saw no evidence of any metallic material in the X-ray that we had of the chest, and we found none during the operation."

Furthermore, the Warren Commission most certainly did not "completely ignore" the two pre-surgery X-rays of Connally's wrist at all. Those X-rays are discussed at great length during the testimony of another one of Connally's Parkland physicians, Dr. Charles Gregory, right here.

So, I guess Orlando Martin must be of the opinion that CE690 and CE691 (the two PRE-operative X-rays that were taken of Connally's fractured right wrist) are faked X-rays. Or, as embarrassing as this option is for Orlando, perhaps Martin is totally unaware that CE690 and CE691 even exist in the Warren Commission's 26 volumes. (They can be found, plain as day, on pages 347 and 348 of Volume 17, linked above and pictured below.)

Moreover, Mr. Martin's assertion that the Warren Commission "completely ignored" the pre-surgery X-rays of Connally's wrist within the text of the 888-page WARREN REPORT itself (vs. the 26 volumes of evidence and testimony) is a false assertion as well. And anybody with access to the Warren Report or the Internet can easily see for themselves that Mr. Martin is all wet when he makes such a silly allegation. Because on Page 95 of the Warren Report, we find these words:

"An X-ray of the Governor’s wrist showed very minute metallic fragments, and two or three of these fragments were removed from his wrist. All these fragments were sufficiently small and light so that the nearly whole bullet found on the stretcher could have deposited those pieces of metal as it tumbled through his wrist." -- WCR; Page 95

And, quite obviously, the above excerpt from the Warren Report is referring to a PRE-OPERATIVE X-RAY of Governor Connally's wrist.

So, it's fairly clear that Orlando Martin doesn't know what he's talking about.

Footnote --- The topic of John Connally's pre-operative X-rays is a topic that I have written about online a few times in the last few years. And as I point out in those articles (linked below), there is ample evidence and testimony to be found in the 26 Warren Commission volumes (including photos of Connally's pre-operative wrist X-rays in Volume 17) to indicate the high likelihood that the total weight of the bullet fragments deposited in Governor Connally's whole body on 11/22/63 most certainly did not exceed the amount of metal/lead that is missing from Commission Exhibit No. 399:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Connally Bullet Fragments

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Errors In Reclaiming History

Are you ready for more crappy research from a conspiracy theorist named Orlando? Here's some more:

Another thing that Orlando Martin has decided the Warren Commission was untruthful about is the subject of the "Missed Shot". Once again, Martin erroneously claims that the Commission has totally ignored something connected to the case, when, in fact, the Commission didn't ignore it at all.

In this instance, Martin said that the WC, within the Warren Report itself, ignored the mark that was found on the Main Street curb just after the assassination. But the Warren Commission did no such thing. The mark on the curb is dealt with on page 117 of the Warren Report. Apparently Martin never bothered to read, or comprehend correctly, these words that we find on page 117:

"Even if it were caused by a bullet fragment, the mark on the south curb of Main Street cannot be identified conclusively with any of the three shots fired. Under the circumstances it might have come from the bullet which hit the President’s head, or it might have been a product of the fragmentation of the missed shot upon hitting some other object in the area. Since he did not observe any of the shots striking the President, [James] Tague’s testimony that the second shot, rather than the third, caused the scratch on his cheek, does not assist in limiting the possibilities. The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific verification, precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to which shot missed." -- WCR; Page 117

In other words, conspiracy theorist Orlando Martin, once again, doesn't seem to have the slightest idea what he's talking about.

More? Okay. This one's a lulu, too:

Martin says that Governor Connally was "sitting to the right of the President" in the limousine on 11/22/63. Of course, exactly the opposite is true. Connally was sitting to the LEFT of President Kennedy, as this photograph illustrates:

So, once more, Mr. Martin proves that he doesn't have a clue.

Most conspiracy kooks are happy to distort the true positioning of the limo's victims by telling the lie about Connally sitting directly in front of Kennedy. But Mr. Martin has decided to make the lie even more blatant and outrageous by saying that John Connally was actually sitting to the RIGHT of the President in the car.

I wouldn't be surprised if Martin soon has Jacqueline Kennedy changing places with William Greer, with Jackie driving the limousine and Greer sitting in the back seat next to JFK. Because it would seem as if no distortion of the known facts is too blatant or outrageous for Mr. Martin.

And, according to Martin, there were NO SHOTS fired from the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the TSBD. None at all. I wonder what it was that Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, James Worrell, Mal Couch, and Robert Jackson saw sticking out of THAT EXACT WINDOW when President Kennedy was being assassinated by rifle fire on 11/22/63?

Maybe those witnesses all lied when they each claimed to see a rifle protruding from a window where Orlando Martin thinks NO SHOTS AT ALL were fired from. Or, perhaps Mr. Martin believes that all of those witnesses just imagined seeing a rifle in that precise window.

Or--maybe Martin wants to pretend that somebody was merely sticking a useless rifle out of the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest window just in order to fool people into thinking that shots were being fired from there.

But how the plotters got Harold Norman to hear the sound of a rifle being fired from that particular window, as well as hearing three bullet shells falling to the floor DURING THE ASSASSINATION, is a real head-scratcher. Isn't it, Mr. Martin?


Martin also claimed that the bullet that hit President Kennedy in the head could
not have come from Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. And one of the main reasons for this conclusion, says Martin, is because the Carcano test bullets fired through mock-up heads during the Discovery Channel's 2008 documentary "JFK: Inside The Target Car" did not break up into pieces.

But what Mr. Martin totally ignores are the detailed tests that were conducted by Dr. Alfred Olivier and Dr. John K. Lattimer, with those tests conclusively proving that a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet can (and will) definitely fragment and break into pieces after striking a human skull at full muzzle velocity, with the fragmented pieces of both Olivier's and Lattimer's test bullets looking very similar to the two large fragments of a bullet from Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle that were recovered in the front seat of JFK's limousine after the assassination (CE567 and CE569). See the diagram below, which comes from page 219 of John Lattimer's 1980 book, "Kennedy And Lincoln":

More Martin Garbage:

Martin just flat-out lies when he claims that several doctors at Parkland Hospital looked for an exit wound on JFK's body after seeing the wound in Kennedy's throat.

This is pure bullshit, of course, because the Parkland doctors never turned JFK's body over while attempting to save his life at Parkland Hospital. Martin is just pulling crap out of thin air that never happened.

And Martin specifically said that Dr. Robert McClelland was one of the several Parkland physicians who specifically looked for a wound on the back of the President. But when we take a look at Dr. McClelland's Warren Commission testimony [at 6 H 39], we find the following exchange between McClelland and Arlen Specter:

MR. SPECTER -- "Dr. McClelland, why wasn't the President's body turned over?"

DR. McCLELLAND -- "The President's body was not turned over because the initial things that were done as in all such cases of extreme emergency are to first establish an airway and second, to stop hemorrhage and replace blood, so that these were the initial things that were carried out immediately without taking time to do a very thorough physical examination, which of course would have required that these other emergency measures not be done immediately."

MR. SPECTER -- "Did you make any examination of the President's back at all?"


MR. SPECTER -- "Was any examination of the President's back made to your knowledge?"

DR. McCLELLAND -- "Not here [at Parkland], no."


And speaking of pulling imaginative crap out of thin air, I saved one of the best hunks of Martin's nonsense for last here. Wait till you hear this one:

Orlando Martin said on 6/24/10 that he thinks a bullet did, indeed, go "right through" President Kennedy, with that same bullet going on to hit Governor Connally (although a separate bullet hit Connally in the right wrist at Zapruder frame 295, per Martin's fantasy theory).

But then--get this--Martin has another bullet striking JFK from the front in the throat.

Martin actually thinks there was an exit wound in President Kennedy's CHEST that nobody at JFK's autopsy noticed at all! And nobody at Parkland Hospital noticed it either.

Yeah, sure, Orlando.

In other words, we have a team of trained medical pathologists at Bethesda Naval Hospital, who made notations in their autopsy report of virtually every scar and defect on President Kennedy's body -- including these notations on Page 3 of the autopsy report [Page 540 of the Warren Report]....

"Situated on the anterior chest wall in the nipple line are bilateral 2 cm. long recent transverse surgical incisions into the subcutaneous tissue. .... A similar clean wound measuring 2 cm. in length is situated on the antero-lateral aspect of the left mid arm. Situated on the antero-lateral aspect of each ankle is a recent 2 cm. transverse incision into the subcutaneous tissue. There is an old well healed 8 cm. McBurney abdominal incision. Over the lumbar spine in the midline is an old, well healed 15 cm. scar. Situated on the upper antero-lateral aspect of the right thigh is an old, well healed 8 cm. scar."

....But, according to Orlando Martin, those same autopsy surgeons who made those extensive comments in the autopsy report concerning all of those old scars and "recent surgical incisions" in the "anterior chest wall" of the President (which were incisions that were made by the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, of course), were unable to find a bullet hole in JFK's chest.

Orlando, you're a howl!


After listening to him talk in just a single 1-hour interview, I wouldn't trust Mr. Martin to analyze a piece of Swiss cheese in order to see if it had any holes in it....let alone trust him to analyze any of the evidence associated with President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

I said it previously above, but it's worth a replay to close out this article -- Orlando Martin doesn't have a clue.

David Von Pein
June 26, 2010
Revised July 8, 2010