(PART 91)


What a steaming pile of BS.

What [is] with that screaming guy saying we had Oswald in our office ten days ago.

Who was that supposed to be?

This actually looks even worse than the script I critiqued in my book.


When Jim DiEugenio, on August 22, 2013, said "what a steaming pile of BS", he was referring to this trailer for the Tom Hanks-produced film "Parkland", which is an upcoming theatrical motion picture based on Vincent Bugliosi's 2008 book "Four Days In November" (which consists of the first huge chapter of the 2007 book "Reclaiming History", Bugliosi's much longer publication about the JFK assassination).

The thing that strikes me as particularly hilarious about DiEugenio's "what a steaming pile of BS" remark is that Jim made that remark about a movie trailer that contains absolutely nothing that even a hardened and devoted JFK conspiracy theorist should think is "BS".

The 2-and-a-half-minute trailer for the "Parkland" film (embedded below) depicts a few scenes that could only be deemed factual in nature--even if you belong to the same kooky fraternity that DiEugenio belongs to -- that being the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy club.

I guess Jimbo thinks that the scene in the trailer featuring the "screaming guy" is a valid reason for labelling the trailer (and hence, the whole "Parkland" motion picture) "a steaming pile of BS".

But Jim D. should have easily been able to figure out what that "screaming guy" scene is depicting in the film. It is obviously a scene depicting actors who are portraying FBI agent James Hosty and his boss, Dallas FBI agent-in-charge Gordon Shanklin.

A portion of that same scene will also undoubtedly include Shanklin screaming at Hosty to get rid of the note that Lee Harvey Oswald brought to the Dallas FBI office in early or mid-November of 1963, shortly before Oswald assassinated President Kennedy on November 22nd. That's what that "screaming guy" scene is all about, Jimmy. Isn't it obvious? It sure was obvious to me the first time I watched this trailer:

Is there really anything in the above trailer that could have possibly caused a conspiracy monger like DiEugenio to blurt out this remark (even apart from the Hosty/Shanklin exchange I just talked about above, which Jim apparently didn't understand)?:

"This actually looks even worse than the script I critiqued in my book."
-- J. DiEugenio

If there is anything in that trailer that would (or should) cause such a strong negative reaction by a conspiracy theorist, I sure can't figure out what it might be.

There are probably a few lines of dialogue spoken by the nurse or the man talking to Marguerite Oswald or by Billy Bob Thornton (who plays Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels) that have likely been embellished for the film (for "dramatic license" purposes), but I can't see how such benign embellishments would be so upsetting to even a conspiracy believer.

Jim DiEugenio, of course, knows that Tom Hanks' film "Parkland" is based on
Vince Bugliosi's lone-assassin book, and therefore Jim knows that the movie is, indeed, going to come to the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, shot and killed JFK and policeman J.D. Tippit. But based on just the trailer by itself, I cannot see why any conspiracist would be compelled to say that the trailer was "a steaming pile of BS".

I can just imagine how big that "steaming pile" is going to be once DiEugenio sees the entire film.

In the final analysis, of course, people like James DiEugenio are simply nuts when it comes to their half-baked theories and cockeyed beliefs concerning the assassination of John Kennedy. And now I see where Jimbo can't even manage to critique a short movie trailer properly. He sees nothing but "BS" in a two-minute trailer that--in actuality--contains nothing but true facts. Go figure.

David Von Pein
August 22, 2013



I see Jim DiEugenio has now decided to attack Tom Hanks with some pretty severe criticism. Jimbo doesn't seem to care who he slanders, as long as it's somebody who has some common sense about Oswald's guilt in JFK's murder.

"What a complete jerk Hanks is." -- J. DiEugenio; July 21, 2013

DiEugenio has evidently done a few weeks' worth of "research" on Mr. Hanks and his movie career, and Jimbo has now decided that Hanks is a "complete jerk". Jimmy D. is pathetic (of course).

Mr. Hanks, btw, is said by many people in Hollywood to be one of the nicest individuals in the whole movie business. Now, I'll admit, I have no idea if that appraisal of Tom H. is spot-on accurate or not. I've never met the man. But I have heard several people say a lot of good things about Tom Hanks.

Naturally, Jimmy D. thinks Hanks is a "complete jerk" because of Tom's stance on the JFK case. And now I see where DiEugenio is going to attack Vince Bugliosi some more on another non-JFK topic too -- the Manson case -- as Jimbo will apparently be making an attempt to smear Vince in some way regarding Bugliosi's prosecution of Charles Manson for the 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders.

So, if he can find a way to attack and smear Hanks and Bugliosi, he's evidently going to do it in his 2013 book "Reclaiming Parkland", which probably would be better suited for the supermarket tabloid magazine rack than it would be for the mainstream book-buying public.

An alternate title that would very likely fit the 500 or so pages of trash talk that are likely going to be inside DiEugenio's book would be: "Smearing Two Good Men For The Price Of One Crappy Book".

I cannot say with any authority what kind of Hollywood-type gossip and/or "dirt" DiEugenio has dug up about Tom Hanks, but I can say with some degree of authority that James DiEugenio is dead wrong about many of the things he says about Vincent Bugliosi. And I can say with absolute confidence that DiEugenio is totally wrong (and even nuts) about almost everything he believes regarding the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases.

Jimbo has proven to me time and time again in my online debates with him that he has virtually no capacity for properly and reasonably evaluating the evidence that exists in the JFK and Tippit cases.

And anyone who thinks I've overstated my criticism of DiEugenio's weak capacity for rational evidence evaluation in the Kennedy case only needs to glance at a few of these articles.

David Von Pein
July 22, 2013

(PART 424)


>>> "Connally himself said he was shot after the second shot!" <<<


Wrong. Governor Connally never once said that. He always maintained he was not hit by the FIRST shot, and was hit by shot #2.

Connally also readily admitted on CBS-TV in 1967 that the SBT could be true....but it would have to be the SECOND shot equating to the SBT. And he's right. It was shot #2.

From 1967's "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report":

JOHN CONNALLY -- "The only way that I could ever reconcile my memory of what happened and what occurred, with respect to the One-Bullet Theory is....it HAD to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit us both."

EDDIE BARKER -- "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first bullet could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the third one hit President Kennedy?"

CONNALLY -- "That's possible. That's possible."

>>> "He [John Connally] should know WHEN he got hit!" <<<

Sure, but Connally couldn't possibly have known when President Kennedy was first hit....because Connally always said he never saw Kennedy at any time after the shooting started. So how can Connally, HIMSELF, possibly know that the SBT is not true? In two words: he couldn't.

>>> "[Connally's] shattered wrist cannot hold a hat." <<<

Wrong again. He held that hat ALL THE WAY TO THE HOSPITAL.

Are you suggesting, therefore, his wrist was never hit by a bullet on 11/22/63?

>>> "Ever think he [JBC] was reacting to the shock wave of a bullet over his left shoulder?" <<<

No, because it's so obvious he was reacting to a bullet hitting him at Z224 (just as the film clip below vividly illustrates). Any other conclusion is just willful ignorance on the part of any anti-SBT conspiracy theorist.

David Von Pein
January 19, 2009

(PART 423)


When confronted with the fact that [William] Newman said the shots came from behind him, [John] McAdams said that the TSBD was behind him and [t]hat's what he meant.


Bill Newman, less than an hour after the shooting, told Jay Watson and the WFAA-TV audience that he heard TWO shots coming from ONE solitary location (behind him, "on the mound of ground there on the mall").

So, Newman's description about the number of shots he heard (two) and the number of locations/directions from where he thought they originated (one) are things that most certainly don't do the multi-gun conspiracy theorists any favors whatsoever.*

* = Unless those CTers want to believe that William Newman, like almost every other Dealey Plaza witness (except only five, out of 104 in John McAdams' poll), somehow managed to hear shots coming from only ONE solitary location within the Plaza, even though several different shooters were popping away at John F. Kennedy that day.

After examining the thing that conspiracy theorists despise the most (i.e., the inconvenient totality of evidence in the JFK murder case), it couldn't be any more obvious what the solution is to the "location" discrepancies that exist amongst the Dealey Plaza witnesses.

The solution -- Every witness (whether he/she knew it or not) heard ALL of the shots coming from ONLY the Texas School Book Depository's 6th-Floor Sniper's Nest, but due to the acoustics in the Plaza (or some other factor or combination of factors that played tricks with the sound of the gunshots), many witnesses thought that ALL of the shots were coming from a place further west than the Depository Building (which even the hardest of hardline conspiracy theorists know is dead wrong, since it's a proven fact that multiple shots positively originated from the Book Depository).

Do conspiracists truly believe that 99 out of 104 earwitnesses (per McAdams' "definitive" poll, and close to those same numbers per all other polls I've ever seen regarding this matter, including polls put together by conspiracy-leaning authors) would have said they heard ALL of the gunshots coming from just a SINGLE location in the Plaza if an Oliver Stone-like assassination scenario (3 guns and 6 non-silenced shots fired) had really taken place on 11/22/63?

That's just goofy.

David Von Pein
February 8, 2009

(PART 90)


After reading James DiEugenio's smear piece on John McAdams [linked above], it becomes plainly evident that Professor McAdams wasn't debunked or wounded or defeated in any way whatsoever by DiEugenio's and Brian Hunt's August 2013 article at the CTKA website.

And it's also crystal clear that Professor McAdams' views on the JFK case are just as intact and logical and factual after reading the DiEugenio/Hunt smear piece as they were before reading it. The article was merely filled with a bunch of words that accomplished nothing.

In fact, DiEugenio's shallow and horrible McAdams' article reminded me very much of the two-part smear piece that DiEugenio wrote about me in 2010. [Also see this rebuttal.]

It would seem that Jimbo just likes to smear the opposition (in print). And when attempting to do so and when attempting to find out what makes the opposing "LNer" tick, he dredges up a bunch of totally irrelevant and peripheral stuff about that person's "career" (and in my case, it's only an "Internet career", since I'm a nobody who has never taught at a college in Wisconsin, nor have I taught any classes on the JFK case, or done much of anything else outside my computer and keyboard).

But when digging into the background of the lone-assassin advocate and trying to find as much dirt as he can to smear the LNer with, DiEugenio, in the end, finds pretty much--nothing. In short, there's just no "dirt" to be found.

About the worst thing DiEugenio could dig up on me and my alleged sordid "Internet career" is Jim's charge that I was "flooding the board" at Debra Conway's JFK Lancer forum a few years ago (as if that's a crime worthy of the gas chamber). But even that allegation was false (explained here).

And DiEugenio, incredibly, actually thinks he's driving a stake through my heart in some way by quoting the following things that I have said in the past about the JFK murder case:

"Aren't hard facts and evidence always more believable than wild speculation and conjecture?"

"The Single Bullet Theory has still not been proven to be an impossibility."

Jimmy D. also thinks I should hide my head in shame when I make claims about Oswald owning the Carcano rifle, or about Oswald killing Tippit, or about Oswald firing a shot at General Walker. DiEugenio actually thinks ALL of those things are bogus claims. ALL of them. Amazing.

And now DiEugenio (and I guess Brian Hunt too, who is listed as co-author of the crappy CTKA piece on McAdams) is attempting to dig up the awful truth about someone else--Professor McAdams. But, in the end, Jimbo and Brian fail miserably. And in the course of failing miserably, the authors of the smear piece attempt to make John McAdams look like a monster and disinformation artist due to the fact that many different myths associated with the JFK assassination are not propped up as fact (or discussed in enough detail to suit a conspiracy clown named DiEugenio) at Professor McAdams' website -- such as the "Clay Shaw Is Clay Bertrand" nonsense.

And DiEugenio does a nice job of totally misrepresenting (or just not understanding) the way in which John McAdams has utilized the term "factoid". It's hilarious to see that DiEugenio (or Hunt, or both) actually said this:

"McAdams...now applies it [the word "factoid"] to everything that counters the case of the Warren Commission. For instance...he labeled all the evidentiary problems in the Commission's Tippit case as "factoids". This would include the mismatching of the shells with the bullets..."

So, DiEugenio actually seems to be implying in the above quote that McAdams just flat-out DENIES that there WAS a mismatch in the brands when comparing the Tippit bullet shells to the actual bullets that were taken from Officer Tippit's body. But I can almost guarantee that Mr. McAdams has never once said any such thing. He knows that a mismatch exists. The mismatch is a fact. And McAdams knows this.

DiEugenio has very likely twisted and distorted something that McAdams has said about the mismatch, and turned the Professor's words into the incorrect notion that McAdams thinks the mismatch ITSELF is a "factoid", which is obviously not the case, since John knows there is a mismatch.

The type of "factoids" that Mr. McAdams often refers to are things that the conspiracy theorists have propped up as FACTS and the TRUTH, but are, in reality, not proven facts at all, such as all of this stuff:

The Mauser "factoid"....and the "factoid" about a bunch of witnesses being bumped off by the Death Squad or being strong-armed by the authorities into changing their testimony....and the "factoid" about Oswald "drinking a Coke" when he saw Baker & Truly on 11/22/63....and the "factoid" about how Oswald didn't have nearly enough time to get from the sixth floor to the second floor of the TSBD after the shooting....and the "factoid" about an automatic gun being used to kill Tippit....and the "factoid" about Oswald being a lousy shot who couldn't possibly have killed the President....and the "factoid" about Oswald's Carcano being the worst rifle ever manufactured....etc., etc. to "factoid" infinity (almost).

But it seems as though people like James DiEugenio do, indeed, want to turn those types of "factoids" into "facts". And yet the CTers have the gall to hang the label of "propagandist" on people like John McAdams and myself. When, in reality, it is the conspiracy mongers like Jim DiEugenio (and many others) who are engaging in "Factoid Propaganda" of the worst kind.

But I want to thank Jimbo for the article on Professor McAdams. Because after reading it and seeing the total lack of meaningful or valid criticism contained therein, I now have even more respect and admiration for John C. McAdams than I did a few hours ago.

In the final analysis, it is my opinion that Jim DiEugenio is trying to poke holes in the very large marble structure known as "Lee Harvey Oswald Is Guilty" by picking at that marble structure with a toothpick. And despite DiEugenio's efforts, the structure that surrounds Oswald's sole guilt in the murders of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit is still standing erect and upright and unfazed by DiEugenio's meager toothpick assault on it. And Mr. McAdams is certainly not any the worse for wear as a result of DiEugenio's paper-thin attacks against him.

DiEugenio promises a "Part 2" on McAdams in the future (big yawn), which I predict will almost assuredly be just as shallow and meaningless as Part 1. Anybody care to wager? *

* EDIT (8/24/13) -- Sure enough, I was right. Here's Part 2.

In closing, I'll offer up this bonus quote (which is something that becomes more and more obvious every time Jimmy DiEugenio opens his mouth):

"I think the difference between "kook/delusional" and "liar" is substantial. A person can be very truthful and honest and still be a kook. That type of person, when it comes to the JFK case specifically, just simply has no capacity for properly evaluating the evidence in front of him. And it has been apparent to me for quite some time now that James DiEugenio is one of those persons. I mean, when a guy can suggest that Lee Oswald didn't carry any large bag at all into the Book Depository on Nov. 22--well, I think you get my point and I can safely rest my case." -- DVP; March 2013

David Von Pein
August 15, 2013

(PART 422)


When they [LNers] encounter large quantities of evidence, and particularly evidence which they have no hope of rebutting, they simply respond, even to long lists of evidence, by blithely demanding "where's the evidence?"


Is your "Z285" theory amongst the "long lists of evidence" that we LNers "have no hope of rebutting"?

IOW -- Is purely subjective "evidence" (like your Z285 evidence) really and truly to be considered evidence that lone-assassin believers have "no hope" of shooting down or reasonably dismissing?

I have a feeling that Robert Harris' definition of "large quantities of evidence" for the conspiracy side is vastly different from that of many other (reasonable) people.

For instance -- a lot of CTers (not necessarily Bob Harris in particular) still regard the "Doorway Man" and the "Mauser vs. Carcano" debates to be pretty strong "evidence" that a conspiracy existed in Dallas on 11/22/63.

But to a reasonable person who examines this "evidence", those things don't come close to leading down Conspiracy Avenue (let alone PROVING a conspiracy). Those things, and others like them, are nothing more than ordinary, garden-variety, run-of-the-mill, non-conspiratorial mistakes. And those are the type of errors and innocent misidentifications that can be expected in virtually every phase of life....including the investigation into the murder of a U.S. President.


Just three days ago, conspiracist Anthony Marsh wrote the following post to me:

"YOU [DVP] are living in a dream world where everything is perfect and no one ever does anything wrong." -- Tony Marsh; January 27, 2009

When thinking about that statement made by Tony, in conjunction with what I just wrote to Robert Harris in this post concerning Doorway Man and the Mauser/Carcano mix-up, it's fairly obvious that not only is Tony Marsh wrong in his above remark....but he's REALLY, REALLY wrong in that remark.

Lone-assassin believers like myself certainly don't have that type of "no one ever does anything wrong" mindset suggested by Mr. Marsh. Because if we did, then we would be forced to side with the outer-fringe conspiracy-loving kooks who still to this day want to believe that Lee Oswald was in the Book Depository doorway when JFK was being shot, and also want to believe that a Mauser rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Depository, instead of the weapon that all reasonable people know for certain was found there -- Oswald's Carcano.

If Tony's January 27th remark were true, then I would also be forced to conclude that President Kennedy had a large hole in the BACK (occipital region) of his head after he was shot, since there are many witnesses who claimed to see such a wound.

But I, of course, prefer to rely on the much stronger and much more CONCLUSIVE evidence regarding the President's bullet wounds, with that better evidence being: the autopsy report and the autopsy photos and X-rays.

Bottom line:

Many people were "wrong" about many things pertaining to the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit. There's no doubt about that. But the totality of all the evidence PROVES two things beyond all REASONABLE doubt (and it always has proved these facts):

1.) John F. Kennedy was killed as a result of being hit by two and only two bullets that were fired from a location above and behind JFK when he was shot.

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald, beyond all reasonable doubt, is the one and only person who shot and killed both President Kennedy and police officer J.D. Tippit on 11/22/63.

Naturally, conspiracy devotees will deny the irrevocable truth that exists in both #1 and #2 until the day they nail the box shut on them. But, then again, what's new about that?

David Von Pein
January 30, 2009



(PART 421)


My logic was that many in the morgue had heard about, or seen news footage of, people in DP [Dealey Plaza] running up the GK [Grassy Knoll] following the shooting (not to mention the PH [Parkland Hospital] news conference).


Concerning the latter part of the above statement....

Then why in the world didn't anybody in the morgue at Bethesda know about the existence of the bullet hole in JFK's throat (if some of the Bethesda personnel had, indeed, seen the Parkland news conference given by Drs. Clark and Perry)?

It's fairly obvious that (incredibly) not a single person who had anything to do with President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda on the night of 11/22/63 had seen the Clark/Perry news conference a few hours earlier.

Because if anybody in the morgue had heard or seen that press conference, surely someone would have felt compelled to speak up and say something like this -- "Dr. Humes, I heard on the TV earlier today that a doctor in Dallas said there was a bullet hole in JFK's throat when the President arrived at Parkland Hospital."


[Reiterating an earlier point....]

"You [John Canal] said that the [Bethesda] doctors feared that by revealing a large BOH [Back Of the Head] wound they would be opening up the door to rumors and speculations that JFK had been shot from the front. But why would the doctors necessarily feel this way? They've described the ONLY entry hole in the head as being at the rear of the head, proving without doubt that the only bullet that hit JFK's head came from the rear, from the direction where Oswald was firing a gun.

"There was no other ENTRY hole in the front of the head. None. So even WITH a larger-sized "BOH" wound present on the head, I cannot adhere to any such potential "conspiratorial" concerns about such a larger BOH hole. Such a large BOH hole, if it did exist as a result of ONLY ONE bullet striking JFK's head from the rear (which was also in the BOH), could obviously have been easily explained by the same doctors as merely the extensive fragmentation of an already weakened skull by the ONE bullet which entered the back of the head and then fragmented badly after entering the skull."
-- DVP; April 22, 2007

David Von Pein
January 17, 2009

(PART 420)


Like [Gus] Russo[,] he [Dale K. Myers] is a CIA stooge and sloppy researcher.


Oh great. Now Dale Myers is being labelled "CIA" by the kooks.

I love it!

Every LNer automatically falls into the "He's CIA" file, right Tony?

Tell us, O' Lord Of Kooks (T. Marsh) -- You must also believe that Vincent Bugliosi has the aroma of "CIA" all around him too, right?

Please put it in print that you think Vince Bugliosi is "a CIA stooge". Please! I want to read that from Mr. Marsh's own keyboard very badly (prior to my next belly-laugh).

Addendum --

And if there's one thing that Dale K. Myers is certainly NOT, it's a "sloppy researcher". Once more, Kook Marsh has gone off the deep end with another stupid, inaccurate comment.

David Von Pein
January 14, 2009

(PART 21)


Two questions for DVP.....

When I searched using Google for an article I wrote, I was stunned by the number of attacks you've made against me, not only on your blog, but on several forums. I guess you figured when I just ignored your rhetoric and ranting I was an easy target for you...and oh how obvious it is that you like easy targets.

So, in view of those attacks, let me just ask you two questions....I'll make them simple because they refer to the medical evidence and it's obvious you are lost when it comes to that aspect of the case.

1. While there are a lot of problems with the Dox drawing in the graphic [shown] below, the area where the skull was blown-out isn't too awfully inaccurate....so, with that in mind, if the damn scalp wasn't stretched up, where did they get the scalp/hair from to cover that blown out area??????????????

New secret instant results Rogaine?

Faked photo?

Authentic photo, but it's not JFK?


Or how about this doozy of an answer that [John] McAdams seemed to favor once: In the blown out area, the skull blew out but left the scalp and hair behind (kind of like the Red Sea parting for Moses...the scalp and hair just moved aside to let the skull blow out)??????

Tell me wise guy, what's your answer?


That's an easy one, John.

And I said exactly that same thing ("that's an easy one") when we discussed this very same topic in July of 2008. Perhaps you have forgotten this discussion from five years ago (which is a discussion that you yourself started).

Anyway, to reiterate what I said in 2008 (with my original quote copied below too), the Dox drawing that was done for the HSCA is "slightly off" when it comes to depicting the precise place on JFK's head where the big hole in his skull was located. It's as simple as that.

And the proof that Ida Dox didn't have the exit wound location 100% accurate is vividly shown in the X-ray of the right side of President Kennedy's head, which does not show the gaping exit wound in John Kennedy's head to be where we find it in the Dox drawing (see comparison below). The actual hole in Kennedy's skull was further forward than where Dox places it in the HSCA drawing:

My remarks to John Canal written in 2008:

"That's an easy one -- the Dox drawing isn't the BEST EVIDENCE.....the autopsy pictures, the autopsy X-rays, and the autopsy report are the BEST EVIDENCE. And those three things--in tandem--confirm this fact:

There was no large BOH wound in John Kennedy's head. Period.

The Dox drawing in [HSCA Exhibit] F-66 is slightly off on the gaping exit wound....quite obviously, since the scalp of JFK is, indeed, fully intact (i.e., not blasted completely away) in the area of the head just a little forward and right of the cowlick entry wound.

This just proves that it's silly to rely too heavily on only the drawings....either Dox's or the ultra-crappy Rydberg ones done for the WC, which only serve to confuse more than clarify. And Dox's, while much better than Rydberg's are still off a little, and the Dox drawings weren't even necessary at all.

The HSCA had full access to the actual pictures of JFK....why they needed some drawings on top of the pics I have never understood. I guess to supposedly provide better clarity of the inshoots/outshoots...but, as mentioned, all they did was muddy waters that would have been much less muddy if the WC and HSCA had kept the damn artist renderings out of the official record (IMHO)."

-- David Von Pein; July 12, 2008


2. If I'm on this side of the grass long enough to see another team of forensic experts (who we both would accept the conclusions of) examine the originals, (and you're still posting your attacks against me) will you accept a $500.00 wager regarding their conclusions?

Here are the terms:

If they conclude the entry was in the cowlick, I'll pay you $500.00 and, conversely, if they conclude the entry was near the EOP, you pay me $500.00.

Now, you do realize that the last panel of experts (and we won't count Sturdivan and Zimmerman because you and the rest of the "cowlick-entry-Humes-didn't-know-the-EOP-from-the-cowlick" club deemed them blind or grossly incompetent) who were commissioned by the ARRB to examine the originals basically said, "What cowlick entry?"

But we won't count them either because you and the rest of the aforementioned club probably have group-attacked them as well.


Sure, John. Your wager proposal looks good to me. Sounds like an easy way to make five hundred clams. You're on. I accept.


P.S. How about putting this on your blog too?


You got it.


Yes, the [Dox] drawing is off--I said that--but there is still undamaged scalp covering at least part of the blown out area. There should be no scalp covering any of that area!


So you said. But you're obviously wrong. And this photo below, deemed unaltered in any manner by the HSCA's Photographic Panel, proves you are wrong, because the President's scalp is still there (and undamaged):

And since you readily admit that the Dox drawing is "off" with respect to the exact location of the big hole in JFK's head, why are you placing any faith in that drawing at all when it comes to the topic of the exit wound? You seem to be admitting that the Dox drawing should have the big wound moved further toward the front of Kennedy's head. So, we're in agreement there.


The last two groups of individuals (the ARRB forensic experts then Sturdivan and Zimmerman) did not support your cowlick entry.


It's not my fault they can't see what's right in front of their eyes. The bullet hole of entry in President Kennedy's head is near the cowlick, and the above (red spot) autopsy photograph proves it--and always will.

It's absolutely incredible what this "JFK case" does to people. We've got an autopsy photo, which has positively not been faked or altered (per page 41 of HSCA Volume #7), that shows the bullet hole of entry in the back of JFK's head--clear as day--high on his head, near what most people would consider to be the "cowlick" area of the head--and I've been arguing with Mr. John A. Canal about this matter for something like five or six years now.

And the kicker is -- both John Canal and I think that all of the bullets which struck the President came from behind and all were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. And yet here we are, in 2013, arguing about the precise location of the entry wound--which is a wound we both agree was caused by Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano bullet.

Kind of sad, isn't it? (Funny too. But sad.) :-)

This JFK assassination subject is a one-of-a-kind topic, to be sure. Even verified-as-authentic autopsy photos can't seem to silence the debate about JFK's wounds. The ghost of Harry Houdini must hover over every aspect of this case. For nothing short of Houdini's magic could turn this murder case into what it's become in the last fifty years. Remarkable indeed.


We'll wait for the next acceptable team to examine them so I can collect my $500.00. Thanks.


Good luck, John.

And, who knows, maybe you'll be fortunate enough to have a future forensic panel who will study the autopsy photos and X-rays and then totally ignore what they so obviously depict. I.E., you have to hope the next team of forensic experts completely dismisses these two official reports:

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray film #2. .... On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance." -- Clark Panel (1968)

"It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick." -- Dr. Michael M. Baden of the HSCA's nine-member Forensic Pathology Panel (1978)

David Von Pein
August 11, 2013





(PART 419)


WC defenders love CE 903 because they rely on hoaxes and love it when people LIE about the evidence. The rod does not correctly mark Kennedy's back wound. .... What it [CE903] does prove is that there was plenty of room for a bullet to go over Kennedy's shoulder as the rod does and hit Connally's back, consistent with a shot from the sniper's nest. Thanks for proving our conspiracy points.


Tony Marsh evidently wants to believe that a bullet (from the Sniper's
Nest) just barely missed JFK and struck Connally in a place on his
back that lines up just about perfectly with the place on his back
where he would have also been hit had a bullet exited JFK's throat
after entering Kennedy's back.

Gee, how convenient for those "Let's Frame Oswald" plotters (again),
huh? And mighty convenient for the anti-SBTers of the world too.

Naturally, since Mr. Specter didn't sacrifice the federal agent
sitting in for JFK on 5/24/64 during the SBT re-creation by shoving
the rod through his upper back, the lateral angle of Oswald's bullet
being simulated by Specter's metal rod is not going to be 100% to-the-
inch perfect for the demonstration being photographed by Lyndal
Shaneyfelt in CE903. Marsh, of course, knows this is the case.

So, a small number of liberties HAD to be taken by Specter and the WC
for the purposes of CE903....such as NOT IMPALING THE JFK STAND-IN,
but still wanting to demonstrate via CE903 the general trajectory and
workability of the "SBT"....which is precisely what CE903 does.

Also: Per Dale Myers' exacting study of the SBT and his Zapruder Film
"overlays" that he has Key Framed to his "Secrets Of A Homicide"
computer animation model -- We can see that FROM OSWALD'S VIEWPOINT in
the Book Depository's Sniper's Nest at approximately Z-Frame 223, the
UPPER-RIGHT portion of Connally's back was NOT visible to Oswald and
could not have been hit by a bullet that did not first go through the
body of JFK, as seen here in a still frame from Mr. Myers' computer

Naturally, people like Mr. Marsh think that Myers is full of shit when
Myers produces a still image like the one above. Marsh HAS to think
that. Because if he doesn't, then the SBT is almost certainly true,
and there's no "anti-SBT" escape hatch for a reasonable person to use.

It's difficult to ascertain the precise LATERAL (right-to-left) angle
of Arlen Specter's rod as seen in CE903 (in fact, it's pretty much
impossible to tell what that R-to-L angle might be in that photo; and
it's equally as impossible to determine exactly how far LEFT of JFK
the Connally stand-in is located in CE903 as well; a frontal view of
that re-creation would have been useful, but as far as I am aware, no
such view of the SBT demonstration exists).

But it's quite obvious (since Kennedy was really struck by Bullet
CE399 in the middle part of his upper back) that Mr. Specter, in order
to demonstrate the horizontal angle of the bullet through the two
victims in CE903 (without driving the rod through the JFK
impersonator), was forced to position his "rod" at a slightly greater
"right-to-left" angle than the actual R-to-L angle that existed from
Oswald's window.

But people like Tony Marsh, of course, must think that such necessary
adjustments equate to a "hoax" as far as the WHOLE of CE903 is
concerned. Right, Tony?

But any REASONABLE person who knows where the wounds were truly
located in JFK & Connally, and who looks at CE903 for a few minutes, can
only reach one logical conclusion -- i.e., The Single-Bullet Theory
lines up quite nicely to do just what the Warren Commission said one
bullet did do on 11/22/63....and without requiring any bullet hole to
be located where so many misinformed conspiracy theorists seem to
think a bullet hole MUST be located in JFK's body in order for the SBT
to have a fighting chance at being true -- in John Kennedy's NECK.

But CE903 demonstrates that if the upper-back wound of Kennedy were to
be moved up to the NECK of the President (all the while maintaining
that needed 17+-degree downward angle of declination from Oswald's
6th-Floor window), the trajectory for the SBT would be ruined, because
any such bullet trajectory that started out by entering JFK's NECK
would have certainly exited his body much HIGHER than the area of his
tie knot.


People like Tony Marsh never seem to want to explain what happened to
the bullet that really did exit Kennedy's throat if it didn't go on to
strike Governor Connally (assuming you can get even one CT-Kook to
admit the obvious--i.e., that Kennedy's throat wound was an exit and
not an entry wound).

All Marsh can say with certainty (evidently) is that if a bullet did
exit JFK's throat, it positively didn't (and couldn't!) have gone on
to hit John Connally....even though Marsh knows that Connally WAS hit
in the upper-right back at just about the same place where a bullet
exiting Kennedy's throat would have struck Connally had the bullet
that exited JFK gone on to hit Connally....but it didn't....a
DIFFERENT bullet must have done that damage to Connally's back (per
the Marshes of the world)....even though the location of the bullet
hole in JBC's back....well....you get the repeating picture of all
this redundancy by now, I suppose....right? :)

Once again, for those afraid to face the perfection of CE903, I'll
post it yet another time below. And it's a photo that couldn't be any
more perfect in demonstrating the workability of the SBT from the
standpoints of "angles" and "bullet-wound locations on the two
(except for the fact that Specter decided not to skewer the
JFK replacement with his metal probe; therefore the probe/rod had to
be positioned slightly to the right of where JFK's real upper-back
wound was located)....

The SBT fits.
The SBT works.
The SBT is a fact.

David Von Pein
January 10, 2009

(JUNE 6, 1963)

YouTube discussion regarding above video:


The video above contains rare videotape footage of President Kennedy's trip to San Diego, California, on Thursday, June 6, 1963, including Air Force One's arrival at Lindbergh Field and the President's motorcade through the streets of San Diego.

Also included are portions of JFK's speech at San Diego State College and video footage from the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, where the President speaks again and is given a 21-gun salute.

A personal note ---

This San Diego video is rapidly becoming one of my all-time favorite JFK videos. It emits the same "live" and "as it is happening" qualities that can also be found in my videos of President Kennedy's appearances in Texas on the day he was assassinated (November 22, 1963).

This San Diego video features the same airplane (SAM 26000) that flew JFK to his death in Dallas, plus the same limousine and the same pomp and circumstance that surrounded Kennedy's visit to Texas in November of '63.

And how can anyone not jump a little bit when hearing gunfire (the Marine Corps' 21-gun salute) just as the President steps off of a helicopter in this San Diego video? It's almost impossible not to think of Dallas and November 22nd at that moment.

And take note of the similarity between the San Diego and Dallas motorcades. The same basic configuration of the cars and police motorcycles is readily apparent in the clips presented in this San Diego parade, with no Secret Service agents riding the bumper of Kennedy's car and no military aide sitting in the front seat between the Secret Service men--exactly the same as in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.

This is, in my opinion, truly a classic video. My thanks go out to the people who rescued this videotape footage from the dustbins of history (source listed below). It is a program I am certain to revisit many times in the coming years.

Video Source:
San Diego State University Library


Thanks so much for posting this. People today don't realize that fifty years ago, when the president came to town, the local stations pulled out all the stops to provide comprehensive coverage. One major difference between the San Diego coverage and Dallas' was that in San Diego, even portions of the motorcade itself were broadcast live, as well as the use of a portable camera at the airport. Thanks again for posting this.


Another winner! You keep finding great material. Keep up the awesome work David!


I was one of the people lining the streets in San Diego that day to see the motorcade. The police motorcycle formation was different--in San Diego there was a "flying wedge" of motorcycles in front and to the side of the presidential limousine, but in Dealey Plaza, the motorcycles stayed behind, with no front or side protection. Also, in San Diego, there were military vehicles preceding the limousine, but in Dealey Plaza, just one lead car, way out in front, with no frontal protection.


There was also a "flying wedge" of motorcycles in Dallas, just like in San Diego. In another one of my videos, you can even hear Joe Long of KLIF Radio, as he reported live from Love Field on 11/22/63, talk about the "flying wedge" (he even uses those exact words, which can be heard at the 22:08 mark in the video below:

I still maintain that the Dallas protection and security was virtually identical in all key respects when compared to this San Diego parade. No substantial differences whatsoever when it comes to "security measures".


Thanks David for another great video. As always, your analysis of JFK's standard motorcade formation is spot on. Only wish more viewers would open their eyes to the pattern.



Also notice the truck full of photographers in front of the limo, which didn't happen in Dallas. Also, in Dallas they kicked the official WH photographer out of the Queen Mary.


Regardless of where the photographers were located, the "security" was identical in both of those motorcades (San Diego on June 6 and Dallas on November 22), unless some conspiracy theorists would like to suggest that the photographers and cameramen were supposed to perform double duty in Dallas--taking pictures and serving as human shields to protect JFK at the same time.

Do conspiracists really believe the photogs and cameramen were deliberately placed further back in the Dallas motorcade in order to avoid filming the "conspiracy in action" in Dealey Plaza? Utter nonsense.

Plus, we know that there WERE multiple professional cameramen who filmed the action in the Plaza within seconds of the assassination--e.g., Mal Couch of WFAA, Dave Wiegman of NBC, and Tom Dillard of the Dallas Morning News. Plus
Jim Altgens of AP and the many amateur photographers who took pictures DURING the assassination itself.

And I want to once again rub the CTers' noses in this comment I made on YouTube:

"The same basic configuration of the cars and police motorcycles is readily apparent in the clips presented in this San Diego parade, with no Secret Service agents riding the bumper of Kennedy's car and no military aide sitting in the front seat between the Secret Service men--exactly the same as in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22nd." -- DVP; August 2013

I wonder what conspiracy believers like Vince Palamara think about the above-mentioned Dallas/San Diego similarities? I'm sure Vince will just ignore the fact that there was no military general riding in the front seat of JFK's car in either San Diego or Dallas. Nor do we see any SS agents riding JFK's bumper.

The June 6th San Diego video, all by itself, pretty much destroys several different conspiracy myths concerning the Dallas motorcade and the B.S. about a Secret Service "standdown" and "security stripping" in Dallas.

But, then too, perhaps some conspiracy clown can now start a new theory about how the San Diego video has been altered in order to digitally remove the SS agents who were continuously riding the bumper of Kennedy's car in San Diego.

With people like Ralph "All Photos Are Fake" Cinque examining the case, nothing would surprise me anymore.


I proudly posted the San Diego video on my blog recently.

San Diego -- Hundreds of Marines lined the streets, along with police, facing the crowd; the building roofs were manned as the procession passed; SAIC BEHN was on the trip, etc.

Of course, agents were not always on/near the rear of the limo- the police and/or military lining the streets, facing the crowd, as well as the building rooftops being guarded as the motorcade passed, more than compensated for this (manpower) situation -- that is the key.

And, yes, these were normal occurences ***BEFORE*** Dallas. Chief Inspector Michael Torina, whom I spoke to and who wrote the Secret Service manual, confirmed these facts. I would say he was slightly an authority on the matter (just slightly...).

People like [Gerald] Blaine, a buck private who served briefly, have little authority on the matter, especially in comparison to Torina, a giant in the Secret Service, to put it mildly. See? The gotcha game Marsh has been playing with photos on these newsgroups is laughable on its face. Security was not always "in your face" and overt...out of necessity, it was covert, as well (a good example being D.C. motorcades).


Unless I've missed some sparring between Vincent M. Palamara and Anthony Marsh in some other newsgroup threads (which is certainly possible), it looks like Vince is complaining to the wrong person. Marsh was taking YOUR side, Vince, when he said this:

"Also notice the truck full of photographers in front of the limo, which didn't happen in Dallas. Also, in Dallas they kicked the official WH photographer out of the Queen Mary." -- T. Marsh

But my main point on this security issue is still a perfectly valid one -- and that is: the security we see in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63 is substantially the same security that we see in San Diego on June 6th -- e.g., no military aide in the front seat of JFK's limo; no Secret Service men riding the bumper of Kennedy's car; two SS agents on each of the running boards of the SS follow-up car; motorcycles flanking the President's car--two cycles to the left-rear and two to the right-rear.

All of that stuff is identical in both of those motorcades. And even if there weren't some extra Marines (or policemen) lining the streets in Dallas PRIOR to Dealey Plaza -- so what? JFK wasn't killed on Main Street or on Cedar Springs or on Lemmon Avenue. He was killed on Elm Street.

Now, we can argue all day long about how the Secret Service and the Dallas Police Department blew it by not stationing more men to guard Elm and Houston Streets in Dealey Plaza. But that's merely Monday-morning quarterbacking, to be sure.

Since Dealey Plaza was at the very end of the parade route, and since the crowds were, indeed, much thinner in Dealey Plaza than they were on Main Street (and probably on Harwood and other streets as well), a large police presence right in Dealey Plaza itself was probably not deemed necessary by the Dallas Police or Sheriff's Department. (Even though, ironically, the Dallas County Jail is located right there on Houston Street.)

But hindsight is always 20/20 and is never wrong. If, however, we let our hindsight guide our thinking (and our theories) regarding JFK's security measures in Dallas on November 22, 1963, we are playing right into the hands of the looniest of the conspiracy theorists who seem to want to believe that the security measures taken in Dallas were so lax and so inept (on purpose!) that JFK had no hope of making it to the Trade Mart alive.

But such conspiratorial thinking is just not reasonable or rational. The bottom line is that the security surrounding John F. Kennedy's limousine as it drove through Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 was absolutely identical in nature to the security that JFK received while riding in that very same open-top car dozens of times prior to visiting Dallas.

And, in my opinion, even if a considerable number of extra policemen had been lining the streets in Dallas, it still would not have prevented Lee Harvey Oswald from poking that rifle out of that sixth-floor window at exactly 12:30 PM CST and murdering President Kennedy.

Plus, I'll also add this:

We know that the Dallas Police went to great lengths to protect JFK in Dallas. It's not like Jesse Curry's police department was just sitting around on its hands when Kennedy came to Dallas. In fact, NBC reporter Robert MacNeil said this on the NBC Radio Network shortly after 10:00 AM (EST) on 11/22/63, three-and-a-half hours before JFK was assassinated in Dallas:

"Police in Dallas have mounted the biggest security operation in their history to prevent any repetition of the demonstrations which marked the visit of U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson last month."

And there's also this 11/20/63 message to the people of Dallas from the Dallas Police Chief himself (Jesse E. Curry):


Also -- I'm guessing that the reason there was such a large "Marine" presence on the streets of San Diego for JFK's visit on 6/6/63 is because there were HUNDREDS OF MARINES AT THE READY AT THE MARINE BASE THERE IN SAN DIEGO, for use as extra security men during Kennedy's drive through the city.

There was certainly not a huge "Marine" or military presence lining the streets for EVERY single motorcade JFK ever drove in during his 1,037 days in office. That's just silly.