ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER


video











video



THE ZAPRUDER FILM (STABILIZED):











=============================



MORE
ZAPRUDER-RELATED
LINKS:












"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD"
(1986 TELEVISION DOCU-TRIAL)


CLOSING ARGUMENTS:




MY "ON TRIAL" WEBSITE:





















BOOK REVIEW:
"RECLAIMING HISTORY"











BOOK REVIEW:
"WITH MALICE"



BOOK REVIEW:
"THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT"



BOOK REVIEW:
"BEST EVIDENCE"



BOOK REVIEW:
"THAT DAY IN DALLAS"



BOOK REVIEW:
"NATIONAL NIGHTMARE"



BOOK REVIEW:
"A SIMPLE ACT OF MURDER"



BOOK REVIEW:
"CONSPIRACY OF ONE"






video

BOOK REVIEW:
"OSWALD'S GAME"



BOOK REVIEW:
"THE DEATH OF A PRESIDENT"



BOOK REVIEW:
"CASE CLOSED"



BOOK REVIEW:
"NOVEMBER 22, 1963: YOU ARE THE JURY"



BOOK REVIEW:
"KENNEDY AND LINCOLN"



"OSWALD'S GHOST" (2007)
(PBS-TV DOCUMENTARY)






TRAILER:
video

"JFK" (1991)
(OLIVER STONE'S FILM)







"RUSH TO JUDGMENT" (1967)
(MARK LANE'S FILM)










video

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 41)


CONSPIRACY THEORIST:

>>> "It [Neches St.] did intersect it [Beckley Ave.] in 1963." <<<


DAVID V.P.:

No it didn't. And the Warren Commission pointed out that fact right in
the Warren Report itself (on page 162).

Plus: Keep in mind that Whaley didn't only do a re-creation of the
drive to Oak Cliff for the movie "Four Days In November", but Whaley
also re-created the November 22 cab ride for the Warren Commission.

And guess where Whaley directed the driver of the car to go? He
directed him to stop near the intersection of Neely and N. Beckley,
just exactly as Whaley did for the movie "Four Days" and just exactly
as Whaley did on November 22, 1963, when he drove Lee Harvey Oswald
across the Houston Street viaduct from downtown Dallas to Oak Cliff.

CE1119-A provides excellent details of Oswald's movements after he
left the Book Depository....and that chart/exhibit shows that Oswald
got out of Whaley's taxicab at NEELY & BECKLEY at approx. 12:54 PM.

The walk back to LHO's roominghouse was re-created by WC counsel
members, and it took 5 minutes and 45 seconds....which would have
placed Oswald back home at approx. 12:59:45 PM.

He was probably in that shoebox of a room for no more than 1 minute
(tops), and probably (IMO) closer to only 30 seconds (Earlene Roberts'
"3 to 4 minutes" testimony notwithstanding), which would have given
Oswald ample time to travel the 0.85 of a mile to Tenth Street to kill
Officer Tippit.

The trip from 1026 Beckley to the Tippit murder site on 10th St. has
been re-created several times by different people (with varying
results, depending upon the pace, of course), and the excursion has
taken as little as 11 minutes.

To quote from Dale Myers' masterpiece of a book ("With Malice") ---
"A number of studies have determined that it would have taken Oswald
twelve minutes at a brisk walk to reach the corner of Tenth and Patton."


So even if Mrs. Roberts was exactly correct, and Oswald had stayed in
his room for as long as "3 to 4 minutes", the timeline would still be
just about right for Oswald having enough time to get from 1026
Beckley (at approx. 1:03 or 1:04 PM) to Tenth Street (at approx. 1:15
PM, which is when Tippit was slain).

In fact, per the re-creations that have been done, the timeline is
just about spot-on perfect, right down to the minute. Which, in
actuality, it really SHOULD be, with very little leftover time at all.

Because I think we can all agree that Oswald, after leaving his
roominghouse, wasn't merely standing still for 11 or 12 full minutes.
Nor was he walking up and down Beckley Avenue in front of his
roominghouse while picking his nose. He was undoubtedly moving at a
relatively brisk clip as he tried to put some DISTANCE between himself
and the roominghouse he had just left.

David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 8, 2007)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 40)


A CONSPIRACY THEORIST WROTE THIS TO ME:

"DETAIL IN ZAPRUDER FILM UNNOTICED FOR 43 YEARS: Flying Skull
Fragment, Clearly Seen; Reflected in Trunk Lid. ....

The "Harper Fragment"...of skull bone is visible in the
Zapruder film. It becomes visible in frame 313 and flies through the
air before going out of view around frame 337. ....

In frame 313, we see an odd curiosity known to researchers as
the "white spot", or "white blob". .... It looks to be a foot or two
in front of the windshield. It is an elongated oval shape and blurred.
It is not visible in frame 312, although it could be to the right, or
ahead of Zapruder's aim. ....

[An "LOL Break" is required at this point.]

It is a skull fragment flying and spinning through the air,
not, as Dr. David Mantik suggests, a sloppily painted-in object. In
frame 314, the object is just above the windshield, still blurred, and
more of a square shape in this frame. It looks like what it has been
called for more than four decades: "...something in the grass...";
[or] "a spot in the grass.".

In frame 315, the object has moved the same relative distance
that every other object on the screen has moved, allowing for
Zapruder's natural movements. The "white spot" is just above driver
Greer's head. A little less blurred than frames 313 and 314, but now
starting to show a motion all its own. ....

Frame 318. Zapruder's big move. .... In 318, the entire frame
blurs. .... The skull fragment blurs to exactly the same extent all
the other objects in the frame do. This blurred motion, from
Zapruder's movement, verifies the unchanged authenticity of the film
itself; at least in these critical frames. As far as this part of the
film, I see no discrepancies in the continuity of motion. And that
continuity is verified by Zapruder's jump. ....

Frame 326. Jackie's hand and arm are now a bit more in view
(she is just beginning to reach out). The fragment, being propelled
through the air, is disk-like and spinning. A slight change of angle
has occurred.

Frame 327. That white object...is a piece of the President's
skull, blown off by his assassin. We have traced its flight through
the air. In frame 327, it is undoubtedly being reflected in the trunk
lid of the car. .... In frame 327, the triangular shape of the skull
fragment is plainly visible. And because it is moving through the air,
not lying in the grass, its reflection can be seen in the trunk lid.

It is impossible for an object lying in the grass to be
reflected in the trunk lid of the car. I'll say it again. It is
impossible for an object lying in the grass to be reflected in the
trunk lid of the car.

Frame 328. Our second frame where the reflection is clearly
visible. .... The car is moving under the fragment. The fragment is
winging its way toward the center lawn area where it will somehow be
overlooked by investigators and bystanders for more than sixteen
hours.

Frame 329. Another frame forward, another reflection. This one
intersecting with the antenna on the rear deck of the car and possibly
the most important frame as far as reflection goes. There is a slight
distortion in the reflection itself. Not the fragment, but the
reflection. This proves the skull fragment to be above and slightlyedit
south of the car. This is only possible because the fragment is flying
through the air. If it were on the lawn, we would not see a
reflection.

Frame 332. A white smear barely in front of the motorcycle
windscreen of Bobby Hargis. Hargis stated he was hit with bone, blood,
and brain matter, as a result of the shooting.

Frame 333. Just past Hargis's windscreen. Did the fragment hit
the edge of the windscreen? In the sprocket area, agent Hill can be
seen running toward the car. ....

To summarize -- It is patently impossible for an object lying
on the grass to be reflected in the trunk lid of the car. Whatever
that white spot is, it is flying through the air! Even if you choose
to believe it is a tissue paper that just happened to float by at this
instant, it is not on the lawn, it is not stationary.

The object is a large piece of the President's skull. It is far
too coincidental that it appears at the same instant as the fatal head
shot, frame 313. Watching the film at regular speed, you see the
fragment flying and spinning through the air. In frames 320-326, it
elevates a bit, showing the same flight properties of a mostly-flat,
slightly-cupped, triangular-shaped object.

What is the significance of this? A piece of JFK's head flying
out the back of the car.

[DVP interjection at this point --- HUH?? The skull fragment is
supposedly flying out the BACK of the car, and yet it is first visible
many feet to the FRONT of the car at Z313?? Reprise: Huh???? And
WTF????]

Eyewitnesses have mentioned "debris" flying from the
president's head; indeed, Jackie was probably trying to retrieve a
skull fragment.

Ike Altgens told the Warren Commission he saw debris flying out
the "right side of the car". It was noticed; but until now, not
identified in the Zapruder film, and I have only been able to do so
because of the reflection. I would like to reiterate the fact that
something lying in the grass cannot be reflected in the trunk lid.

Does this change the parameters of information on the
assassination? I would like to think so. First off, it is a very good
indication of the veracity of the Zapruder film itself. This is
probably the most important fact of my finding and something that can
be incorporated into works that entail other aspects of the
assassination.

Over the years, the Zapruder film has been attacked as
falsified in many ways; actually I have my own problems with it. But
for these 24 very important frames I have analyzed, I offer my
expertise as a video technician, photographer, and editor.

Those twenty-four frames, the first full second after the fatal
head shot, are real. No alteration. No missing frames. No within-frame
changes; at least not any that pertain to the flight of the skull
fragment.

Actually, the flight of the fragment proves there are no frames
missing between 313 and 337. The continuity of motion remains perfect
if one tracks the flight of the skull fragment. In a sense we are
fortunate the fragment is there. In my opinion the Zapruder film is
intact and unaltered for this full second, perhaps the most important
second, immediately following the fatal head shot.

What has been altered, we now know, were the frames initially
published in Life magazine. How altered? The "white spot", the flying
skull fragment, was removed from the frames. Maybe the photo editors
speculated that it could well be a skull fragment. Very gory; and may
have given rise, just days after the assassination, to a more detailed
public discussion of the direction of shots. For whatever reasons, the
actions of the Life editors gave rise to speculation and a resulting
spread of misinformation.

The fragment itself. It is almost undoubtedly the "Harper
Fragment", or a larger piece which contained the Harper Fragment.

The angle, direction, and origin of the shots. The fragment is
blown forward in frame 313. Those in the research community who
ascribe to shots from behind will put this forth as proof. I'm not
sure it is, I can offer only video expertise, not gunshot, bullet,
trajectory or anatomy expertise.

But the fragment doesn't just fly forward; it floats backward.
My eye tells me that is because it is spinning. .... So the force of a
bullet hitting from behind was not absolute, and did not send the
fragment forward, at a distance, into the street. Perhaps a shot from
behind was mitigated by another shot. Or the flight of the fragment
was caused by the physical reaction of the president.

Shots from behind would not necessarily indicate the blasting
of skull pieces forward. Those in the research community who endorse
the idea of frangible bullets being used may find evidence here. Those
who've put forth "jet effect" theories may find evidence here, or a
new contradiction of evidence. Multiple shots, hitting simultaneously,
should also be considered.

Previously I mentioned my problems with the Zapruder film and I
would like to address them now. Bear in mind these observations are
based on visual evidence, and I have not examined the film itself, or
attempted any measurements of any kind.

Point one. There is no leader on the film. We won't know
exactly when Zapruder started rolling unless the leader can be found
and proven to fit with what we now know as frame one. Even if Zapruder
started rolling only, say, four frames earlier, those frames could be
very telling.

Point two. The "splice", at frame 207. It's not a splice at
all, it's a tear; and it accounts for at least a frame-and-a-half
lost, forever it seems. It points at least to carelessness in the
handling of the film, if not an outright change designed to hide
something. ....

In my opinion, this break at frame 207 is deliberate, and meant
to hide something. If a bullet hits the freeway sign at that frame, a
lone-gunman theory is rendered impossible.

Point three. The real frame 313. If frame 313 can be proven to
be frame 313, that would be nice. The problem is, too much is
happening in that one frame. Kennedy has moved slightly forward. And
the reasons for that are as numerous as writers on the assassination.

The spray of blood is quite large and one cannot altogether
rule out alteration and/or a missing frame. Or two frames combined,
one laid over the other. This would hide evidence, though not disturb
the continuity of motion.

There is not, however, a problem with the continuity of motion
from 313 forward. That leads me to believe a frame before what we know
as 313 may have been removed or combined. This does lead to a huge
discussion of any alteration occurring.

The two parameters of this issue are this: The film remained, except
for a break as a result of being dropped, intact from November 22, 1963,
to the present.

The other side of that coin is the fact that the film was successfully
held from public viewing for a good twelve years. And during that time,
the technology certainly existed for a wholesale re-figuring of the film.
I would defer to David Wrone as to the 'why' and 'why nots' of these
scenarios, and I agree with his school of thought on the possession
and possibility of any changes.

In reference to the Costella/White/Mantik school of thought, I
would say this. Raising the possibility that changes may have been
made to the film is a good thing. We may someday see, through advances
in technology, that indeed some change may have occurred and should
those missing frames (at 207+) ever turn up, we will rely on the
latest technology to restore them. But the "faked" school of
researchers have been mitigated, partly by proofs set forth by others,
and certainly due to the outrageousness of their claims. ....

I agree with those who say the film survived largely intact;
yet, we cannot ignore the missing frames at 207+. I would hold open
the possibility that it has been further altered in some way. It would
little change the way the film has been perceived so far.

In my opinion this is what you are seeing: A nearly unsuccessful
assassination attempt. The goal of the assassins was not to have the
president driving down the street clutching at his throat for five or
six seconds. The first shot did not find its mark. Maybe that is what
umbrella man is doing; signaling the back-up team, as he realizes
the president was not squarely hit.

[LOL INTERMISSION!!]

The most damning thing I see in the film [is] the inaction of
the Secret Service. Slowly gazing back at the book depository. And
notice this in the famed Altgens photograph: the two agents on the
running board, looking back at the depository, are not looking up!
They are looking straight. Straight at Lee Harvey Oswald! Yes, it is
Oswald on the front steps of the depository. The match is the shirt,
another aspect of the assassination covered effectively in Wrone's
book.

[Additional LOL needed here.]

Summing up. .... It is a fact that a portion of JFK's head was
ejected at frame 313 and flew through the air before landing on the
lawn. I'll say it for about the tenth time: something lying on the
lawn cannot be reflected in the trunk lid. ....

I'm not sure my finding will actually change the way anybody
looks at the assassination. I think the "acted alone" school and the
"vast conspiracy" people will continue with their set views. But it is
imperative that all the facts come out. It is obvious that the more
facts, the better, for all researchers and all those wanting knowledge
of the assassination.

[Quoting Beverly Oliver:] "The whole back of his head went
flying out the back of the car." .... Have a look at frames 327 and
328. The back of the President's head. Flying out the back of the car.
Reflected in the trunk lid."

(Copyright: Frank Caramelli Jr. 2007)
(Re-printed here with the author's permission.)


============================================


DAVID VON PEIN RESPONDED:

Thanks for the lengthy e-mail and the "White Spot" report.

The ending paragraph of your article, of course, is coming from a
woman (Beverly Oliver) who didn't come forward for SEVEN YEARS to tell
her tale about what she supposedly saw. There's not a speck of
definitive proof that Beverly Oliver is "Babushka Lady".

Plus, the above statement by Oliver would seem to contradict your own
theory about the so-called skull fragment which begins to be visible
in Frame 313 of the Zapruder Film....i.e., Oliver is saying that the
back of the President's head went flying out the BACK of the
car....but you're pretty much saying just the opposite, i.e., the
Harper fragment is flying out the FRONT of the car at the critical
impact point at Z313.

To be perfectly blunt and truthful with you, your whole theory about
the "white blob" is patently absurd from various points-of-view. And
here's why, IMO:

#1.) Per your theory of the white spot being the "Harper Fragment"
from Kennedy's head....WHY does this skull fragment STAY THE EXACT
SAME HEIGHT ABOVE THE CAR (from Zapruder's POV) during the entire time
it is visible on the Z-Film?

Didn't a thing called GRAVITY exist for those few Z-Film frames from
Z313 through approx. Z330? How is it physically POSSIBLE for that
"skull" piece to remain the exact same physical distance above the
limo from Mr. Zapruder's point-of-view if that fragment is actually in
mid-air and subject to the natural forces and laws of gravity?

http://app.box.com/Zapruder Film

When watching a stabilized version of the Zapruder Film, like the one
linked above, and when focusing your attention only on the "white blob"
while watching the key Z-Film frames in question, you can see that the
"white spot/blob" NEVER FALLS (OR RISES), from Zapruder's vantage
point. How is this possible if the "object" is in mid-air?

And I've also checked a non-stabilized version of the film as well
(the 1998 MPI Home Video digital version of the film on DVD)....and in
the MPI version, it's even MORE obvious to me that Zapruder is filming
a scrap of white paper that is lying on the south side of Elm Street.

Also -- Per your theory of the white spot actually being a piece of
JFK's head, are we to believe that a piece of his skull could have
made it out to the front part of the limo AS THE BULLET HIT HIM
IN THE HEAD?

At the EXACT same frame Kennedy is being hit (Z313), you're contending
that a piece of skull has been blown FORWARD several yards....at the
EXACT INSTANT OF IMPACT. I'd say that is another impossibility (or, at
the very least, highly improbable).

#2.) Are we to also believe that this skull fragment is being
propelled forward at tremendous speed at precisely Z-Frame #313 (which
you are obviously advocating, since you think the skull piece is many
feet FORWARD of Kennedy's head at the exact impact frame of
Z313)...but then, after Z313, it suddenly COMPLETELY STOPS that
tremendous forward and UPWARD motion that it obtained between frame
312 and the impact frame of 313, and then it seems to travel BACKWARD
toward the rear of the car.*

* = It's either that explanation, or you must be advocating that the
object, after moving forward very fast at 313, simply stopped ALL
motion altogether (including its UPWARD motion, because it never gets
any HIGHER from Zapruder's viewpoint either), and this fragment was
then hanging in mid-air for several Z-Film frames, and is moving from
right-to-left (from Mr. Z's POV) only due to Zapruder's panning rate
of his camera. Just crazy, IMO.

Also -- Incredibly, you even seem to be suggesting that the piece of
Kennedy's skull could have actually been hanging in mid-air as early
as Z312, which was PRIOR to the President's head exploding at Z313.
You suggested that very thing when you said this in your article --
"It is not visible in frame 312, although it could be to the right, or
ahead of Zapruder's aim."

How on Earth could a piece of JFK's skull be hanging in the air (many
feet to the FRONT of the limousine) 1/18th of a second BEFORE the
President was visibly struck in the head by a bullet? This makes no
logical sense whatsoever.

#3.) The "reflection" theory is new to me. And it is interesting, I'll
admit. But I don't think that it can be proven that the reflection in
the trunk lid is positively coming from an object hanging in mid-air
at that precise point on the film.

Frankly, I don't know what the "reflection" is that can be seen on the
trunk of the limousine. I'd have to do a little more studying on the
subjects of: "The way shadows fall" and "How things will reflect on
metal surfaces on bright sunny days when the sun is in XX position in
the sky", etc. I'll admit, I'm no expert on those kinds of things.

But from the preponderance of evidence that is telling me that the
"white blob" is nothing more than a piece of loose scrap paper on the
south side of Elm Street (see #4 below), I'd be willing to bet some
serious cash that whatever that "reflection" is on the limo's
trunk...it is NOT being caused by a piece of John F. Kennedy's head
which is hanging in mid-air over Dealey Plaza.

Two thoughts I have on the reflection (which are only sheer guesses, I
will fully admit) -- I'm thinking it could possibly be a reflection
from Mrs. Kennedy's white glove on her right hand. But even more
likely (IMO), it could conceivably be a reflection (or glare) from a
portion of the windscreen/windshield on Officer Hargis' motorcycle,
which is heavily reflecting the sunlight, as we can easily see in this
Zapruder Film frame (Z328):



I'll again readily confess that these are only guesses on my
part....and I'll again stress my lack of "official" knowledge
regarding "sunlight reflections", etc.

And I'll also admit that my theory re. Hargis' windscreen would be
totally invalid and shot down in flames if I were to learn that it's
impossible for something to be reflected in the OPPOSITE direction
from which that same object would leave its shadow on the ground;
i.e., Hargis' SHADOW would be falling on the ground in the opposite
direction--to his rear--than would the "reflection" that appears on
the trunk--which is to the FRONT--if my Hargis theory were true. So,
I'm just not sure what to make of the "reflection theory".

#4.) There are photos taken of the south lawn of Elm Street shortly
after the shooting which show a white piece of paper lying on the
grass in the approximate place where the "white blob" would equate to
via the Z-Film.



In the picture above (taken by Richard Bothun), a piece of white paper
of some kind is easily visible on the south side of Elm Street. Some
people have speculated that the paper could very well be a torn-off
portion of one of Mary Moorman's Polaroid photographs that she took
on November 22nd.

Moorman did take one picture of the lead motorcycles coming down the
street prior to the President's car making its appearance on Elm Street.
That piece of paper could be the discarded "backing" from that earlier
Moorman Polaroid.



And then there's also the photograph above (snapped by Frank Cancellare),
wherein I can see what appears to be a white piece of paper located just
behind the left leg of eyewitness Charles Brehm. And the white paper in
that picture looks to be about the same size of the "spot/blob" seen in
the Zapruder Film, and it is resting in about the same general location
as depicted in the Z-Film as well. [Larger Image.]

So, there's certainly some after-the-assassination photographic
evidence that suggests that the "white spot" that is seen in Abraham
Zapruder's famous home movie could very well be (and probably is)
merely a piece of paper on the south lawn of Elm Street.

BTW, as a sidebar note, the Harper Fragment is almost assuredly NOT
"occipital bone" from the REAR of Kennedy's head. It's very likely
parietal bone from the right-front-top portion of JFK's cranium,
perfectly consistent with the "LN/LHO" scenario.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm

Here's a portion of what Vince Bugliosi had to say with respect to the
Harper Fragment in his JFK book:

"Dr. [J. Lawrence] Angel...declared the Harper fragment to be "clearly parietal bone" that had come from "roughly the middle of the right parietal" area (i.e., above the right ear)." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 236 and 237 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

And as far as your personal thoughts about the Zapruder Film having
possibly been "altered in some way", I will just say this --- If the
Zapruder Film was "altered" or "faked" in some manner by one or more
persons who had the desire to cover up a multi-gun conspiracy in JFK's
murder, I'd then logically ask: Why in the world didn't these film-
fakers remove the #1 thing that spells out "CONSPIRACY" to most
Americans even to this day....with that #1 thing being the HEAD SNAP
TO THE REAR?

It makes no sense to me to even BEGIN believing in some kind of crazy
"Z-Film Hoax" or "Z-Film Alteration" theory until we can figure out
what kind of film-altering morons would have been in charge of
altering the film and then (after the supposedly-conspiracy-removing
alterations were complete) the head snap to the rear STILL REMAINS
INTACT in the final version of the film which was faked or altered by
those always-unknown and always-unnamed conspirators.

That's just plain nuts. There's no skirting around that fact.

And then there's your belief that Lee Oswald was on the steps of the
TSBD (and was photographed by James Altgens). Well, Frank, that theory
was forever debunked just a few short months after the assassination,
on April 7, 1964, when Billy Lovelady drew an arrow on the Altgens
photo to the person you claim is Oswald in the Depository doorway,
with Lovelady telling the Warren Commission that it was he, himself
(Billy N. Lovelady), on the steps. [See Commission Exhibit 369.]

Do you really believe Lovelady was lying when he said it was him (and
not Oswald) standing there on those steps at 12:30 PM on November
22nd?

To believe that Lovelady was lying or that he was coerced by the
Government into saying it was him and not Oswald on the steps is to
believe in something quite extraordinary and, frankly, pretty stupid-
sounding.

[EDIT: There is also Lovelady's original 11/22/63 affidavit that was written by Lovelady himself within hours of the assassination, wherein Lovelady says that he watched the motorcade while "standing on the steps in front of the building where I work". And that affidavit was written by Mr. Lovelady long before the "Doorway Man" controversy had ever surfaced.]

Also: Any idea WHY Lee Oswald didn't use his perfect "I WAS ON THE
DEPOSITORY STEPS" alibi after he was arrested? Per your beliefs, LHO
was, indeed, standing in the doorway, but instead of using that as his
TRUTHFUL alibi, he decides he'll tell a lie to the police about having
been INSIDE the building (eating lunch with "Junior") at the time JFK
was shot.

Now THAT'S really crazy, Frank. Was Oswald trying to frame HIMSELF?

In the final analysis, even if your theory about the "white spot"
being a skull fragment is 100% correct, it does absolutely no harm
whatsoever to the "Lone Gunman" scenario put forth by the Warren
Commission.

Why?

Because your theory has a piece of the President's skull travelling
very rapidly FORWARD toward the front of the limousine at the moment
of the fatal shot....which is perfectly consistent with a bullet
hitting JFK in the head as a result of a gunshot coming from Lee
Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. And that rifle and that man
named Oswald were located in the Texas School Book Depository, to the
REAR of President Kennedy, at the time JFK was killed.

So your theory about the "white spot" in Mr. Zapruder's film really
amounts to a lot of talk and theorizing about....nothing.

Regards,
David R. Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 9, 2007)




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 39)


ROB CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "No, [DVP's lengthy posts relating to the actual evidence surrounding President Kennedy's assassination] made me realize even more how silly your official theory is." <<<



DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, trying to shoehorn all of that evidence against Oswald into a
silly, crazy, off-the-wall theory that says "OSWALD DID IT" is totally
ridiculous, isn't it, Robby?

It's kind of like trying to prove the sun is hot. And what a
ridiculous "theory" that is!


>>> "I don't envy you for having to try and defend something so ridiculous." <<<

You're deeper into CT Kookland that I had originally envisioned. I
don't envy you either.


>>> "You are even reviewing movies for them to squash anyone from wanting to see them." <<<

You betcha. Why should filmmakers who place total lies and
unsupportable guesswork up on the cinema screen be given a free pass
when it comes to ridicule?

As Vince B. has said in virtually every interview he's given in 2007
-- "Oliver Stone's movie is one continuous lie."

And he's right, too.....

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R1ZW3QU49S1AM1


>>> "I am the sane one." <<<

By whose measuring stick? The measuring stick used by other "LHO Shot
No One" kooks?


>>> "It is only a matter of time before you have nothing left to defend." <<<

I guess that means that you think ALL of the mile-high pile of evidence favoring Lee Oswald's guilt in TWO 1963 murders is suddenly going to disappear and/or vaporize before our very eyes in the coming months/years/decades. Is that it, Mr. Kook?

IOW -- Do you think that the MC rifle (#C2766) will suddenly, in the year 2034, CEASE being a rifle bought, paid for, and possessed in the year 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald?

And in the year 2525 (if man is still alive...), the bullet shells found in the Depository and the shells found on Tenth Street will, somehow, CEASE being bullet shells that were determined in 1963 to be shells that came out of weapons owned and possessed in '63 by a man named Lee Harvey Oswald?

And in 2784, do you think that all of the more than 12 witnesses that fingered Lee Oswald as being the lone person involved in J.D. Tippit's murder will somehow ALL be discredited to the point where Oswald's innocence in that crime is assured?

Well, Rob, at least you have your dreams.

By the way, is it going to take another 44 years for you kooks to come up with that first non-Oswald bullet or bullet shell or gun? With thousands and thousands of you kooks working on uncovering that dreaded "conspiracy", you'd think you would have at least a semi- believable and coherent assassination scenario to place on the table to try and knock the Warren Commission's version out of the box.

But, thus far, 44 years into your investigation, what have you got in the way of HARD EVIDENCE to favor a conspiracy? And what hard, verifiable evidence do you have to support the type of grandiose (and highly-hilarious) "Multi-Gunmen, One-Patsy" plot that you seem to think existed on November 22, 1963?

Your OPINIONS are not HARD EVIDENCE, btw. So let's leave the "Robcap Show" off of the table for the time being, okay? Let's see your list of HARD EVIDENCE that supports a JFK conspiracy, please.

And then, after posting that list, you can pretend that each one of your listed items HASN'T previously been thoroughly debunked/refuted/ trashed by LNers worldwide.)


>>> "Most Americans already aren't with you on this case..." <<<

And the majority of Americans certainly are not in your silly "Oz Was
A Patsy" corner either. But I guess you think that most people believe
Oswald was merely an innocent simp who never shot at anybody in '63
(not even Gen. Walker), right?

Think again.

In the only poll at the below link which specifies such details (the
ABC poll from Nov. 2003), only 7% of 1,031 people polled believe that
Oswald was "Not Involved" AS ONE OF THE ACTUAL SHOOTERS IN DEALEY
PLAZA. (This ABC poll, btw, included twice the number of respondents
than the Gallup Poll included.)


>>> "...But you still have the government, media and academia backing you up." <<<

Plus all 17 pathologists who examined the case (and JFK's body) in
detail for the WC, the Clark Panel, the HSCA, and the Rockefeller
Commission.

Others that "back" me up on the LN conclusion include people like
Joseph Nicol and John Lattimer.

Nicol was the independent firearms expert from Illinois called in by
the Warren Commission. It was a good move by the WC too, since there
were bound to be kooks like Rob Caprio and Ben Holmes (et al) who
would come forth years later and complain about the WC's conclusions
coming from ONLY Government-"controlled" sources, like the FBI.

But Nicol was NOT connected with the United States Government, and he
even went a step FURTHER down the "Oswald Was Guilty" road with
respect to the Tippit murder, when Nicol said that one bullet from
Tippit's body could be linked to Oswald's revolver "to the exclusion
of all other weapons", which is something even the FBI's Robert
Frazier would not confirm (and Frazier is a person whom the kooks love
to treat as a criminal and big fat liar).

Lattimer, of course, verified the validity and sheer doability of
several of the WC's conclusions when he conducted many different
shooting experiments using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and bullets from
the same batches that Oswald used in '63.

And EVERY single experiment/test conducted by Lattimer favored the
likelihood that Oswald could, indeed, have done just exactly what the
Warren Commission concluded Oswald did do in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

Rob should read the book "Kennedy And Lincoln" by Dr. Lattimer. It's
very informative and unbiased. But certain CTers probably prefer to
turn their heads the other way when faced with Lattimer's detailed
ballistics tests, which were NOT CONTROLLED IN ANY WAY BY THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT.

--------------------------

SOME V.B. QUOTES:

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have
succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--
Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the
most complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history.

"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their
existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of
the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the
outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split
hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched
and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally
invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation.

"With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren
Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA
documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or
there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And
that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has
done. ....

"I am unaware of any other major event in world history which
has been shrouded in so much intentional misinformation as has the
assassination of JFK. Nor am I aware of any event that has given rise
to such an extraordinarily large number of far-fetched and conflicting
theories."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Via the pages of "Reclaiming History"

-------------------------

David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 7, 2007)




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 38)


A CONSPIRACIST:

>>> "You have a way of missing the point. EXECUTIVE ACTION reflects the knowledge and understanding of 1973. 1973. That's 1973." <<<


DAVID V.P.:

Oh, I see now! You mean, since it was only 1973, that the American
public thought it was perfectly fine to believe in the kind of
impossible-to-pull-off "3-Gun, 1-Patsy" conspiracy scenario that Mr.
Lewis and Mr. Miller (the Director) placed up on the big screen in
"Executive Action". Is that it?

I think you've missed the (main) point. That point being: Such a plot
is just idiotic. Period. In 1973. In 1991. Or in 2099.


>>> "To condemn a feature film for not reflecting knowledge and information gleaned decades after it was made, is, shall we say, unfair, if not odd." <<<

The stuff I talked about in the post you berated me for is ALL stuff
that was KNOWN IN 1963-1964; it wasn't only "gleaned decades" later.

Such as: The decision to have the luncheon at the Trade Mart. That
info is right there in the Warren Report, on Page #31, which positively
proves that Ken O'Donnell made the final "Trade Mart" decision, and
that decision wasn't finalized until November 13 or 14, 1963, a month
AFTER Lancaster and Co. said it had been decided upon in
"Executive Action".

And the information about how Oswald got his TSBD job in mid-October
has been available for all Americans to read in the Warren Report and
the 26 supporting volumes since September '64. That info wasn't merely
gleaned many years later. The same is true with the "Backyard Photos".
It was fully known in 1964 that Marina had taken them. It's just that
conspiracy believers just flat-out do not want that information to be
true. Simple as that.

WARREN REPORT; PAGE 125

David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 7, 2007)




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 37)


>>> "Can [conspiracy theorist] Ben [Holmes] produce more than one witness that says they saw two people shoot Tippit?" <<<

In reality, Ben can't produce even ONE such witness, because Acquilla Clemons can't be placed in that category either. Clemons (or maybe it's spelled "Clemmons", I've never been quite certain of the spelling) didn't see TWO GUNS in the hands of TWO MEN at the Tippit murder scene. She claimed to see two men, yes, but only one had a gun in his hands.

BTW, I think a quote from the man who probably knows more about the Tippit murder than anyone else alive--Dale Myers--is in order here. Per Mr. Myers' book "With Malice" (the only book ever written specifically about the murder of J.D. Tippit), we find this interesting paragraph:

"In assessing Acquilla Clemmons' story, it is worth noting that she was the ONLY witness who claimed that two men were involved in the shooting. Many eyewitnesses, who were considerably closer to the scene, concur that only one man was involved in Tippit's death." -- Dale K. Myers; Page 72 of "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald And The Murder Of Officer J.D. Tippit" (c.1998)

Mr. Myers, on page 73 of "With Malice", deals in some depth with the eyewitness account of C. Frank Wright (who lived at 501 East Tenth Street, near the Tippit murder scene).

Myers has a fairly lengthy direct quote from Wright, which was taken from an interview Wright had with George and Patricia Nash (with that interview being printed in the October 12, 1964, edition of a publication called "The New Leader").

In that interview, Wright never once mentions seeing TWO men being involved in the killing of Officer Tippit.

Check out "With Malice" for many, many more details regarding the Tippit slaying. Everything is covered in depth by Dale Myers in that book. It should be required reading for every kook in the world who currently belongs in the "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody On November 22, 1963" club.


More Tippit Talk:

The Murder Of J.D. Tippit

The Tippit Murder And The Hilarious Defense Of Oswald


David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 6, 2007)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 36)


ROBERT CAPRIO:

>>> "I'm waiting for a logical LNer to explain why there was a Mauser and Springfield on the floor as well." <<<



DAVID VON PEIN:

Great. We're treated to double the kookshit regarding the make-believe
rifles now.

So now it seems we've got a kook claiming there was a Mauser AND some
other non-Carcano rifle (a Springfield?) found on the sixth floor of the
Book Depository on November 22, 1963.

I assume the kook did mean "sixth" floor when he said "on the floor"
in his post. Is that right, Mr. K?

Perhaps Rob C. would like to take a listen to Seymour Weitzman's words,
as Weitzman explains the whole "Mauser" mistake (via a CBS-TV news
special in June of 1967):

SEYMOUR WEITZMAN -- "Mr. Boone was climbing on top and I was down on
my knees looking. And I moved a box and he moved a carton, and there
it was. And he, in turn, hollered we had found the rifle."

EDDIE BARKER (CBS NEWS) -- "What kind of gun did you think it was?"

MR. WEITZMAN -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a
Mauser, which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at
a glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came
out as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian
type gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I
saw, was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my
statement was a mistake; but it was an honest mistake."

1967 CBS-TV SPECIAL

=======================

I guess Weitzman continued to lie on national TV too, right Rob? But,
why would he even agree to appear on that TV special if he knew he'd
have to lie (again) about the "Mauser"? Why not just say "No thanks"
when he was asked to appear? Go figure that.


>>> "They found no fingerprints on the gun [LHO's rifle]." <<<

Bullshit. And you know what you said is pure Bullshit too. But that
won't stop you from saying it...over and over again, will it?


>>> "...If they did find them [LHO's prints] on the bag, it could have been laying around the floor and he could have moved it; he did work there." <<<

LOL break. The kooks will go MILES out of their way to believe the
silliest of things, rather than gaze squarely at Occam's handy Razor,
won't they? A-ma-zing.

I'll repeat this one more time (I like the wording of it, and the
built-in common-sense factor as well):

"I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable CT explanation
that will answer the question of why that 38-inch brown paper sack
(which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), 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 SN 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 V.P.; May 2005


>>> "Now we hear there is a picture and a movie showing that [19-year-old TSBD worker Buell Wesley] Frazier may be in the window himself. He may have lied about the whole curtain rod story." <<<

Oh good! A new pile of made-up conspiracy dung. What's not to love
about this?! If this post of Robby's that I'm responding to gets any
deeper in CT Crap, I'm going to have to call the fire department's
rescue squad to come and pull me out of it.


>>> "I could show you that photo where two men are in the window and you still won't believe it." <<<

Darn right I won't. And that's because no such photo exists that provably
shows "two men" in the Sniper's-Nest window (or any sixth-floor window)
on November 22, 1963. Period.

(BTW, somebody call 911, quick. It looks like I'm definitely going to
need that rescue squad.)

But, keep the CT dream alive, Rob. After all, your dreams are all
you've got to cling to (along with assorted vanishing bullets and
several disappearing assassins).

Tomorrow on "The Kook Channel":

"RUTH PAINE SEEN IN DAL-TEX BUILDING WITH AK-47 ON DAY OF JACK
KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION!!"

I look forward to that episode, too. Hopefully, Marina will be accused
of being Ruth's "spotter" in the Dal-Tex, too. That'd be a fun twist.

But you should get some rest now, Mr. Kook. Additional made-up
conspiracy dreck can wait until tomorrow.

David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 3, 2007)




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 35)


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "So, you really believe Posner's Magic Twig Theory and you are going to stick with that answer?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If you would have put quotation marks around the word "stick", it
would have made for a better play on words. ;)

But, yes, I'm "sticking" to the tree theory. Overall, it makes the
most sense to me.

If you don't like it, don't believe it. I don't care.


>>> "The WCC M-C does not neatly split into two parts, the jacket and the lead core. Never has. Never will." <<<

And it probably wouldn't have really needed to split perfectly and
uniformly into two separate parts (one marked "copper", the other
labeled "lead").

Just because there was no trace of copper on the Main St. curb, why
does that HAVE to mean (beyond every SHRED of a doubt) that the
fragment that hit that curb couldn't have also had SOME copper
elements sticking to it? The copper part just didn't hit the curb, but
the lead part did.

Why is that totally out of the realm of possibility or probability?


>>> "What you should be arguing as a nice little WC defender is that
the lead core squeezed out of the base left in the limo went on to hit
the curb." <<<


I don't like that theory. I know some LNers do. But that head-shot
bullet was pretty much spent by the time it exited Kennedy's head.
It didn't even have enough energy left to go through the breakable
windshield after exiting the head of the President.

And yet a fragment from that head shot is supposed to (per some
people) make it all the way out to Main to reach James Tague, chip
the curb (slightly), and send shards of either curbstone or bullet
material up to meet Tague's face with still enough force/energy
left to draw blood?

I'll go with the first (tree) shot hitting Tague, thank you.

Although having said that, I'll put my built-in asterisk around the
above statements by saying that the head-shot fragment scenario is
still way better than anything the conspiracy crowd has invented to
account for Tague's wounding, mainly because we pretty much KNOW
beyond all conceivable doubt that only THREE SHOTS were fired in
Dealey Plaza.



And since we know that Tague was certainly not wounded by shot #2
(the SBT bullet), that leaves only two choices (shot #1 or shot #3).

I'll choose #1. But if it wasn't #1, it was #3. ;)


>>> "And then went on to injure Ronnie Fuller?" <<<

Nah. Orson Welles, you dummy. ;)

Per some crackpots, Orson WAS in the Plaza with a large cache of
weapons on 11/22/63, you know. And he WAS a pretty large target too.


>>> "You find Bugliosi's scenario hard to swallow, but you buy the Magic Twig Theory hook, line and sinker?" <<<

You bet. Vincent Bugliosi's first-shot/Tague scenario is just not very
believable (IMO). But at least VB and I fully agree on almost everything
else, including the time of the first (Tague) gunshot -- Z160.


>>> "Why not Holland's Magic Light Pole theory instead?" <<<

Mainly because Max Holland has the first shot occurring way too soon
(IMO). Would John Connally have waited several seconds to turn his
head to the right (which occurs at about Z164 on the Zapruder Film) if
he had really heard the first shot way back when the car was in the
Elm/Houston intersection? I doubt it.

MORE ABOUT MAX HOLLAND'S "11 SECONDS IN DALLAS"


>>> "What two curbs?" <<<

Elm then Main.

What curbs did you think I was talking about when speaking of
Bugliosi's first-shot theory -- the Lemmon and Turtle Creek curbs
perhaps? ;)

I will, however, correct my previous post slightly (in the "two curbs"
regard) --- I should have said "pavement" instead of "two curbs".

To be perfectly technical, I should have said that the bullet (according
to Mr. Bugliosi's proposed first-shot scenario) hit the "Elm St. pavement
(somewhere in the middle of the street behind JFK's limo) and then
went on to strike the Main St. curb."


David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 3, 2007)







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 34)


http://Amazon.com/forum

http://Amazon.com/forum



PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "The issue is who has "expert [qualifications]", and here you say that a photo interpreted by nine experts in anatomy to show a bullet wound on the back below the throat wound clearly shows one far above the throat wound. What expert does VB cite to make such a statement?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why does Vince Bugliosi need to consult an "expert" when comparing two AUTHENTICATED-AS-GENUINE autopsy photographs? All Vince needs is a pair of eyeballs.


>>> "What expert do you cite to make such a statement?" <<<

Why do I need to cite an "expert" either? I've got two eyeballs too.

Geesh.

As anyone can plainly SEE for themselves (based on the two autopsy
pictures below, utilized in tandem), the bullet hole in John Kennedy's
upper back is WELL ABOVE the wound in his throat....and President
Kennedy is positioned just about as RAMROD STRAIGHT as you can get
the man, as he is lying FLAT ON HIS BACK HERE (the picture on the left
has been turned sideways for proper "SBT"-favoring orientation with
respect to President Kennedy's throat and upper-back wounds):



Why on this Earth the HSCA came to the cockeyed conclusion that the
back wound was below the throat wound (anatomically-speaking) is a
mystery that I cannot answer. But they were dead-wrong when they said
that. Period.

For Pete sake, just look at the picture shown below. In order for the back
wound to be physically (anatomically) LOWER than the visible throat wound
in this autopsy photograph, the bullet hole in Kennedy's back would have to
be located LITERALLY off the bottom edge of that photo:



And does ANYONE (even the HSCA) truly think that the bullet hole in John F.
Kennedy's back was THAT LOW on his back?

That's cuckoo talk!

David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 2, 2007)