(PART 200)




>>> "Thus, it seems, a shot from the rear will move an object in [the] direction of its flight, but one from the front will not." <<<


Why on Earth are you saying something silly like this? Vince Bugliosi
certainly never, ever implied any such stupid thing.

The reason you won't find any initial bodily movement going BACKWARD
in the Z-Film is due to the fact that no shot hit a victim from the
front. Period. (And Duh!)

BTW, another good example of a bullet from the rear pushing a victim
FORWARD (in the direction the bullet is travelling) is at Zapruder
frame 224, when we can watch John Connally's right shoulder being
pushed slightly FORWARD and DOWNWARD by the impact of the SBT bullet
striking him at exactly Z224 (and that's not even counting the
additional sign of the bullet striking at exactly that Z-Frame, i.e.,
the lapel of Connally's coat being moved significantly also at Z224).

Mr. Bugliosi, however, feels that the precise "SBT" Z-Frame cannot be
determined beyond all reasonable doubt...and I can appreciate that
conclusion by Vince. After all, the Warren Commission said the same
thing via its "range" of frames for the SBT hit at Z210-Z225.

But I'll wager the homestead I could convince Vince that Connally and
Kennedy were, indeed, hit at exactly Z224, via the following excellent
toggling 2-frame Z-Film clip, which I'm pretty sure VB has never seen
(although I'm perplexed, to a degree, as to why Dale Myers couldn't
convince Vince of the 223-224 SBT hit). ~shrug~ .....


>>> "He [Vincent Bugliosi] blindly accepts the word of his friends/contacts at the CIA that they had "no operational interest in LHO", when documentary evidence from the ARRB and even before them proves otherwise." <<<

And just how did the ARRB "prove" that?

Vince B. has an interesting line of thought on the CIA (one which is
really quite humorous...and forthright, IMO). Let's listen:

"Even though normally innocent they insist on acting guilty so
that conspiracy theorists will have more fodder for their charges.
(They do so because being innocent, they have no guilty conscience and
continue to be angered and shocked when they are later accused of a
-- VB

"The CIA had nothing to hide in thousands of previous documents
the agency initially refused to release voluntarily but ultimately did
release under court order. The CIA specializes in always acting
guilty, even when it is not, and always being, from a public relations
standpoint, its own worst enemy."
-- VB

"To the point, arguably, of perversity, the silly spooks at
Langley--like the pathological liar who lies even when it would be to
his benefit to tell the truth--will fight Morley and his lawyer every
inch of the way, thereby helping them, every inch of the way, to
convince everyone that it has something to hide--Joannides's and
perhaps its own complicity in the assassination. .... Joannides and
the CIA conspired with Oswald to kill Kennedy as much as you and I
-- VB


>>> "Some might think it was CE 399 [that went into JFK and stopped]." <<<

Not even remotely possible, of course (and Tony [Marsh] knows this
full well...he just wants to argue the obvious), because Kennedy's
stretcher was never even close to that corridor where CE399 was found
by Tomlinson. Why this major fact is totally ignored by many CTers can
only elicit a shoulder shrug from yours truly.


>>> "How about Posner's bullet which hits a tree branch which strips off the jacket entirely allowing the lead core to go on to hit the curb near Tague?" <<<

That's what I certainly believe happened--although, admittedly, it's
just a guess...but I think it's by far the best guess, and it's a
guess that solves two problems.

One, if the bullet hit the tree and separated the jacket from the lead
core....the lead can go on out to hit Main St. and then Tague; hence,
no copper tracing on the curb. Perfectly reasonable, IMO.

Two, with the bullet now split into two parts, the copper jacket can
strike Elm St., resulting in the "sparks" that some witnesses said
they saw near JFK's limo. While the other portion of the bullet can
separately go on out to meet Mr. Tague.

I completely disagree with Vince Bugliosi's explanation re the first-
shot miss and the Tague wounding...which, btw, Vince only briefly
mentions in his book. He gives the whole matter two short paragraphs
on pages 471 and 472.

Vince thinks that the first Oswald (missed) shot hit the Elm pavement
on the fly, and then the same bullet (somehow) finds its way (at grass
level) over to Main Street to hit the Main curb and cause Tague's
cheek injury.

I, myself, find that hopping & skipping bullet scenario hard to
swallow, although I cannot disprove it, of course; nor can anyone
else. Since we're talking about a shot that missed the limo occupants
and was never recovered, all we can do is guess. But I find Posner's
"guess" to be the best guess....in that it can explain multiple
questions re. the shooting -- e.g., the sparks on the Elm pavement and
the non-copper tracings on the Main curb and Tague's wounding.

I respect Vince Bugliosi's opinion re the first shot at Z160...I just
don't agree with his complete scenario of the path that bullet
followed on November 22. (At least we agree about one thing about the
first shot though -- when it was fired by Oswald -- Z160. I agree with
VB on that 100%.)

As a footnote to the above discussion re the Tague wounding --- I
must also point out that Mr. Bugliosi does mention in "Reclaiming
History" (in an endnote on the CD-ROM disc that comes with the book)
that Gerald Posner's tree-branch deflection theory "is possible" (VB;
footnote on page 315 of endnotes).


>>> "In the end, I tend to agree with the line in [Oliver Stone's film] "JFK", about how the only good reason to wait until the limo is on Elm is to get the triangulation of fire into effect." <<<

Not a chance....especially within the framework of the type of crazy
PRE-arranged multi-gun, 1-patsy plot that Stone and Garrison have
advocated over the years.

What in the world would have been going through the plotters' heads
when pre-arranging such a stupid, impossible-to-pull-off Patsy Plot
like that? Were they ALL total morons?

If just one non-LHO shot hits anyone in Dealey Plaza, the ballgame's
over. Period. And via Stone's "JFK", it doesn't even appear that
Oswald's rifle is even used AT ALL during the shooting. Again...were
total morons leading this group of assassins?

They attempt to frame a solo patsy named Oswald (per Oliver's silly
film), but they don't even bother firing a single shot from Oz's
rifle? Per the film, three shells are "planted" below the sniper's window
after the shooting, indicating that not a single bullet was actually fired
from the "planted" Carcano.

Idiots all!

Back to reality.....

Oswald waited to fire until the cars were on Elm Street. The exact
reasons he did this? -- Who can know for certain. Nobody can. But the
sum total of evidence says he DID do this. (Oliver Stone's unbelievably
stupid "Triangulation Of Crossfire Within A Single-Patsy Assassination
Plan" notwithstanding.)


>>> "The missing weight of CE399 comes from a piece being taken off the bullet for testing by the government." <<<

And once more, per the above belief about CE399's weight, we have
virtual proof that whoever the people were who decided to "plant" or
"switch" the Parkland bullet were (without question) total morons.

I.E.: Somebody decided to plant (or switch) the bullet(s)....and they
decided it was wise to place "CE399" into evidence, a bullet that (per
the idiocy spelled out by the CTer above) had absolutely NO GRAINS
MISSING from its total weight AFTER it supposedly went through at
least one of the two Dealey Plaza victims.

Can these plotters get any more feeble? Is it truly POSSIBLE to be
that stupid?

Yes, a goodly portion of the missing 2+ grains of CE399 could very
well be portions the Government sliced off of the bullet for testing.

But CTers still haven't a leg to stand on....because not all of the
fragments taken out of Connally were weighed officially (that I'm
aware of) and, therefore, we can only guess as to the total weight
(and the weight of the very small flakes left inside JBC as well).

And, as previously mentioned, the TOTAL WEIGHT of all the fragments in
question is very, very small....and certainly is a total weight that
does not exclude CE399 as being the bullet that could have deposited
those fragments in Mr. Connally's body.

And common sense alone tells a rational person (i.e., a person who
isn't inclined to scream "It was planted!" every time he turns around)
that CE399 HAD to have been inside Governor Connally's body.

Given the sum total of evidence, CE399 is the ONLY POSSIBLE BULLET
that could have been inside John Connally's body on November 22,


E-Mail Subject: Hi Jerry [Dealey] (JFK Chatter)
Date: 7/30/2007
From: David Von Pein
To: Jerry Dealey


Hi again Jerry,

Thanks for the link to your "Bothered" webpage. I had not seen that
page before.

Some good thoughts in your "Bothered" article (as always). But I think
a whole bunch of the things that "Bother" you can be reconciled with
the following explanation from Mr. Bugliosi.

This VB statement below wouldn't negate the whole notion of a
conspiracy BEHIND Oswald's lone-gunman actions, true....but I think it
makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of arriving at the FACT that
Lee Oswald shot JFK (which is a raw fact that so many conspiracists
simply refuse to accept):

"With respect to the Kennedy assassination, once you establish
and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also
NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known
or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged
discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists
have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt."
-- Vincent
Bugliosi; Page 953 of "Reclaiming History"

As you know, so many people tend to micro-analyze every tiny little
thing surrounding the JFK case. Everything is looked at with a wary
eye of potential "conspiracy"; when, in fact, all of these things that
CTers "over-manage" (IMO) do not necessarily lead down a "CT" path at

For example -- Take two very small incidents that Vince mentions (at
some length too) in his book -- the "Dial Ryder" incident (where an
Oswald-like person had a scope mounted on a rifle prior to
11/22)...and the "Bogard" incident (which has "Oswald" taking a high-
speed test drive in a new car shortly before the assassination).

Those things are certainly "fringe" things, at best. But to hear the
kooks at the various forums tell it, these things (in some way)
"prove" a conspiracy existed, with these "imposter Oswalds" running
all around Dallas.

But CTers fail to see the built-in illogic being exhibited by any
string-pullers and "patsy"-creators when it comes to incidents like
this. The CTers who think things like this lead down a CT path must
also think that the plotters were performing these peripheral NEEDLESS
acts of silliness to frame Oswald, even though each of these incidents
goes against the grain of the overall patsy plot they are trying to
pull off.

Example: The "used car" incident has Oswald apparently telling the car
dealer he'd be coming into some money in "2 or 3 weeks". That'd be
silly for any plotters to do....i.e., to essentially tell people that
Oswald will be PAID for something he'll be doing right about the time
of the assassination! Just...dumb.

And in the Ryder example, evidently some Oswald imposter was getting a
scope mounted on a NON-Carcano rifle (which is a weapon the plotters
won't be using to frame their patsy with on 11/22 anyway).

So what were these plotters trying to do here? Were they trying to
blow their plot wide open by announcing to the world (in a fashion)
that Oswald had a SECOND rifle in his possession, when we know he
really had only one rifle, his Carcano?

Anyway, those are just 2 of the dozens of similar examples of things
that GO NOPLACE, but CTers love to dredge them up anyway...because
such CTers fail to see the inherent illogic of these things; and those
same CTers, let's face it, WANT a conspiracy in this case. They NEED
it. And they'll do whatever it takes and skew as much evidence as
possible in order to work the word "conspiracy" into this murder case.
Simple as that.

Because, to borrow from VB once again, to face the Oswald Probably Did
It Alone
reality is, for them, to forfeit a large section of their
lives. And who likes the idea of doing that?

David Von Pein


>>> "If VB doesn't say that LHO didn't do any work all day long, why comment on an unfilled order when half a day's work remains to be done?" <<<

Fair point, Gerry, I'll readily admit that.

>>> "Did VB speak further on this?" <<<

I don't think so. But it's possible he mentions it further in an
endnote. There's so much stuff in the book, it's difficult to say for
sure if one particular small sub-topic is dealt with or not. It's
possible that it is dealt with further; but I just cannot recall at
this time.

But, IMO, the biggest factor concerning the clipboard incident (if we can
even call it an "incident"; I'd prefer to say the "clipboard placement") is,
in fact, the LOCATION where that clipboard was found -- very near those
stairs and very near the boxes where Oswald (without a shred of a doubt,
given the sum total of evidence that tells us he's guilty) stashed the
rifle after the shooting.

Whether or not there were 3 or 33 unfilled orders on the clipboard
isn't really too germane to this issue, in my view. I suppose it could
be considered a small factor in the wake of the events that did
transpire that same day...i.e., LHO's mind was elsewhere (on killing a
President and figuring out how he could do it in privacy) on November
22; therefore he shirked his regular Depository duties.

But we know that Oswald did perform at least a little bit of his
regular TSBD work on November 22. We know this via the following
portion of James Jarman's WC testimony:

MR. BALL -- "Did you talk to Oswald that morning [11/22/63]?"

MR. JARMAN -- "I did."

MR. BALL -- "When?"

MR. JARMAN -- "I had him to correct an order. I don't know exactly
what time it was."

I suppose I could start speculating further on this rather peripheral
matter of Oswald needing to have one of his November 22nd TSBD book
orders "corrected" by the "checker" (which was Jarman's job at the
Book Depository at the time).

Perhaps I should start talking about how Oswald's mind was on other
things that morning....and therefore he wasn't able to concentrate on
filling his book orders accurately....and therefore one or more of his
orders had to be "corrected" after Checker James Jarman took a look
at them.

That could conceivably move in the direction of Lee Harvey Oswald's
11/22 mindset too....don't you agree?

Could be. But nobody can know for sure, of course.


>>> "Do you know anything about how bullets are identified as having been fired from a particular gun?" <<<

Oh, I'm sure you (a kook) think you know a whole lot more about
firearms identification techniques than the guy who was assigned as

You must know WAY more than Robert A. Frazier of the FBI. Right?

So, why not tell us how Frazier lied through his teeth...over and over

I like fantasy. And the tripe being spewed by a Super-Kook named Walt
could fill a whole library with such fiction.


>>> "The SBT stands debunked, and the counter scenario outlined here fits all the established evidence." <<<

Bull. You've got ZERO bullets to back up any anti-SBT scenario. None.
Where did the bullets go? Where?

And where's the JFK neck/back damage from those two non-transiting
missiles? Where?

And where are the many fragments that SHOULD be present in JFK's neck/
back if TWO bullets just stopped? Where are the fragments? Those
bullets hit something to stop them, didn't they? So, what was it that
stopped TWO bullets inside Kennedy's body?

Plus: Where's the Connally bullet? (I.E., the "real" one, if you think
399 is a 'plant' -- you surely think it was planted, right? Virtually
all CTers do.)

Why aren't these simple questions EVER answered by the ant-SBT bunch?

(I'll answer that --- They CAN'T be answered logically, or with a
straight face.)


>>> "These LN idiots promote the "factoid" that the coat was bunched in defense of their belief that there was an entry hole in the base of the neck." <<<

Think again. No LNer thinks the upper-back wound was/is in the "neck".
It is where it is -- 14cm. south of Mr. Mastoid Process, just like
Boswell said.

And, as Jean Davison has so magnificently conveyed, any movement of
that wound NORTHWARD destroys the SBT trajectory. Just look.


>>> "There is at least one major book coming out near the same time which hopefully will help to offset [Bugliosi's] nonsense." <<<

Yeah, I think Fetzer, Groden, Marrs, and Lane are releasing a 64,500-page
[Harper & Row; $79.95 MRP; ISBN: 0039-415-00989].


>>> "Here is what the evidence indicates: First bullet through JFK's neck (and planted butt-first in JBC's thigh): CE399. ... Second bullet went through JBC's chest, wrist." <<<

Bull. The evidence supports no such nonsense.

Your first-bullet scenario is totally impossible, given the [approx.]
1,775fps velocity of the bullet coming out of JFK's neck. It would
have certainly shattered Connally's femur at that speed, plus done
lots more leg damage to boot (per Lattimer's tests and via WC
testimony from others with an opinion on the matter as well).

And your second bullet scenario is also impossible for another variety
of reasons -- The most obvious is: NO WAY THAT BULLET GETS TO

Plus, without going through JFK, his wrist would probably have been
pulverized beyond repair. Lattimer did tests on that too, with much-
greater wrist damage sustained by mock JBCs if the bullet does not go
through a simulated neck first.

You can spit on Dr. Lattimer's tests if you so desire -- but try to
answer this:

How likely is it that virtually EVERY test that John K. Lattimer
performed with a Carcano rifle and WCC/MC ammunition would end up
supporting and buttressing the general "LN" scenario if, in fact,
multiple shots from varying angles had actually struck the victims?

Were the plotters so incredibly fortunate that even SIMULATIONS and
exacting RE-CREATIONS of the shooting variables and evidence could be
duplicated with such sterling "Pro-LN" results (even when, per CTers,
the shooting was really achieved in a totally different, multi-gun

Is there no END to the conspirators' good fortune?


E-Mail Subject: Shaw, Ferrie, Oswald, And The CT-Kooks
Date: 2/26/2007
From: David Von Pein
To: Patrick Collins


Hi Pat:

I'm unable to answer your question re Tannenbaum specifically, but
here is the photo in question, supposedly showing Ferrie, Shaw, and
Oswald together:

Now, Pat, if you can positively identify ANYONE in that miserable-
looking picture, then you're a much better man than I.

It's just another murky, cloudy "What If?" for the conspiracy kooks to
drag out of their stale closet every so often, in an attempt to tie
those three guys together. And even if they DO tie them together,
there's still not a speck of hard evidence to show that the threesome
conspired to kill JFK.

And, almost of equal importance, there's no hard evidence to show that
the Government would have then had a desire (following the
assassination) to frame the VERY SAME PATSY that Shaw and Ferrie, et
al, wanted to frame for JFK's murder.

Are we to actually believe that some low-life druggie like Dave Ferrie
had the power and influence to make the United States Government want
to go along with the "Triangulation Of Crossfire" One-Patsy plot that
Oliver Stone advocates in his movie?

Now, granted, Mr. Shaw probably had a little more clout than Ferrie
(what with Shaw being a respected and leading businessman in New
Orleans), but I don't for one second believe that even Shaw had the
mighty clout to get the Government of our country to just go with the
"Oswald Did All Of This" flow following an assassination that involved
THREE different shooters.

That's where most rabid CTers make one of their biggest mistakes, IMO--
i.e., falling for such wild and crazy PRE-11/22 planning of an event that
wouldn't have been carried out in such a loony manner in a million years.
Which, IMO, is a major stepping stone to believing that such a Patsy Plot
never occurred in the first place.

David V.P.


>>> "My position is the same as 3 of the 7 members (Boggs, Russell, Cooper) of the Warren Commission." <<<

Senator Russell, for one, comes across as a total goofball (IMO). But,
then again, the 7 WC heads did virtually none of the hard work in
their investigation. Belin, Specter, Ball, and Liebeler (and a few
others) did the legwork. The WC merely observed from a distance most
of the time. Belin fully admits that in his forthright '73 book.

Or, to quote VB yet again:

"The Warren Commission might not have done much work, but its
staff was prodigious."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; 1992

Vince then goes on to correctly point out:

"He [Oliver Stone] deliberately twisted and warped the record.
There was nothing mysterious about Oswald's shots. The first was from
only 57 yards, the second from only 83 yards [sic]; all were fired at a
stagnant target with a favorable angle. My firearms guy says he was a
sitting duck."
-- VB


>>> "They (Ford) decided to go with that which worked for the SBT, the drawing, and therefore changed the wording in the final report from "back" to "neck"." <<<

The Rydberg drawing doesn't really "work" for the SBT....but the
ACTUAL autopsy photo (and the "14cm. from the Mastoid" measurement)
certainly work for it. Those two things most closely represent the
WC's SBT, as can easily be seen in CE903. The wound in is the UPPER
BACK, not the "NECK", via the CE903 demonstration:

Moving the wound UP to the neck doesn't enhance the SBT -- it ruins it.


>>> "...An unfixed point like the mastoid process..." <<<

Wrong. The mastoid is a fixed body landmark. But, then, I guess you
must know more than James Humes, huh? From Humes' ARRB testimony:

QUESTION -- "When you recorded it as being from the right mastoid
process, was it your understanding that the right mastoid process was
a fixed body landmark?

DR. HUMES -- "Oh, sure. It doesn't move around in most people. You're
really in trouble if it does."

David Von Pein
April 25, 2008 (Re-posted material)