Why are so many people running up the Grassy Knoll in the above photograph, which was taken just a few minutes after President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas' Dealey Plaza? Click HERE, HERE, and HERE for some of my thoughts on the matter.


As most people know, eyewitness and earwitness testimony is very
often the least dependable type of evidence to rely on with respect to
relating it to a particular crime that has been committed. And that
rule of thumb must also apply to the assassination of President
John F. Kennedy as well.

With respect to the earwitnesses who heard the gunfire resound through
Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963 (the day when JFK
was murdered by a single rifleman, Lee Harvey Oswald), there can be no
question that there were varied accounts of exactly where in that
park-like Plaza the gunshots had come from.

Many witnesses thought the shots had come from the now-famous
"Grassy Knoll" area in front of the President's limousine; while even a
larger percentage of witnesses heard shots from the direction of the
Texas School Book Depository Building to the rear of the car (a building
from where Mr. Oswald was physically seen firing a rifle at the President,
and a building wherein Oswald's own rifle was discovered 52 minutes
after President Kennedy's assassination).

So, which of the earwitnesses are right and who among them is wrong?
Or, are ALL of these witnesses to be considered "correct" in a sense,
in that shots were fired from both the front and the rear of Kennedy's

The answer to that last question is an undeniable (and provable) -- No.

The reason, in my view, that both "camps" of earwitnesses ("front" vs.
"rear") cannot each be accurate when it comes to what they heard is due
to an often ignored, overlooked, or buried statistic concerning these
same earwitnesses -- i.e., the number of them who heard shots coming

I like to drag out the following pie charts from John McAdams' website
every now and then, just to remind conspiracy theorists of the tough
fight they've got when it comes to putting a lot of faith in the
Dealey Plaza witnesses who said they heard shots coming from the
Grassy Knoll area:

The above "Where Did The Shots Come From?" chart illustrates a very
interesting thing about the Dealey Plaza assassination earwitnesses
who fall into the "Grassy Knoll" section of the chart -- it clearly illustrates

How does it illustrate that?


Since everybody knows, even all conspiracy theorists of the world
(except perhaps David S. Lifton), that at least SOME of the gunshots
originated from the REAR of Kennedy's limousine during the
assassination (otherwise, how on Earth can anybody--including Lifton--
logically explain the UPPER-BACK ENTRY WOUNDS to both President
Kennedy and Governor Connally?), then the 33.7% of the 104 witnesses
that comprise the data used for the above McAdams pie chart are wrong
when they said that ALL of the shots they heard (regardless of the
exact number of shots) came from ONLY the Grassy Knoll.

Are we really supposed to believe that those "Knoll Only" witnesses
somehow managed to hear MULTIPLE gunshots coming from the area of
the Grassy Knoll (and virtually all of those witnesses certainly heard
more than just ONE shot fired; in fact, probably all of them heard
multiple shots), and yet at the same time ALL of the people making up
that 33.7% of Dealey witnesses, incredibly, didn't hear a single one of
the known gunshots that originated from the Book Depository, which
was to the REAR of President Kennedy's car?

That's silly.

The key statistic, in my opinion, in the above pie chart is the
"Two Directions" pie slice. Only 4.8% of those 104 witnesses (which
is a mere FIVE witnesses out of 104!) said they heard gunshots coming
from TWO distinct and separate locations in Dealey Plaza.

[NOTE -- John McAdams updated his charts in 2013, with the new info
revealing that even FEWER people--a total of only three (Sam Holland,
Paul Landis, and A.J. Millican)--fall into the "Two Directions" category.
Click HERE and HERE.]

That's incredibly significant, especially when we consider the type of
multi-gun scenarios placed on the assassination table by people like
Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, and Robert Groden. Those conspiracy
theorists have conjured up scenarios which include a ridiculously
large number of shooters and gunshots -- with Garrison at one point in
1967 suggesting that "there were at least five or six shots fired at
the President from front and rear by at least four gunmen"! [Quoting
from Jim Garrison's October 1967 "Playboy" interview.]

And Oliver Stone put his nutsville "One Patsy" theory on the movie
screen, so it can be enjoyed and laughed at for all time--with Stone
thinking Oswald was being set up as a LONE PATSY even though Stone's
got THREE GUNMEN (and none of them Oswald, of course) and SIX gunshots
being fired at President Kennedy! Talk about wishful thinking!

And then there's Robert J. Groden, who thinks that as many as TEN
shots were fired at the President, coming from a whole host of
different locations in Dealey Plaza, both front and rear (see pages 20
through 40 of Groden's "The Killing Of A President" for more details
about Bob's overkill fantasy theory).

Here's what really happened with respect to those "Grassy Knoll"
witnesses (almost as assuredly as grass is green):

The 33% of "Knoll" earwitnesses quite obviously heard the ONLY shots
that were really fired in the Plaza on 11/22/63--which were the three
that came from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle on the sixth floor of the
Book Depository--but the acoustics in the Plaza played some tricks on
those witnesses' ears, and they thought that ALL of the shots (from
the TSBD) had come from a point FURTHER WEST in Dealey Plaza, nearer
the Grassy Knoll.

But the KEY is that only FIVE out of 104 witnesses thought shots came
from MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS. And please note that there wasn't a single
witness in the Plaza (that I am aware of anyway) who said they thought
shots came from THREE different places, which is really what you would
expect at least A FEW of the witnesses to hear if Oliver Stone's
"triangulation of crossfire" THREE-SHOOTER assassination plot had
really taken place on November 22nd.

And even if you want to think John McAdams has deliberately chosen
only the witnesses who might help his "Lone Nut" conclusions in the
above pie chart, there are other very similar earwitness charts available
to study, such as the ones below:

The HSCA's witness tabulation reveals that a mere 4.0% of the
witnesses thought they heard shots coming from more than one location:

And Stewart Galanor, a conspiracy theorist(!), put together an
interesting "witness" study. Although Galanor inflates the number of
"Knoll" earwitnesses to a larger percentage than it probably is (as
did Josiah Thompson in his study), the key to his chart (once again)
is the amazingly low percentage of people who claimed to hear shots
coming from "TWO DIRECTIONS".

Galanor has a mere 4.6% of the witnesses occupying the "Two Directions"
section of this pie chart (and please note, again, there's not even a slice
of this pie reserved for "Three Directions" at all; so, once again, Oliver
Stone's three-gunmen theory seems to be having a difficult time taking

And Josiah Thompson, another conspiracy believer, only has 6.3% of the
witnesses falling into the "Two Directions" category:

Here's what John McAdams says on his website (source pages linked

"This "two locations" number is exceedingly important. There is
overwhelming evidence that at least some shots were fired from behind
the motorcade. Several witnesses saw a shooter, or at least a gun in
the sixth floor sniper's nest window. The medical evidence is clear
that both Kennedy and Connally were hit from behind (regardless of
whether either was also hit from the front). Once we understand that
at least some shots came from behind, it is hard to see how shots
could also have come from the Grassy Knoll without more witnesses
reporting shots from more than one direction. It begins to look like
some were confused about THE direction of the shots."
-- John McAdams

Source Links:


Two witnesses who never varied in their "What Direction?" testimony
were two of the people who were actually riding in the same car as
assassination victim JFK -- John and Nellie Connally. They had
absolutely no doubt whatsoever that all of the gunshots they heard had
come from over their right shoulder (from the direction of the Book
Depository Building). Governor Connally, who was severely wounded and
nearly killed by one of Oswald's bullets in the attack, was particularly
adamant in his belief concerning the direction of the shots. Listen to
him say so here:


In my view, the best way to arrive at the probable truth regarding the
JFK murder is to add up the physical and circumstantial evidence
(including all witness accounts) and gauge what is most likely to be

And once the evidence is gathered together in one place, is it MORE
likely for several shots to have totally missed the car and all potential
victims, AND for virtually everybody in the surrounding vicinity to have
mistakenly identified just a SINGLE location as the source of the gunfire
when there had actually been two or more sources, AND for the vast
majority of these same witnesses to have all been in error when they
said to have heard only "three shots" fired; with less than 9% of all
witnesses actually hearing a number of gunshots (four or more) that
conspiracy theorists need to have fired in order to have a prayer at
debunking the One-Assassin conclusion reached by the Warren

-- Or: --

Is it MORE likely that only a single killer from behind JFK's car was
firing a gun in Dealey Plaza that day, with one of his shots missing
the car completely, while two bullets hit victims inside the vehicle?

The vast bulk of both the physical and the circumstantial evidence
revolving around the events of 11/22/63 leads in only one (irrevocable)
direction....and it's not toward "conspiracy". It's toward a single
killer on the sixth floor of the Book Depository....a killer by the name
of Lee Harvey Oswald with rifle #C2766 in his hands.

Given the totality of the ballistics, witness, and autopsy evidence, no
conclusion other than a "Lone Assassin" one is even possible. Evidence
such as:

1.) Oswald's rifle being found in the TSBD (on the "Death Floor").

2.) Oswald being physically seen aiming and firing a rifle from the

3.) Three bullet shells from Oswald's rifle being found in the TSBD.

4.) Two bullet fragments from Oswald's rifle being found in JFK's

5.) A huge majority of witnesses hearing exactly three shots fired.

6.) The official autopsy report verifying the fact that no frontal
shots hit JFK's body.

7.) The lack of ANY "non-Oswald" bullets being found anywhere within a
country mile of the assassination scene or Parkland Hospital.

8.) And the previously discussed very important statistic of LESS THAN

And the "silenced weapons" argument is a silly one for conspiracists to
use to try and combat that low percentage of multi-location witnesses,
unless those same CTers wish to completely jettison their long-held belief
that some witnesses really DID hear some gunshots from the Knoll area.
Because what kind of brainless plotters would be "silencing" only SOME
of the frontal gunshots, but not others? That's just dumb.

Nearly ALL of the witnesses (90%+) agree that the number of shots did
not exceed three, with more than 75% of them agreeing that there were
exactly THREE shots fired (and that includes virtually every person who
was in a position to initially report the shooting to the world via television,
radio, and wire services; e.g., Jay Watson, Pierce Allman, Merriman Smith,
Jack Bell, Robert MacNeil, Jerry Haynes, Mal Couch, Jim Underwood,
plus others).

And there's virtually no disagreement among the 200+ witnesses as to
the number of DIRECTIONS those three shots came from -- it was 1.

So we have a very large (almost unanimous) consensus on these two key

Number of shots -- 3.

Number of directions the shots came from -- 1.

And since we know beyond all possible doubt that multiple rifle shots
were being fired from the Texas School Book Depository (to the REAR of
JFK's limo), with the three shell casings from Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle that were left on the floor of the TSBD's Sniper's Nest
confirming this fact beyond all possible doubt, then the math isn't
overly difficult beyond this point.

Now, let's see the conspiracy theorists try and tackle those above two
statistics and the above logic that resides in my last paragraph and
come up with a coherent theory about how it was somehow impossible for
Lee Harvey Oswald to have acted alone because of all those "Grassy
Knoll" earwitnesses.

Yes, witness testimony (in general) is, indeed, the least reliable form
of evidence, I agree. But those two witness charts are pretty overwhelming
in the "THREE SHOTS OR FEWER" and "ONE DIRECTION" categories --
especially when we consider that the number of witnesses included in
these polls is a triple-digit number.

When sorting through all of the above, which of these things is more
likely to be true regarding the murder of John F. Kennedy? ----

A multi-gunmen conspiracy with four or more shots fired in Dallas'
Dealey Plaza?


A solo nutcase in the Book Depository killing the President with his
own rifle?

David Von Pein
April 11, 2006
April 20, 2010
April 22, 2010

(PART 130)


>>> "Kennedy had an entrance wound on the front of his neck..." <<<


No he didn't.

That's just the continued wishful-thinking of conspiracy theorists.
Nothing more.

In order for the bullet wound in the front of JFK's throat to have
been an ENTRY wound, you're going to have to check your common sense
at the door. Because in order for the throat wound to be an entry, it
would mean that not just one, but TWO, bullets simply stopped dead
inside John Kennedy's neck and upper back on 11/22/63, without either
of these bullets causing any significant damage at all.

Plus: Both of these bullets that would have gone into JFK without
exiting the other side would have had to disappear off the planet
prior to the autopsy, without any non-"plotter" seeing a trace of
either missile in question.

Simply impossible.

Why do so many conspiracy promoters always totally ignore the above
common-sense observations regarding the proposed "Frontal Throat Shot"

Given the evidence, Kennedy could not possibly have been shot in the
upper back and in the throat by separate bullets. To believe that such
a thing did occur is to believe in stuff that's far more implausible
and improbable than the Single-Bullet Theory.

But the SBT, however, explains EVERYTHING -- including:

1.) The lack of damage in Kennedy's neck/back regions (which is to be
expected if just one bullet sailed right through him).

2.) No "missing" bullets to account for. CE399 is the one and only
bullet that needs to be accounted for via the SBT....and it is
accounted for (right down to the NAA analysis, which, while not 100%
foolproof and definitive, gives any reasonable person a pretty good
idea as to what the source bullet was for the small fragments that
were recovered by Dr. Gregory from the right wrist of Governor

3.) The reactions of Kennedy and Connally as seen on the Zapruder
Film. Yes, the Z-Film can be a very subjective viewing experience,
depending on who's doing the viewing; but when looking at the
toggling clips shown below, it can't be any more obvious that both
JFK and Connally are reacting at the EXACT SAME TIME to some kind of
external stimulus.

And since that "stimulus" is probably a rifle bullet (seeing as how
rifle bullets were being fired at the car during the few seconds in
question here), it's quite likely that both mens' "reactions" seen

4.) The "lining up" of the wounds on the two different victims (which
pretty much perfectly matches the way the two men were seated in the
limousine, in relation to one another), with both men being hit in the
BACK with a bullet....and Kennedy having a bullet hole in his throat

If one bullet didn't hit both men, then I think it's safe to say that
the THREE DIFFERENT GUNMEN who would have had to be involved in
peppering the two victims with THREE different bullets at virtually
the exact same time were THE LUCKIEST ASSASSINS ever to shoot at a
President. Especially when the widely-believed "Oswald Was Being Set
Up As The Lone Patsy" plot that is favored by many conspiracy kooks is
factored into this equation as well --


The THREE shooters* just got lucky when their three bullets hit JFK
and JBC in all the right places, so that at a later date in 1964 the
Warren Commission can determine that just ONE bullet very likely
struck the victims, rather than the three that actually did hit them
(per this insane anti-SBT theory that many CTers place their faith
in). It's just plain idiotic. No other way to look at it.

* = And the anti-SBT brigade definitely needs THREE different gunmen
to accomplish what CE399 did, too. That's because of the tight
timeline shown on the Zapruder Film. Two guns just aren't enough to
get this anti-SBT job done. No way. You'd need two separate shooters
in the rear (to account for Kennedy's separate back wound and
Connally's separate back wound); and a frontal shooter to account for
JFK's throat wound.

And some CTers like to increase the absurdity of their own make-
believe anti-SBT theories by claiming that Connally was really hit by
TWO bullets, instead of by just the one (CE399) that any reasonable
person would determine he was hit with.

That latter "Connally Was Hit Twice" option ups the total of anti-SBT
bullets to four (all of which vanish into thin air immediately after
the shooting, per most CTers, since most CTers like to cling to the
idea that CE399 was a "planted" or "substitute" bullet and actually
hit nobody at all on 11/22/63).

Such anti-SBT scenarios involving three or four bullets in lieu of
CE399 are scenarios that belong in the file marked "Totally Ridiculous
And Impossible JFK Conspiracy Theories".

>>> "[Kennedy had] an entrance wound on his right temple at the hairline..." <<<

Says who? Certainly not the three different autopsists at Bethesda who
examined the body of President Kennedy first-hand.

But a rabid conspiracy promoter ALWAYS knows more than Doctors Humes,
Boswell, and Finck. Right?

Via JFK's Official Autopsy Report:

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased. .... The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp." -- Signed: Drs. Humes, Boswell, & Finck

Conspiracy theorists are forced to actually believe that the above
autopsy summary is nothing but a pack of lies. And the theorists who
love to tout imaginary "frontal shots" that hit JFK in the head (or
elsewhere) also have to actually believe the fairy tale that includes
ALL THREE autopsists continuing to tell lies for decades on end
whenever they have discussed the autopsy with members of the media or
during the various follow-up Government investigations (such as the
HSCA and ARRB hearings).

And then there's the 1967 TV appearance of Dr. James J. Humes. CTers
must believe that Dr. Humes, who was certainly not being forced at
gunpoint to appear on television, VOLUNTEERED--on his own!--to go on
CBS-TV in June of 1967 and tell the following blatant falsehoods:

DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"

DR. JAMES HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes, sir."

RATHER -- "And that was where?"

DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the right of the mid-line posteriorly."

RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head."

RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed the bony skull; and as it passed through the skull it produced a characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from behind and passed forward through the President's skull."

RATHER -- "This is very say there's scientific evidence. Is it conclusive scientific evidence?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."

RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the President's head was the entry wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."


Logical follow-up question: WHY would Dr. Humes volunteer to appear in
front of the CBS cameras and utter the above remarks if the above
remarks weren't the absolute truth as Humes saw them?

If Humes had been a rotten, deceitful liar from the get-go in November
1963 (as many CTers believe him to be), he would never have appeared
on CBS-TV in 1967 and made the above-quoted comments. Simple as that.
To believe otherwise is just dumb.

>>> "[Kennedy had] an exit wound on the right rear of his head." <<<

And this X-ray (pictured below) proves beyond all possible doubt that
the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses who claimed that JFK had a gaping
wound in the back of his head were all 100% wrong.

The back portions of President Kennedy's head are completely intact.
There is no hole in the right-rear of the skull whatsoever. Just look:

Is the above X-ray a "fake" too? The conspiracy crowd has no choice
but to believe that it is a fake or a fraud (if they want to promote
the idea that a large hole was located at the right-rear of Kennedy's

Which, in turn, of course, means that those CTers now must travel even
further down Conspiracy Avenue and also must accuse every single
member of the HSCA's Photographic Panel of being either liars or
incompetent boobs, because that panel (which consisted of about 20 or
21 people) declared the following in 1978 with respect to the autopsy
photos and X-rays (including, of course, the X-ray pictured above, which
shows no hole present at the back of JFK's skull at all):

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
they had not been altered in any manner."
-- HSCA; Vol. 7; Pg. 41

It's readily apparent how silly the position of conspiracy theorists
truly is when we start factoring in all of the various "layers" of
conspirators and after-the-fact "cover-up" agents and rotten liars
that the CTers need to have firmly (and forever) in place in order for
any of their theories to work out properly.

Per CTers, the Warren Commission was filled with nothing but rotten
liars and cover-up agents....and evidently so was the HSCA for the
most part (since they came to the same identical "OSWALD WAS THE ONLY
GUNMAN WHO HIT ANY VICTIMS" conclusion that the WC came to).

In addition, according to many conspiracists, the DPD, the USSS, the
FBI, the CIA, LBJ, and the autopsists were also "in" on either a plot
to kill Kennedy or a plot to cover up the truth afterward. Plus God
knows how many other fringe participants that the CTers think were
also involved in the massive decades-long and still-continuing cover-
up and/or plot to kill JFK.

See how stupid all of this "JFK Conspiracy" stuff sounds when you say
it out loud (or write it out in longhand)?

It's just laughable (at best).

>>> "When you line up those [make-believe] shots, they HAD to have come from inside the car." <<<

Only three letters required here (so that's all I'll use):


>>> "It even seems possible that the driver shot Connally. At the very moment he was shot in the back, Connally was actually turned to the rear of the car looking at Kennedy and with his back turned to the driver." <<<

I wonder what Mr. Connally is doing in the Z-Film clip below then (if
not showing involuntary signs of reacting to a bullet that has just
struck his body)?

Maybe the Governor just had an uncontrollable desire to jerk his soon-
to-be-injured right arm upward really quick at this exact moment in
time. Ya think?:

>>> "A shot from the driver could have entered [Connally's] back and made the wounds he experienced." <<<

And there's a giant Martian, who is wearing a grass skirt and selling
Avon products, standing on your front porch right this very minute.
(That's just about as likely to be true as Connally being shot by
William Greer anyway.)

David Von Pein
January 2008


(PART 19)


>>> "It's really a shame that you are unable to use the photos that so closely match the drawings and the descriptions of the medical personnel at both facilities. If you had a problem with the match, why not discuss it and let us together determine where the problem lies for you in not seeing the same thing as me. Name a particular statement or picture and tell me, and I'll look it over and between us we might be able to figure out why you disagree with everyone on the large hole in the right-rear. .... It may be something entirely different and I'm not aware of what you're seeing.
Give it a try and maybe we can resolve at least this one element of the case." <<<


In a nutshell, Chris, I simply do not see the type of damage in ANY of the autopsy photos or X-rays that I believe needs to be present in those pictures and X-rays in order for the Parkland "BOH" witnesses to be correct. It's really as simple as that.

Plus: The autopsy report is pretty clear on where the large wound was really located -- it was "chiefly parietal" -- not "chiefly occipital". Seems pretty clear to me.

Moreover, those THREE THINGS (the autopsy photos, the X-rays, and the autopsy report) CORROBORATE EACH OTHER. They fit together like bread and butter, like a hand and a glove, or like Dave Healy and his crackpipe.

The pictures, X-rays, and autopsy report are the things that positively refute the notion that JFK had a big hole in the back of his head.

Plus there are the things I didn't even mention on the "Big Three" list:

There's the Zapruder Film, which is a film that also corroborates what I'm seeing in the autopsy photographs and X-rays. And the film also perfectly corroborates what the autopsy report says about the big wound being "chiefly parietal", which is just exactly where we see the wound in the Zapruder Film.

And there are also the many statements and testimony given by the three autopsy surgeons (Humes, Finck, and Boswell). None of those doctors ever claimed that there was a great-big hole at the back of JFK's head. They always maintained that the large exit wound was toward the RIGHT-FRONT of the head.

I'd like for you to find just ONE quote from any of those three autopsy doctors which has any of them saying something akin to this:

"I was wrong and the autopsy report I signed in 1963 was wrong. The large exit wound in President Kennedy's head was really located in the right-rear portion of his head, just as the many Parkland witnesses claimed. The large wound was not located 'chiefly parietal', which is what we stated in our 1963 autopsy report. I'm sorry, I was mistaken for all these years when I have said the big hole in JFK's head was located to the 'right-front' part of his head. It was really not even close to that right-front location. It was at the far-right-rear of the head. I hope God can forgive my ignorance (and lies) regarding this key issue."

But instead of finding something like the above comments coming from any of the autopsy physicians, what do we find? We find this:

"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967


David Von Pein
January 30, 2012



>>> "The man [Dr. J. Thornton Boswell] tells you clearly that the wound was uncovered by pulling the flap backward, and then the wound is hidden by pulling the scalp forward." <<<


Dr. Boswell wasn't talking about pulling the scalp forward to cover a hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head, you goof. He was obviously talking about the possibility of pulling the scalp forward to cover the ONE AND ONLY large exit wound in JFK's head, which was (of course) located just where all of the autopsy doctors said it was located -- above the right ear of JFK (i.e., the right-frontal-top "chiefly parietal" portion of JFK's cranium).

Notice in that quote how Boswell twice says the word "wound" (singular). Now, given the fact that the autopsy report clearly indicates that the large singular "wound" of exit was "chiefly" in the "parietal" (right-front) region of the head, why in the world would anyone think Boswell was talking about a big hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head when he said this to the Assassination Records Review Board on February 26, 1996?:

"The scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid."

Chris, you REALLY think the "wound" (singular) that Boswell was talking about there was a "wound" in the right-rear-occipital area of Kennedy's head (even though we find this description of the large head wound on page 3 of the autopsy report [Warren Report; Page 540])?:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

Yes, the autopsy report does say the wound extended "somewhat into the occipital" area of the head. But that language is very vague and non-specific. But it's quite clear from that same paragraph in the autopsy report that the wound would certainly NOT be considered to be a hole in the far-right-REAR of Kennedy's skull. Not even close.

And also take note of the fact that that same paragraph of the autopsy report says that there is an "absence of scalp" in the area of the large "chiefly parietal" wound. Which I think is, indeed, significant language there, because it pretty much eliminates the "McClelland Theory", which is a theory that has INTACT scalp (in the very same right-rear area of JFK's head!) being pulled up over a big hole in the right-rear of the head.

But how would that scenario be remotely possible, given the language I just quoted from the official autopsy report, which clearly indicates that in the area of the big hole in JFK's head there was "an actual absence of scalp", which most certainly indicates a condition that is not seen at all in the scalp at the back of Kennedy's head.

Let me re-emphasize a little bit more of that section of the autopsy report:
The report says that the large wound that was present in the head of President Kennedy had an "absence of scalp and bone". So, a certain amount of BOTH scalp AND bone were absent (i.e., missing, gone, blown away, not there) in the region of JFK's head where the large wound was located.

Therefore, given the fact that we know there was an "absence of scalp and bone" in the area where the large head wound was located, can anyone tell me how in the world that type of description can possibly apply to the RIGHT-REAR portion of JFK's head (as seen in the autopsy photo and X-ray shown below)?

Answer -- It's impossible. Because ALL of the scalp and bone at the right-rear of President Kennedy's head is STILL THERE, present and accounted for, in these two autopsy pictures:

Plus: Dr. Boswell, as far as I know, has NEVER once explicitly said that the big hole in JFK's head was located anywhere on the head other than where it is said to be in the November 1963 autopsy report -- "chiefly parietal" (which is NOT in the right-rear of the head).

You can play around with Boswell's later ARRB statements all you want to (which are statements that are quite ambiguous and unclear in many respects, in my opinion), but Dr. Boswell never came out and said to ANYONE that President Kennedy had a big hole in the right-rear of his head.

If Boswell ever did make such a crystal-clear statement about there being a big hole in the BACK of the President's head (instead of being chiefly located in the right-frontal part of the head), it would mean that he would have been admitting, in essence, that the autopsy report he signed on 11/24/63 was a total fraud and a lie with respect to the location of JFK's large head wound. And Dr. Boswell, as far as I am aware, has always stood by the integrity and the basic truth that resides in that autopsy report.

David Von Pein
January 30, 2012

(PART 129)


>>> "Today, no one will go near that book [Gerald Posner's excellent 1993 JFK book, "Case Closed"]." <<<


Not true at all. I certainly go near it: Review Review

Mr. Posner's book is outstanding. It has flaws, yes. But it's a very
good overall study of the case and, more importantly, a good overall
study of JFK's assassin--Lee Harvey Oswald.

Of course, Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" goes far beyond
Posner's book in scope and comprehensive content (which is to be
expected, due to Vincent's 21-year-long research effort and the
resulting 2,800+ pages of content contained within "Reclaiming
History", content which trashes every conspiracy theory and conspiracy
kook author imaginable, and rightly so).

It's time for conspiracy theorists to wake up from their 44-year sleep
and realize that there's no credible evidence of anyone having shot
and killed President Kennedy and Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit
except a screwball named Lee Harvey Oswald, a 24-year-old nuthatch who
was lucky enough (from his warped point-of-view) to have these six
things all align themselves into perfect harmony on November 22, 1963:

1.) He (Oswald) hated America and its Government's representatives.

2.) Oswald owned and had ready access to a rifle in November '63.

3.) Oswald worked in a building which just happened to overlook the
last portion of JFK's motorcade route through Dallas on 11/22/63.

4.) It stopped raining prior to 12:00 noon on 11/22/63 (hence, the
bubbletop roof was left off of JFK's limousine for the motorcade drive
through Dallas). The bubbletop roof was not bulletproof at all, but
it's quite possible that Oswald wouldn't have known that fact on
November 22nd. Seeing the roof in place that day, if it continued to
rain, just might have made Oswald think twice about firing those
gunshots at the limo.

5.) Oswald was lucky enough to have President Kennedy visit Dallas on
a Friday (i.e., a regular workday for Lee Oswald and the other Book
Depository employees), instead of, say, a Saturday or a Sunday.

6.) Another small item that relates to #5 above is something that
could well have played a very big factor in Oswald pulling off the
shooting that Friday -- and that is the fact that not only did
Kennedy's visit to Dallas occur on a workday for Oswald (a Friday),
but the parade route took JFK's limo past the Book Depository Building
RIGHT AT LUNCHTIME as well, which meant that most TSBD employees were
on their normal lunch breaks at that hour of the day (and would have
been even if Kennedy had not been scheduled to drive by the building
at noontime).

The normal time for the warehouse employees to break for lunch at the
Depository was from 12:00 Noon to 12:45 PM, just exactly the time
period when President Kennedy was scheduled to drive through Dealey
Plaza on Friday, November 22nd. That information was confirmed via the
Warren Commission testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier (the 19-year-old
who drove Oswald to work on the morning of the assassination):

WESLEY FRAZIER -- "12 o'clock is when we always eat lunch."
JOSEPH BALL -- "12 to 12:45?"
FRAZIER -- "Right."

This meant fewer people staying on the upper Depository floors (i.e.,
the "warehouse" floors, which were floors 5, 6, and 7), with those
employees going down to the first-floor "Domino/Lunch Room" or the
second-floor lunch room (or going outside the building to watch the
President pass by) during the exact time when Lee Oswald would require
a VACANT sixth floor in his preparations for shooting the President
during this Friday lunch period.

For Oswald, the above combination of things was simply a made-to-order
combination of factors that just fell into his lap on November 22nd,
1963, including item numbers 4, 5, and 6 mentioned above, which are
things that Oswald HIMSELF could not possibly have had any control
over whatsoever. And even #3 as well, to the extent that Oswald was
hired at the TSBD on October 15, 1963, which was a full month prior to
anyone officially announcing the details of JFK's final motorcade
route through Dallas (which included the turn onto Elm Street in front
of the Depository).

Happenstance (and a kook named Lee Harvey) got John F. Kennedy
killed. Not conspiracy.

David Von Pein
January 2008




(PART 20)


>>> "You mention the BOH. What do you think is the case in autopsy photo BE2 (top of head), which also shows the BOH with brains hanging down over it? Are the large glob of brains coming out of a tiny 1/4-inch hole? Or what?" <<<


You can't be serious with this crap, can you Chris?

The "BE2" autopsy photo (below) doesn't show the right-rear ("BOH") area of JFK's head at all. It shows the very TOP of JFK's head. That's not the "BOH".

President Kennedy is literally lying on the right-rear of his head in that picture, and the occipital (right-rear) is not even in the camera's view in BE2:

The brain tissue that we see on the TOP of JFK's head got there by way of its coming out of the one and only big wound in his head, which was, of course, located at the right-front-top portion of the head (just as the pictures show and just as the autopsy says).

And this additional autopsy photo shows a little bit better the relationship between the location of the right-frontal exit wound in JFK's head and the location on his head/hair which has a lot of brain tissue adhering to it.

In this picture, it's not difficult at all to visualize how that brain tissue got on top of JFK's head (and from what wound the brain tissue extruded from) -- it got there after coming out of the large wound located at the right-front-top part of his head.

Plus -- Why on Earth would any brains that would have been ejected from a wound in the right-rear of his head be showing up at the VERY TOP of his head, which is where we see the brains in BE2?

Any brain tissue that would have been ejected from your make-believe wound at the far right-rear of the head would have been brain tissue that Mr. Kennedy would have been literally LYING ON in BE2. Either that, or somehow a bunch of brain tissue (which you say exited from the right-rear) managed to take a sharp turn UPWARD and adhere itself all over the TOP of Kennedy's head and hair. Do you want to suggest a new theory, Chris -- the MSBTT (the "Magic Swerving Brain Tissue Theory")?

What obviously happened is that brain tissue was exuded from the large RIGHT-FRONTAL-TOP wound in Mr. Kennedy's cranium, with some of this brain tissue then adhering to his thick hair at the very top of his head. And that's exactly what we see in the BE2 autopsy photograph.

So there's no need to postulate a huge gaping hole at the right-rear of JFK's head to explain and reconcile that BE2 photo. My above explanation reconciles that photo very nicely, thank you. While your theory, on the other hand, makes no sense. And you are, indeed, making the exact same orientation mistake that many people believe the Parkland witnesses apparently also made when they saw JFK in Trauma Room #1 on 11/22/63 (Jim Moore being one such researcher and author who promotes this point-of-view; although I, myself, do not agree with Moore on this point) -- i.e., you seem to be implying that a certain part of President Kennedy's head is visible in a certain picture, when (in reality) the portion of the head you claim to be viewing is really not in the picture at all.

Another way to look at this mistake that I think you are making is by looking at this composite photo I created for two of the autopsy photos:

When looking at the above two pictures in conjunction with each other, do you, Chris, really think that the photo on the left depicts the area of JFK's head where you say a large wound was located (the right-rear-occipital area of the head)?

It's fairly clear from the angles at which the two pictures were taken that NONE of the "occipital" area of Kennedy's head can be seen in the picture on the left. The President's hair is obscuring any portion of his head in that photo which could be considered "occipital" or "right-rear".

In order for Mr. Stringer (the photographer at JFK's autopsy at Bethesda) to have captured any part of the "right-rear" or "occipital" areas of JFK's head, he would need to photograph the President from the SIDE (as was done in the photo on the right, which does depict a portion of the "left-rear" or "left occipital" area of the head).

Or, if not from the side, Stringer would have needed to photograph JFK from directly UNDERNEATH the autopsy table (and also would have needed to remove that metal headrest on which the President's head is lying, in order to get a complete and unobstructed view of the right-rear area of Kennedy's head that so many people think contained a great-big gaping hole).

Or, Kennedy's body could have been rolled over and his head lifted, so that Stringer could get that unobstructed view of the right-rear of the head. And, of course, we have a series of pictures taken by Stringer that do depict that very thing--an unobstructed view of the right-rear of JFK's head (the three pictures below). And these three photos are showing a "right-rear" portion of the head that is completely INTACT and WOUND-FREE:

In short -- Chris has totally misrepresented what can be seen in Autopsy Photo #BE2.

>>> "Humes said: "And the exit wound was a large irregular wound to the front and side - right side of the President's head." [End Humes' quote] No witness had described it there." <<<

And yet the large wound is there anyway -- in the autopsy photographs, and in the autopsy X-rays, and in the Zapruder Film too.

Go figure that.

>>> "Then take a look at this next photo from the autopsy and tell me how you figure that little red spot is a bullet hole. Don't you think it would be almost black, like dried blood or black like a hole? Naah. There's nothing there. No bullet hole. Just the back of the scalp flap with a tiny little red irritated area." <<<

Which is a "tiny little red irritated area" that was determined by BOTH the Clark Panel and the HSCA to be a bullet (entry) hole. Let's have as gander at what they had to say about it:

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position of this wound corresponds to the
hole in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray film #2. .... On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed."
-- Clark Panel Report

"We, as the [FPP] panel members, do feel after close examination of the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick." -- Dr. Michael Baden

Chris should also listen to this HSCA interview with Dr. Pierre Finck. Some interesting observations about the location of the entry wound in the back of President Kennedy's head are discussed in that interview.


Chris accuses me of ignoring a bunch of witnesses. But what does Chris do? He totally ignores (or brushes aside) BOTH of the above investigative panels--the Clark Panel from 1968 and the House Select Committee from ten years later.

And the Clark and HSCA panels were examining THE BEST EVIDENCE in the whole case for determining where the wounds were located in President Kennedy's body (other than having JFK's body right there in the same room with them in 1968 and 1978) -- the autopsy photos and X-rays.

Bottom Line (again) -- The autopsy pictures and X-rays do not support the Parkland witnesses. Anyone saying the pictures and X-rays DO corroborate the Parkland people must be snorting some funny white stuff. Or they are currently residing in Rod Serling's eerie "Zone".

David Von Pein
January 31, 2012


(PART 18)


>>> "I don't hear any comment from you about the pictures drawn by the autopsy and Parkland doctors. I don't hear anything from you as to how so many medical people who were 'on scene' at Parkland and Bethesda see one thing and YOU see another and say they're all mistaken." <<<


Any pictures hand-drawn by anybody are trumped by the REAL photos and X-rays of John Kennedy's body. You seem to want to believe that a picture drawn by somebody showing a gaping hole in the back of JFK's head [like this one] somehow trumps the real autopsy pictures and X-rays (not to mention the autopsy report).


>>> "You can go to bed at night with that one X-ray under your pillow and it won't change the fact that there are breaks in the skull right where the autopsy surgeons say there was." <<<

But there's no missing skull bone at the back of the head. That's the key and principal aspect here, and that's because the Parkland people insisted there was a gaping HOLE in the right-rear of Kennedy's head -- i.e., there was MISSING SKULL BONE at the BOH. And the X-ray proves there wasn't.

Moreover, it's my belief that the X-ray of the right side of JFK's head proves that there was not nearly enough fracturing (fragmentation) of the rear part of Kennedy's skull to permit the Parkland witnesses to be correct about what they said they saw, even if we want to accept the preposterous (IMO) notion that a high-speed rifle bullet could have caused a huge blow-out at the rear of JFK's skull and yet leave the scalp that was attached to that very same skull totally undamaged (with several of the autopsy photos verifying that the right-rear scalp of JFK was, indeed, completely intact, without a hint of any damage being done to it by any bullet; and the higher-quality black-and-white picture shown below proves my "intact scalp" point even more).

So, the idea that a bullet crashed completely through Jack Kennedy's right-rear skull and then just kind of pushed the scalp aside (without doing a bit of damage to that scalp) is something that doesn't make a bit of logical sense. If such damage was done to the right-rear of JFK's skull, then surely the scalp on top of that skull would have shown tell-tale signs of at least SOME damage too. And we know it does not.

Plus, Dr. Robert McClelland has always claimed that he was able to peer straight DOWN into the massive blown-out area of JFK's head at Parkland Hospital. But that notion is yet another weird aspect of McClelland's account. Because I'm wondering how he could possibly have been looking DOWN into a huge cavity that he said was located in the BACK of Kennedy's head, even though we know that the President was lying FACE-UP on the stretcher during the entire time Dr. McClelland was in Trauma Room 1 with JFK? Seems very odd to me.

And I wonder why that "looking down into the wound" aspect of McClelland's story doesn't seem odd or contradictory to any of the conspiracy theorists of the world. But, amazingly, it's not odd to them at all.


>>> "All the exhibits we've looked at have shown the clear, factual proof that there was indeed a large hole in the skull of JFK at Parkland (and thereafter)..." <<<

Sure, there was a hole in JFK's head -- at the right/front/top part of the head. And ONLY in that location. Noplace else. And that pesky X-ray that you insist on misinterpreting proves my point.

>>> "Do we agree on the BE1-BE7 autopsy photos? They all show the large hole in the right-rear." <<<

Talk about seeing things you want to see. You've got that ailment for sure, Chris. Because the reality is that NONE of the autopsy photos or X-rays show a "large hole in the right-rear". None of them. You're just making that up to fit your BOH theory. Because you've got ZERO pictures that show any "right-rear" hole in JFK's head. And you know it.

Plus, several of those autopsy photos you just mentioned (BE1-BE7, via the numbers utilized at this JFK-Lancer webpage) don't even show the right-rear of Kennedy's head at all!

BE1, for example, is a picture of the LEFT SIDE of Kennedy's head. The right half of his head isn't even visible in the picture at all. Nor is the right-rear of the head visible in BE2 or BE6 either. And BE7 (aka F8), as I mentioned previously, is essentially a worthless photo for the purposes of trying to orient anything on JFK's head.

And yet Chris thinks that those pictures (which don't even show the back of JFK's head) are proving that a big hole existed in the occipital area of his head.

I'm worried about you, Chris.

>>> "David, I'm worried about you." <<<

No need to be. But I'd be a little worried about your strange position regarding the things that those autopsy photos and X-rays are depicting. That's where your worry should be focused.

BTW, as I quoted previously, Dr. Baden and the majority of the other eight members of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel (and probably all of the other eight, even Cyril Wecht), agree that there is no great-big hole at the back of JFK's head in the photos and X-rays.

Dr. Baden said:

"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." -- Dr. Michael Baden; January 8, 2000

Naturally, Chris thinks Baden is the same kind of kook that David Von Pein is.

Right, Christopher?

>>> "I just don't want to believe that you are so locked into your fantasy that you can't for even a minute see what all these people have been telling you all these years." <<<

I've heard what they've been telling me. I just disagree with them. And I think I'm relying on the best possible evidence to prove that those Parkland witnesses were incorrect.

You, OTOH, are attempting to manipulate the autopsy photos and X-rays to suit your needs. You are doing pretty much the same thing John Canal has been doing for over ten years -- you are putting forth your own unprovable theories regarding those autopsy pictures and X-rays in order to try and reconcile those pictures and X-rays with the observations of the Parkland witnesses.

Unfortunately for you (and for John A. Canal), the autopsy photographs and X-rays are things that are written in stone (so to speak), and those pictures aren't going to change--ever. And they are providing a reasonable person with all the proof necessary to conclude that President John F. Kennedy did not have a large hole in the back part of his head after he was shot and killed in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.

~Mark VII~

David Von Pein
January 2012


(PART 17)


>>> "It takes an open mind to realize that the scalp flap is flopping backward and not forward on the head. It explains every problem anyone ever had with the autopsy photos." <<<


For the purposes of this particular discussion regarding Dr. Robert McClelland's crazy "pulled scalp" theory, it makes no difference to me whatsoever whether any scalp was, in fact, being pulled forward by the Bethesda pathologists or not. That's immaterial here.

And it's actually immaterial even outside any "McClelland" discussion too. It doesn't matter. Because this autopsy photo and this X-ray (in tandem) are the absolute proof that Dr. McClelland mislocated the place on JFK's head where the large wound was. That fact couldn't be any clearer when viewing that photo and X-ray in conjunction with one another. And you can have your "pulled scalp" being pulled from any direction you want. I don't care. Because the photo and X-ray give me all the information I need in order to answer the following question:

Were the witnesses at Parkland Hospital correct when they said that President Kennedy had a big hole in the right-rear part of his head?

And after viewing the two pictures below, the answer to that question is crystal clear -- the answer is "No".

And, Chris, you can't possibly be serious about still contending that there was a great-big blow-out (with MISSING SKULL BONE) at the right-rear of Kennedy's head after viewing the above autopsy X-ray -- can you?

There is NO MISSING SKULL BONE in the occipital area of the head (per that X-ray). There are some fracture lines in the rear of the head, yes. But there's no missing bone there at all. None. The President's skull is essentially intact in the area where McClelland, et al, have insisted there was a HUGE SKULL DEFICIT. And the X-ray proves that fact.

Back to Dr. McClelland again for a moment:

The "scalp-pulling" thing is totally unimportant when it comes to assessing the major things that I'm trying to get you, Chris, to understand regarding Robert McClelland.


Because even if McClelland is correct and the doctors are pulling a piece of scalp forward on JFK's head in the autopsy photo, that still doesn't change the following two facts, which are things that Dr. McClelland certainly believes DO co-exist in the JFK case:

1.) The right-rear SKULL of JFK was blasted out by a bullet.

2.) The right-rear SCALP of JFK was left totally undamaged by the same bullet that caused #1 above.

Will you ever understand that those two things listed above ARE things that Robert McClelland actually does think exist (in tandem with each other)?

Or do you actually want to believe that a rifle bullet plowed through Kennedy's head, leaving a huge, easily-visible wound at the right-rear of the President's head (per McClelland and many other Parkland observers), and yet that same bullet (somehow, some way) didn't even touch the SCALP of the same man, even though that scalp we're talking about was located DIRECTLY ON TOP OF THE SKULL that McClelland says was blasted open in the occipital/right-rear?

Get it now? Or do I need to draw some more pictures to make you understand the absurdity of McClelland's position?

And to emphasize again -- This has nothing to do with pulled-up scalps, or the direction from which any scalp-pulling was done at Bethesda. This, instead, has to do with something very basic that McClelland said he actually believes. And
he made it clear on PBS-TV in 1988 that he does believe #1 AND #2 above.

[See Part 6 of this video series.]

McClelland didn't use the exact words I utilized above for my #1 and #2 items, but he believes those things nonetheless, because it's clear that he DOESN'T think the autopsy photos have been faked. Ergo, he knows (as I do) that the right-rear portion of President Kennedy's scalp was undamaged by any bullet that hit him on November 22nd, 1963.

Plus: Dr. McClelland's observations are completely blown out of the water and proven wrong by just the X-ray of JFK's head alone. Because we can see that the kind of damage that McClelland insists was present in the occipital/right-rear of JFK's cranium just simply does not exist in this X-ray.

Anyway, Chris, I'm glad that you also agree with McClelland that the autopsy pictures are not fakes. Most CTers love to harp on the "fake photos and X-rays" (even though the HSCA's photographic panel gave all of those autopsy pictures a clean bill of health in 1978, with the House Select Committee concluding that the X-rays and autopsy photos "had not been altered in any manner").

So, therefore, since you don't think the autopsy pics are fakes, I'm also glad to see that you can agree that there was absolutely no damage in the right-rear of JFK's scalp (i.e., there is no great-big hole there).

You surely agree with that last statement, right Chris? Since you think the autopsy pictures ARE telling the true tale of JFK's wounds, you don't think that this picture below is showing a great-big hole in the SCALP of Kennedy, do you?

And along those same lines, you surely don't think that the X-ray below is showing a great-big hole in the right-rear of Kennedy's skull, do you?

And if you can also agree with me that the above X-ray is not a faked X-ray, then how on Earth can you still maintain the validity and accuracy of Parkland witnesses like Dr. McClelland?

McClelland, et al, said that the right-rear skull was BLASTED OUT (i.e., a large part of the right-rear of JFK's head was MISSING). But if that's true, why is there NO MISSING BONE at the right-rear of President Kennedy's head in the X-ray shown above?

David Von Pein
January 2012


(PART 128)


>>> "Just how many 'American Experience' films do you see THAT ACTIVELY DISCOURAGE FURTHER PURSUIT OF A TOPIC?" <<<


Robert Stone lets the conspiracy promoters have their say in "Oswald's Ghost". Lots of say, in fact....and from people who are regarded very highly by many conspiracy believers today too, e.g., Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, and the late Jim Garrison. (And for many people, you can't get much more highly regarded in the conspiracy community than Mr. Lane and Mr. Thompson.)

Mr. Stone is telling us (in a nutshell) that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

How much "further pursuit" of this JFK topic is required (without finding anything close to a smoking gun, or a bullet, or a killer, or a PROVEN "conspirator") in order for people to say to themselves that the truth is already on the table -- i.e., Oswald did this and he probably did it without any help from the goon squad from Cuba, or the CIA, or the FBI, or the MIC, or any of Michael Paine's pals at Bell Helicopter either.

Bob Stone's film is a good one. It's not totally comprehensive in nature, no. What 82-minute documentary could possibly be completely comprehensive and all-inclusive when tackling this 44-year-old subject which involves not just one murder -- but three?

But, in my opinion, "Oswald's Ghost" does provide a good overview of BOTH sides of the debate, including (as mentioned) the pro-conspiracy side of the equation.

JFK conspiracy promoters should probably step back for just a moment and ask themselves the following two questions:

1.) When can I expect some hard evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK case to show up (instead of having to rely on the current batch of piecemeal grist from the rumor mill)?


2.) How long is TOO long to wait for such a revelation?

David Von Pein
January 2008


(PART 127)


>>> "Darrell Tomlinson, who found the pristine bullet (CE399) in the Parkland corridor...testified that it had *not* fallen off the stretcher which had been used to transport Gov. Connolly [sic]. The WC...simply ignored Tomlinson and concluded, based on absolutely nothing, that the bullet had been on the Connolly [sic] stretcher. In the name of all that is gracious, IS THAT EVIDENCE?" <<<


Sure it's evidence. It's evidence based on something called "common sense".

Why, you ask?

Because Governor John Connally's stretcher was the only stretcher in that Parkland hallway that could have possibly had Bullet CE399 on it (or ANY bullet on it, for that matter).


The ONLY other stretcher which was a candidate for Tomlinson's CE399 discovery was a stretcher that was used by a young boy (Ronnie Fuller)....and young Mr. Fuller was not shot with a rifle bullet (or ANY bullet) on November 22, 1963.

Therefore, the only possible REASONABLE and LOGICAL conclusion to reach regarding the discovery of Bullet CE399 is that it was a bullet that came off of John Connally's stretcher and that Mr. Darrell Carlisle Tomlinson was a bit hazy about exactly which of the two stretchers he retrieved the bullet from (and he was hazy about it; see Tomlinson's March 20, 1964, testimony below):

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher "A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?"

DARRELL C. TOMLINSON -- "Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be perfectly honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really didn't pay that much attention to it. The stretcher was on the elevator and I pushed it off of there and I believe we made one or two calls up before I straightened out the stretcher up against the wall."


David Von Pein
January 2008


(PART 126) Forum


>>> "The autopsy x-rays show a skull that is just smashed up into a lot of pieces. It looks more like Kennedy was killed with a sledgehammer than a bullet." <<<


Why in the world would you say that?

The X-ray below shows just exactly what is reported in the autopsy report. Plus it's an X-ray that perfectly conforms with what we can see happening to JFK's head in the Zapruder Film, i.e., a large, gaping wound at the RIGHT-FRONT part of the President's head, with the BACK of his head COMPLETELY INTACT...with all skull still there at the back of the head.

This X-ray, which was authenticated and deemed unaltered "in any manner" by the HSCA in 1978, is very important...because it's an X-ray that proves, ALL BY ITSELF, that the many Parkland witnesses were just flat-out mistaken when they claimed that President Kennedy had a gaping hole in the back of his head:

>>> "Then, when David Lifton published his groundbreaking book "Best Evidence," the picture became clearer." <<<

Sure, if you want to actually believe that Kennedy's body could have been whisked away from Air Force One (without a single non-plotter noticing) and then taken to Walter Reed, where the bullet wounds were perfectly rearranged within a very short time period, in time to get the body to Bethesda around 8:00 PM for the autopsy....with Humes, Boswell, and Finck (all of them!) being totally fooled by the rearrangement surgery that had just been done in lickety-split fashion on JFK's cranium.

Lifton's theory is utter nonsense of the first order. And Bugliosi calls it such in his excellent chapter devoted to debunking Lifton and his nutty theory within "Reclaiming History".

"One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1066 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)


"The coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of malarkey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenny O'Donnell went with her, but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not even thirty seconds. I never left it." -- David Powers (JFK's longtime friend and aide); June 1987

>>> "What I am interested in is: Does "Reclaiming History" address the wounds and the autopsy irregularities or does it just re-state the Warren Commission report like the Posner book did? I don't see any point in reading a lot of stuff about the life of Lee Harvey Oswald if he didn't pull the trigger on the fatal shot." <<<

"Reclaiming History" addresses every single thing about the JFK murder case that a reasonable and sensible person could possibly need to know in order to solve the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

And the final conclusion reached by Vince Bugliosi in "Reclaiming History" is a conclusion I've agreed with long before Vincent's brilliant 2007 book was published -- Lee Harvey Oswald, beyond all doubt, murdered JFK and J.D. Tippit, and beyond all reasonable doubt did it alone. Hence, no conspiracy at all.

"In the Kennedy case, I believe the absence of a conspiracy can be proved to a virtual certainty." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 973 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

>>> "Based on what is out there now, I'm no longer even sure he [Lee Harvey Oswald] was even on the 6th floor when the Connolly [sic] shot was fired." <<<

Huh? But you think Oswald might have been there a few seconds earlier or later during the shooting timeline?

I've never heard this type of theory before. Perhaps you can explain further.

David Von Pein
January 2008