JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 214)


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Various posters are claiming that Frazier and Oswald never talked. Yet Frazier goes into depth about how they were discussing why Oswald wanted the ride out to Irving on Thursday afternoon." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Related Topic (re: Lee Oswald and Wesley Frazier talking to each other):

During the filming of David L. Wolper's 1964 United Artists feature motion picture, "Four Days In November", Buell Wesley Frazier made the following comments concerning the paper package and the conversation that took place between Frazier and his soon-to-be-famous passenger, Lee Harvey Oswald, during their drive to work from Irving to downtown Dallas on the morning of November 22, 1963:

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

"I went out the back door; Lee was standing just outside the door; and we walked to the car. As we were getting in the car, I saw the package; and I said 'What's the package, Lee?', and Lee said 'curtain rods'. ....

"The only comment that was made on the way to work was about babies and the weather. I always managed to get some comment out of him [Oswald] about children, because he seemed like he was very fond of them. And I asked him, 'Did he have fun playing with the babies?' And he says, 'Oh, yeah' and kinda chuckled to himself. ....

"About the only other comment that was made was about the weather. It was a hazy day, and we both said if it didn't clear up it was sure gonna be a bad day."


[A little later, after re-creating the drive from Frazier's home in Irving to the Texas School Book Depository's employee parking lot....]

"He [Oswald] got out of the car, see, and picked up the package while I was charging my battery, see. The battery needed charging pretty bad. And then when I got out of the car, and [was] fixin' to shut the door, he started walking a little bit faster. And he finally got about fifty feet ahead of me."

-- Buell Wesley Frazier; 1964


video

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

SOME MORE "FOUR DAYS"-RELATED LINKS:

LINNIE MAE RANDLE:
http://groups.google.com


EARLENE ROBERTS:
http://groups.google.com


JOHNNY BREWER:
http://groups.google.com


WILLIAM WHALEY:
http://groups.google.com
http://groups.google.com

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

David Von Pein
May 7, 2008






JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 213)


ANDREW MASON SAID:

>>> "The point that [Dale] Myers seems to miss is that with John Connally's midline only 6 inches (15 cm) left of JFK's, a shot exiting .5 cm left of JFK's midline will strike no further right than 14.5 cm right of JBC's midline if the shot was straight through JFK at no angle. The wound was 20 cm right of JBC's midline. .... The bullet simply cannot hit JBC in the right armpit." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is just silly, Andrew. You're acting as if Connally was NOT turned to his right at all when he was shot. But via Dale Myers' detailed analysis, JBC was turned 37 degrees to his right when he was shot in the back. (See this webpage.)

Obviously, if Connally is turned quite a bit to his right (~37 degrees), this is going to change any "midline" of JBC from the shooter's POV in the Book Depository. Oswald shot a TURNED-IN-HIS-SEAT John Connally, not a Connally who was sitting squarely in his seat with his shoulders parallel to the trunk of the car.

Another visual (via Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation project):




>>> "Until Myers explains this by telling us what he is using for the angle from the sniper's nest to JFK, and what he is using for the separation between the two men, why would anyone accept his conclusion?" <<<

I can answer those questions (as can anyone else who has bothered to read the information available at Mr. Myers' website):

Dale is using a survey map of Dealey Plaza, detailed blueprints of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and the original body draft of SS-100-X (JFK's 1961 Lincoln limousine). .....

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/tech.htm

And Dale, of course, as everybody also knows, used the Zapruder film. Dale has, in effect, extracted 3-dimensional information from Zapruder's two-dimensional motion-picture film.

All of this is fully explained, in great detail, on Mr. Myers' site.

In short, the Single-Bullet Theory fits every last piece of physical evidence in the JFK case, including the Zapruder Film (to an absolute TEE it "fits" the Z-Film, without a shred of a doubt; CTer scoffing notwithstanding, naturally).

And, as I've shouted from the cyberspace rooftops a hundred times previously, to believe that the SBT is a falsehood is, by default, to believe in some kind of anti-SBT scenario to explain the simultaneous wounding of JFK and JBC that is inevitably far more illogical and unsupportable than is the single-bullet conclusion.

Why more conspiracists fail to realize that the above paragraph is 100% accurate can only make me shrug my shoulders incessantly in bewilderment.

David Von Pein
May 3, 2008






STRIKING SIMILARITIES BETWEEN
THE JFK ASSASSINATION AND
THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER CASE


video


There are some rather remarkable similarities when comparing the JFK murder case and the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial -- e.g., so-called police misconduct, "planting" of gobs of evidence (according to the loony conspiracy theorists), and the alleged "framing" of an innocent man for murder.

The video clip presented above comes from the live TV coverage of the prosecution's closing arguments at the O.J. Simpson criminal trial in late September of 1995.

Please take note of the striking similarities that exist between Marcia Clark's argument about the so-called "planted" bloody glove in this clip and the conspiracy theory in the JFK murder case regarding the alleged planting of Warren Commission Exhibit No. 399 (the Connally stretcher bullet).

You could literally dub over many of Marcia Clark's words in this video and replace her words with "CE399", and you'd have almost exactly the same common-sense argument that I (and a lot of other lone-assassin believers) have made in the past concerning the illogic of planting Bullet CE399.

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

"Just like in the O.J. Simpson case, the notion of police misconduct in the JFK/Tippit cases is totally blown up to massive, unprovable proportions by people who literally NEED such misconduct to be taking place in order to have their beloved conspiracy exist."

-- David Von Pein; August 7, 2006

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


RELATED LINKS:


















KBOX-RADIO


video













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


MORE KBOX TALK:












JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 212)


TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "So, Dale Myers dares not post this nonsense himself..." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In essence, Dale Myers DID "post" it -- via an e-mail that he gave
full permission to be re-printed on the Internet.

Whether or not Dale felt it was likely that his e-mail message would
be copied and pasted into an Internet post, I cannot say. But I have a
feeling that Dale, who is far from being a dunce, probably realized
that the person to whom he was e-mailing (who posts exclusively at a
JFK forum at IMDB.com) would, indeed, post the message on the
Internet, especially when these words were included at the end of
Dale's mail -- "Feel free to post my response, if you think it will
help."


>>> "...and you can get away with attacking others because you are only quoting someone else." <<<

As if this is something brand-new??

LOL.

It's done every day of the week around here (and at other forums), by
LNers and CTers alike, of course -- i.e., "attacking" the "other side"
by quoting other people and sources other than yourself/(myself).

Gee, if I stopped doing that, I wouldn't have nearly as much fun
around these parts (especially with respect to quoting Vincent
Bugliosi's "attacks" on CTers, like the two zingers provided below,
which I'll toss in just as a bonus here; sans any charge at all):


"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 40 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."

-- VB

========

"Not the smallest speck of evidence has ever surfaced that any
of the conspiracy community's favorite groups (CIA, mob, etc.) was
involved, in any way, in the assassination. Not only the Warren
Commission, but the HSCA came to the same conclusion. But conspiracy
theorists, as suspicious as a cat in a new home, find occurrences and
events everywhere that feed their suspicions and their already strong
predilection to believe that the official version is wrong."
-- VB


>>> "Did Myers really misspell "disdain"?" <<<

Yes. I just didn't put in the "[sic]".

And your next nitpick is going to be....?


>>> "So, it is bad when the conspiracy authors get the details wrong, but then it is ok when Myers gets the details wrong?" <<<

Nobody has proven that Myers has any important details wrong. But keep
trying to "prove" it though, Tony. After all, ALL conspiracy theorists
MUST deny the viability of the SBT. It's in their blood.


>>> "Like all arrogant bastards, he [Dale Myers] runs away from criticism like a frightened kindergardener [sic]." <<<

Go to hell, kook.

And, btw, did you really misspell kindergartner?


>>> "Typical WC defender slime technique. You get away with calling fellow posters nuts because you are only quoting someone else, someone who is not brave enough to defend his work against criticism." <<<

It doesn't really matter to me WHO does the insulting of CTers
(whether it be myself, or Dale K. Myers, or Vincent T. Bugliosi, or
Joe Blow from Kokomo) -- as long as the "CTers ARE DEAD WRONG" word
gets spread as often as possible. That's the most important thing.

David Von Pein
May 2, 2008



JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 211)


CONSPIRACY THEORIST:

>>> "There are mountains of evidence that this was a conspiracy, the head snapping backward being the most crucial of all." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN:

And if you'd stop to think about it for just two seconds, you'd HAVE to conclude this:

It doesn't make a bit of difference HOW the President's head behaved after being struck by the bullet.

Why?

Because it's a verified and proven-beyond-all-doubt scientific FACT that President Kennedy was hit in the head by just ONE bullet--and that bullet entered from BEHIND.

Therefore, given this irrevocable fact, it doesn't matter if JFK's head were to have spun around 40 times after the bullet hit him, the end result would still be exactly the same -- One bullet entered John Kennedy's cranium FROM THE REAR.

Done deal.

Plus, there's the further undeniable fact of JFK's head moving FORWARD at the most critical moment in the head-shot timeline--i.e., the INSTANT OF THE BULLET'S IMPACT.

And this is a "moving forward" fact that many conspiracists still seem to want to deny (or ignore) even to this day....and even with crystal-clear PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence to show the head of the President being driven forward at impact (via the slow-motion Zapruder Film clip below):




>>> "And then, of course, there is the magic bullet theory. What kind of person would believe such ridiculous nonsense?" <<<

Typical conspiracy theorist. Latch onto chaff and ignore the wheat field in front of his/her nose. The only way the SBT is NOT true is to believe in some stuff that is much, much more unbelievable (and filled with "nonsense") than is the SBT. Why CTers don't realize this basic fact is simply amazing. But none of them do seem to realize it. (Go figure.)

David Von Pein
May 2, 2008






PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S WOUNDS
AND MORE "SBT" DISCUSSION


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

If it is your position that CE 903 correctly describes the bullet's entry position, then the only passage for that bullet to get to the throat is through the lung. There is no other option. It is an anatomical impossibility for it to do otherwise.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In the time since my original post a few years ago on CE903 (and since I wrote the caption to the photo below), I've added some addendums to my "CE903" pages, which I think are important addendums to understanding some of the limitations that the Warren Commission was restricted to when it came to its re-creation of the assassination on 5/24/64 and its built-in restrictions concerning CE903 (particularly in Part 3 below):


CE903 (PART 1)

CE903 (PART 2)

CE903 (PART 3)






I have what I think is a sensible and logical question for conspiracy theorists who do not believe in the Single-Bullet Theory (which is almost all conspiracists in the world, of course):

If the SBT is wrong (and particularly in the case of the theories which have JFK hit by TWO separate bullets to replace the one bullet of the SBT), then how can you account for those TWO bullets not hitting any bony structures or the lungs of President Kennedy, and yet STILL those two bullets inexplicably stopped inside JFK's back/neck?

James, you DO accept the autopsy report with respect to the lungs and the pleura cavity and all "bony structures" not being struck directly by any bullet that passed through JFK's upper body....do you not?

Or do you really think that JFK's lung was hit by a bullet? Did the autopsists lie about that?

The reason I'm stressing this question again is to get back to this basic fact (whether you believe in the SBT or not):

The bullet (or bullets) that struck JFK in the upper back and neck areas did not produce any significant damage to the areas of the body that conspiracy theorists think would have had to sustain such damage if the SBT is true.

Which means, of course, that whatever bullets DID go into JFK's back and neck on 11/22/63 also did not produce any significant damage to Kennedy's lungs or ribs or other bony structures in his body.

Which means that the anti-SBT conspiracists are left with this conundrum (not even factoring in the wounds to Governor Connally):

Two bullet wounds in JFK's body (back and throat)....no bullets in his body to account for either wound....and no significant "bony" or "lung" damage which could possibly account for the stoppage of the bullet(s) that entered the body of John Kennedy.

Don't conspiracy theorists ever give some serious thought to the "conundrum" I just stated above?


JAMES R. GORDON'S COMPLETE REPLY IS HERE.


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

Did anyone besides me notice that Mr. Von Pein hasn't attempted to refute the information cited by Mr. Gordon? I believe he can't do it and maintain any credibility...which is why he instead chooses to argue with Pat Speer, Jim DiEugenio, and everyone else instead of Mr. Gordon.

So how about it, Mr. Von Pein...bone up on your anatomy and physiology, and then explain why Mr. Gordon is wrong in his conclusions. I can hardly wait. [Odds are, Von Pein will instead attack me for suggesting this, and continue to ignore Mr. Gordon's quite logical arguments.]


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mark (and Mr. Gordon),

The obvious answer to your elaborate charts and analysis is this:

The bullet which struck JFK in the upper back on 11/22/63 did not strike any bony structures or lungs inside the President's body. That is an ironclad fact that even one of "your own" -- Cyril Wecht -- agrees with 100%.

And the autopsy report and all three autopsy surgeons (who each signed-off on that autopsy report written by Dr. Humes) confirm the above fact as well.

And whether you believe ONE or TWO (or 22) bullets struck JFK in Dealey Plaza, the above fact will still be true -- no bony structures or lungs in JFK's back and neck regions were struck by any bullets.*

* = And the damaged trachea is obviously not considered a "bony structure". It's a cartilaginous structure. But, amazingly, even Dr. Wecht, in June 2007, insisted that "no cartilaginous structure" was even struck by the bullet that he does think went clean through JFK, exiting the throat. But--somehow--Wecht insists that that bullet missed Governor Connally. ... And the damaged vertebra wasn't actually struck by the bullet either. The HSCA concluded that the passage of the single bullet near the vertebra is what caused the damage to the vertebra.

We know where the bullet entered JFK's back (5.5 in. below the mastoid). We know where the bullet exited (as confirmed by autopsy photos). And this photo proves for all time (IMO) that the HSCA was wrong about the throat wound being anatomically higher than the back wound:



Therefore, given the above known facts about JFK's wounds and the lack of internal damage, where do conspiracy theorists think they can go with this information to support some murky and unproven theory about multiple gunmen and/or some type of "anti-SBT" theory?

Regardless of whether the SBT is true or not, the above facts I stated about JFK's wounds (and the lack of any substantial damage inside Kennedy's back and neck which could have possibly accounted for the stoppage of any bullet--let alone TWO separate bullets) will still be the facts.

So where do you anti-SBT guys want to go with these facts?

Did Humes lie about pretty much everything?

Is the autopsy report a total fraud?

Are the autopsy photos supposedly "fakes"?

Are the X-rays also frauds and forgeries?

Was the HSCA a complete sham regarding the SBT? Were the HSCA investigators and FPP members all liars too? Or were they just too stupid to know they were being "misled" about some things (as Pat Speer postulated)?

Spell out your theory that replaces the SBT. HOW did it happen? And where was that frontal shooter located that could have possibly accounted for the throat wound being an "entry" wound (as almost all Internet CTers believe)?

It would be nice if a CTer could provide at least some solid evidence to back up a valid, workable, and (above all) reasonable "anti-SBT" theory. To date, I've never seen such a theory. And I doubt one will ever be forthcoming.

Most CTers will say, in return: Well, why can't you provide some solid evidence that the SBT is true?

I, however, think that has been done. Many times over, in fact. Starting with the autopsy report, then the Warren Commission's re-creation in Dealey Plaza on 5/24/64, then Dr. John K. Lattimer's tests in the 1970s which support the general workings of the SBT, then the HSCA's work in the late '70s (although, as mentioned, I do disagree with some points the HSCA and Forensic Pathology Panel made--like the silly Z190 SBT timeline and the "throat wound is higher" conclusion, but they utilized some common sense in concluding--in general--that ONE BULLET definitely did strike both Kennedy and Connally), and then the FAA simulation, and then Dale Myers' exacting computer work.

All of the above things provide good, solid underpinnings for the validity of the Single-Bullet Theory. Are they ALL dead wrong? From the Warren Commission, to the HSCA, to Lattimer, to FAA, to Myers? If the conspiracy theorists think they are all wrong, I beg to differ.


Addendum Regarding Dr. Perry----

And the main reason I posted Dr. Malcolm Perry's "It could have been either" Warren Commission testimony was, quite obviously, to counter this wholly inaccurate statement made by James DiEugenio:

"And no one will ever impeach Dr. Perry on this."

Fact is, of course, that Dr. Perry himself pretty much impeached his initial 11/22/63 statement about the throat wound being one of entrance. And he did so by admitting to the Warren Commission that the throat wound could have been "either" an entry or an exit.


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

Just because these bullets were not found, does not make the SBT right as a consequence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But it sure as heck makes the SBT much more likely to be true (particularly when we factor in the common-sense observation of John Connally ALSO having been hit by a rifle bullet in his UPPER BACK at just about the exact same time that Kennedy was being hit by one).

Can you deny the logic of my last statement, James? If you do deny or sidestep its built-in garden-variety logic, then maybe Occam should pay you a visit and show you his Razor.


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

It is an illogical position to say that just because we could not find these bullets that has to mean that the SBT is the answer.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It doesn't have to mean it's the answer...but, as I just said above, the lack of ANY bullets (or even fragments of bullets) in JFK's upper body sure as heck makes it much more likely that one single bullet tore through JFK's body, leaving behind very little damage and leaving behind, of course, no bullets at all.

And when you then factor in the Connally back wound, the math becomes even simpler. Connally was sitting in a direct line to accept any bullet that would have exited JFK's throat.

Given these variables, where can logic take a reasonable person? Should it take me to MULTIPLE DISAPPEARING BULLETS hitting Kennedy from opposite directions -- even though I know that CONNALLY too was struck in his UPPER BACK with a bullet at nearly the very same instant on Elm Street?

Or should logic take me in the direction where Dr. Cyril Wecht has travelled -- i.e., the bullet does go through Kennedy, but it totally misses Connally (and the limo). And Wecht purports such a theory even though he knows full well that the man sitting almost directly in front of John F. Kennedy also sustained a bullet wound to his upper back at an almost identical point in time in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

I mean, come on. Let's be sensible. (That is allowed in a SBT debate, isn't it?)


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

The SBT can only become a legitimate solution when you can answer the number of criticisms laid against it. So far I have not seen you do that.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But I have far more criticisms of any "anti-SBT" theory that might be used to substitute for the SBT.

Any anti-SBT theory must contain several aspects that are So Close, But Not Quite Close Enough to the SBT.

E.G.:

1.) The wounds on JFK's body in any anti-SBT theory are Close, but not close enough to where the wounds are really located in JFK's upper body (per the autopsy pictures and the Boswell Face Sheet measurements and in Commission Exhibit No. 903).

2.) John Connally is positioned Close, but not close enough to the position he needs to be in to make the SBT work. (Conspiracists like Anthony Marsh like to micro-analyze this aspect of their anti-SBT theory down to the exact number of inches, practically centimeters, that separated JFK and JBC, as if that figure can be established with 100% accuracy; it cannot be established with pinpoint precision, which is something I've always said since the first day I ever started talking about the JFK case on the Internet.)

3.) The reactions we see exhibited by JFK and Connally in the Zapruder Film are Close, but not close enough to support the notion that both men were reacting to severe external stimulus at the very same time.

In the final analysis, it is my opinion that the Single-Bullet Theory is (to quote my favorite author, Vincent Bugliosi) -- "So obvious that a child could author it." [V. Bugliosi; Page 302 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)]


PAT SPEER SAID:

The bulk of the WC and HSCA panels supposedly signing off on the SBT were misled about the location of the back wound in relation to the throat wound.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Total nonsense.

The HSCA utilized the photos, the X-rays, the "14 cm." autopsy measurements, and the testimony of the autopsists. And the Warren Commission staff knew where the wounds were located too (even without full access to the autopsy pictures and X-rays). They had the face sheet, and the WC also had this important testimony of Dr. Humes:

"The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly."

Yes, it's true that the HSCA did come to the stupid conclusion about the throat wound being higher than the back wound (which is a conclusion that is in complete contradiction with the sworn WC testimony that I just quoted above of JFK's leading autopsy surgeon, Dr. Humes), but that wasn't a situation where anyone ELSE was "misleading" the FPP on that issue. They came to that stupid conclusion themselves.

But the bottom-line is: BOTH the WC and HSCA concluded that one single bullet did go through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. And that is a conclusion that is buttressed by a bunch of other stuff, including the Zapruder Film, the lack of any other bullets (besides CE399) to account for any of the wounds in either victim (excluding the JFK head shot, of course), the detailed re-enactment of the crime done by the WC in May '64, plus just plain ordinary "Where Could The Bullet Have Gone?" common sense.

Toss all of that in the trash if you want to. I won't do it. Because the SBT is so obviously the truth.


PAT SPEER SAID:

The SBT was disputed by one member of the HSCA (Wecht)...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But Cyril Wecht doesn't dispute the first half of the Single-Bullet Theory. That is, Wecht thinks just a single bullet DID pass through Kennedy's body, with that bullet exiting JFK's throat. And that's the main topic being dissected by James R. Gordon in this discussion.

Mr. Gordon doesn't think it was possible for a bullet to have traversed JFK's body via the entry and exit wounds that we now have on the table via the autopsy face sheet, CE903, etc. But Dr. Wecht disagrees. He thinks a bullet did go through JFK.

The remainder of Wecht's anti-SBT analysis is nothing but pure guesswork, plus there are his continued illogical efforts to prop up the WC test bullets as some kind of proof that the SBT is baloney, even though Wecht has got to know that none of those test bullets even attempted to duplicate the SBT at all -- with none of those bullets travelling through TWO bodies. It's still amazing to me, to this day, that Dr. Wecht cannot see the pitfalls and illogic of his theory concerning the test bullets. But, evidently he doesn't see those things.


PAT SPEER SAID:

You know full well Humes never compared the levels of the back and throat wounds when the body was in front of him.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And yet we find Humes saying this to the Warren Commission anyway, don't we Pat?:

"The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly."

Do you think Humes just made that up--just to make Specter and McCloy happy?

Here's the same quote by Dr. Humes, with other comments surrounding it, which puts the quote in better context [at 2 H 368]:

Mr. McCLOY - Now directing your attention to the flight of the bullet, quite apart from the evidence given by the President's clothing, you, I believe, indicated that the flight of the bullet was from the back, from above and behind. It took roughly the line which is shown on your Exhibit 385.

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - I am not clear what induced you to come to that conclusion if you couldn't find the actual exit wound by reason of the tracheotomy.

Commander HUMES - The report which we have submitted, sir, represents our thinking within the 24-48 hours of the death of the President, all facts taken into account of the situation. The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - That is what I wanted to bring out.

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.



JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

It is clear to me that the wound is lower than Costa IR, I’ll leave it at that, and therefore the bullet is a clear danger to the lung.




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not arguing that the bullet didn't come darn close to the lung. Of course it came awfully close to it. The lung itself was bruised by the passage of the bullet. That's a fact. And another fact is this: That lung was not penetrated or damaged beyond just "bruising". And the pleura cavity was also bruised, but it was not struck or torn open by the bullet either.

Those are facts. Undeniable facts. (Unless you want to call the autopsy doctors liars.)

In my own opinion (which you are free to ignore if you wish), you, Mr. Gordon, are very likely attempting to micro-analyze the President's wounds (and their precise location in relation to the major organs of the body) in a fashion that probably cannot be done via standard schematics and charts and diagrams, etc.

I'm not saying that JFK's bodily organs and ribcage weren't located in the general locations where the standard anatomical charts place those organs and ribs, but I think we probably can agree that every human being is physically different in one way or another from other human beings.

One such example being: the precise location of JFK's mastoid process behind his right ear. When compared to another human being with a slightly different physique and build and neck length (etc.), if we were to measure 14cm. down from the tip of the mastoid process, we would likely get different results from person to person, with any "wound" located in the upper back being slightly lower or higher on the back depending upon that person's physical features.

Would you agree with me, James, on the above evaluation?

Each individual is unique in many ways. And attempting to make JFK's specific wound locations fit into the mold of a standard anatomical chart is, in my opinion, a potential mistake on the part of the person performing such an evaluation.

Now, yes, James, maybe JFK's body perfectly fits and matches every anatomy chart and diagram you'd care to post at this forum. Could be. I don't know for sure. But human beings being what they are--different from one another in a variety of very subtle ways--don't you think there might be room for some doubt about your conclusion that there was no way for a single bullet to have passed through President Kennedy's body in the manner suggested by the Single-Bullet Theory?

And my last question is particularly relevant and logical since we know for a fact that the lung that you say would be hit by the SBT bullet was in fact bruised by the passage of a bullet that was inside JFK's body.

So we're really only talking about a very small difference in the measurements here. I.E., the small difference between a bullet actually hitting JFK's right lung vs. a bullet passing so close to that lung that it caused bruising of the lung.

Is that very small difference enough to make you totally discount the notion that the bullet didn't strike the right lung of John Kennedy, but merely passed very close to it?


In Summary:

Regardless of your charts and diagrams and supreme knowledge of anatomy, this FACT remains:

The bullet that went into JFK's upper back did not directly strike the lungs and did not strike any other bony structure within the body.

And this additional fact also remains (which is a very important fact that deserves to be pointed out at least once a day to the anti-SBT crowd on the Internet):

No bullets or large bullet fragments were found inside JFK's body.

So, James, since you think the SBT is bunk, please tell me what you think happened with regards to the bullet(s) that entered John F. Kennedy's upper torso on 11/22/63? How did one or more bullets manage to enter JFK's upper body, never exit, and yet cause no major damage (other than bruises) to the areas of the body that were violated by the bullet or bullets?

After all, even without a "Single-Bullet Theory" and even without a "CE399", President Kennedy was injured by at least one rifle bullet in the upper back and neck regions on November 22nd, 1963. And in my view, the SBT fits like a glove. Whereas, any non-SBT theory reeks with far more speculation and uncertainties (and, of course, vanishing bullets) than does the single-bullet scenario.


The Very Bottom Line---

No one will ever be able to fight the overall logic and common sense of the Single-Bullet Theory. That logic and common sense will always be there. And even with the craziness of the HSCA's "throat wound is higher" declaration; and even with the wholly inaccurate CE386 staring us in the face (and I'll readily admit that the wounds depicted in CE386 are not accurate at all--including the head entry wound)....the SBT is still by far the most logical and reasonable solution to the double-man wounding of JFK and John Connally on 11/22/63. And that logic and reasoned thinking is expressed very nicely in the Walter Cronkite quote shown at the bottom of this post.

Therefore, seeing as how there were indeed some men on the Warren Commission and HSCA who knew how to utilize a tiny bit of common sense when asking themselves the key question of "Where could that bullet have gone?", then both of those committees (the WC and the HSCA) were pretty much forced, via common sense and logic alone, to arrive at the following conclusions (with CBS News mirroring the Warren Commission's common sense regarding the SBT in 1967):



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

"The forensic pathology panel concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each of which entered from the rear. The panel further concluded that the President was struck by one bullet that entered in the upper right of the back and exited from the front of the throat, and one bullet that entered in the right rear of the head near the cowlick area and exited from the right side of the head, toward the front. .... There is no medical evidence that the President was struck by a bullet entering the front of the head, and the possibility that a bullet could have struck the President and yet left no evidence is extremely remote. .... Based on the evidence available to it, the panel concluded that a single bullet passing through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally would support a fundamental conclusion that the President was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each fired from behind. Thus, the forensic pathology panel's conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory advanced by the Warren Commission." -- HSCA Final Report; Pages 43-44

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

"Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult to believe the Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe the other theories is even MORE difficult. If the Governor's wounds were caused by a separate bullet, then we must believe that a bullet passed through the President's neck, emerged at high velocity on a course that was taking it directly into the middle of the automobile, and then vanished without a trace. Or, we can complicate matters even further--as some do--by adding a second assassin, who fires almost simultaneously with Oswald and whose bullet travels miraculously a trajectory identical with Oswald's and that second assassin, too, vanishes without a trace. Difficult to believe as the Single-Bullet Theory may be, it seems to be the LEAST difficult of all those that are available. In the end, like the [Warren] Commission, we are persuaded that a single bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally." -- Walter Cronkite; "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report"; June 1967

David Von Pein
June 2012







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 210)


PATRICK SPEER SAID:

>>> "Dr. Clark, who declared Kennedy's death, believed Kennedy's large head wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, and that the throat wound was either an entrance of the bullet exiting the skull, or an exit of a piece of bone from the head wound. This suggests he was open to the idea there were two head wounds as well, and that a bullet had descended in the neck." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And did Kemp Clark perform the autopsy?

Face it, Pat, you've got nowhere to go with your "3 SHOTS HIT KENNEDY" made-up theory....because it has no basis in fact at all. None. There is no evidence anywhere to indicate that JFK was struck by more than TWO bullets. None. Only theories. And you're happy with your theories (evidently). I'm happier, however, with the provable and verifiable FACT that President Kennedy was wounded by only TWO bullets on 11/22/63.


>>> "Now riddle me this, why does Bugliosi say Kellerman heard a third shot, just as he was getting on the radio, when Kellerman testified to hearing a "flurry of shots" at this time?" <<<

Your mind wandered, eh? (Or is this still the same "3 Shots Hit JFK" subject?) ~shrug~

To answer your riddle -- I haven't the foggiest. Go ask Vince.

But you know what Roy Kellerman's "flurry" was, don't you? It's obvious once you know what the real evidence is. Kellerman was obviously hearing the sound of the ONE single head-shot bullet fragmenting in the front of the limousine, right next to Kellerman's ear in the front seat -- i.e., the fragmented head-shot bullet striking the windshield and also striking the chrome topping near the windshield.

Hence, Kellerman said he heard "a flurry of shells come into the car."

BTW, within Roy Kellerman's Warren Commission testimony, we also find this interesting passage regarding the specific number of gunshots he heard that day:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "You have drawn a conclusion, in effect, by saying that there were four wounds for the President and three wounds for the Governor; and from that, you say there must have been more than three shots in your opinion or your view. But my question is: Do you have any current recollection of having heard more than three shots?"

ROY KELLERMAN -- "No, I don't. I will have to say no."

David Von Pein
May 1, 2008






JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 209)


BEN HOLMES SAID:

>>> "Even though DVP is a cowardly liar who continually refuses to support his own words..." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ben The Kook evidently wants to think that all of the things I listed
earlier are dead wrong. Well, here they are again:

1.) JFK was shot in the upper back by one (approx.) 6.5-mm bullet.

2.) X-rays revealed that no bullets or bullet fragments of any kind
remained in JFK's neck and upper-back regions (or anywhere else in his
body either, not counting the head).

3.) No significant-enough damage was done to any part of President
Kennedy's neck or upper-back regions to explain why a bullet,
presumably travelling at full velocity (and why we would assume
anything else here), would suddenly stop all forward motion after
striking only the soft tissues of Kennedy's upper back. (Although,
yes, Dr. Humes did initially speculate that a bullet had, indeed,
possibly stopped after travelling just a few inches into the soft
tissues of JFK's upper back. But that's all Humes COULD do at that
point in time, i.e., speculate about just such an unlikely occurrence,
given the fact that the doctors couldn't find a corresponding exit
wound for the bullet, and given the fact there wasn't a bullet to be
found in the body.)

4.) Even if a full tracking/dissection of the neck area had been done
at the autopsy, Humes (et al) still would probably not have known for
certain that the trach wound in JFK's throat masked a bullet hole
until the following morning after Dr. Humes spoke with Parkland doctor
Malcolm Perry.

Now, in hindsight, yes, it would have been nice if the Kennedy family
hadn't interfered (to some degree) with the autopsy. And it would have
also been nice (to keep the CTers' yaps shut about it) if the autopsy
had been performed by Dr. Rose under Dallas County jurisdiction.

But these things didn't happen, and we must deal with them as best we
can. The Kennedy family, by all accounts, did interfere with the
autopsy and pose certain restrictions and limitations on what was to
be done by the autopsists. And Kennedy's body was removed from Dallas
(technically against the law, yes).

But it was Kenny O'Donnell and Larry O'Brien who ultimately were
responsible for bulldozing that casket out of the Parkland corridors.
And if some conspiracy kooks want to pretend that both O'Donnell
and O'Brien, two trusted friends and aides of JFK, were part of some
crazy cover-up plot after the assassination -- well, let 'em think that.
It certainly won't be the first time a conspiracy nut has theorized about
something stupid and insane.


>>> "His [DVP's] question, of course, is in answer to my two questions -- which, unfortunately, he must have proven too cowardly to address. Here they are again: [1.] Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors?" <<<

Already fully answered by Dr. Pierre A. Finck himself [HERE] -- the Kennedy family requested certain limitations on the autopsy. Period. Done deal. Mark VII. Go home. Give it a rest.

Why does this need to be stated to Kook Ben over and over again? Why?

But, one more time for the CTer sitting in the top row of Kook Stadium:

DR. FINCK -- "There were restrictions coming from the [Kennedy] family
and we were told at the time of autopsy that the autopsy should be
limited to certain parts of the body. For example, autopsy limited to
the head and modest extension but there were restrictions. .... From
what I remember we did not remove the organs of the neck because of
the restrictions."


>>> "[2.] Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?" <<<

And one MORE time for Kook Benji:

"From what I remember we did not remove the organs of the neck
because of the restrictions." -- Pierre A. Finck; 1978


>>> "Now, considering that I fully and completely answered his question -- does anyone really think that DVP will answer the two original questions that he's already proven to have ducked?" <<<

Already been answered. Many times, in fact. And answered by many
different people over the years too. Benji just simply doesn't like
the "Kennedy Family Interfered" answer.

I guess Ben wants to pretend that the "Kennedy Family Interfered"
answer is wrong....or: that RFK and Jackie were prime conspirators in
the covert plot to cover-up the true nature of JFK's wounds.

Ben has no choice but to believe in one of those two options I just
offered up above (if Ben wants to believe that the lack of neck
dissection on JFK's body leads to something shady and "conspiratorial",
that is).

I wonder which of those two incorrect CT-favoring options Ben The Kook
will choose. Any chance he'll tell us? Or would he rather remain a
pussy hiding behind his "killfilter" for at least one more day? Even
though his "filter" is just a pussy excuse to hide when he feels like
hiding, of course; since, as we just saw, the Mega-Kook responded to
me (an LNer who has been "killed" by Pussy Ben) with a long rant a
little bit ago.

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

A RELATED BOOK PASSAGE FOLLOWS:

"The reality is that technically speaking, the autopsy was not a “complete” one, since the neck organs were not removed (7 HSCA 191–192).

"While reviewing the autopsy report the morning of November 24, 1963, Dr. Finck told Dr. Humes that he didn’t think the box next to “complete autopsy” should be checked because their examination was confined to the head and chest, largely owing to the wishes of the Kennedy family.

"Humes disagreed, saying that the box for “complete autopsy” should be checked because the autopsy had accomplished its objective—to determine the number and direction of the bullets and the cause of death. Finck subsequently conceded and signed the report. (AFIP Record 205-10001-10002, Memorandum, Dr. Finck to Brigadier Gen. J. M. Blumberg, Personal notes on the Assassination of President Kennedy, February 1, 1965, p.4; also ARRB MD 28; ARRB MD 30, Transcript of Dr. Finck’s testimony before the HSCA medical panel, March 11, 1978, p.110)"
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 221 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

David Von Pein
April 30, 2008



JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 208)


VIA DR. PIERRE FINCK'S HSCA TESTIMONY:

Dr. FINCK. There were restrictions coming from the [Kennedy] family
and we were told at the time of autopsy that the autopsy should be
limited to certain parts of the body. For example, autopsy limited to
the head and modest extension but there were restrictions.

Dr. PETTY. The autopsy was limited then at least to the head as far as
you begin with.

Dr. FINCK. For example, from what I remember we did not remove the
organs of the neck because of the restrictions.

Dr. PETTY. Was an examination of the organs in the thoracic area
permitted?

Dr. FINCK. Yes, because there was an extension after those preliminary
restrictions were mentioned. The lungs were removed.

[Later....]

Dr. PETTY. Now is it your knowledge then or concept that someone must
have been in communication with the family so that these restrictions
could be altered as it became necessary?

Dr. FINCK. It is difficult for me to answer that question because we
did what we were told and it is hard for me to say -- well, the
sequence is difficult for me to establish. .... Maybe I can help you
here. Maybe Admiral Galloway who was in charge of the center, as I
remember -- he was the one as far as I can remember communicating
those restrictions to us.

Dr. PETTY. I see. And the restrictions were modified however.

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. As you went on.

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

DR. FINCK'S HSCA TESTIMONY

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

I guess some conspiracy theorists think that if a complete
"dissection" of the neck area of JFK had been performed, the end
result of the autopsy would have been completely different than what
it was.

That type of conspiracy argument is, of course, nonsense. Even without
a full tracking/dissection of the neck region of the President, the following
things were still quite obvious to all three autopsists:

1.) JFK was shot in the upper back by one (approx.) 6.5-mm bullet.

2.) X-rays revealed that no bullets or bullet fragments of any kind
remained in JFK's neck and upper-back regions (or anywhere else in his
body either, not counting the head).

3.) No significant enough damage was done to any part of President
Kennedy's neck or upper-back regions to explain why a bullet,
presumably travelling at full velocity (and why we would assume
anything else here), would suddenly stop all forward motion after
striking only the soft tissues of Kennedy's upper back. (Although,
yes, Dr. Humes did initially speculate that a bullet had, indeed,
possibly stopped after travelling just a few inches into the soft
tissues of JFK's upper back. But that's all Humes COULD do at that
point in time--i.e., speculate about just such an unlikely occurrence,
given the fact that the doctors couldn't find a corresponding exit
wound for the bullet, and given the fact there wasn't a bullet to be
found in the body.)

4.) Even if a full tracking/dissection of the neck area had been done
at the autopsy, Humes (et al) still would probably not have known for
certain that the trach wound in JFK's throat masked a bullet hole
until the following morning after Dr. Humes spoke with Parkland doctor
Malcolm Perry.*

* = It was completely idiotic, IMO, for Humes & Company to not have
picked up a phone and called Parkland while JFK was still on the
autopsy table. I've maintained that this delay in calling Perry was
probably the biggest mistake of all that was made by the autopsists.
Just....dumb. But, Humes decided to wait until the next day to call
Parkland, a time when no further examination of JFK's body could, of
course, be done. So, that's what we have to live with. A stupid,
stupid error, IMO....but that's life.

Now, can somebody tell me how a "dissection" of JFK's neck organs
would have substantially changed any of the above factors, findings,
and conclusions regarding the bullet that so obviously entered John F.
Kennedy's upper back, struck no bones at all, and made its exit where
the trach wound was located in the lower part of the throat?

David Von Pein
April 30, 2008






JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 207)


STEVE TROWBRIDGE SAID:

>>> "It seems that [Pat Speer's] explanation for the bullet found on the stretcher was that it fell out of Kennedy's back wound. It seems patently obvious that that couldn't have been the case since a bullet that had stopped so quickly would have been damaged far more, and in a far different manner, than the bullet that was found." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes. Plus there's the simple fact that JFK's stretcher was never in an
area of the hospital where the bullet was found by Darrell Tomlinson.
Nor was Kennedy's body ever in that area of the hospital where the
bullet was found.

Which has to mean (sans any silly unsupportable "planting" theory as
an alternative) that CE399 had to have been found on Connally's
stretcher -- which further solidifies the SBT...and in two additional
ways really.

One of the ways being: Connally was hit by only one bullet--which HAD
to be CE399, since 399 HAD to have come off Connally's stretcher,
seeing as how it could not possibly have come off of the stretcher
occupied by the ONLY OTHER PERSON hit by ammunition from Oswald's
rifle on 11/22/63--John F. Kennedy.

The second way being: The bullet (CE399) couldn't have gotten into
Connally unless it passed through JFK's body first (given the vantage
point of Oswald's shooting perch on the 6th Floor of the Depository,
and the time when the men were being shot in their respective upper
backs, via the Zapruder Film).

JFK's body was between Oswald and Connally at this crucial "SBT" time.
There is no question about that fact, and the FBI's reconstruction
tests in Dealey Plaza on May 24, 1964, confirmed this fact.

Plus, the image below (taken from Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide"
computer animation project, which is a computer model that has been
"Key Framed" right into the Zapruder Film itself) also verifies the fact
that there would have been no chance in Hades of a gunman in the
TSBD's Sniper's Nest being able to hit John Connally with a separate
bullet (in the location on JBC's upper back where we KNOW HE WAS
HIT) at the point in time when the Zapruder Film indicates he was
hit by a bullet:



Therefore, given these basic and extremely-easy-to-determine facts,
the bullet that struck Connally had NO CHOICE but to have gone through
the body of President Kennedy first.

William of Occam (and his handy Razor) should rule this case, instead of
theorists like Mark Lane, Bob Groden, Oliver Stone, David Lifton, Jim Fetzer,
and John Armstrong (et al).

David Von Pein
April 28, 2008



JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 206)


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "It was the type of tape that is dispensed from a "wet" machine; so he [LHO] couldn't take tape with him." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You are right about this particular "wet machine" point. (I'll admit, I haven't memorized every last word ever spoken by witnesses about the TSBD tape dispenser.)

FROM TROY WEST'S WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY:

DAVID W. BELIN -- "If I wanted to use any of that tape, you know the tape you use to seal it, is there a way to make the tape wet so I don't have to lick it myself with my tongue to make it wet and sticky? Or how do you get it to be sticky and stick together?"

TROY E. WEST -- "Well, we have those machines with the little round ball that we fill them up with water, and so we set them up. .... We put out tape in a machine, and whenever we pull the tape through...it gets water on it as we pull it through."

MR. BELIN -- "If I wanted to...pull off a piece without getting water on it, would I just lift it up without going over the wet roller and get the tape without getting it wet?"

MR. WEST -- "You would have to take it out. You would have to take it out of the machine. See, it's put on there and then run through a little clamp that holds it down, and you pull it, well, then the water, it gets water on it."

---------

But even with the "wet" tape machine being used at the Depository, Oswald could still have taken some dry pieces of tape (or a roll of the tape) from the TSBD, and then "wet" the tape somewhere else, such as in the Paine garage. That scenario is far from being impossible or beyond all belief.


>>> "Why didn't Wes Frazier mention the noise of a disassemble[d] gun in a bag as proof it was a gun and not curtain rods?" <<<

Huh?

Whether the package contained "curtain rods" or the item that it so obviously did contain (Oswald's dismantled Carcano rifle), the contents of the bag would still possibly result in the clanking of metal against metal.

You're really sounding desperate now in your desire to clear the name of your favorite guy named Lee. One can only wonder why so many kooks around here expend so much energy in inventing so many ways to try and exonerate a double-killer? A remarkably silly hobby, to say the least.


>>> "Do you think [it] would have made no noise as LHO carried it and laid it down on the back seat? Or when Wes made turns in the car?" <<<

You're reaching (again).

For one thing, Frazier wasn't even present at the car when Oswald placed the bag in the back seat. Wesley was still inside his house at that time.

And you think the rifle parts would be clanking like bowling pins in a bowling alley (or something similarly noisy) as a result of Wesley Frazier turning some corners in his '53 Chevy?

You're reaching (yet again).

Plus: Even if Wesley were to hear some "metal against metal" sounds coming from the bag--so what? He thinks there IS something metal (curtain rods) in the paper bag. Was Wesley supposed to be able to detect a rifle in the bag, merely via the SOUND of the metal clanking?

Robby, just admit it -- you're desperate to clear the name of your hero. The bigger question is -- Why?


CURTAIN ROD ADDENDUM:

BTW, there's another very good reason to know beyond all reasonable doubt that Lee Oswald was telling a whopper of a lie when he told Buell Wesley Frazier that he wanted to go to Irving on Thursday in order to retrieve some curtain rods.

That reason is:

Because Lee Oswald (via Marina's testimony) was very hopeful that he could convince Marina to move back to Dallas with him the very next day (November 22).

Therefore, it's fairly obvious that LHO had no intention whatsoever of remaining at his Beckley Avenue roominghouse very much longer at all. Therefore, he would certainly not be wanting (or needing) any curtain rods for a room that he knew he would probably very soon be vacating!

David Von Pein
April 28, 2008