JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 301)


JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> "And besides your deplorable debating methods, your habit of twisting the facts gets pretty old too. For example, in your stupid comment below you apparently refer to the BOH [Back Of Head] wound that "I and the PH [Parkland Hospital] witnesses" describe---but what about Humes, Boswell, O'Neill, Siebert [sic], Boyers, Ebersole, and C. Hill.....what, they don't rate a mere mention in your mind? Or didn't your feeble research reading RH ["Reclaiming History"] enlighten you to the fact that they also described a BOH wound?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

To pick the first person on your list above, Dr. Humes:

"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- DR. JAMES HUMES; 1967; CBS-TV (See video below.)

video

Let me guess, John -- Humes was correct in what he said in the above-mentioned quotation; but he still thought there was ANOTHER wound in the BOH too (but he decided not to talk about that "other" one on CBS-TV with correspondent Dan Rather). Correct?

And when did Dr. Boswell EVER say there was the kind of "Large BOH" wound that you and the Parkland witnesses advocate? (I think you're "extending" Boswell's comments a little bit too far into that "BOH" of yours.)

BTW, John, I doubt very much that you can come up with a single witness who described the President's head wounds in the exact manner YOU think is correct -- i.e., come up with one witness who said this:

"I think the entry wound on JFK's head was located low in the back of his head, I'd say pretty near the EOP....while the larger wounds I saw on his head were located in two places--one was a fairly-extensive wound in the right-frontal portion of his skull; while the second large wound was located in the far-right-rear (or occipital) area of the head."

Have you got even ONE witness who provided the above description of the head wounds?

Didn't think so.


>>> "How about a miracle that results in DVP answering, in good faith,
my closing arguments "yes" or "no" questions? Is that too much to ask for?" <<<


I'll admit, I totally missed seeing your August 15, 2008, "Closing Argument" thread. No kidding, I didn't see it until this very moment (8:01 AM EDT, 08/17/2008); and as of this writing, it's already dropped to Page 2 on the aaj forum, so that didn't help me in seeing it either.

So, here we go, Mr. Spence (er, I mean Mr. Canal)......


>>> "1. Isn't it true that you cannot name one single doctor who was either among the team of doctors who tried to save JFK's life at PH,
or on the autopsy team, who you think accurately described his head wounds?" <<<


No, that statement is not true (with respect to the large wound on JFK's head, that is). And for the sake of this question of yours, as it is phrased, I'll have to assume that we cannot include the ENTRY wound on the back side of JFK's head in this first question of yours, since you make reference to the Parkland people here; and as we all know, the Parkland witnesses never even saw the wound of entry on the back of Kennedy's head at all (save Dr. Grossman, I believe; and I have my doubts about believing anything uttered by Dr. Grossman; but that's another topic).

Anyway, with respect to the largest of the wounds, all three of the autopsy physicians, of course, accurately described the head wounds. One example of this, on television, is Dr. Humes, as I've already posted above. Here's that 1967 quote again:

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

The autopsy report (signed by all three autopsists) corroborates the location of the largest head wound (the exit wound), to wit -- "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." (My emphasis.)

And that "somewhat into the occipital" reference in the autopsy report certainly does NOT help out your theory very much, John. Don't think for a minute it does. Because it's not even close to your proposed nonsense regarding JFK's head wounds.


>>> "2. Isn't it true that you believe the autopsy report incorrectly states that the large wound extended somewhat into the occipital?" <<<

No. (See #1 above.)


>>> "3. Isn't it true that you believe Humes was wrong when he said they saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated?" <<<

Yes (but with an addendum attached to my "yes"):

Here's what Dr. Humes said in 1996 to the ARRB:

"The cerebellum was somewhat disrupted, as I recall, as well. But the photographs of the brain show it to you very clearly."

Maybe you, John, can tell me how the term "somewhat disrupted" can be turned into "severely lacerated".

It doesn't sound like Dr. Humes was describing a "severely lacerated" cerebellum in '96. Did he say "severely lacerated" at some other time in his life?

BTW, the word "cerebellum" doesn't appear ONE time in Humes' 1964 Warren Commission testimony, and it doesn't appear even once in his '78 HSCA session either.


>>> "4. Isn't it true that you believe that Humes, Boswell, and Finck grossly misidentified the location of the entry wound to the back of JFK's head?" <<<

Yes, they definitely misidentified it (with Humes realizing his error and correcting it in 1978, before he went cuckoo again in '96 or so and returned to his crazy "white spot at the hairline is the entry wound" position).

How anyone could believe, as apparently you do, John, that this piece of dried brain tissue at the hairline level of JFK's head is a bullet hole...is beyond the scope of my own brain.

Not only did the HSCA do extensive research on this "white mass" on the back of Kennedy's head (and they found it to be, beyond all doubt, a piece of material that was definitely stuck to the OUTSIDE of his head, rather than a HOLE for a bullet's entry)....but that "white spot" doesn't even remotely resemble a bullet hole. It's not even close to looking anything like a bullet hole.


>>> "5. Isn't it true that you believe Humes was mistaken about his recollection that when they reflected the scalp, pieces of bone fell/came out?" <<<

I thought it was Boswell whom you always prop up to support that part of your BOH fantasy. Now it's Humes too? Cite that please.

Anyway, as the X-ray shows (beyond all doubt), the back of JFK's head was totally intact -- i.e., the back of the skull contained no HOLES, nor enough fragmentation or fracture points to even suggest that Boswell (or anyone else) could have possibly placed chunks of JFK's head back into place IN THE VERY BACK OF HIS HEAD at any time during the Bethesda proceedings on 11/22/63.



And I still wonder why it doesn't bother John Canal that the two major pieces of photographic evidence (the autopsy photos and that pesky "No Hole Back Here And Not Enough Fracture Lines" lateral X-ray) are, in unison, somehow debunking his own theory....and yet he still clings to his fantasy concerning a large BOH hole?

A most curious position to take, IMO, in the face of such overwhelming PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence that is telling him he is wrong (in TRIPLICATE yet -- the two pictures that show the back of President Kennedy's head and the X-ray of the right side of his head [as seen below]).



But, everybody's entitled to their own theories and opinions, I guess. And just because John Canal has latched onto a really strange theory, I guess he's still "got a right" to it.


>>> "6. Isn't it true that you believe Dr. Zimmerman, who reads X-rays on a daily basis and has examined the original photos and X-rays in the NA [National Archives], was wrong when he said that it was possible that some of the pieces of rear skull could have come "unlatched", resulting in the type of wound the PH doctors described?" <<<

Yes. If Chad Zimmerman said that, I think he's wrong.


>>> "7. Isn't it true that you futilely tried to find the trail of opacities (that I told you was seen on the original lateral X-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP) on the published copies that have the EOP area cropped?" <<<

The EOP isn't "cropped" here.

It looks to me like 100% of the head (on the far left side of that X-ray above) is included in that photograph. And if a teeny-weeny sliver of the head is cut off, how does that do you and your "trail of opacities from the EOP" theory much good anyway? Any such "trail" would certainly extend into an area further RIGHT on that X-ray, thereby making the trail visible.

Anyway, you've admitted yourself you've never once seen the original X-ray in the Archives. You're merely relying on someone else's opinion on that particular sub-topic.


>>> "8. Isn't it true that you have told us that you can tell from what you see on the published copies of the lateral X-ray that the BOH fractures are only "surface fractures"?" <<<

No. I've never once used the words you placed in quotes there ("surface fractures"). I challenge you to find a previous post of mine where I used those exact words. You won't find one. (So why would you want to put those words in quotation marks?)

Anyway, semantics aside, there is no BOH hole in the location where you--John Canal--desperately NEED one to be located (the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of the occipital of JFK's head).

And, yes, I believe the version(s) of the X-ray we have available on the Internet are giving me enough information to make an informed opinion on that "fracture lines" matter.

There's not NEARLY enough visible damage in this X-ray to make your theory stay afloat. It's not even close:




>>> "9. Isn't it true that regarding the statement in the autopsy report that reads, "Upon reflecting the scalp, multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction. ... These result in the production of numerous fragments which vary in size...", you think that they didn't intend on giving the impression that numerous fragments were produced by the complete fracture lines radiating from the wound in the occiput...evidently, just from the wound at the vertex?" <<<

Yes. Exactly. That states my position perfectly.

And from the TOTALITY of the photographic evidence (autopsy photos/X-rays), I think my conclusion regarding that subject is a sound and logical one.

Footnote---

But even if a few very small pieces of skull near the entry wound DID fall out of JFK's head upon reflection of the scalp during the autopsy, it would mean (from my POV regarding that wound's REAL location--i.e., near the cowlick) that any such pieces of bone/skull fell out HIGH up on Kennedy's head, at the cowlick region, and not LOW on the head, which is where YOU need the pieces of bone to have fallen out in order for your particular "BOH/LN" theory to be true.

Plus, of course, since these pieces of bone didn't even "fall out" of the President's head until THE AUTOPSY (i.e., after 8:00 PM EST on the night of 11/22/63), John C. has another very big problem with his BOH/LN theory as well. And that problem is:

HOW COULD THE PARKLAND WITNESSES HAVE POSSIBLY SEEN SOMETHING (A LARGE HOLE IN THE OCCIPITAL REGION OF JFK'S HEAD) THAT WASN'T EVEN CREATED UNTIL MANY HOURS LATER AT BETHESDA, MARYLAND, WHEN THE AUTOPSISTS REFLECTED THE SCALP OF THE PRESIDENT IN ORDER FOR ANY LOOSE PIECES TO FALL FREE FROM HIS HEAD?

That last emphasized question should make John Canal scratch his head in bewilderment. Whether it will or not -- who knows.


>>> "10. Isn't it true that you have said that you don't care about understanding F8 (or words to that effect)?" <<<

Yes.

The autopsy photo known as F8 is a complete mess. And if you took the time to explain it to me 101 different times, I doubt it would still make much sense (from a "Which Way Is Up On This Damn Picture?" point-of-view). It would still be a total freaking mess.

IMO, autopsy photograph #F8 is not aiding anyone at all who is attempting to locate certain wounds (entry vs. exit points, etc.) on John F. Kennedy's head. Because everybody's got a different "official" opinion on the picture, it seems.

In other words, how can "mud" possibly bring about "clarity"? IMO, it can't. So I'll choose to dismiss it entirely and utilize better and clearer-to-interpret evidence.


>>> "11. Isn't it true that you are positively certain that the autopsy photos showing a virtually undamaged BOH were taken before any repair could have been done to the BOH scalp in preparation for an open-casket funeral?" <<<

No. I'm not "positively certain" of that. But I certainly think you've got another big problem with your unique "BOH/LN" theory when it comes to the photo in question...this photo below:



Because how could JFK's head look as it does in that photograph and still have your theory about a badly-torn scalp* be true -- no matter WHEN the picture was snapped by Mr. Stringer (either early or late in the autopsy timeline)?

I see no damage of any kind in that area of the head in that photo. No sign of a wound. No hole. No stitches. No sutures. No nothing (except hair and an intact scalp).

* And make no mistake here--John needs a "badly-torn" scalp in that far-right-rear area of JFK's head. Not just a nickel- or quarter-sized mini-hole. Because without a pretty big rip in that scalp, the witnesses at Parkland (and, yes, some at Bethesda too...and, yes, Clint Hill too) could not POSSIBLY have seen what they and John Canal really say they saw -- i.e., a large, gaping hole in the right-rear of Kennedy's head, which is a hole that would have had to certainly TEAR THROUGH A LARGE HUNK OF JFK'S SCALP (as well as his underlying skull too).

Which also then, in turn, brings me back to something I said in response to John's 9th question, which directly relates to this matter as well. (See my "Footnote" for #9 above.)


>>> "12. Isn't it true that you think that you'd be able to tell from the copies of the photos that show a virtually undamaged BOH whether or not any tears in the BOH scalp had been effected as part of the process to prepare the body for an open casket funeral?" <<<

Yes. Exactly.


>>> "13. Isn't it true that you don't think that it's important that high-entry theorists reasonably explain the trail of opacities (bone chips from the skull's beveled-out inner table around the entry) seen on the original lateral X-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP?" <<<

I can't answer this question at all....because I have never seen this mystery "trail of opacities...near the EOP". (And neither have you, I might add.)

But you're comfortable enough to make such a bold declaration about the existence of such a "trail" (and the exact explanation of where any such bone fragments came from and what it all means with respect to a definitive "entry" hole at the level of the EOP) even though you've never laid eyes on that original X-ray.

Well, to each his own.


>>> "14. Isn't it true that you are 100% certain that Boswell (or Humes) did not push any previously out-of-place BOH skull pieces (still adhered to the scalp) back into place before the X-rays were taken...even though Boswell testified he did replace pieces of skull prior to some X-rays or photos being taken?" <<<

Yes. Precisely correct. He (they) did no such thing. At any rate, they certainly didn't perform any such "bone replacement" chore IN THE PRECISE AREA OF JFK'S HEAD WHERE YOU NEED THEM TO HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THAT FEAT (i.e., in the far-right-rear of the head).

How can we know they didn't do that in that area of the head?

Answer: The lateral X-ray.


>>> "15. Isn't it true that you are sure that the entry hole in the scalp in the BOH photos is directly over the entry hole in the skull...even though prior to the BOH photos being taken, the scalp had been reflected, pieces of bone came/fell out, the brain was removed, and the scalp held back up...and even though the entry appears to be at midline (in the photos) and it has not been disputed by "any" of the experts that the entry wound was 2.5 cm right of midline?" <<<

No. That's not quite what I've ever said. The cowlick (red spot) entry hole could be "off" a little bit one direction or another during that photo session. It doesn't have to line up perfectly for the benefit of that picture.

I doubt that Humes, Finck, and Boswell (in circa 1963-1964) could have imagined (in their wildest dreams) that meaningless chaff-like subjects like these we're discussing would ever come up in conversation in a million years. And yet they do come up...over and over again.

The bottom line, of course, is this:

JFK was struck in the head with ONE single bullet and no more than one....and that one bullet entered in the BACK of his head (somewhere), and exited the right-front part of his head. And Lee Harvey Oswald and his 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle were responsible for this damage.


>>> "16. Isn't it true that you prefer to use the photos showing the entry in the BOH SCALP instead of the photo showing the entry in the SKULL to determine where the entry in the SKULL was?" <<<

Yes. Generally speaking, that's true. Mainly due to the fact that it's so much easier to view the UNDENIABLE entry-hole location (the red spot near the cowlick) by way of viewing the color photo showing the back of JFK's head, rather than trying to decipher the X-rays with respect to what "spot" on the X-rays represents the precise location of the entry wound. I think even some of the experts who deal with X-rays a lot have some difficulty with that one. Not all of them, true, but some do.

So, even if the slightly loosened scalp was skewing the exact, to-the-millimeter location of the entry wound in the color photo of the back of the head, that photo is telling any reasonable person the GENERAL location of the entry hole (which was certainly ABOVE the EOP, and not below it).


>>> "17. Isn't it true that you believe FBI Agents O'Neill and Siebert [sic], as well as SSA Clint Hill, were either lying or grossly mistaken about seeing a BOH wound?" <<<

Yes. The latter. They were mistaken. Without doubt. They didn't lie though. And no Parkland or Bethesda witness did either. And I've never once accused any of those people of "lying". Never once.

Also refer back to my response in #11 above for more on this topic.

Re: "Liars".....

The only PROVABLE "liars" in the JFK case, in my opinion, are Roger Craig and Jean Hill. Those witnesses, however, don't play any part in our discussion about the head wounds. But both of them were proven liars without a shred of a doubt.


>>> "18. Isn't it true that you believe Dr. Ebersole was mistaken when he recollected seeing a right rear gaping wound...even though he said he held the President's head in his hands?" <<<

Yes. That's correct.

He could not possibly have seen a "right rear gaping wound" in the head of the dead Chief Executive.

Why?

~~drumroll~~

Here's why:



Thank you, John.

I enjoyed it.

Regards,
David R. Von Pein
August 17, 2008







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 300)





BUD SAID:

What makes the photo [above] interesting is that this is an announced route of the President, and you can see people in the windows behind him. Just further evidence that the kook claim that the protection Kennedy received at Dallas was uncommonly lax is just one more kook myth.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Absolutely.

And here's another pre-Nov. 22 example of the same thing (during a very crowded parade in Ireland in the summer of '63). Note the large number of people in EVERY single window on the right-hand side of this photo:



I guess the Secret Service didn't give a damn about DOZENS of people hanging their heads out of wide-open windows as the President passed slowly below them on the street. And my "dozens" number comes from just the above picture alone. The number was undoubtedly HUNDREDS, if not thousands, of people who were watching JFK in that Ireland motorcade from open windows above street level when the entire length of the caravan is taken into account.

So much for Fletcher Prouty's idiocy regarding SS procedure, when Prouty said the following in an interview a few years ago (paraphrasing): "Every window would be closed along the parade route, and if a window was suddenly opened, there would be an agent in that room immediately and the window would be closed."

(LOL.)

Another picture I've also found very interesting is the one below, which was taken in Dallas on 11/22/63, just as JFK's limo is about to enter the intersection of Main & Houston Streets. Take note of the multiple parade-watchers (at least 8, and probably more) who are hanging out of the second-floor window of the building on the left side of this photograph:



And since the limo is about to make its 90-degree turn from Main onto Houston just seconds after the above picture was taken, the car was obviously moving very, very slowly as it entered the intersection.

I can just envision one of those 8+ individuals who were hanging out of those several 2nd-story windows having a gun and taking a shot at the President.

It would have been a turkey shoot from that distance and elevated position....and the same can be said of anyone who wanted to take a pot-shot at Kennedy during that motorcade in Ireland too. The car must have been crawling along at a near standstill at that moment, due to the intense crowds that were pressing up against the limousine.

So, once again, conspiracy theorists are dead wrong when they claim that the security precautions in Dallas were any different whatsoever insofar as the supposed Secret Service rule (or at least an ENFORCED rule adhered to in every motorcade by the Secret Service) of No Open Windows Allowed Along A Motorcade Route.

But it sounds good anyway (to the conspiracy-lovers) to pretend that November 22nd was vastly different in this "open windows" regard than it was in any of the many pre-11/22 parades that Kennedy travelled in while driving with the top down.

David Von Pein
August 17, 2008







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 299)


JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> "Ok, back to that same fracture (the lower of the two parallel ones), i.e. the one that split the entry. That fracture was probably, if not undoubtedly, the lower margin of the bone piece in his BOH that moved out of position...[blah-blah-more utter nonsense spewed forth by John "BOH/LN" Canal...]..." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'll stop you right there if you don't mind (or even if you do), Johnny. That endless unsupportable type of crap hurts my head. So, excuse me while I take a break so I can barf.

(Thank you.)

As I said the other day -- the more this "Large BOH" silliness is discussed, the more comical it gets.


>>> "If there are any lurkers out there, I hope I didn't confuse you and helped keep you from swallowing what DVP was trying to feed you." <<<

All that I (or any reasonable person) really need to feed them are these two photos (over and over again). Because these two items totally destroy your strange BOH/LN theory, and they always shall, because they're not going anyplace:



The above pictures aren't lying. They aren't fakes. There is no large BOH wound. It is not there.

In order for John Canal (or ANY of the Parkland witnesses) to be correct, we'd have to believe in an incredible photographic DOUBLE-miracle with regard to the above two pictures....which are photos that, in their totality, are telling the world that JFK had no great-big hole at the right-rear portion of his head. And that photographic miracle is this:

BOTH pictures--which are genuine, unaltered pictures as Mr. Canal agrees and are perfectly "in sync" with one another in an undeniable and very easy-to-see "THERE IS POSITIVELY NO LARGE WOUND IN THE FAR-RIGHT-REAR PART OF JFK'S CRANIUM IN THESE PICTURES" fashion--are somehow NOT telling us the truth with respect to the true nature of President Kennedy's head wounds that he sustained in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

If ONE of those two images was degraded in some way (because of having been endlessly copied or whatever other reason for degradation), okay.

But BOTH of those two images providing the very same type of FALSE and MISLEADING information regarding the SAME area of John Kennedy's head???

Is that likely, Mr. Canal? I ask you.

Why did I even ask? We all know the subsequent answer, don't we? John C. wants a great-big hole in the back of JFK's head....so, by golly, he's going to PUT one there, and to hell with the two images shown above.

Right, John?

Thank you....and Godspeed.

David Von Pein
August 16, 2008




GENERAL EDWIN WALKER,
LEE HARVEY OSWALD, AND
OSWALD'S POST-ASSASSINATION
MOVEMENTS ON 11/22/63


JONATHAN W. HALLMAN SAID:

Mr. Von Pein:

Thank you for maintaining your JFK assassination blogs. They show meticulous care and research. The evidence showing Oswald’s guilt is substantial, you have done a masterful job in organizing it all.

But I have been unable to find research or facts supporting how Oswald transported his rifle in his attempt on Gen. Walker. How did Oswald get the rifle across Dallas when he has no car or drivers license? This points to conspiracy in my opinion with regard to the Walker shot, which then confuses me because -- if he acted in consort then, why would he not be in consort in his later successful assassination attempt with regard to JFK?

So many conspiracy theories are laughable. But I say it becomes just as laughable to suppose that Oswald hitchhiked, walked, or took the bus with his rifle to get to Walker’s house to pull off his shot. Such a thing demands that he was driven, which then demands he acted in consort with a driver. Plus, he then needed to get back home with the rifle so he could use it later. This again demands transportation, which obviously required a car.

Is there a section of your blog that can clarify this issue for me? It is deeply confusing to me since, like you, I do believe in Oswald’s guilt.

Regards,
Jon Hallman


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hi Jon,

It's impossible, of course, to prove with 100% certainty that Oswald was working alone when he shot at General Edwin Walker in April of '63. But there is certainly nothing concrete to indicate that any other person aided Oswald in that crime.

In fact, if you look at Marina Oswald's testimony [at 1 H 16], you'll see that she said that Lee told her that he had "buried" the rifle someplace after taking the shot at Walker. And why would Lee bury the gun if he had a helper to drive him to and from the scene of the crime? That doesn't add up at all.

Also:

In Priscilla Johnson's book, it's revealed through conversations with Marina that Lee had apparently said something to Marina to this effect after the Walker shooting:

"Those dumb cops. They think you always need a car to escape. But I got away on my own two feet."

I'm sorry you couldn't find what you needed to know on my websites. I have covered aspects of the Walker shooting in various places on my sites and on JFK forums [e.g., HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE], but it's been kind of scattered throughout the articles. I've never really delved too deeply into the idea that Oswald had a co-conspirator in the Walker shooting, mainly because I think the evidence indicates otherwise (including Marina's very important testimony).

Conspiracy theorists who want to exonerate Oswald for the Walker crime too (and many do desire to do that) have no choice but to believe Marina was telling a bunch of lies to the Warren Commission and other people about the Walker incident. But that notion is just balderdash, in my opinion. Marina even told author Vincent Bugliosi as late as November of 2000 that Lee had told her that he shot at Walker.

But, of course, the Walker shooting technically does remain unsolved, so the possibility of Oswald having an accomplice, however unlikely, cannot be ruled out entirely. And the same can be said in the JFK murder too. It's impossible to say for certainty that Oswald didn't have a co-plotter in that case either, although the way things unfolded just after JFK was shot make it very hard for me to believe in even a smaller two-man plot, mainly because Oswald's means of escape from the Book Depository were: a bus, a cab, and his own two feet. If he had a helper, that helper sure was useless when Lee needed him the most, wasn't he?

There's also this passage from the HSCA regarding the Walker shooting:

"With respect to the Walker shooting, reports of the Dallas Police Department, made at the time of the shooting and referred to in the Warren Report, reflected that there was one witness who stated he saw more than one person leaving the scene after the shooting. Another witness, according to police reports, stated he saw two men, two nights before the shooting, driving in the vicinity of the Walker house in a suspicious manner. These statements were never substantiated, and the case remains unsolved. Nevertheless, if they are true, a possible implication is that Oswald had associates who would engage in a conspiracy to commit murder. The committee conducted a limited investigation to see if leads could be developed that might assist in identifying these possible associates. No leads were developed, and this line of inquiry was abandoned." -- HSCA Report; Page 61 (footnote)

Regards,
David Von Pein


JON HALLMAN SAID:

Thanks, Dave, for such a thorough and prompt reply.

The Walker shooting remains problematic to me in that it strikes me as unlikely that Oswald could have buried his rifle without a shovel – and that he could then pull off such an accurate set of shots at Kennedy (albeit with one miss) after exhuming it from the burial.

But setting that aside, I still find it very curious to suppose that Oswald walked with his gun to and from the Walker shooting. Such a proposition does not seem well thought out to me. He surely did not walk with that gun to the TSBD, he got a ride. But I am then to believe that he walked the rifle over to the Walker shooting. I just have a hard time buying that. I suppose it is within the realm of possible, but common sense tells me otherwise. And if he is conspiring then, it makes me wonder why he would not be conspiring later.

Regards,
Jon Hallman


JON HALLMAN LATER SAID:

Hi Dave:

I work at a Dallas-based firm so our firm retreats every year are in Dallas. This year one of the entertainment choices was a tour of the Kennedy museum. Given that I was visiting the museum, I was web-browsing and found your blog. It was quite a find, you have a truly excellent collection of videos and materials. I congratulate you again!

Having read a great deal on your blogs, I was well prepared for the museum tour. The firm paid for a tour guide who then took us to Oswald’s boarding house. Although nearly 50 years have gone by, that house looks like Oswald could have just stepped out of it – quite surprising to me since it is still privately owned without any official preservation. Here in California, they would have razed the place and put up a McMansion.

We then went to the Tippit killing street corner (now changed quite a bit unlike the boarding house). We then went to the Texas Theatre, which looks to be straight out of 1963.

Being a fan of your blogs, I found our tour guide a bit amusing since he was an avid conspiracy buff with more shooters than you could shake a stick at. So I found him to be misguided, if well-intentioned.

But what bothered me at that time was the distance between Oswald’s boarding house and the Tippit killing. It is said to be 0.9 miles, but that bus drove straight there block after block after block: the distance surprised me. That man had to be close to jogging to cover that distance in the approximately 10 minutes allowed to him by the facts. The distance from the shooting to the Texas Theatre also surprised me.

What also bothered me was – where could Oswald be going? What could he possibly thought he was going to do with the few dollars he had and on foot?

So this trip to Dallas got me wondering about the lone assassin theory. What then really bothered me is the Walker shooting – I will have to research the distance between where Oswald was staying in April of 1963 and Walker’s house. Given the considerable sprawl of Dallas, I would guess it was a solid 5 miles plus. How did he walk that far with a high-powered rifle that long without arousing some police inquiries? I suppose lots of folks have rifles in Dallas, but even in 1963 I say that it would raise eyebrows to casually walk around in public with one.

Regards,
Jon Hallman


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Greetings once again Jon,

You have raised some more good points.

Another thing to consider when discussing the Walker incident is that Oswald might very well have placed the rifle in some kind of container as he walked to General Walker's house. Which, of course, he also did when he wrapped the rifle up in a paper bag on November 22. It stands to reason that he probably wouldn't want to walk down the street with a fully-exposed rifle in his hands, even if it was dark outside.

Now, whether or not any such perceived rifle-toting container was big enough to hold the assembled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (vs. the need to break the weapon down into pieces, like Oswald did on 11/22/63) can never be known. Mr. Oswald, unfortunately, wasn't kind enough to tell us that he shot at Walker before meeting his Maker on November 24. So some things will forever remain unknown and uncertain.

Here's another thing to consider (if only in a small way) relating to Oswald's guilt and the Walker shooting:

Given the huge publicity that surrounded Lee Oswald following JFK's murder, and given the fact that shortly after Kennedy's death, it was made known to the public that Oswald had likely taken that shot at Edwin Walker (plus the Warren Commission's 1964 conclusions regarding Oswald's probable guilt in the Walker incident) -- I'm just wondering why there haven't been at least a couple of people to step forward and seek the limelight to say that they themselves had conspired with Oswald to try and kill Walker, or (even more likely) to say that they had personal first-hand knowledge that Oswald did not act alone in the Walker shooting.

In the JFK case, publicity seekers and "new assassins" come popping up out of the woodwork every few years or so. But I don't think I've heard of one such "confession" or bombshell witness who claimed to have details about a Walker conspiracy connected with Lee Harvey Oswald (or even a theory which has Oswald as a NON-participant altogether, which is the theory that a lot of the Internet conspiracy junkies seem to want to believe; they don't think Oswald was anywhere near Walker's house on April 10th of '63).

Anyway, just some food for thought.


Re: "Where Was Oswald Going?":

There are different schools of thought on that, with one theory being that Oswald was on his way to General Walker's house (again) to finish the job on the General that LHO failed to complete in April. An interesting theory too, and it could possibly be an accurate one. But, of course, nobody can know for sure.

Another theory was authored by (I think) David Belin in his 1973 book. Although somebody else before Belin might have spoken about this theory too. The theory is that Oswald was on his way to a specific bus stop in Oak Cliff which would take him south, toward Mexico. Oswald, remember, only had a limited amount of time to use that bus transfer that he got from Cecil McWatters on Elm Street. He just might have had it in mind to use that transfer to travel further south through Texas, and then possibly down to Mexico. He certainly had enough money to buy another bus ticket. But, again, it's just pure speculation.

If only Oswald had lived. Maybe then more of these questions would have been answered.


Re: The distance between 1026 Beckley and 10th & Patton:

You're right, it is nine-tenths of a mile. (Actually, to be technical, the Warren Commission lists it as being slightly less, at 0.85 of a mile.) And that route HAS been re-created by several independent researchers and has been done in as little as 11 minutes.

The one thing that pretty much guarantees that Oswald could, indeed, have travelled the distance to Tenth Street on 11/22/63 is the fact that we know (via the observations of several witnesses) that Oswald was in that area of Tenth Street and Patton Avenue just seconds after Officer Tippit was shot.

I put this question to conspiracy theorist Jim DiEugenio at an online forum and got no reply at all--probably because Jimmy knew he'd look like an idiot if he continued to insist that Oswald couldn't have made it to Tenth Street in time. The question I posed to DiEugenio was essentially this one:

If Oswald couldn't possibly have made it to Tenth Street in time to murder J.D. Tippit, then how do you explain the fact that he DID make it to that same area of Tenth & Patton in time to be seen (and positively identified) by witnesses like Ted Callaway, Sam Guinyard, Barbara Davis, and Virginia Davis (among others)?

DiEugenio apparently likes to pretend that ALL of those witnesses were dead wrong and they really saw only an "Oswald Imposter" on November 22. (Yeah, right, Jimmy.) :)

The other "distance" you mentioned (the distance between the Tippit shooting and the Texas Theater) is a distance that could easily have been traversed by Oswald in the time he had on November 22nd. Tippit was shot at about 1:14 or 1:15 PM, and Oswald was seen near the theater by Johnny Brewer on Jefferson Blvd. at roughly 1:35 to 1:40, which leaves ample time for Oswald to get there.

The question I have raised about that 20-minute interval isn't whether Oswald could have made it there, but instead, what was he doing all of that time between 1:15 and about 1:35? It's another of those unanswerable questions, because no witness was ever found who saw Oswald during that time period.

My guess would be that he was laying low in a back alley behind Jefferson Boulevard before he decided to duck into the dark theater. It's also my theory that a fifth bullet shell just might have been extracted by Oswald from his revolver during that 20-minute interval too, which would explain the mismatch in the brands of cartridge casings and bullets that exists in the Tippit investigation.

David Von Pein
December 2012


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


ADDENDUM #1:


A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:

Like almost every other aspect of this case, there is much weirdness about [General Edwin] Walker and the shooting. Walker was a bitter enemy of JFK. How you go from shooting at Walker to killing his arch enemy JFK has never been explained.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

General Walker, like JFK, hated Castro (and Communism). That's a very good reason right there for Oswald wanting both JFK and Walker dead. A damn good motive in fact. Because Lee Oswald loved his adored Fidel.

LHO told Marina (via Marina's own Warren Commission testimony) that Lee feared Walker was going to become the next Hitler.

Some of Marina Oswald's WC testimony is provided below. Now, either Marina was a whale of a good teller of tall tales regarding a certain incident involving Retired Major General Edwin A. Walker in April of 1963 (as she gives some very, very DETAILED information about her husband and his planned attempt on the life of the general)....or Lee Harvey Oswald DID, indeed, take a gun and shoot at Walker on 04/10/63. Let's listen in:


Mr. RANKIN. How did you first learn that your husband had shot at General Walker?

Mrs. OSWALD. That evening he went out, I thought that he had gone to his classes or perhaps that he just walked out or went out on his own business. It got to be about 10 or 10:30, he wasn't home yet, and I began to be worried. Perhaps even later. Then I went into his room. Somehow, I was drawn into it--you know--I was pacing around. Then I saw a note there.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you look for the gun at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, I didn't understand anything. On the note it said, "If I am arrested" and there are certain other questions, such as, for example, the key to the mailbox is in such and such a place, and that he left me some money to last me for some time, and I couldn't understand at all what can he be arrested for. When he came back, I asked him what had happened. He was very pale. I don't remember the exact time, but it was very late. And he told me not to ask him any questions. He only told me that he had shot at General Walker. Of course I didn't sleep all night. I thought that any minute now, the police will come. Of course I wanted to ask him a great deal. But in his state I decided I had best leave him alone; it would be purposeless to question him.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say any more than that about the shooting?

Mrs. OSWALD. Of course in the morning I told him that I was worried, and that we can have a lot of trouble, and I asked him, "Where is the rifle? What did you do with it?" He said that he had left it somewhere, that he had buried it, it seems to me, somewhere far from that place, because he said dogs could find it by smell. I don't know---I am not a criminologist.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you why he had shot at General Walker?

Mrs. OSWALD. I told him that he had no right to kill people in peacetime, he had no right to take their life because not everybody has the same ideas as he has. People cannot be all alike. He said that this was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader of a fascist organization, and when I said that even though all of that might be true, just the same he had no right to take his life, he said if someone had killed Hitler in time, it would have saved many lives. I told him that this is no method to prove your ideas, by means of a rifle.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask him how long he had been planning to do this?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He said he had been planning for two months. Yes--perhaps he had planned to do so even earlier, but according to his conduct, I could tell he was planning--he had been planning this for two months or perhaps a little even earlier.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he show you a picture of the Walker house then?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. That was after the shooting?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He had a book---he had a notebook in which he noted down quite a few details.

[Later....]

Mr. RANKIN. Did he explain to you about his being able to use a bus just as well as other people could use a car---something of that kind?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. Simply as a passenger. He told me that even before that time he had gone also to shoot, but he had returned. I don't know why. Because on the day that he did fire, there was a church across the street and there were many people there, and it was easier to merge in the crowd and not be noticed.

[End Warren Commission Testimony.]

After reading the above detailed Warren Commission testimony of Marina Oswald, how anybody can still think Lee Oswald didn't plan and carry out an assassination attempt against General Walker in April 1963 is beyond me.

David Von Pein
September 2007


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


ADDENDUM #2:


BILL KELLY SAID:

Who else besides Oswald was involved in the Walker shooting, and why didn’t Oswald prepare for JFK like he did for Walker – taking photos of the scene, keeping notebook, leaving note with instructions for Marina, etc.?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There is no hard evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in the shooting of Edwin Walker on April 10th, 1963. If you'd like to speculate that the witness (or witnesses) who saw various vehicles outside of Walker's house at the time of the shooting indicates a "plot" to kill Walker--well, I guess you're free to speculate about such things. But it's not going to get you very far.

And can anyone with one good eye possibly deny that these two bullets are very similar (CE573 is the Walker bullet)?:



As for Oswald's preparations for killing Kennedy, in order to answer this type of unanswerable question, we'd have to possess the ability to get inside the mind of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Oswald very likely didn't make any advanced plans to kill JFK simply because there really wasn't very much time for him to do so anyway. He couldn't have possibly learned about the exact Houston-to-Elm motorcade route until November 19 (at the earliest). And from his behavior and his remarks made to Marina on November 21st, I think his plan to shoot Kennedy was still a tentative and undecided one. Yes, he definitely went to Irving on Nov. 21st to retrieve his rifle (the "curtain rod" lie he told to Buell Frazier on Thursday morning pretty much proves this fact), but as far as his murderous plan being fixed in concrete as of Thursday night, I doubt that it was.

More on that here.

David Von Pein
September 2013


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


ADDENDUM #3:


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Lee Harvey Oswald purchased a cheap rifle for himself in March 1963 (so he can shoot a certain retired general in Dallas). He misses in his attempt to kill General Walker, but decides to hang on to the Carcano rifle (for some reason that I've never quite been able to figure out, other than his own extreme stinginess and unwillingness to get rid of something he only used once).


LANCE PAYETTE SAID:

If we knew to a certainty that he had shot at General Walker, my willingness to accept the Lone Nut explanation would increase considerably -- but this seems to me to be one of the weakest of the claims about LHO. Even if he did, Walker was pretty much the antithesis of JFK, and I have a really hard time picturing LHO as an indiscriminate assassin who was willing to kill anyone just to achieve notoriety.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Lance, how can you have ANY doubt whatever about Oswald's involvement in the Walker shooting with Commission Exhibit No. 1 staring at you? Marina found that note on Lee's desk (with their P.O. Box key on top of it) on the night of the Walker shooting when Lee was away from home all evening. Lee then came home, nervous and pale, late that night.

What do you think the note in CE1 was referring to if not the Walker murder attempt?


JIM HARGROVE SAID:

Oh, brother! Even the HSCA refused to believe Marina's tales about the Walker shooting!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good boy, Jim. Just totally ignore the NOTE, which wasn't written by MARINA. It was written by LEE Oswald himself!

Tell us, Jim, why did Lee write that letter to Marina? Or do you want to pretend that CE1 is a fake and a fraud too? It's a letter which indicates LHO was about to go out and do something that was so bad that Lee thought he might very well end up dead or in the slammer.

Any idea what that activity on April 10, 1963, might have been?

Need any help?



Also -- notice any similarity here?:




JIM HARGROVE SAID THIS AND THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Jim H., for showing us all your true "Everything's Been Faked" colors. I'm loving it!

BTW, let's hear what the FBI's Bob Frazier had to say about the bullet types....

MR. EISENBERG -- "Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this [CE573] a steel-jacketed bullet?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket."


-----------

Frazier was just lying through his teeth there, right Jim?


JIM HARGROVE SAID:

That's right...endless excuses.

Dallas cops didn't know the difference between steel and copper jacketed bullets. Neither did General Walker, apparently, who said the bullet in evidence wasn't the bullet dug out of his house.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So let me get this straight (from your POV), Jim....

You think CE573 is a fake and a fraud (naturally).

And you also believe that somebody was trying to frame Lee H. Oswald for the Walker shooting at the same time "somebody" placed CE573 into the evidence pile....even though we know that CE573 was banged up too much to be linked conclusively to the patsy's gun.

Right, Jim?

So, here's the question I have for you....

If the cops (or whoever) were wanting to frame LHO for the Walker shooting, why on Earth would they plant into evidence an essentially useless bullet that can never be tied specifically to Carcano Rifle C2766?

Were the plotters completely void of all brain cells? Or did they just want to keep busy in late November after the JFK assassination stuff quieted down a bit?

Or did they just simply screw up (again)---like they did when they left a Mauser on the sixth floor too, even though their patsy never owned one of those?

Your call.

In short (and in truth, IMO) --- The fact that CE573 cannot be linked to any specific rifle is virtual proof, right there, that it was not "planted" into the evidence pile. Because only a total idiot would want to do something so stupid. Although, yes, CE573 looks exactly like CE399 in many respects. No doubt about it. But if you're going to go to the trouble of PLANTING a bullet to frame a particular person, you're surely going to make sure that that bullet can be tied exclusively to the patsy's gun. Wouldn't you agree, Jim Hargrove?


JIM HARGROVE SAID:

Do you REALLY think this Russian note [CE1] was written by a native born American who spent a couple of years in Russia? Really??


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's a ton of LHO's correspondence written in the Russian language in the Warren Commission volumes.

And all of it (AFAIK) was determined by the handwriting experts to be in Lee Harvey Oswald's writing. Including Oswald's Diary (CE24). Do you think it's ALL phony and fake?


JIM HARGROVE SAID:

No, but I sure think that undated, unsigned note, found by Ruth Paine almost a week after her whole house had been repeatedly searched by the police, was a fraud!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It was stuffed inside a book. Was the FBI supposed to leaf through every page of every book in Ruth's house in a search for potential evidence?

Get real.


JIM HARGROVE SAID:

On Saturday morning, November 30th, Mrs. Paine gave the book (actually two books) to Irving Police Captain Paul Barger. She said she found the book, "Our Child", in Marina's bedroom and the "Book of Helpful Instructions" in her kitchen. Mrs. Paine told Captain Barger that Marina could not get along without those books and constantly used both books during the day.

Why did it take a week for Mrs. Paine to offer police two books that Marina used every day and couldn't get along without? Someone needed to take a close look at those books.

This story is as preposterous as the rest of the so-called "evidence" in this case.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, right. Like a week (SEVEN days) was an absolute eternity, wasn't it? You're a howl, Jim.

So, what are you trying to suggest anyway -- that Ruth Paine planted a fake note in a book before she gave it to the police?

And the note was a perfect forgery too (per CTers), with "Oswald"-like handwriting that fooled every expert who examined it for years thereafter.

Talk about preposterous stories. The CTer version of "The Note" is far more preposterous.

David Von Pein
March 6-7, 2016


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


WALKER & OSWALD
(PART 2)


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





AND ANOTHER....


JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 298)


JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> "Are you all right?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I was going to ask you the same question. ;)

Another additional random thought regarding John Canal and JFK's head:

It's also rather remarkable (in an "Every Piece Of Photographic Evidence IN TANDEM Is Proving John Canal To Be Wrong About His Theory" kind of a way) that the bullet-fragment trail just happens to be HIGH in JFK's head via the lateral X-ray, instead of where it probably SHOULD be located if John Canal is correct about the entry wound really being located much lower.

But, of course, John can explain away this total lack of a low bullet-fragment trail, by speculating that the explosion of the head after the bullet struck the President's skull resulted in ALL of the metal fragments being moved northward in Mr. Kennedy's cranium, leaving no sign of any metallic trail at the actual point of entry.

Plus: the metal fragments, after being pushed upward by this explosive thrust (per John Canal), somehow managed to line themselves up to form a very nice-looking "high-to-low", "back-to-front" kind of arrangement in the X-ray, located high in the skull cavity of the President, near the cowlick entry site endorsed by the HSCA, thereby fooling Dr. Baden and various other pathologists who have examined the X-rays since 1963.

In short, the number of things in John Canal's filing cabinet marked "The Photos And X-rays We Have At Our Disposal On The Internet Aren't Really Showing The True Nature Of JFK's Head Wounds" is quite a voluminous number.

I'm just wondering how large that number must reach before John realizes that he's barking up the wrong tree (and the wrong BOH theory)?

David Von Pein
August 15, 2008




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 297)


JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> "You do know from your extensive research that the holes in JFK's scalp were closed up in preparation for a possible open-casket funeral, right?...and that Humes assisted the morticians until the body left the morgue, right? I guess not." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:



John Canal thinks that this picture depicts a scalp on JFK's head that was torn WIDE OPEN at the right-rear portion of the head by the effects of Lee Oswald's bullet a few hours earlier, and yet that same scalp looks the way it does in that autopsy photograph (i.e., COMPLETELY INTACT, sans a single indication of any stitches/sutures, and sans any visual indication whatsoever of any damage having been done to JFK's scalp in the area where John Canal thinks there was a huge, gaping open wound).

Incredible, John. Just incredible.

And what's even more incredible is the fact that (coincidentally, and luckily--for John's theory) the lateral autopsy X-ray miraculously ALSO shows the same kind of "NO DAMAGE AT ALL IN THE FAR-RIGHT-REAR OF JFK'S HEAD" situation (i.e., no visible fracture lines where considerable fracture lines and fragmenting of the skull MUST really be located [in the far-right-rear of the occipital], if John Canal is to be believed, and if any of the Parkland "BOH Wound" witnesses are to be believed as well).

I'd like to know the mere ODDS of having BOTH of those visual pieces of evidence (the autopsy photo and the lateral X-ray) supporting the conclusion of "No Large BOH Wound" and yet still having John Canal's incredible BOH/LN theory being a truism?

Any idea what the odds would be that BOTH of those visual autopsy aids we have to guide us would BOTH be providing misleading and, in effect, incorrect information regarding the true nature of President Kennedy's head wounds?

My guess is: those odds are pretty tiny.


>>> "If the force of the bullet was powerful enough to fragment the rear of his skull, don't you think it may also have torn the rear scalp?" <<<

And then the massively damaged and ripped-wide-open scalp was sewn up with such perfection and skill before the photos were taken that the pictures show no signs of that bullet damage whatsoever. Right, John?

(The more this silliness is discussed, the more comical it gets.)


>>> "Now, for about the fifth time, would you kindly explain that aforementioned trail from near the EOP (and lack of such a trail at the high site)?" <<<

That explanation isn't needed here at all.

Why?

Because your silly BOH/LN Combo Theory is moribund without any such explanation about the "opacities" seen in JFK's X-rays.

David Von Pein
August 14, 2008







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 296)


"CURT JESTER" SAID:

>>> "And we have an Oswald who is not supposed to drive, and yet is taking driving lessons? .... They can use the incidents to paint a guilty picture." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How? To confuse and muddle the record after the assassination about Oswald being able to drive (vs. not being able to drive)?

How does Oswald's being able to drive or not (weeks BEFORE Nov. 22nd) "paint a guilty picture" of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Were the plotters originally planning on killing JFK by running him over with a '63 Buick (and then frame Oswald as the driver of the murder vehicle)?

The whole "Oswald At The Car Lot" incident is completely useless for any purposes (except as a parlor game).


>>> "Dumb? It makes him [Oswald] look like he might be doing something 'extra' for cash." <<<

LOL. And it exposes the "one-patsy plot" to be certainly MORE than just a "1-patsy" plot, doesn't it? Or was Oswald supposedly paying HIMSELF all this cash for killing the President?

Advertising a "payment" in full public view at a car dealership (or anywhere else) is suicide for the "Let's Frame Oswald As Our LONE Patsy" frame-up scenario that so many of you conspiracy kooks think took place.


>>> "We don't have to have Oswald innocent." <<<

And yet most of the conspiracy theorists on the Internet have Oswald completely innocent of firing any shots at either Kennedy or Tippit.

That should make you wonder about the CT company you're keeping. Shouldn't it, Curt?

David Von Pein
August 14, 2008


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


RANDOM PHOTO FROM
THE KENNEDY GALLERY:







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 295)


JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> " "SLIGHTLY ABOVE" is four inches?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Do you think the white piece of brain tissue at the hairline, then, is "above" the EOP?

My main point (in a previous forum post) concerning the autopsy photo and the autopsy report being "in tandem" proof that the cowlick area was the location of the entry hole for Oswald's bullet was:

The autopsy docs knew the entry wound was ABOVE the EOP. And the ONLY possible mark/object on the back of JFK's head that could even remotely be considered a "hole" for a bullet's entry is the red spot in the autopsy photo, which is certainly "above" the EOP, as the autopsy report indicates.

The "slightly" remark is "slightly" off, however...I'll readily admit that. But, maybe Humes DID consider that (approx.) 4 inches of physical space between the EOP and the entry wound to be only "slightly above" the EOP.

Actually, quite obviously Dr. Humes, in November of 1963, DID consider that amount of physical space between the wound and the EOP to be only "slightly above" the EOP. Otherwise, he wouldn't have placed those words in the final autopsy report at all.

David Von Pein
August 14, 2008







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 294)


JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> "He [Vince Bugliosi] did say in his letter back to me after he had briefly looked over the material I sent him that he doubted he'd be changing anything he wrote in RH. That said, when he reads just how someone who is arguably his no. 1 fan keeps embarrassing himself trying to futilely defend one of his [VB's] conclusions, he may reconsider, just to throw "numero uno" a rope, so to speak---anyway, I thought it was worth a try. I mailed him my cover letter and your highly-intellectual contribution to this debate today." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

LOL.

Somehow John Canal thinks I'm "embarrassing" myself by pointing out
the absurdities of his impossible-to-prove (albeit, quite unique)
"Large BOH/LN" combo theory.

That's a howl.

And evidently I'm supposed to be "embarrassed" (somehow) by AGREEING
WITH the following words which appear in Mr. Bugliosi's JFK book:

"Not only do the autopsy photos and X-rays definitively show
that the entrance wound is in the upper part of the president's skull,
but they show a bullet track..."only in the upper portion of the
skull" [a quote from Dr. Baden]."
-- VB; Page 395 of "RH"

And I'm also, per Mr. Canal, supposed to be in need of a
"rope" (lifeline), to be thrown my way by Mr. Bugliosi....even though
I'm in 100% AGREEMENT with VB's position regarding the location of the
entry wound on the back of JFK's head.

That's weird, John. Really weird.

David Von Pein
August 14, 2008




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 293)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

John Canal, who has "no time" to discuss these matters any further btw (per his recent statement), is going to manage to get that right-rear scalp of JFK's to rip apart no matter how much fantasizing he's got to do in order to accomplish that impossible task.

But, no matter how much John C. wants a disruption in JFK's scalp, the autopsy photo below is going to prove him wrong every time.

And John needs a PRETTY DOGGONE GOOD-SIZED TEAR/RIP in that scalp too, in order for the Parkland witnesses to be correct about there being a large hole visible in JFK's head in the occipital/right-rear area.

But, instead, what do we find in both of the BOH photos taken at Bethesda? A scalp that's completely intact! Completely! Go figure:






RE: The location of the entry wound on President Kennedy's head......

"Not only do the autopsy photos and X-rays definitively show that the entrance wound is in the upper part of the president's skull, but they show a bullet track (deposit of small metal fragments as the bullet proceeded forward) "only in the upper portion of the skull" [a quote from Dr. Baden's HSCA testimony]." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 395 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

David Von Pein
August 14, 2008




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 292)


JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> "I'm going to ask VB [Vincent Bugliosi] to show some mercy and not let his fans continue to be publicly embarrassed trying to defend ridiculous conclusions like the cowlick entry....and, a[c]cordingly, make a written statement saying, at the very least, he acknowledges there is a strong possibility the autopsy docs were correct [on the entry]....if not a probability that they were [correct]." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

John Canal, via his correspondence with Vincent Bugliosi, apparently thinks that Vince is suddenly going to change his tune about the location of the head entry wound, which would be a direct contradiction of his own conclusions that are revealed on Pages 394 to 396 of VB's "magnum opus" and "book for the ages", "RECLAIMING HISTORY", even though the autopsy picture of the back of JFK's head and the autopsy report (in TANDEM) are undeniable PROOF that the entry-wound location on the back of John Kennedy's head was near the cowlick....i.e., the red spot seen in this photograph, high on the President's head:



The autopsy report provides the "in tandem with the photo" proof via these emphasized words that were written in November 1963 (my emphasis added):

"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and SLIGHTLY ABOVE the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm."

Here's a direct quotation from Mr. Bugliosi's book, which is a quote that Mr. Canal is hoping that Vince will completely reverse (along with multiple other related quotes in the book that are connected with this "head entry wound" topic on Pages 394-396, plus the endnotes as well), since the idea of a cowlick-area entry is so "ridiculous" (per Mr. Canal):

"Not only do the autopsy photos and X-rays definitively show that the entrance wound is in the upper part of the president's skull, but they show a bullet track (deposit of small metal fragments as the bullet proceeded forward) "only in the upper portion of the skull" [a quote from Dr. Michael Baden's HSCA testimony]." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGE 395 OF "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)

David Von Pein
August 13, 2008







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 291)


JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> "Why, if the entry in the back of JFK's head was much more towards (or in) the cowlick than near the EOP, can a trail of tiny opacities be seen on the lateral X-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP with no such trail being seen at any other proposed entry site?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I guess John Canal can't tell "high" from "low" when looking at the
following pictures of the JFK head X-ray in question....because my
eyes are seeing a trail of tiny fragments (or "opacities", to use
John's all-time favorite word) that are HIGH inside John Kennedy's
cranium, not low....which is a fragment trail (either bone or metal or
both) that is perfectly consistent with a bullet entry wound near the
cowlick.

Two versions of the X-ray:





Where is this supposed low-on-the-head "trail of tiny
opacities...extending anteriorly from near the EOP" on either version
of the lateral X-ray depicted in the photos above? Where? I see
no such trail of fragments/opacities.

So....should I get better eyeglasses? Or is the evidence being
misinterpreted and/or misrepresented by Mr. John Canal (and possibly
others as well)?

My surmise is this -- Mr. Canal is seeing things that aren't there
(once again). Just like he sees enough substantial cracks and
fractures in the far-right-rear portion of the dead President's skull
in the same X-rays above to opine that a goodly-sized chunk of
that skull could have departed Mr. Kennedy's head and stuck to his
scalp during the autopsy, with that large chunk of skull then being re-
inserted into its proper place on JFK's head prior to that X-ray photo
being taken.

Well, as the saying goes....Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Perhaps, in this instance, invisible fracture lines and impossible-to-
see "opacities" near the EOP are in the eye of the beholder as well.

David Von Pein
August 12, 2008




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 290)


GIL JESUS SAID:

>>> "Bud, when you answer questions with questions you show how impotent your position really is." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What good would lengthier and more drawn-out, detailed answers do you kooks anyway? You're still going to believe in the make-believe conspiracy you've always believed in -- no matter what any LNer says.

The above fact is obvious in the wake of Vincent Bugliosi's magnificent and all-encompassing treatment of the JFK case and its dozens upon dozens of idiotic conspiracy-flavored theories. Vince lays out the case for Oswald's lone guilt in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders in very healthy doses. But what good does it do kooks like the ones here at acj?

Answer: No good at all.

The Kook Brigade will just sidestep all of the pro-LN stuff in "Reclaiming History" and latch on to the very few things that VB didn't cover the way a kook thinks it SHOULD have been covered, and--Voila!--there's the CTers' loophole that they'll use to disregard all of the other powerful evidence of LNism that DOES reside within the pages of Mr. Bugliosi's fabulous tome.

Bud, of course, predicted that that very thing would, indeed, occur....even long before VB's book was published.

I, on the other hand, like a fool I suppose (or maybe it was just giving the CT-Kooks too much credit for being able to finally see the obvious), actually stated my belief back in 2004 and 2005 that Vincent's book would, indeed, turn a few CT-Kooks into reasonable-thinking lone-assassin believers.

But around these parts, other than Vince Palamara*, I don't see any signs of any CTers growing any brain cells as a result of VB's 21-year-long effort. (Partly due to the fact, no doubt, that no CTer here has even bothered to read all of VB's book.)

* = And as I've said before in other posts, I have my doubts that Vince P. made the full-fledged turn toward 100% sanity and the LN position, because I don't think he ever did....or ever will.

Anyway, LNers have provided lengthier answers to the questions that the conspiracy kooks continue to recycle year after year....like my two posts HERE and HERE. But, as Vince Bugliosi has said in the past, talking to a CTer is like talking to a man without ears.

David Von Pein
July 27, 2008




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 289)


DAVID G. HEALY SAID:

>>> "David Von Pein isn't going to like this." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

~chuckle~

[David] Healy The Crackpipe actually seems to think that I haven't already seen Mr. Speer's attempt at ripping Vince Bugliosi's book to shreds. I saw it months ago. It's been on Pat's site for many, many months.

Pat's critique, however, is quite hollow and shallow (as all of the supposedly serious anti-VB critiques are). Mr. Speer has offered up little of substance....and lots of whining and meaningless nitpicking.

In the long run, Mr. Bugliosi's excellent book "Reclaiming History" holds up...and always shall (even against 50 Pat Speers).

Why?

Because Vincent Bugliosi has got it RIGHT. Lee Oswald did, indeed, shoot and kill JFK and J.D. Tippit in Dallas. And LHO did it almost certainly: alone.

Let me also add this:

While I think that VB's JFK book is, indeed, THE ultimate book on the case (and how anyone can argue with that determination is beyond me), I haven't hesitated to vocalize a few disagreements that I, myself, have with VB regarding certain sub-topics relating to the case. Multiple examples of my disagreeing with Vince can be found in my own review of "Reclaiming History".

But none of these disagreements come close to undermining or tearing down VB's bottom-line "LN" conclusion regarding Oswald. No disagreement I have with Vince could POSSIBLY do that -- because Lee Harvey Oswald was (and is) guilty. Period.

David Von Pein
July 22, 2008


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


RANDOM PHOTO FROM
THE KENNEDY GALLERY:







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 288)


ROB CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "Explain why nearly 50 law enforcement officers searched the knoll area moments after the shots while only a small number went to the TSBD." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

50? I think that that total of "nearly 50" is probably a tad bit "kook
inflated" (as per their norm). But I haven't counted them up recently.

But, anyway, the answer is obvious -- many of those witnesses
(officers) did, indeed, THINK they heard shots (ALL of the shots,
which we know is a wrong assumption) coming from the Knoll area. But
they were wrong. Period. And simple. Even for a simpleton like Rob.

And some of those many "Knoll Stormers" were probably merely playing
follow-the-leader too, without having a firm opinion as to the exact
source of the gunfire they heard. Like a good car wreck, rubber-
necking was bound to follow....and since several people did, indeed,
initially run toward the Knoll, that's where others went also.

I've also asked this in the past too, and I'll ask it again:

If you had just heard gunfire from a rifle in a certain location, and
therefore were pretty certain that an assassin with a weapon was in
that area, would you have ANY DESIRE WHATSOEVER to start running
directly toward the place where the assassin was located?

Yes, a police officer would want to do that very thing (it's his job,
naturally). But what about the regular, ordinary citizens who ran
toward the Knoll that day? Their "job" wasn't to apprehend the
shooter.



Call me a coward, but the VERY LAST PLACE I'd want to be located at
that precise moment in history (i.e., a few seconds after the
President of the United States had been gunned down) would be the
exact spot where I thought the murderer had just fired a rifle from.
That's just nuts. And potential suicide.

Which, again, lends credence to the "They Were Merely Following The
Leader Toward The Knoll Without Really Knowing If A Killer Was Located
There" theory.

BTW, what evidence of a shooter did those "nearly 50" (??) officers
find on the Knoll?

Vs.:

What evidence of a gunman did the searchers of the 6th Floor of the
TSBD find?

Again....simple. Even for a kook.

David Von Pein
July 21, 2008







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 287)


TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "And likewise how your WC defender buddies can look at the Betzner and Willis photos and claim that Black Dog Man does not exist." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Does this mean that you think that Black Dog Man is an assassin, Tony? (Yes, I'm jumping the gun a little there. But it's a good place for me to enter the comments below re BDM anyway, so I'll use your "BDM" reference as my springboard.) ;)



If the so-called "Black Dog Man" was really a person firing a gun at JFK, why did he choose such a crazy, illogical place to shoot the President from?

I.E., he chose to fire a gun (or was it a flechette?) at John Kennedy from right out there in the open where everybody with one working eyeball can get a good look at him as he fires away at the President??

Was he suicidal? Or was the picket fence area so crowded with shooters that BDM had no choice but to abandon the protection of the wooden fence and was forced to shoot from the ultra-crappy location that he chose to shoot from (with nothing but a very-low retaining wall for cover)?

Many conspiracy theorists DO, indeed, believe that "BDM" is an actual shooter. But just one second's worth of logical thinking will dispel that notion for all time.

David Von Pein
July 21, 2008