JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 370)


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

If Mal Couch and Robert Jackson were witnesses who saw a rifle protruding from a window why didn't they report that immediately after the shooting??


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Malcolm Couch is on record as having seen a rifle sticking out of the Sniper's Nest window, idiot.

Couch can be heard on audio tape on November 22 telling his story about seeing the rifle in the window. I have that audio in my collection, in fact [RIGHT HERE].

And only a total kook could possibly believe that Robert Jackson didn't see the rifle protruding from Oswald's window. His story is corroborated by Tom Dillard, who then further corroborated it by taking a photograph of the face of the TSBD just after Jackson yelled "There's the rifle".



Why do you think Dillard took his photos of the front of the Depository, Walt? Do you kooks think that Dillard was of the opinion that the beautiful architecture of the old TSBD Building was just too grand to pass up...so he had to snap a couple of photos of it during the motorcade?

Or could it be that Dillard was of the opinion that some gunshots had come from the general areas where he was pointing his cameras that day?

Dillard's photos of the front of the TSBD, as a matter of fact, are pretty good circumstantial evidence that shots positively did come from the southeast corner of that building during the assassination. Otherwise, why on Earth would Dillard have photographed that building at all?

David Von Pein
November 10, 2008




MEDIA ERRORS IN REPORTING
JFK'S ASSASSINATION





NOTE --- In creating the above video, it was not my intention to cast a negative light on the people who reported the events associated with JFK's tragic murder. On the contrary, I believe the radio and TV reporters did an outstanding job of broadcasting the news coming out of Dallas during that weekend in 1963. And for the most part, they reported it very accurately. But some mistakes and erroneous initial reports were inevitable. And most of these early errors were even corrected on the air later in the weekend. On the whole, I salute and admire the high level of professional (and accurate) journalism that was exhibited by the many people who had the tough and very unexpected duty of reporting these terrible events to the world in November 1963. -- David Von Pein


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


"MEDIA ERRORS" DISCUSSIONS....


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

They [the media] said JFK was taken to the hospital in an ambulance.

They said that a cop was killed in a shootout in the Texas Theater.

They said a Secret Service agent was killed.

There were at least four or five identifications of the rifle before it was correctly IDed as a Carcano.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And Eddie Barker of KRLD-TV (who was one of the most accurate reporters on the air that day) actually said that President Kennedy had been taken to Parkland "by bus", which is a comment that always elicits a chuckle from this writer when I cue up that CBS footage.


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

Do you have a link for that online?

Obviously, in asking I'm admitting I haven't worked my way through your online video collection, which I know to be splendid.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's a link (fast forward in the video to 15:21).

I also took note of Eddie Barker saying that the shooting was carried out by
"a man and a woman", who were (according to those early, sketchy TV reports) "scrambling on the upper level of a walkway leading to the underpass".


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

That was apparently Zapruder and Sitzman.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You could be right, John. I had never really thought about Zapruder/Sitzman being the people referred to in that "scrambling" report (which, btw, was reported on all of the TV networks in the first few minutes after the assassination--not just on CBS).

I always have the Hesters in my mind whenever I think of that "scrambling on a walkway" report. The main reason I always think of the Hesters is because of the Dave Wiegman film, which shows the Hesters at the top of the Knoll (in one of the few clear frames in Wiegman's film), and they are definitely doing a little bit of "scrambling".


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

I got that from Gary Mack. The "scrambling" part fits the Hesters just fine, but the "upper level of a walkway" probably fits Zapruder and Sitzman better. The latter were getting down off the pedestal. Of course, a lot of testimony (and this includes the testimony of journalists in the motorcade) is terribly inexact, so I don't think we can ever know for sure.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Another interesting error made by the news media in the early hours just after the assassination is when Charles Murphy of NBC's Fort Worth/Dallas affiliate WBAP-TV, while narrating a film taken outside Parkland, said that Jackie Kennedy can be seen running into the hospital.

I can understand Murphy's error though, because the woman in question (who I believe was one of Jackie's secretaries, Pam Turnure) looks very much like Jackie.



But, of course, Jackie was never in the parking lot area of Parkland (which is the direction Turnure was coming from in the film), because we know that Jackie accompanied JFK beside his stretcher into the hospital.

You, John, have probably already pointed out the "Jackie Goes Into The Hospital" mistake to your [Marquette University] students, which was replayed multiple times on the NBC-TV network on November 22nd.

There are also a few very early media reports that claimed the shooting took place at "Elm & Harwood" in Dallas, instead of Elm & Houston.

And there's also the CBS-TV report from Walter Cronkite (and probably other networks too) about a "gap" in the motorcade on Elm Street that eliminated any possibility of Vice President Johnson from being the subject of any potential gunfire at the scene of the shooting.

But, obviously, any such "gap" between JFK's Secret Service follow-up car and Lyndon Johnson's car immediately behind it was not very big at all, with Johnson in fact being almost directly below Oswald's TSBD window at the time when the first shot was fired. So, actually, Johnson would have been a very easy target for Oswald during the time of the assassination.


MORE MEDIA ERRORS (all of these are extremely minor and nitpicky, but I had them in my head, so here they are):

1.) There's footage of a man (a policeman undoubtedly) climbing into a 2nd-story window at the rear of the TSBD, with the narrator (Bob Walker of WFAA-TV) claiming that the man is climbing into the window from where the shots were fired.

Obviously, nobody could ever climb into Oswald's 6th-floor window from the OUTSIDE of the building (unless he was related to Spiderman). The policeman was actually on the roof of the first floor at the back of the Depository, which is a roof that can be seen in this 1967 aerial photo.

2.) And then there's the hilarious statement made by WFAA-TV cameraman Ron Reiland during his on-air report that aired live on WFAA on November 22, which has Reiland saying that "several hundred police officers" went inside the Texas Theater to apprehend Oswald.

The actual number of policemen, of course, was not anywhere near "several hundred". Heck, I doubt if that many people would even fit inside the theater. The size of the crowd outside the theater is also severely exaggerated by newsmen too.

3.) There's also another very funny mistake made by Ron Reiland when he was narrating his film on WFAA when Reiland said that the man who was suspected of killing Officer Tippit had run into the Texas Theater "with a shotgun over his arm". (There were reports on other networks that mentioned the erroneous fact about the suspect having a "shotgun" in the theater, too.)

Here is Ron Reiland's film, with Reiland narrating (Note -- This footage below isn't the clip which has Reiland saying "several hundred officers"; that remark was made later in the day when Reiland narrated the same film again for WFAA-TV):

video

4.) Reporters were frequently wrong when they mentioned the names of certain people involved in the assassination story during the weekend of November 22-24, such as when Jay Watson of WFAA-TV said that the name of the slain policeman in Oak Cliff was "J.D. Tipton".

And Bob Huffaker of KRLD wasn't the only newsman who had trouble with Lee Oswald's middle name. Huffaker, based on what he thought was correct information that he received from DPD Captain Glen King, kept calling Oswald "Lee Harold Oswald" throughout the weekend, especially on November 24th.

But Walter Cronkite of CBS News also had problems getting Oswald's middle name correct some of the time, with Cronkite (at least twice) referring to LHO as "Lee Henry Oswald".

5.) And there's the very minor error made by Police Chief Jesse Curry (and others who reported the same thing) on November 23rd, with Curry claiming that the rifle Oswald purchased via mail order cost $12.78, which was actually the price listed in a different (Nov. '63) magazine ad.

The ad Oswald clipped came from the February 1963 American Rifleman magazine, and the cost of the rifle at that time was a dime more -- $12.88. And the total price that Oswald actually paid for the rifle plus the scope was $21.45 ($19.95 plus $1.50 S&H).


STEVEN DHUEY SAID:

Wire service reports, read by television and radio announcers, said that a Secret Service agent in the motorcade had been shot. Then, within ten minutes after the official announcement of the president's death, came the "official" report that the Secret Service agent had died.

From whom or how did this false story originate?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have never found out where the false rumor came from about the dead Secret Service agent. I've often wondered who started that rumor.

RELATED RAMBLINGS:

In another forum thread, John McAdams was talking about all of the various early mistaken news reports that were made on radio and TV on 11/22/63. And when I listened once again to some of the audio coverage from KLIF-Radio in Dallas, I noticed that shortly after JFK's death was made official, suddenly a whole bunch of errors started making their way into the KLIF news coverage.

And this was somewhat surprising to me, because I also took note of KLIF's very accurate reporting between 12:40 PM and 1:45 PM CST, particularly the excellent reporting of Joe Long, who refused to say anything over the air that was not of "an official nature". I've always been very impressed by Joe Long's radio coverage. It's just excellent.

But starting at about 1:45, several mistakes begin to pop up, such as the announcement that John Connally had been hit in the head by a bullet.

In addition to saying that it was "confirmed" that a Secret Service agent had been killed, some of the other post-1:45 PM errors made by KLIF include the following things (in case anyone wants to update their official "Early Errors Made On November 22" scorecards):

1.) KLIF said that President Kennedy was "conscious" on the drive to Parkland Hospital after being shot in the head. This error came about because of Ralph Yarborough's statement that he saw JFK's lips "moving at a normal rate of speed" during the drive to the hospital. Of course, KLIF was not alone in reporting that Yarborough quote. NBC and other media outlets also reported that same thing.

2.) KLIF claimed that "five or six bullet husks" (cartridge cases) were found on the fifth or sixth floor of the TSBD.

3.) It was reported that JFK was shot "in the right temple".

4.) At other times, however, KLIF reported that JFK had been shot "in the left temple".

5.) It was reported that the bubbletop roof of JFK's limousine was bulletproof. It was not, of course.

6.) KLIF said that Governor Connally addressed JFK at the Chamber of Commerce breakfast in Fort Worth, including the comment "You have brought sunshine in our hearts". That comment was not made by Connally; instead, it was said by the head of the Ft. Worth Chamber of Commerce, Raymond Buck.

7.) In an error of lesser importance, JFK's age was given as 44. And then just a few minutes later, KLIF adjusted that number upward, saying that Kennedy was 45 years of age. Of course, neither figure is accurate. JFK was actually 46-and-a-half when he died on 11/22/63. KLIF did get his age right a little while later, however.

[More discussion about the erroneous "Dead Secret Service Agent" rumor can be found HERE.]


TOM LOWRY SAID:

[Oswald] punched Officer McDonald in the face, then tried to pull his pistol, was restrained, handcuffed and yelled "I Got me a president and policeman and almost got another".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oswald obviously never ever said anything even remotely close to the above quote. If he had said it, the quote would be propped up all the time by LNers as proof that Oswald confessed to both 11/22/63 murders that he committed.

That quote actually comes from a newsman. The radio reporter was merely repeating hearsay (or possibly even double- or triple-hearsay) that he got from a person who was most likely near the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested.

As I remember it, the radio reporter's exact words that he attributed to Oswald were -- "I got me a cop and I got me a President and I'm gonna get me two more."

That quote is just not a believable quote at all. Especially in light of how Oswald behaved at the police station following his arrest, with LHO denying his guilt as often as he could in front of the TV cameras, etc.

David Von Pein
October 14, 2009
March 13-26, 2010
April 27, 2010








JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 369)


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "No one was holding a rifle out of the TSBD." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This might be Anthony Marsh's most fantastically wrong statement yet
posted on these boards.

I guess Mr. Marsh must think that Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, Robert
Jackson, and Mal Couch all got together right after the assassination
to cook up the unified lie about how they each saw a rifle (or "pipe")
protruding from a sixth-floor window at the southeast corner of the
Book Depository on 11/22/63.

INSTANT REPLAY (BECAUSE, ONCE MORE, I OFTEN FIND THE WORDS WRITTEN BY
A CONSPIRACY KOOK TO BE SO COMICAL AND SO OUTRAGEOUS THAT THEY ARE
DESERVING OF A REPRISE--IF ONLY FOR THE LAUGHS):

"No one was holding a rifle out of the TSBD."

The above words should be thrown back in the face of Anthony Marsh at
least once a week (if not more often), to fully illustrate the
desperate lengths that some conspiracy-happy individuals will go to in
order to rewrite the truth of the assassination of President Kennedy.

Pitiful. And pathetic.


>>> "The fact remains that only a very small percentage of conspiracy researchers believe the Two Oswald Theory." <<<

Totally untrue.

And it's untrue when based on the "Was Oswald In Mexico City?" debate
alone, because a very large number of conspiracy theorists are of the
firm opinion that Lee Oswald was never in Mexico City in September or
October of 1963. Hence, those CTers most certainly believe in an
"Oswald Double" or "Oswald Imposter" (at least as far as the Mexico
City topic is concerned).

I often wonder how those CTers reconcile the fact that the real LHO,
on 9/27/63, signed line #18 of that day's guest register at the Hotel
del Comercio--"Lee, Harvey Oswald"--in his own, verified handwriting
(Commission Exhibit No. 2480)?

I also wonder how those same CTers reconcile the accounts of the
various witnesses who said they saw the real Lee Oswald on busses
going to and returning from Mexico in late September and early October
of 1963?

Even Mark Lane, a "first wave" JFK researcher who is admired by a
large percentage of conspiracists today, has said that he doesn't think
Lee Harvey Oswald travelled to Mexico City in September of 1963, which
has to mean that Lane must believe in some kind of "LHO Imposter/Double"
scenario as it relates to Oswald's Mexico trip.

Mark Lane said this during a "Black Op Radio" appearance on March 13, 2008:

"I don't believe Oswald was in Mexico City, which is important because the Warren Commission was told that Oswald went down there, went to the Soviet embassy, met with a man named Kostikov, who was the KGB person in charge of assassinations in the Western Hemisphere, and then Oswald went to the Cuban embassy, then he came back and he killed President Kennedy. I don't think any of those things happened." -- Mark Lane; 03/13/08

Now, I know that Mark Lane is only one person. But the quote above
from Lane's own lips demonstrates that even a seasoned and highly
respected (by other CTers) Kennedy assassination researcher STILL TO
THIS DAY, in 2008, believes that Lee Oswald was being impersonated by
someone in Mexico in 1963. (And I can only assume that Mr. Lane
probably hasn't changed his view on this matter since that radio
interview in March 2008.)

So even a well-schooled researcher like Mark Lane is willing to THROW
AWAY all of the rock-solid evidence that exists which proves beyond
all possible reasonable doubt that Lee Oswald was, in fact, in Mexico
City in late 1963.

It's amazing to see how willing and eager many conspiracy theorists
are to disregard so many solid, verifiable "Oswald Did It" facts when
it comes to the murder cases of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.

And a bigshot like Mark Lane is certainly no exception when it comes
to his complete disregard for much of the verified and factual
evidence in the JFK case.


An addendum to the topic about Oswald signing the hotel register in Mexico City---

I recently finished reading the new JFK assassination book co-authored
by Gus Russo and Stephen Molton ("Brothers In Arms: The Kennedys, The
Castros, And The Politics Of Murder"), and one of the biggest factual
mistakes that I noticed in that book shows up on page 304, where it is
stated that Oswald "registered under 'O.H. Lee'" at the Hotel del
Comercio. (The name of the hotel is also misspelled in the book, but
that's not a major error.)

But as everyone can see in Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2480, Oswald
didn't sign the hotel register "O.H. Lee"; he signed it "Lee, Harvey Oswald".

The "O.H. Lee" error in Russo's and Molton's book is a rather strange
mistake, IMO, coming as it does from a man (Russo) who probably knows
the Kennedy case backwards and forwards by heart. It just seemed odd
to find such a blatant error about a very important matter (Oswald's
very own signature being found in the hotel register) in a book
written by Mr. Russo.

Co-writers Russo and Molton believe that Cuban G2 agents were working
with Oswald in some capacity in a plot to kill JFK. But this "Cuban/Oswald"
plot is never clearly defined, much less proven beyond a reasonable doubt,
in "Brothers In Arms". It's always vague and shadowy and mysterious (much
like the theories we're accustomed to seeing from the majority of conspiracy
theorists that have offered up an opinion as to how John Kennedy died).

Although I will admit that Russo's and Molton's "Cuban" theory is not
nearly as impossible to believe when stacked up against all of the
other theories that we've been treated to since 1963. And this is due
mainly to the fact that Mr. Russo and Mr. Molton know (as do I) that
Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person firing a gun at President
Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.

But several major issues regarding the pre-planning and the mechanics
and the after-the-shooting actions of Oswald as they relate to any
kind of a proposed "Oswald Was Working With The Cubans" assassination
scheme just do not add up at all, in my own personal opinion. Such as
the three major things I mentioned in this 10/28/08 Internet post.

In my opinion, the book "Brothers In Arms" does not satisfactorily
answer the three questions I posed in the article above.

In the end, the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE coupled with OSWALD'S VERY OWN
ACTIONS (both before and after the assassination) are still the things
that continue, to this day, to provide the best clues as to what
happened on 11/22/63.

And those "best clues", IMO, still add up to this bottom-line
conclusion:

Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself, killed President Kennedy, and Oswald
was not aided by any other person or group.

David Von Pein
November 9, 2008







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 368)


BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:

>>> "And he [Howard Brennan] had the advantage of seeing Oswald on TV before any attempts, at that." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Do you think Brennan had seen LHO on TV before telling the cops that
the gunman was a slender white male, 5-foot-10, about 30, weighing
about 165 pounds?

And if Brennan didn't give that description to Sawyer prior to 12:45
PM on 11/22, then it means that yet another (unidentified) person saw
the gunman and described him just exactly as Brennan would later
describe him. And Marrion Baker said Oswald looked about 30 years old.
And even most CTers admit that Baker saw the real LHO on Nov. 22nd.


>>> "I know of very few CTs who promote an Oswald double. Perhaps you can name some who do for me." <<<

Hilarious. A huge percentage of conspiracy theorists have said they think
there was at least ONE instance of an "Oz Double" during the calendar year
of 1963. Virtually all of the CTers that populate any online forum on
the Internet believe in some kind of "Oswald Imposter" theory. And
bigger CT names like Armstrong, Garrison, Stone, and DiEugenio (to
name just a very small number) believe(d) in some kind of "Fake
Oswald" theory as well.

Plus: Those that believe in the "Oswald Double/Imposter" theories
would include every CTer who thinks Lee Oswald didn't travel to Mexico
City in September 1963 (which I'd guess is pretty close to, roughly,
90%-95% of all conspiracy theorists).

I've encountered very few CTers who actually think that LHO went to
Mexico in '63, despite the volumes of evidence to prove that Oswald
did go there.


>>> "Well, this little exchange shows two things ... you paint with a very wide brush, and with quite an attitude; and your standard for positive identification is just like every other LN." <<<

I sure hope so. Because based on the evidence in this case, I know
that Brennan POSITIVELY SAW Lee Oswald shooting at JFK.

Next dance please.....


>>> "Anyone in the world who had been near a TV that afternoon could have picked O out of that lineup." <<<

And you think that people doing the identifying would have been so
easily swayed that they would be willing to positively identify a man
whom they did NOT see at the scene of the various 11/22 murders (both
JFK's and Tippit's)?

Nice of you to paint (at least potentially, via your comments above)
all of the witnesses with such a wide "I THINK I'LL I.D. OSWALD, EVEN
THOUGH I KNOW IT WASN'T HIM" brush.


>>> "Funny how LNs poo-poo witnesses from within the TSBD who say that they saw O at other places within the TSBD just minutes before the shooting. They were lying, or mistaken or confused. And they KNEW the man." <<<

Based on that pesky TOTALITY of evidence again, those other witnesses
are almost certainly wrong.

I guess Barb wants to just sweep that LHO-Did-It totality under the
rug forever. Huh, Barbara?


>>> "You said it. He is dragged out because out of all the people who saw a man in the window with a rifle, none were able to ID O. So latch onto Brennan...despite his less than stellar performance." <<<

Who should we latch onto then--a "fake" witness who never saw a thing?

Brennan is it (as far as positive IDing of the gunman goes). Period. I
know that. I don't deny it. But why should he be tossed into the
garbage heap either?


>>> "You don't dance the sidestep very well. Not nearly subtle enough to pull it off." <<<

You seem to have two left feet yourself. Maybe Arthur Murray can help.


>>> "I find it almost impossible to not comment on when I see an LN claim Oswald was positively [IDed] as the shooter in the window. Of course, they never include WHO they are talking about in their initial posit." <<<

When just a small amount of common sense is applied to this situation,
it becomes plainly obvious that the following is true:

Based on the totality of evidence that exists in the JFK case (a
totality that's not going anyplace; it's here forever), the chances
that Howard L. Brennan saw someone OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald
shooting a gun at John Kennedy on 11/22/63 are so remote they can be
considered practically non-existent (if you're a reasonable person
looking at this "totality", that is).

CTers, naturally, must pull away from and deny the obvious evidence-
based truth and logic that exists in the above paragraph.
Conspiracists have to deny it. Because if they faced that truth and
faced the real evidence in the case, then their beloved patsy is
guilty. And no true-blue lifelong CTer could stand for that.

Care to dance some more, Barb?


>>>> "Have a cookie, you'll feel better." <<<

Make it a Hydrox this time, okay?

David Von Pein
November 6, 2008




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 367)


BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:

>>> "General description that was not all that accurate for recognizing LHO -- generally, and also general to probably a huge percentage of males in Dallas." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Prob'ly. But it fit Sweet Lee Harvey too. And it was Lee Harvey's gun
found up there on that same floor where "Howie" saw this "slender
white male".

And Ozzie's prints just happen to be on the gun too; and Ozzie's
prints also just happen to be all over the location on the 6th Floor
(the Sniper's Nest) where Howie sees the "slender white male".

Shouldn't all of this stuff make a person pause and at least consider
the POSSIBILITY of the person Howie saw being Sweet Lee? Or is Lee
Harvey Oswald eliminated as a suspect entirely here?


>>> "Howie didn't say "that's him"..." <<<

Sure he did. He positively IDed the 6th-Floor sniper as Lee Harvey
Oswald. Not on November 22, 1963, true. But Brennan did positively
I.D. LHO as the gunman in the TSBD. You just don't want to believe
him. (What a shocker there! A CTer who doesn't want to believe
Howard Leslie Brennan; aka "Howie"! Imagine that.)


>>> "An O double is your creation, not mine." <<<

It certainly isn't MY creation, for pity sake. I'm merely repeating
what most hardline CTers think (i.e., that there were "Oswald Doubles"
running all over Texas in late 1963). If you're not one of those
people...here, have a cookie. Then you got one right.


>>> "Personally, I think Oswald most likely shot Tippit." <<<

Gee, I wonder how you could have ever arrived at that difficult
conclusion? LOL.

REPRISE:

>>> "Personally, I think Oswald most likely shot Tippit." <<<

This is too hilarious to waste on just a single response, so an
instant replay is required. And another "LOL" as well.

The "most likely" part is a real treat.

You CTers can't even admit (full-force) that Oswald was Tippit's
murderer.

Hilarious.


>>> "This Howie Brennan thing has been danced many times." <<<

And I'm sure that the late Mr. Brennan would appreciate being called
"Howie", too. It gives him a youthful air.


>>> "It just cracks me up every time someone claims Oswald was identified as the man with a rifle in the window..." <<<

Oswald was identified as the man with a rifle in the window.

Why fight this obvious fact?


>>> "...you just know they are going to drag out Howie [aka Howard L. Brennan]." <<<

Yeah...well...seeing as how "Howie" is the only witness who can be
utilized in such a "Positive Identification Of Oz In The Window"
fashion...then...well...yeah, Howie's gonna get dragged out -- each
and every time this topic surfaces.

Should we LNers pull a CT-Kook's trick and just PRETEND that we have a
dozen witnesses who positively IDed Lee Oswald as Kennedy's killer?

(I think it's time for a "Duh!" here. Don't you?)


>>> "Not even the DPD thought they had a positive ID worth squat. As Chief Jesse Curry wrote in his book, "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand." " <<<

Yeah, and that's a shame too. Because I always liked Chief Curry. Too
bad that the invisible and crazy "CT stranglehold" took control of him
and his good sense (much the same way the dreaded CT Disease took
ahold of Marina Oswald in later years as well, after she had said for
decades that she thought her husband had killed the President).

Jesse Curry wanted to write a book in the late '60s, and "LNism"
wasn't selling very well back then (what with rabid CT-Kooks like Mark
Lane and Jim Garrison dishing up assorted conspiracy fantasies to the
book-buying masses).

So -- Voila! -- Chief Curry suddenly declares that there was a
conspiracy and that Oswald couldn't be placed in the window. It's
ridiculous. Sad--but ridiculous.


>>> "All the HSCA wanted from Brennan was for him to sign off on his WC testimony.....they would have brought it to his house. He wouldn't do it." <<<

Howard Brennan, of course, isn't really needed at all to arrive at the
truth in this murder case. Because even if there were zero witnesses
to the shooting itself, Lee Oswald's guilt has still been proven 85
ways to Sunday (or Friday)....via the popcorn trail of evidence he
left in his wake, and the many lies he told after his arrest.

Does an innocent man need to tell lie after lie--as Lee Harvey did
after his arrest?

He even lied about where he purchased the gun he had ON HIM when he
was taken into custody.

Oswald was obviously attempting to distance himself from BOTH murders
he committed on 11/22/63 (and distance himself from both murder
weapons).

He didn't tell the truth ONE time (that I can think of) when it came
to any substantive issue connected with the murders of Kennedy and
Tippit, particularly with respect to his C2766 Carcano rifle and his
Smith & Wesson revolver.

Lee Oswald was a Lying Machine when it came to those weapons.

As Vince Bugliosi said to the London jury in 1986:

"When he was interrogated, Oswald, from his own lips, he TOLD us he was guilty....he told us he was guilty....almost the same as if he had said 'I murdered President Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us? Well, the lies he told, one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE consciousness of guilt. If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary to do that if he's innocent? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to do with President Kennedy's assassination and was framed, this otherwise independent and defiant would-be
revolutionary, who disliked taking orders from anyone, turned out to be the most willing and cooperative frame-ee in the history of mankind!! Because the evidence of his guilt is so monumental, that he could have just as well gone around with a large sign on his back declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered President John F. Kennedy'!!! Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent, would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow speaking the Spanish language!" -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (c.1986)


NOTE --- The above portions of Vince Bugliosi's Final Summation to the jury
cannot be found on the MPI Home Video DVD edition of "ON TRIAL: LEE
HARVEY OSWALD" (released to the public on October 28, 2008), but Vince
said them to the jury just the same. Those VB comments aired in 1988,
when an alternate and slightly re-edited version of the "trial" was
shown on cable TV, commemorating the 25th anniversary of the
assassination.

David Von Pein
November 6, 2008







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 366)


ROB CAPRIO SAID:

The Five Top Reasons All The Backyard Photos Are Fakes!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The conspiracy kooks just never let anything go, do they? No matter
how many times the various stupid things they believe in have been
debunked, the kooks just keep forging ahead with these same theories
as if they still have a breath of life left in them -- e.g., from Badge Man,
to Umbrella Man, to "Hickey did it", to "Greer did it", to Doorway Man,
to "Every picture is fake" (just to name a few examples).

In other words (per the kook rules of law):

A BRAND-NEW DAY = ALL THEORIES ARE VALID ONCE MORE.

The "Backyard Photos Are Fakes" crowd will ignore ALL of this HSCA stuff.

And those same kooks will also ignore the testimony of Marina Oswald,
wherein she admits that she positively took the photos in the Neely
Street backyard in early '63.

And the kooks will also ignore the fact that the Imperial-Reflex camera
owned by Lee Oswald was determined to be the ONLY CAMERA IN THE
WORLD that could have taken one of those pictures (the only one where
the negative still exists).*

* = And if one picture is "real", then the rest of the photos that
show the exact same thing are certainly real and genuine as well.
Because only the looniest of all kooks could possibly believe that any
plotters who were framing Oswald would have had a desire to start
producing FAKE versions of something that already exists in a REAL and
GENUINE format.

And the kooks will also ignore this quote from Marina Oswald (to
Gerald Posner, circa early 1990s):

"I was very nervous that day when I took the pictures," [Marina
told Posner]. "I can't remember how many I took, but I know I took
them and that is what is important. It would be easier if I said I
never took them, but that is not the truth." -- Page 106 of "Case
Closed" by Gerald Posner (c.1993)






David Von Pein
November 5, 2008




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 365)


A LONE-ASSASSIN BELIEVER SAID:

In addition David, at a time when communication with Oswald would have been imperitive, weeks before the assassination, Oswald neither made nor received any calls at his boarding house other than the one time he called Marina. In other words, there was NO communication in any form and Oswald neither left the boarding house after 6 PM nor did he receive any guests.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Plus:

Lee Oswald never received any phone calls at all while he was staying
at Ruth Paine's house in Irving on the weekends.

From the 1986 TV Docu-Trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald":

VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Did he [LHO] ever receive any telephone calls at
your home of a mysterious nature?"

RUTH PAINE -- "No, he never received any calls of any nature."


Now, I will say this -- common sense is telling me that if a person
was engaged in some kind of covert, undercover, or clandestine work
(for the CIA, the FBI, or even for the "Fred & Wilma Flintstone
Detective Agency of Bedrock, USA"), it would stand to reason that such
a person working undercover probably wouldn't be receiving any phone
calls (or visitors) at his residence, if he was living at a crowded
(or semi-crowded) roominghouse, like Oswald was in October and
November of 1963. Especially since Oswald didn't have a private
telephone in the crackerbox of a rented room that he called home at
1026 North Beckley Avenue.

Oswald, if he ever got an outside call at the Beckley residence*,
would have had to use a phone located elsewhere in the roominghouse
(other than his own room), meaning that other tenants could have
possibly been within earshot of any of his conversations.

* = And I don't believe there's even one verified instance of him
receiving any calls there at all, with the exception of the call that
Ruth Paine made to that location, when Ruth was told "there is no Lee
Oswald living here" [via Ruth's WC testimony], because both Gladys
Johnson and Earlene Roberts knew him by the name "O.H. Lee".

So, IMO, any "covert" calls made by an "undercover agent" of some ilk
would logically have been made while using a pay phone or while using
some other phone away from his residence (especially, as mentioned, in
Oswald's "roominghouse" case).

But most of Oswald's time and whereabouts are accounted for in the
weeks leading up to the assassination. Obviously not every last second
is accounted for, that's true. But since Oswald couldn't drive (at
least not very well) and he had no car of his own, it would have made
getting from Point A to Point B a little more difficult for "CIA Agent
Lee Harvey".

Additional random thoughts concerning this subject:

The name "Donnie Brasco" being mentioned earlier made me think of
something else with respect to Oswald's supposed "CIA ties".

"Brasco" was a fake name used by FBI agent Joseph Pistone in the
1970s. Now, while it's true that Lee Oswald did use various aliases
during the last few years of his life, it's also true that he used his
own name on many occasions too, such as when he signed the hotel
register in Mexico City "Lee, Harvey Oswald" [WCR; Pg. 733].

Also:

Since many conspiracy theorists seem to think that Lee Oswald was
working for the CIA (or some similar agency) for several YEARS prior
to JFK's assassination (going all the way back to Oswald's time in the
Marines and just after his attempted defection to Russia as a 19-year-
old in 1959), why hasn't anyone been able to come up with just ONE
other "job" that Oswald supposedly performed for the CIA (or whoever)
while he was employed by them from 1959 up until 11/22/63?

If Oswald was working for the CIA as far back as 1959 (or even
earlier than that), as many CTers firmly believe, then what on Earth
was he DOING for the CIA all during that time period? What other jobs
were given him? Anything? Or was he only used as an "agent" in
November 1963, in order to serve as the proverbial "patsy" in JFK's
murder?

All of the above stuff indicates the likelihood that the conspiracy
theorists who desperately WANT Lee Harvey Oswald to have been an
agent of the U.S. Government prior to JFK's death are living in a
dream world all their own -- a shadowy world of "maybe's" and "it
could have been's" as far as Lee Oswald's Government involvement is
concerned.

Plus:

I'm also wondering how many CIA agents don't even bother learning a
basic common skill like driving a car by the time they're 24 years
old?

Can anybody point to even one such agent who, at the age of 24,
didn't have a driver's license and was unable to properly turn the
wheel of an automobile (per Ruth Paine's testimony to the Warren
Commission)?:

"It became clear to me in that lesson that he [Lee Oswald] was
very unskilled in driving. We practiced a number of the things you
need to know: to back up, to turn, right-angle turn to come to a
stop. .... I noticed when we got to the parking lot when he attempted
to turn in a right angle he made the usual mistake of a beginner of
turning too much and then having to correct it. He was not familiar
with the delay of the steering wheel in relation to the wheels."
--
Ruth Paine; 1964 WC Testimony

David Von Pein
November 4, 2008




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 364)


AN ANONYMOUS PERSON SAID:

I am new to the board and not one particularly interested in assassination lore. However, I thought I remembered reading a well-documented statement that indeed Oswald had some sort of contract or other formal association with the CIA prior to the assassination. Could anyone tell me whether or not this is true?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A very good indication that Lee Harvey Oswald was certainly not a CIA agent or any kind of "operative" working for some high-up organization in the U.S. Government is:

The way Lee Oswald was living in the weeks and months (and years) prior to 11/22/63.

Oswald couldn't even afford to feed and provide a home for his wife and kids in the weeks leading up to the assassination. And he never offered Ruth Paine a cent as compensation for Marina and his kids living at the Paine home for several weeks in 1963. Not a cent.

Do CIA operatives normally have to live in virtual poverty while they are "on assignment" for the agency (or at ANY time while in the employ of the Langley big boys)?

Do CIA agents have to live in ROOMINGHOUSES, in $7 and $8 a week rooms (some no bigger than a large closet) while working for an agency like the CIA?

Somebody please show me proof that ANY ex-CIA agents (or current agents) were forced to live like Lee Oswald lived in 1963 -- i.e., in virtual poverty.

It's just silly.

In short -- The manner in which Oswald LIVED HIS OWN LIFE FROM DAY TO DAY is virtual proof, IMO, that he was WORKING ALONE on November 22, 1963 (and on April 10, 1963, in the Walker incident as well).

Now, I'm sure that some CTers will chime back in with: 'CIA agents don't flaunt their wealth'; or: 'The salary isn't good anyway for an agent like Oswald'.

But my main point will still apply at the end of those arguments...which is: Lee Harvey Oswald's OWN LIFESTYLE and HABITS and LODGINGS and LACK OF READILY AVAILABLE FUNDS all lead in the direction of Mr. Oswald NOT being an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States (or any other "high-up" organization within either the U.S. Government or a foreign Government).

David Von Pein
November 3, 2008




DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
(PART 88)


http://EducationForum.com


[NOTE -- IN ADDITION TO DVP AND JAMES DiEUGENIO, OTHER PEOPLE ARE QUOTED BELOW AS WELL.]


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

That photo that DVP and others, like Baden, like to display about the so-called wound in the cowlick area is actually touched up.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, goodie! MORE fake stuff! A FAKED version of an already FAKED autopsy photo. Is that what you're saying, Jimbo? Great! I love it.



Maybe DiEugenio would like to chew on the following animated GIF image for a few moments, which is a moving GIF montage which merges two different autopsy photographs into one "moving" image. One of the pictures within this animated GIF is the color "red spot" picture, and the other one is a B&W autopsy picture of the back of JFK's head. They are identical. They are stereoscopic:



Photo/GIF credit to: John Mytton.

And I also totally agree with Mr. Mytton's remarks concerning the above GIF imagery:

"Faking these pairs of stereoscopic photos in 2013 would require a decent amount of computer skill, in 1963--forget it!" -- John Mytton; May 6, 2013


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Was this GIF made from the original photos? Have you seen those photos?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Have you?

No, of course you haven't.

Which means you have no case (as usual).


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

When the four major investigations all disagree with each other, then something is rotten in Denmark, correct?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How many of those investigations concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was an innocent patsy, Jimbo?

I'll answer that one for you -- None.

Any more gripes, Jimmy?


PAT SPEER SAID:

I'm glad you posted this, David. Look at the piece of brain matter down by the hairline. Now, look just above it, at the 1 o'clock position if the brain matter was at the center of a clock. There's the EOP entrance wound, EXACTLY where Humes--and everyone else noting an entrance wound at the autopsy--said it was.

Now, why was this entrance wound erased from history by the Clark Panel? That's right. The Clark Panel was asked to debunk the stuff in Tink's [Josiah Thompson] book--including that the bullet supposedly traveled low to high within the skull, without destroying the brain in between. So they moved the entrance wound to someplace more compatible with the single-assassin conclusion--like the dried blood in the cowlick--where NO ONE at the autopsy saw such a wound.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's no entry wound at the "1 o'clock" position above the white splotch, Pat. You're seeing things that you WANT to be there--but aren't.

In addition, as I mentioned previously, neither the white splotch or your make-believe "1 o'clock" entry wound are located "above" or even "slightly above" the EOP. And the autopsy report (twice!) clearly indicates that the entry wound on the back of JFK's head was located "above" the EOP.

Also -- Isn't it remarkable, Pat, that the thing in the "red spot" photo that you claim is merely "dried blood" can look so much like an entry hole for a 6.5-mm. bullet? Amazing coincidence, huh? (Or did the Clark boys just draw in the red spot themselves?)

Plus -- Isn't it also remarkable that the red spot just happens to PERFECTLY LAY OVER THE TOP of the entry hole in the underlying skull of the President, per the Clark Panel? (More Clark lies here, Pat?).....

"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." -- Clark Panel Report

Also hear the HSCA talk to Dr. Finck about how the red spot in the photo perfectly lines up with the entry in the underlying skull (just a co-inky,
I guess) --- 1978 Interview With Pierre Finck.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Of course I have not seen the original photos, I am not a doctor.

But I do know doctors who have. Neither McAdams, Reitzes, or Mike Williams (the rifleman) or "John Mytton" is. Therefore they have not seen the actual evidence. Medical doctors who have seen it do say that about the so-called cowlick wound. Although the actual artwork alteration I referred to is in the HSCA renditions, that is, with the raised edges.

The particular photo above does just look like a drop of blood, no matter how you arrange it. Yet, as Dave Mantik has written, in years of research on the JFK case, he has yet to find one witness at either Parkland or Bethesda who has ever testified as to seeing this red spot at the cowlick area, let alone identifying it as an entrance wound (MIDP, p. 238)

For a dramatic side by side comparison of the actual photo with the HSCA alterations, see Gary Aguilar's essay in "Murder in Dealey Plaza", p. 178. (This is one of the best essays you will read on this issue based upon the declassified ARRB files.)

[...]

Futhermore, Von Pein is also wrong--yawn--about the red spot aligning with a so-called entrance wound on the skull. Mantik, who has spent more time with these exhibits than any other person I know, shows that this is simply not true. It is actually one cm, (not a MM, a CM) below this so-called entrance wound. (Assassination Science, p. 124)

And if one looks at this lateral x ray, which is in the same book on p. 123, you will see that, as Mantik notes, this is not really a hole, it actually looks like a fracture.

(It's incredible, but Davey is even worse on the medical evidence than he is on Oswald and the ballistics. Like he has never read anything by Mantik or Aguilar.)

Also, why did the Fisher Panel get everything so screwy? As Pat Speer points out, they themselves admitted that Ramsey Clark had gotten the galleys of Thompson's book. And Clark was really upset by the diagram showing so vividly that the trajectory of the head shot as depicted by the WC was very hard to swallow. (p. 111, SSD [Six Seconds In Dallas])

As the young medical illustrator Mr. Rydberg has later said, this depiction was a complete distortion. Because Humes, rehearsed by Specter, showed up without any data to describe this trajectory: no notes, no photos, nothing. Therefore, as Pat states, the Fisher Panel was assigned by Clark to refute Thompson's exposure of this problem. Even though the work was completed in 1968, the results were not publicized until January of 1969, just in time for the jury selection at Shaw's trial. Whenever one has a political agenda, as the timing of the press release shows, that agenda will naturally distort what the true facts are. Therefore, by patching over this original paradox, Fisher created even more of them, as I described above. In addition to the "red spot", Fisher also "found" the 6.5 mm fragment.

See, it's because the problem was not really with Humes. It was with what happened to Humes at Bethesda which stopped him from performing a real autopsy. Which was revealed by Finck at Shaw's trial. (Destiny Betrayed, 2nd edition, pgs. 299-306) BTW, Fisher has a history of being the CIA's go-to guy in these cases. He performed the Paisley redo autopsy. Which is a real dandy.

So what is there to all this huffing and puffing by Von Pein? All this name calling? All of these so-called "corrections". As usual, it's all bluster and BS. He just hijacked another perfectly good thread trying to prepare for the 50th. Which, of course, in his function ever since Simkin let him back on.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let's see....Mantik is the guy who thinks somebody filled in a gaping hole in the occipital area in this X-ray below (which, of course, is said to be authentic by the HSCA, but all CTers think the HSCA's Photo Panel was filled with liars, as per usual, so I'm told to flush 7 HSCA 41 down the nearest toilet):



And Mantik is the guy who thinks a piece of "cardboard" was inserted into the AP X-ray of JFK's head by the plotters who were framing Oswald. But apparently these industrious plotters never bothered to tell ANYBODY about the "6.5mm. object" between 1963 and 1968, so the first we find out about it is in 1968 with the Clark Panel. Great frame-up there. The plotters were the "patient" type evidently--they sat around and waited for FIVE years to have their fakery and handiwork discovered. But this fact, of course, doesn't bother Jim D. in the least.

Common Sense Break......

"Conspiracy theorist Dr. David Mantik, who has visited the National Archives on nine occasions to examine JFK autopsy materials, has since argued that the two X-rays (lateral and anterior-posterior) of the president’s skull have been altered, based largely on the presence of what appears to be a bullet fragment (but, per Mantik, was really a “simple piece of cardboard, or whatever you wish to imagine, cut out in the shape of a 6.5mm fragment”) seen embedded in the back of the skull “one centimeter below the entry site.”

[...]

But if Dr. Mantik’s conspirators were going to commit the forgery he claims they did, instead of using a “simple piece of cardboard” to simulate a bullet fragment (the very use of which enabled him to detect the alleged forgery), why wouldn’t they use an actual bullet fragment? Also, what possible advantage would the conspirators have gained by forging the object onto the X-ray film? The thought that they would risk getting caught doing this to implicate Oswald in a case in which he and his rifle were already overwhelmingly connected to the assassination is irrational on its face.

One should add that if, indeed, Dr. Mantik’s conspirators were willing to do something so extremely risky and completely unnecessary to frame Oswald, wouldn’t they have found some way to bring it to the attention of the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964? Instead, if Dr. Mantik is correct, we have to learn about the sinister implications of the “cardboard artifact” for the first time thirty-five years later when he published his findings in the book 'Assassination Science'? Isn’t this silly, again, on its face?"
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 221-222 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"


Lots more common sense and rational thinking that destroys the theories of Drs. Mantik and Aguilar can be found in Vince's "RH", beginning on page 221 of the Endnotes.

But Jim DiEugenio never ONCE will allow himself to think in the above common-sense manner that Mr. Bugliosi demonstrates with respect to Mantik's theories. Jimbo will jump, head first, into the deep end of the Conspiracy Pool, never bothering to even stop and ask: Does this even make any sense?

Just as Jimbo's has done with respect to the "paper bag" topic. Jim thinks there was NO large paper bag at all carried by LHO into the TSBD on 11/22. It was an INVENTION of Frazier, Randle, and/or the DPD. But does Jim ever ask himself WHY Frazier and Randle decided to make their fictional bag TOO SHORT to hold the rifle that it needed to contain? No. Common sense, IOW, is not to enter into Jimbo's fantasies--ever. For if common sense WERE to enter into Jimbo's thinking, every theory he has ever purported would go flying out the window in two seconds.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID [SPEAKING TO FELLOW CONSPIRACY THEORIST PAT SPEER]:

Nice post above Pat. [THIS POST.]

Pat and I disagree on some things about the autopsy. But we agree that the Fisher Panel was simply a mess from the get go. [NOTE -- DiEugenio really means the "Clark Panel" here; why he insists on calling it the "Fisher Panel" is anyone's guess; yes, Dr. Russell S. Fisher, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Maryland, was indeed a member of the 4-man "Clark Panel" in 1968, but the panel itself was not "Fisher's" panel; it was known as the "Clark Panel".]

And BTW, I wish Pat [Speer] would post a link to his micro photo of what he thinks is the entrance wound. Because DVP, with his Muttonhead GIF, is selling more Von Pein snake oil with his newest deception. In Pat's photo, it's pretty plain and easy to see.

But that does not matter to Davey, he will just deny it anyway. That's his sickness.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why didn't you just look it up on Pat's website and post it yourself, Jimbo? Pat's stuff is easy to find on his site. Here it is below. But there is no "wound" there. It's just Kennedy's hair. Nothing more.

This is exactly like the people who think they've "found" stuff in other pictures -- e.g., Badge Man, Black Dog Man, the "other gunman" in the Dillard TSBD photo, "Oswald in the doorway", etc. They see what they WANT to be there. And so does Pat in the autopsy photo.

In fact, without the aid of Pat's arrows to guide us to the spot in the B&W Fox photo, we wouldn't have the slightest idea that the so-called "wound" was even there. The "arrows" don't even help much on that B&W picture (click for a larger view):




ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Your arguments are ridiculous; in fact, they border on the insane. Only a raving fanatic would state that the cowlick is "slightly above" the external occiptal protruberance [sic].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then you're going to have to call Dr. Humes "ridiculous", "insane", and a "raving fanatic" too, Bob. Because Humes totally reversed himself for the HSCA in 1978 and he's on record doing it [1 HSCA 327]. Yes, he re-reversed himself again for the ARRB, indicating the man was very confused over the years. But we do have the following testimony from Humes after he viewed the best possible evidence for where that entry wound was located (the red-spot photo):


MR. CORNWELL -- "Now, I would like to ask you today if you have had at least a greater opportunity to look at the photographs along the lines that I have just indicated to you and if, after doing so, you have a more well-considered or a different opinion or whether your opinion is still the same, as to where the point of entry is?"

DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- "Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion. .... I go back...to the original autopsy report which we rendered, in the absence of any photographs, of course. We made certain physical observations and measurements of these wounds. I state now those measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of our ability to discern what we had before our eyes. We described the wound of entrance in the posterior scalp as being above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance, a bony knob on the back of the head. .... And it is obvious to me as I sit here...that the upper defect to which you pointed or the upper object is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it was, above the external occipital protuberance. Therefore, I believe that is the wound of entry. .... The object in the lower portion, which I apparently and I believe now erroneously previously identified before the most recent panel, is far below the external occipital protuberance and would not fit with the original autopsy findings."



Now, Robert P., I'm sure you will be more than willing to call James Joseph Humes "insane" and "ridiculous" and a "raving fanatic" (just as you inferred I was) after having read the above sworn testimony of Dr. Humes. Correct?

As for WHY Dr. Humes utilized the term "slightly above" in the autopsy report, when we know from the authenticated and unaltered autopsy photographs and X-rays that the entry wound in JFK's head was MORE than just "slightly above" the EOP, I haven't a clue.

But this photograph below is not lying. And this photograph, in that it has been authenticated as being "not...altered in any manner" [7 HSCA 41] PROVES for all time that the entry wound in the back of President Kennedy's head was located HIGHER (by about 4 inches, per the Clark Panel) than the location of that wound that appears in the autopsy report:




BONUS QUOTES (for the conspiracy theorists to mock, spit on,
and totally ignore):


"We, as the [forensic pathology] 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. And further, although the original examination of the brain was not complete, photographs of the brain were examined by the panel members, and do show the injury to the brain itself is on the top portion of the brain. The bottom portion or undersurface of the brain, which would have had to have been injured if the bullet perforated in the lower area as indicated in the autopsy report, was intact. If a bullet entered in this lower area, the cerebellum portion of the brain would have had to be injured and it was not injured. So that is the basis for what remains a disagreement between our panel and the original autopsy doctors. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head." -- Dr. Michael Baden; 1978


"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings." -- Dr. James J. Humes; Interview with JAMA editor George D. Lundberg; October 1991 [See “JFK’s Death: The Plain Truth From The MDs Who Did The Autopsy”, by Dennis L. Breo, Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 267, No. 20, May 27, 1992, Page 2794]

video

David Von Pein
May 2013