(PART 657)


I think THIS POST by Pat Speer makes a lot of sense -- except for this comment made by Pat:

"Wait, Is this news? You [David Lifton] used to state that the body was altered before it reached Bethesda. Has Horne won you over?"


Pat, the remarks made by David Lifton [repeated below] that you are replying to in the above quote are not inconsistent in the slightest way with Mr. Lifton's longstanding beliefs put forth in his book. Lifton is saying here what he's always said (and it's still as far-fetched and unrealistic here in 2014 as it was back in 1966 when DSL's strange odyssey first began). He's saying the body of JFK was altered between Parkland and Bethesda. But the statement below does not imply that Lifton has embraced the additional Humes Altered The Wounds nonsense put forth by Doug Horne.

Emphasis added by DVP here:

"I have to wonder when the day is going to be reached (if ever) when Pat Speer, who has spent a lot of time studying this case, and who--as I said--should know better--is going to stop making these absurd statements that there was no difference in the wounds between Dallas and Bethesda, and face the very clear fact that the wounds were altered between the time Dr. Clark saw the body--at Parkland Hospital--and the time the official autopsy commenced in the morgue of the U.S. Navy Medical School at Bethesda at 8 p.m EST." -- David S. Lifton


I agree with Pat Speer up to a point about some of the "BOH" witnesses. But the composite chart made by Mr. Speer [pictured below] is probably a tad bit misleading (IMO), because the three witnesses pictured here ARE still indicating that there was SOME kind of wound or defect extending all the way into the VERY BACK part of JFK's head. Right, Pat? Otherwise, what do you think Peters and Custer and O'Connor are doing when they have their own hands placed over the REAR portions of their heads in the photos on the right side of your montage below? Are they just scratching their heads here, and a picture was taken to mislead people? Or what?....

Repeating an observation I made a few years ago....

"Of course, the CTers [Conspiracy Theorists] who think that Kennedy was shot in the head from the front can always go down "THE PHOTOS ARE ALL FAKES" path...even though the HSCA said that ALL of the autopsy pictures are "unaltered" in any way whatsoever. .... To stress my main point again (via the opinion that the [autopsy] pictures are GENUINE and are NOT FAKES, which, of course, IS the truth of the matter):

How would it be even remotely possible for a bullet to leave a huge hole in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of President Kennedy's head and yet have the REAR SCALP of that same President Kennedy look like this (in the autopsy picture below) after such a shooting event? Was Kennedy's scalp made of bullet-proof cast iron or some other impossible-to-penetrate material? Lacking that type of crazy explanation, I cannot see how it would be possible for a bullet that caused the amount of damage to the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's skull that most CTers think it DID cause, to NOT have penetrated the RIGHT-REAR scalp of Kennedy's head and caused at least SOME visible damage to the outer scalp of the President. In a word -- impossible."
-- DVP; April 2008


Response to DVP....

1. My observation about Lifton's comment "the wounds were altered between the time Dr. Clark saw the body--at Parkland Hospital--and the time the official autopsy commenced in the morgue of the U.S. Navy Medical School at Bethesda at 8 p.m EST" is accurate, IMO. My understanding is that Horne believes the body was altered at Bethesda BEFORE 8 p.m. It appears, then, that Lifton is now conceding that Horne might be on to something. I apologize to David Lifton if I'm misunderstanding his words.

2. Context is everything. The Case for Conspiracy slide to which you refer is Groden-specific. The images at right are what Groden publishes in his book The Killing of a President. These images are posted all over the internet.

The clear implication is that these men are "back of the head" witnesses, and believed there was a blow out wound on the back of the head. The images at left come from Groden's video The Case for Conspiracy, and proves the deceptiveness of the images at right.

The reality is that these three men were not "back of the head" witnesses, at least not as claimed by Groden. Peters pointed out a wound at the top of the back of the head, well above the ears. Custer and O'Connor said they saw a large wound encompassing the whole right side of the head, from front to back, and were clearly describing the condition of the skull after the scalp had been reflected and the brain removed.

P.S. In a previous discussion of this slide, a well-known teacher of critical thinking got all upset and claimed I was trying to make people think the Bethesda witnesses saw the same wound as the Parkland witnesses. I then pointed out to him that 1) the slide actually argues the opposite, and that Custer and O'Connor's recollections were not supportive of the recollections of the Parkland witnesses, and 2) that the most coherent argument that the wounds observed in Parkland and Bethesda were the same was published in a book HE'D compiled and edited.



What exactly do you think that Peters, Custer, and O'Connor, on the right side of the montage, are pointing to (or indicating with their fingers) on the back side of their head?

Since Peters' head is turned away from the camera more so than O'Connors', perhaps he's the best one to talk about here because his finger placement can be made out a little better.


I'm not sure about Peters. Perhaps he was telling Groden where the cerebellum was, or where others thought they saw a wound. Or maybe even he was showing Groden where he thought the wound was. But the fact remains that in Groden's own video (and other videos posted online) Peters points out the location at left.

As far as Custer and O'Connor, in Groden's own video they said they saw a wound from front to back. At left they are pointing out the forward-most part of this wound. At right they are pointing out the rearward-most part of this wound. The snapshots at right come from Groden's video. The Custer shot at left comes from this video as well. I'm not sure where the O'Connor shot at right came from.


Thank you, Pat, for your last reply. But this comment you made still makes no sense to me:

"...My understanding is that Horne believes the body was altered at Bethesda BEFORE 8 p.m. It appears, then, that Lifton is now conceding that Horne might be on to something."

Well, Pat, since we all know the autopsy started at about 8:00 PM, it's fairly obvious that David Lifton DOES indeed believe the wounds were altered BEFORE 8:00. Right? So how is Lifton's previous remark out of sync with his theory that the body was altered by somebody at Walter Reed (or wherever) prior to the time Dr. Humes started the autopsy? What am I missing here? You surely don't think Lifton is of the opinion the alleged alterations to the President's body were performed AFTER the Bethesda autopsy commenced at 8 PM. Right?

Re: Groden....

I don't know if Robert Groden was being deliberately deceptive in his 1993 book or not, but this picture which I captured of Dr. Paul Peters (taken from the 1988 NOVA/PBS program) comes pretty close to matching Groden's photo of Peters, although it appears as if Peters' hand is a little lower on the back of his head in the montage posted earlier than it is in this 1988 hands-on demonstration:


Look again. The image at left on my slide comes from Groden's video and demonstrates where Peters thought he saw a wound. This location is on the top back part of the head, well above the ears, and is very close to the location you posted. Now look at the photo of Peters in Groden's book, at right on my slide. There he is pointing to a location at and slightly above the level of the ears. It's about 3 inches away.


Either way, Dr. Peters is still wrong, because there was no humongous hole in President Kennedy's head in either one of those "BOH" locations, as these photos clearly prove for all time:

For a more accurate "hand on the head" demonstration of where the large wound in JFK's head was really located, we need to go to the witnesses who saw the assassination as it was occurring in Dealey Plaza. And the best possible witnesses among that group are Abraham Zapruder and William Newman:

And there's also Gayle Newman too, who provided a hands-on account of the location on JFK's head where she saw "blood gushing out". And it sure isn't in the occipital (or rear) portion of the head:


Another good video. Confirms their [Bill & Gayle Newman's] earlier views.

In it, he says that the shots came more from the fence area behind him more to his right than from the TSBD to his left.



Bill Newman said no such thing in that 2003 video. In fact, he specifically says that he refuses to "define" the exact location of the gunshots. He said: "So I say 'behind' and I leave it at that."

He said he can't say whether the shots he heard came more to the left or more to the right of his location:

"If I thought it came from the sixth floor, I'd most definitely tell you so. If I thought it came from the picket fence, I'd certainly tell you so. The reality of it is--I don't know." -- William E. Newman; July 10, 2003


I can see why the Warren Commission didn't want them [the Newmans] to be interviewed.


Yeah, right Ray. They avoided the Newmans, but had no problem publishing the testimony of Sam Holland, Mark Lane, Jean Hill, Jack Dougherty, Victoria Adams, Clint Hill, Marguerite Oswald, and several other "conspiracy" type witnesses. But they were just scared to death of Bill and Gayle Newman, huh?

You're funny.


Zapruder also said he thought the shots came from over his right shoulder.


That's not what he told Eddie Barker in Dealey Plaza in 1967:

"I'm not a ballistic expert, but I believe if there were shots that were coming by my right ear, I would hear a different sound. I heard shots coming from--I wouldn't know which direction to say--but it was proven from the Texas Book Depository. And they all sounded alike; there was no different sound at all."
-- Abraham Zapruder; June 1967 (emphasis added by DVP)


[9 minutes and 50 seconds into this video, Bill Newman said:]

“...but if you want [me] to define it a little closer, that would be a little closer to the picket fence rather as opposed to the School Depository.”


Yes, you are absolutely right, Ray. Bill Newman did utter the above words in his 2003 interview at the Sixth Floor Museum. I stand corrected.

However, even in that excerpt at 9:50 of the video, Newman is saying that the shots came from what he calls the "in-between area", very near where Abraham Zapruder was standing -- between the Depository and the picket fence.


I'm not interested in what he [Abe Zapruder] told Eddie Barker, this is from his Warren Commission testimony:

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, I also thought it came from back of me.


And just how on Earth does Zapruder's "from back of me" remark help out the conspiracy theorists who want to place a gunman behind a fence on the Grassy Knoll, which is a fence that was certainly NOT in "back" of Abe Zapruder's pedestal at the time of the head shot. That fence was to the RIGHT of Zapruder....and actually, to be technical, the area of that fence where most of the conspiracy buffs like to put a gunman was also a little bit in FRONT of Zapruder's position as well (i.e., a little SOUTH of the Zapruder pedestal) -- as the photograph below indicates:

But I suppose all the conspiracy theorists can argue that the picket fence area was, indeed, IN BACK of Zapruder's position when at least ONE of the shots was fired, because Zapruder's body would have been turned more toward the corner of Elm & Houston at that time.

So you can argue that "angle" difference if you want, but it's still not going to garner you a victory in this particular argument, and that's because of the following portion of Mr. Zapruder's Warren Commission testimony that Ray decided to leave out of his last post:

Mr. LIEBELER - All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - From the direction behind you?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment, where they came from--after the impact of the tragedy was really what I saw and I started and I said--yelling, "They've killed him"--I assumed that they came from there, because as the police started running back of me, it looked like it came from the back of me.

Mr. LIEBELER - But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what direction the shots did come from actually?


So it's pretty clear to me that Zapruder's WC testimony is in perfect harmony with what he told CBS-TV in 1967. In other words--he just couldn't tell exactly where the shots were coming from.


The subject is not about the picket fence. It is about where the head wound was, Newman said in his earliest interview that “As the car got directly in front of us, uh, a gunshot, apparently from behind us hit the President in the side of the temple.”

Now if you can show how a gunshot to the side of the temple can equate to a bullet in the back of the head, I'd be very interested in your explanation.


So, Ray, you think Bill Newman had the superhuman ability to actually SEE the bullet in flight, eh? Otherwise, how could he possibly know precisely where the bullet ENTERED President Kennedy's head?

As any child could figure out, Newman saw the big hole and all the blood on the RIGHT SIDE ("temple" area) of JFK's head after Oswald's bullet had gone through the President's cranium....and Newman's immediate impression, due to the location of all that blood, was that the bullet hit JFK in the side of the temple.

Newman says over and over again in his various interviews in 1963 and 2003 that he saw the "SIDE" of the President's head come off. That sure doesn't sound like he's describing the ENTRY point for a bullet, does it? He's describing where the EXIT wound was located, of course.

And Newman repeated that comment again during his 2013 interview at the Sixth Floor Museum ---> "The side of his head blew off." -- Bill Newman; 11/9/13

There is also a similar statement made by Gayle Newman in her official affidavit, which she prepared on the day of the assassination itself ---> "I saw blood all over the side of his head." -- Gayle Newman; 11/22/63


No, I don't think he had superhuman abilities. Neither have you, although it seems that you think you do. You appear to know more about what he [Bill Newman] saw than he did.


You think it takes superhuman ability to assess and reasonably evaluate the statements made by William Newman concerning his observations relating to JFK's head wound?

A second-grader could figure this out. I wonder why so many conspiracy theorists can't do it?

It's probably because those conspiracy believers just simply don't WANT to properly evaluate statements made by witnesses like Bill and Gayle Newman. The CTers are too enamoured with their long-held belief that William E. Newman is a terrific "conspiracy" type witness. But in reality, he's no such thing.

Newman even marked the location of where he thought the shots were coming from on a map during his appearance at the 1986 mock Oswald trial in England. And just look at where he put the gunman--in a location that's not even close to the famous "picket fence" area:

In fact, Newman's marked location on that map is much closer to the Book Depository Building than it is to the fence atop the Grassy Knoll.


Perhaps if you think that what he saw was the exit of the bullet rather than the entrance, you could tell us where the bullet that supposedly did what you say ended up.


I think you already know the answer to that question, Ray. But, I'll bite anyway....

The largest portion of Oswald's Carcano bullet, after going through JFK's head, was never recovered by anybody. But two fairly large chunks of that head-shot bullet (CE567 and CE569) were recovered in the front seat area of JFK's limousine, with those two fragments of bullet being stopped by the car's windshield and chrome molding (which were cracked and dented, respectively).

More of my thoughts about CE567/569 HERE and HERE.

Now, to reciprocate, maybe Ray Mitcham can answer a similar question for me (and for everyone else in the world too) --- Since you obviously think that what Bill Newman saw on the SIDE of President Kennedy's head was the ENTRY location of a bullet, would you please tell me what happened to that bullet that entered the right "temple" of John F. Kennedy? Where did that bullet end up? And why didn't it cause some kind of wound to the LEFT side of JFK's head?


Nice photo, David [of Bill Newman marking the map], but very naughty. Pity it was taken from an angle which compresses the sketch of Dealey Plaza. It looks a bit different when you see it like this:

The grey curved line equates to the one drawn on by Newman and his position is circled lower on the drawing. It shows that he thought the shot came from nowhere near the TSBD.


And Newman's 1986 map also indicates he didn't think the shots came from anywhere near the famous "Grassy Knoll/Picket Fence" area of Dealey Plaza either. (That was kind of my main point, in case you missed it.)

But, then too, we already knew that fact when Newman clearly stated in his 11/22/63 affidavit that the shots came from "directly behind me", which does not equate to the famous "Grassy Knoll" area where the fence is.


Regarding where do I think the bullet went that entered from the front? Easy -- it stayed inside JFK's skull as it exploded.


Oh, I see. That must be why only TWO very small metal fragments were plucked from inside President Kennedy's head by the autopsy surgeons at Bethesda, huh? [See CE843.]

And I wonder why there is very little in the way of bullet (metal) fragments visible in the X-rays taken of JFK's head? A faked X-ray, Ray? ....

And it's also good to know that you, Ray Mitcham, are a person who actually DOES think that the great-big wound in JFK's head serves as the ENTRY point for a bullet. Most people can easily figure out the ENTRIES from the EXITS when it comes to assessing bullet wounds, with the largest wound almost always indicating the BLOW-OUT (or EXIT) point for the missile.

But, as with everything in this JFK case, the conspiracists have a habit of turning night into day---and exits into entries.

A humorous example of this type of topsy-turvy mindset exhibited by some conspiracy theorists came up on one of the other JFK forums, when a certain unnamed kook insisted that Governor Connally's chest wound was actually a wound of ENTRY, while Connally's upper-back wound was a wound of exit.

Such is the upside-down world of JFK conspiracists.


I notice you said nothing about your sneaky angled photo of the Dealey Plaza sketch.


I wasn't sneaky at all regarding the "angled" Newman map photo. I know it's taken from an angle that somewhat skews everything. But I used it to merely illustrate what even a SKEWED version of that map clearly indicates--i.e., Bill Newman thought the shots were coming from a location where virtually NOBODY in the "JFK World" thinks shots were REALLY coming from.

So, tell me, Ray -- Do you REALLY think shots were coming from an area BETWEEN the Depository and the fence/"Badge Man" area on the Knoll?

If you answer Yes to that question, you'll be the first person on the planet (AFAIK) who thinks shots came from that "in-between" area in Dealey Plaza.

BTW, Ray, your version of Newman's map is almost identical to the "skewed" version I posted. Very little difference at all. Your "unskewed" version still has Newman's mark at the FAR EAST EDGE of the pergola/shelter.

Looks like another "Mountain From A Molehill" argument being made by a conspiracy fan. (What a surprise.)

Besides, how in the heck can I know for certain you've got that gray line in the exact correct spot to equate to Newman's 1986 marking of the sketch/map? Maybe I should call in Dale Myers to check it out. An expert on photogrammetry couldn't hurt here, right? :)


The 'entrance is the smaller' argument only applies when the bullet trajectories are tracked.


Oh, bull, Pat. In THIS (JFK) case, there can be no doubt whatsoever which of Kennedy's head wounds was the entry wound--with or without "tracking" of the bullet wounds. Am I supposed to think THIS wound in the photo below is an EXIT wound and that huge hole in the right/front/top portion of the President's head is an ENTRY wound? (Talk about topsy-turvy. This takes the cake.)


So, get off your high horse, will ya? You would like the readers to believe you've got all the facts on your side, and science on your side, when your whole 'Oswald did it all by his lonesome' argument rests on your unfounded BELIEF that either
1) the autopsy doctors were incredibly inept and that the bullet actually entered 4 inches higher than they claimed in a location nobody noticed, or 2) the autopsy doctors were correct and all the subsequent panels claiming the bullet trajectory they'd proposed makes no sense were inept. In either case, you've gotta go against experts.


I'm not denying that there is controversy among the "experts" and the autopsy surgeons regarding JFK's head wounds. I've never denied or ducked that controversy. I've merely attempted to explain it in what I feel is a reasonable and sensible way (based mainly on what I consider to be the best evidence associated with the President's wounds--the autopsy pictures and X-rays).

But most of the conspiracy theorists disagree quite strongly with EVERY single expert who has ever officially investigated John F. Kennedy's murder and looked at the original autopsy photographs and X-rays. A CTer who is absolutely positive that JFK was shot from the front and had a massive hole in the BACK of his head has no choice but to totally disregard every single item listed below (which is just plain ridiculous):

1.) The autopsy report.
2.) The autopsy photographs.
3.) The autopsy X-rays.
4.) The testimony and subsequent statements of all three autopsy physicians.
5.) The conclusion of the Warren Commission in 1964.
6.) The conclusion of the Clark Panel in 1968.
7.) The conclusion of the Rockefeller Commission in 1975.
8.) The conclusion of the HSCA in 1978.
9.) The Zapruder Film.

See how silly it gets once you get beyond a HALF-DOZEN different things/committees that the conspiracy theorists believe are totally wrong or phony? But the CTers don't care that they have to spit on ALL NINE of the above things. They'll do it anyway. But please don't ask me to disregard the above batch of evidence. Because in order to do that, I'd have to park my common sense at the front door. And I'll never do that.

So, you see Pat, the horse I'm riding isn't perched so high. But CTers don't
even have a horse to ride in this race, as far as I can see. They ride a different animal -- BULL.


I acknowledged that when there are two CONNECTED wounds, the larger one is usually the exit. But in this case, NO ONE ever connected the wounds. In the "official" story, there was a small wound low on the back of the head and a large wound high on the head. That's it.


Given the fact that there was this HUGE hole in the right/top/front part of the President's head....and this small "entry"-like hole in the back of his head, how difficult is the math here? Should we consult Einstein to get this figured out? Or should a cat by the name of Felix be able to solve this puzzle? (I vote for the latter.)

(Can this get any sillier? Answer--Yes, it can. See Pat Speer's next comment for proof....)


In defiance of EVERY written and unwritten guideline for conducting a forensic autopsy, the wounds were never connected. It's even worse than that. Supposedly they weren't even probed. No, even worse than that. The ONLY witnesses claiming the small entrance wound on the back of the head was probed (Lipsey, Robinson) claimed the probe exited--get this--the throat wound. Now, ain't that a humdinger?


A humdinger of a dumb and preposterous theory, yes.


There's also this. While I am not an alterationist, I nevertheless believe your list above is nonsense. If the autopsy photos had been faked, then the conclusions of the Clark, Rockefeller, and HSCA Panels are meaningless.


So, you think the ONLY thing the HSCA relied on were the photos & X-rays, eh? That's interesting (and very wrong). There's also the testimony of the autopsists. Or is their 1978 testimony "meaningless" too (as it relates to their ability to answer the fundamental question of: "WAS JFK STRUCK BY ANY BULLETS COMING FROM THE FRONT?")?

Anyway, the autopsy photos cannot possibly be fake, unless there's a way to fake pictures in stereo pairs (which every expert has said is impossible).

So, you're cooked again, Mr. Speer. Sorry. :-)

David Von Pein
February/March 2014

(PART 656)


Although "DVP" loves to take any opportunity to ramble on about his theories about the assassination and pay homage to his heroes such as the Bug [Vincent T. Bugliosi] and Gary Mack either directly or indirectly through imitation, it is usually quickly apparent that he also prefers to allow others such as Mack and the Bug to do his thinking for him, and seems to have little interest in working through issues objectively.

Such is also the dilemna [sic] of ITTC ["JFK: Inside The Target Car"], in that it conveniently tells everyone what to think, no matter what their footage actually shows. It also encourages everyone to allow Gary Mack and the DC [Discovery Channel] to do their thinking for them, and not to question what might have been purposefully left out, and cheerily follow all the rabbit trails it sets up.


IMO, the simulated Texas School Book Depository gunshot that was shown in the "Inside The Target Car" program wasn't nearly as important as the two "from the Knoll" simulated shots, which were two gunshots (from two different types of rifles) that prove beyond all possible doubt that no shot could have struck JFK in the head from the Grassy Knoll, which is the favorite location, of course, for the CTers of the world to place their make-believe "frontal" gunman in Dealey Plaza.

"Pam" apparently thinks the 2 "from the Knoll" simulated shots that [Michael] Yardley fired in ITTC were rigged in some way. That's a typical CTer mindset, of course, and it's a mindset that will never ever change when it comes to the hardline conspiracy theorists.

In other words, even when faced with rock-solid PROOF that they are dead wrong when it comes to their long-held beliefs of a Grassy Knoll gunshot killing President Kennedy, conspiracists will merely shake off the proof and begin their pro-conspiracy raving anew the next day, as if the proof they just witnessed the previous day never even existed.

Hardline JFK conspiracy theorists are, indeed, pathetic (as usual).


On a related "conspiratorial" note, I was treated to my weekly Thursday-night chuckle on August 13, 2009, when conspiracy guru James DiEugenio made his first appearance this month on Len Osanic's weekly "Black Op Radio" program.

The biggest laugh from the August 13th show was when Mr. DiEugenio decided to add three additional suspects to the forever-growing list of potential conspirators in the JFK case. The three being: Buell Wesley Frazier, Marrion Baker, and Roy Truly.

DiEugenio thinks that the "curtain rod"/"paper bag" story told by Frazier is "questionable", and Jim also has now decided to believe that the whole Baker/Truly/Oswald/Lunchroom encounter is "questionable" as well.

In other words, DiEugenio apparently smells a rat when it comes to the things that were said (under oath) to the Warren Commission by Wesley Frazier, Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and Linnie Mae Randle.

DiEugenio didn't mention Randle among his latest batch of plotters/liars, but he really has no choice but to put Linnie Mae under that same "questionable" umbrella too, since she is also on record as one of only two people who observed Lee Harvey Oswald carrying a long paper bag on the day of JFK's murder (with 19-year-old Depository employee Frazier, of course, being the other).

It must be great to be a conspiracy theorist, huh? You can just go on Internet radio (or wherever) and spout any stupid, unprovable nonsense you want to....and you'll get some people to believe you. And you never have to be worried about the actual evidence in the case either. Just say the evidence (and the testimony of MULTIPLE innocent witnesses) is "in question" or "questionable", as DiEugenio did on 8/13/09, and evidently that's good enough.

As I said -- pathetic.

David Von Pein
August 14, 2009

(PART 655)


The make-up of the [motorcade] procession and location of the motorcycle cops (and number), almost as if to free-up the "kill zone" and reduce the collateral damage to law enforcement personnel. Oh, AND the slowing down in the kill zone too. Not buying it yet.


Ronald, believe me, I was once where you are. I used to watch TV shows about this stuff in the 70's and laugh at people like David Belin (counsel for the WC) and say to myself "You blind fool!"

Then I started learning about the work of people like Steve Barber, and then I read "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner and for the first time all the pieces fell into place in a story that was logical and credible. Vince Bugliosi and David Von Pein have only reinforced it.

Trust me, there are reasonable explanations for all the things you bring up, and if you ask specific questions I'm sure you'll get answers. No arrogance here, just evidence-based facts or "very strong likelihoods" when ironclad proof isn't possible.


Will Greer said that he panicked and hit the brake when he meant to hit the accelerator - he was either in on it, or he messed up in an extremely stressful situation. I'm inclined to believe he wasn't trying to slow the car he was in down so someone could fire rifles at it.

There were other motorcades that were similarly or less protected. Calling David Von Pein to share some of his examples!


Example #1.

Example #2.


I think Greer was too inexperienced for his position that day. That was the first time he drove. I think I read that in Vince Palamara's book.


Gayle, you are incorrect about William Greer being a novice at driving the President's vehicle. He was JFK's driver since November of 1960, per his own Warren Commission testimony.

Quoting Greer ---

"I drove the President at intervals during President Truman's and President Eisenhower's terms. I was also assigned a great many times to Mrs. Eisenhower. When she left Washington, I was always assigned to her, to travel with her. And I have been assigned to the President, to drive the President, since election day, with President Kennedy. I was the senior agent assigned to him, to drive him."


Thanks David! I know I read that Behn or someone was surprised that Greer was driving, but I can't remember where. Too many books, too old a mind.


Anyone who follows pre-conceived notions in nuts. Like Oswald was arrested by dozens of cops for not buying a movie ticket.


John, do you really believe that's why he was arrested?


No, that's the cover story. He was really arrested because he was the patsy from day one and the military tipped off the cops because they used his old address that was wrong.


I always chuckle when the CTers insist that the police went to the theater only because Oswald didn't buy a ticket. Such a theory is nonsense, since Julia Postal was quite clear in her testimony--she told the police on the phone that Oswald was "running from them [the cops] for some reason".

And from Postal's call, it's obvious that the police official to whom Mrs. Postal spoke had the idea that J.D. Tippit's killer might be the man who just entered the theater.

Ergo, several squad cars were dispatched in a hurry to the theater. Nothing could be more logical and sensible. But in the hands of many of the always-suspicious conspiracy nuts, it becomes a case of the cops ONLY going there to see about the man who didn't pay his 90 cents for the movie ticket.

It should also be pointed out that there is nothing in Julia Postal's Warren Commission testimony that even indicates that she told the police that the man (Oswald) hadn't purchased a ticket. It's possible, though, that she might have provided that information in her call to the DPD, but you won't find it in her WC session, I'll tell you that.

So there's a good chance the police didn't even know about the fact Oswald didn't buy a ticket. But even if they did, it's as clear as Jimmy Durante's schnozola that the primary reason for the cops going to the theater that day was to investigate a possible suspect in the shooting of Officer Tippit. To come to any other conclusion is just plain silly.

David Von Pein
February 27, 2014

(PART 654)


They [the forever-unnamed "real killers" of JFK] came down with Jack Dougherty by one of the northwest elevators, David, that's what I assume.


Both of the freight elevators were hung up on the fifth floor right after the assassination. We know this is true because Roy Truly and Marrion Baker were yelling (from the first floor) for somebody to release the elevators. And this was about one minute or so after the shooting.

So there's no way any "mystery gunman" could have used those elevators. In such a make-believe case, the mystery killer takes one of the elevators to the first floor...and then the elevator used by the mystery killer needed to go back UP to the fifth floor and get stuck...all before Truly and Baker arrived at the back of the building. That's just silly.

The reason Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles didn't see Oswald on the stairs is incredibly simple...but no CTer wants to believe it:

Oswald was on the stairs BEFORE Adams and Styles used those same stairs. That fact couldn't be more obvious.

Plus: CTers never bother to answer this sticky-wicket of an inquiry either:

Why didn't Styles and Adams SEE or HEAR Truly and Baker as those two men were making their way up those very same stairs?

Again, the obvious answer is --- The women weren't on the stairs until AFTER all three of the other people (Oswald, Truly, and Baker) had already utilized the stairs to get where they were going.


Do you totally discount anyone taking an elevator down immediately following the shooting?


Yes, I do totally discount that possibility. And that's due to the timing that's involved here. We know for a fact that Truly and Baker rushed to the back of the building in an effort to use those elevators within about 60 to 70 seconds (or so) of the last shot being fired. And when Truly and Baker reached the northwest corner, both elevators were stuck on an upper floor.

So if Dougherty had utilized one of those elevators to get from the fifth floor to the first floor, it stands to reason that the elevator that was used by Dougherty would probably have still been on the first floor when Truly and Baker scurried to the back of the building within about a minute after the shooting.

Yes, I suppose it would have been physically possible for Dougherty (or someone else) to use one of the two freight elevators, and to take that elevator down to Floor #1, and then have the elevator go back UP to the fifth floor (where it got stuck and couldn't be brought down by Roy S. Truly just seconds later).

But if that latter scenario is an accurate one -- who was it who called for the elevator to go back UP to the fifth floor after Dougherty (or whoever) used it? Or did Dougherty supposedly utilize the one "automatic" elevator among the two freight elevators that were available?

I.E., maybe he closed the gate on the elevator after he got down to the first floor, so that the elevator would automatically go back UP to the floor Dougherty just vacated. Which is just exactly what Lee Oswald wanted Charles Givens to do with that very same elevator at approximately 11:55 AM on November 22nd, with Oswald asking Givens (possibly twice) to send the elevator back up to him on the sixth floor.

But, then too, if that last paragraph I just wrote is true, you need to ask yourself -- Why did Jack Dougherty (or whoever) want to send an empty elevator back up to the fifth floor at approximately 12:31 PM on 11/22/63?

Or do some conspiracy theorists want to speculate that Mr. Dougherty was a "conspirator", and that he sent the elevator back upstairs so that it couldn't be used by the police immediately after the assassination?

I think there ARE some conspiracy buffs who DO like to call Jack Dougherty a "mysterious" figure in the assassination mosaic. But if that's so, those CTers should be scratching their heads really hard when it comes to Dougherty's claim that he didn't remember seeing anything in Lee Oswald's hands when Dougherty saw Oswald enter the Depository at about 8:00 AM on the morning of November 22nd.

Because if Dougherty had been in the process of "framing" Lee Oswald that Friday in Dallas, then why on Earth would Dougherty tell the Warren Commission that Oswald probably did NOT carry any lengthy package into the building on 11/22/63? It doesn't add up.


Now, if Jack Dougherty was on the 5th/6th floor collecting stock, why couldn't he have called the elevator (East one) back up?


You mean AFTER Dougherty had already descended to the first floor after the assassination? As asked previously, why would anyone want to do that?

Footnote about Dougherty:

I've heard from a few people that Jack Dougherty was possibly a little bit mentally unstable as of 11/22/63. I've never confirmed that piece of information however (nor have I ever attempted to confirm it, quite frankly). But if Dougherty wasn't quite playing with a full deck, it would certainly explain some of the very odd (and laughable) things that he told the Warren Commission in 1964. More on that HERE.

David Von Pein
August 12, 2009


(PART 653)


You still haven't refuted the Files story.


The only things needed to refute James Files' lie about having killed the President by firing a bullet into JFK's right temple from the Grassy Knoll in Dealey Plaza are these five things:

1.) The autopsy report.

2.) The testimony of the three autopsy doctors.

3.) The autopsy photographs.

4.) The autopsy X-rays.

5.) The HSCA Photographic Panel's conclusion that #3 and #4 above are genuine and "unaltered".

The above five items, in tandem or just individually, totally destroy a bald-faced liar named James E. Files.

Anyone who would voluntarily toss in the trash ALL FIVE of the above things in order to prop up the fairy tale of James Files is not only ignorant....he/she is an idiot.

And the same thing goes for anyone who believes in ANY other theory that involves a gunman firing a shot from the front of President Kennedy's car and killing the President with that frontal gunshot. Because that type of theory is just simply not possible. Period.

I truly think that the many, many conspiracy theorists who place their faith in a theory that has a frontal gunshot killing John F. Kennedy haven't really bothered to take inventory of all the many different items of evidence and official testimony from medical and photographic experts that those conspiracists have no choice but to totally ignore and/or toss out the window as being worthless. Things such as the already-mentioned multiple testimony sessions of the three autopsy surgeons and the conclusions reached by the 20+ members of the House Select Committee's Photographic Panel regarding the validity of the autopsy photos and X-rays.

Let me just take a quick poll:

Among the conspiracy theorists here who think JFK was shot in the head by a gunshot from the FRONT (which I'd wager to say is close to 100% of the forum's population of CTers, if not 100% exactly), how many of you have really stopped to think about all of those things that you are forced to totally disregard with respect to President Kennedy's head wounds in order to accept as true the notion that JFK was, indeed, killed by a bullet fired from the front of the President's limousine (such as the 5 things I listed above)?

David Von Pein
August 10, 2009

(PART 652)


[Arlen] Specter was under extreme pressure to connect the dots - hence the SBT.


You're wrong if you think Arlen Specter (alone) came up with the Single-Bullet Theory. Quoting from "Reclaiming History":

"From the first moment that I heard that Specter had come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it.

Since [the members of the Warren Commission staff] all knew that the bullet, fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through soft tissue in Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally was seated to the president's left front, the bullet, after emerging from Kennedy's body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the simple reason it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among many bright lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only Specter saw it?


When I asked [Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005] if, indeed, Arlen Specter was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously." When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself, Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg."


I don't know about you folks, but I'm inclined to take what Redlich told me to the bank. My sense is that Redlich, who by almost all accounts worked harder on the case than anyone else, was a team player only interested in doing his job well.


If I have done a disservice to Specter in what I have written above, I apologize to him. But I did give him an opportunity to respond to this issue [via a letter sent to Specter on June 24, 2005], and he declined."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 302-304 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)


The WC themselves put restraints - that is one bullet missed - thanks to Tague's wound. .... That damn Tague and his cheek wound, eh? - completely threw the case into turmoil.


That's just not true, Tony. Not at all. James Tague's slight cheek wound did not throw the case into "turmoil". Maybe you should learn the basics of the case better. Read page 117 of the Warren Report (one of my favorite pages, along with page 195).

On page 117, the Warren Commission was fully acknowledging the very real possibility that the damage to the curbstone on Main Street (and hence, Tague's injury as well) was possibly caused by a fragment from the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the head. Here, read it.


So, the onus is on you to prove that JFK's hit to his back was a through and through by CE399 - otherwise you have nothing - absolutely nothing.


Every official investigative body has concluded that the SBT is correct. Why do you ignore them? Why? You can still work your make-believe conspiracy into the mix, via the make-believe Grassy Knoll gunman who fired the fatal head shot from the right-front.

So, why do all CT-Kooks insist on spitting on the absolutely true Single-Bullet Conclusion? CTers would look much less silly by merely accepting the obviousness of the SBT. I've often wondered why so many CTers refuse to accept it. Especially since it is THE only possible scenario in this case that makes any coherent sense at all (and is the only scenario that fits the actual evidence, to boot).

David Von Pein
August 2009

(PART 10)


















(PART 651)


The mindset of a 22-year-old conspiracy kook on full display:


The link above [which is now only open to invited readers] provides a really good example of the distorted, skewed, and outright nutty "I BELIEVE ALL CONSPIRACY CRAP THAT'S EVER BEEN UNEARTHED SINCE 1963" mindset that so many conspiracy theorists seem to adhere to regarding the JFK murder case.

It's quite remarkable the number of people who have this same type of ultra-cynical "I Can Prove A Conspiracy, Despite The Lack Of Any HARD Evidence" attitude. And every time I hear one of these kooks open his yap, it makes me think how correct Vince Bugliosi was when he said this....

"One of the principal frailties in the thinking processes of the theorists is that they rarely ever carry their suspicions, which are based on some discrepancy, anomaly, or contradiction they find, to their logical conclusion. For them, if something looks suspicious, that's enough. Instead of asking, "Where does this go?"--that is, where does the discrepancy, contradiction, or whatever, lead them?--they immediately give their minds a breather and conclude that what they find is itself proof of a conspiracy (or proof that Oswald is innocent). The discrepancy or contradiction is the ENTIRE story. And being the entire story, it by itself discredits the entire twenty-six volumes of the Warren Commission. Nothing else has to be shown or even argued." -- V. Bugliosi

The 22-year-old person who wrote the blog linked above has the Kong-sized balls (but not a shred of hard evidence, of course) to spout the following hunk of garbage:

"[Bugliosi's] lies are so transparent that I, a 22-year-old on a computer, can refute them immediately. All of this is off the top of my head. I'm not alone either; as he acknowledges, 75% of the American people are having the same thought process as they read his condescending pablum."

The kook goes on to talk about every crazy conspiracy theory imaginable (including the Lifton-esque "body altering" fairy tale, which isn't too big on the "nutty" scale to deter that CTer; he'll go for any theory).

The 22-year-old whiz-CT-kid also says that it's his opinion that "very, very few conspiracy historians claim that Oswald fired any shots." That opinion is positively wrong, as a 2003 National poll shows (only 7% polled on the matter thought Oswald was NOT a shooter in Dealey Plaza).

It's true that a good-sized portion of conspiracy theorists who hang out at Internet forums are members of the "Anybody But Oswald" club. But the vast majority of Americans, as can be seen via the poll linked above, are not so stupid to think that Lee Oswald never fired a shot at Kennedy (or Tippit) in 1963.

I wonder what additional inane, unprovable theories that 22-year-old will believe in by the time he turns 50?

(~Shudders at the possibilities~)

You know you're deep into kook territory when all the proverbial theories are lumped into one small or medium-sized blog post. E.g., Kennedy's body was altered; Oswald was just a patsy and was framed; Oswald never fired a shot; no shots came from the rear (which is really, really crazy, but that's what that kook above proposes); the SBT, therefore, is bunk; the CIA was involved; the Warren Commission and ALL government entities "covered up" the assassination; Ruby rubbed out Oz as part of a plot; etc., etc. to CT infinity.

"Sublime silliness", as VB puts it. Sounds about right to me. Or, to be more blunt -- the kooks who believe ALL that shit are just plain nuts!


I kid you not, but I've heard one kook theory regarding JFK's assassination that says he was killed by the military because he was about to blow the lid on the Roswell Incident and reveal that our government had captured these martians and their craft and had "reverse engineered" some weapons systems we found.


And October 4th, 2007, will represent the 50th anniversary of Sputnik being launched by the Soviets. And Oswald was in the military in '57. And 2 years later he defected to the USSR, which launched Sputnik in '57.

Somebody look into this angle. I smell a Sputnik plot here. Oswald must have given the Russians some kind of "intelligence" so that they could launch the very first satellite before the U.S. could. Damn Soviets. Damn Oswald.

On a lighter note, 10/4/57 also marked the debut of one of the best family TV shows ever aired. Maybe "The Beaver" was in on the Sputnik plot too. Who can tell? He was only a lil' shaver in '57. But little boys can be "used" as patsies too, can't they? ;)

And remember, too, Abe Zapruder was born in Russia.

And the first "Leave It To Beaver" DVD set came out -- are you ready for this? -- on November 22, 2005! No way that's mere "coincidence". Not with the Sputnik/Oct. 4th tie-in in there too.

I'm melting from paranoia. Somebody get me Vince, quick. ;)


DVP, this kid [who wrote the blog linked earlier] can think for himself. You lone nutters have been competely brainwashed by Bugliosi, who has feet made of clay.


And if this is as good as that thinking gets, he needs someone to do his thinking for him.

The kooks are so afraid of Bug's book. If people become more knowledgeable about the case, the kook hold on public opinion will weaken.


Yeah...that's his main problem it would seem -- i.e., WAY too much "thinking for himself". Problem is: None of it is rooted in solid, verifiable evidence. None.

Although I should really qualify that statement to the point of near eradication....because that 22-yr.-old know-it-all CTer really isn't "thinking for himself" at all. He's merely repeating the same tired decades-worn mantra of conspiracy clowns of the past.

Just look at his blog. It's obvious he's fallen into every CT gopher hole ever opened up since '63. Every one. (And probably a lot more he didn't elaborate on in his medium-sized blog posting I linked earlier).

So, no, he's not really thinking for himself at all. He's repeating the skewed, unsupportable thinking of Garrison, Stone, Marrs, Groden, and Lifton, etc.

(Poor sap.)

As far as LNers being "brainwashed by Bugliosi".....

Go back to my hundreds of posts written in the pre-"Reclaiming History" era, and then tell me if Mr. Bugliosi "brainwashed" me.

I was an LNer years prior to Vincent's book being published, and even years prior to ever combing the Internet for pre-book release quotes from Vince regarding the JFK case. I've been "brainwashed" by the hard evidence in this case. That's all.

But...speaking of being brainwashed -- click here.

David Von Pein
July 2007

(PART 650)


Here is a 25-minute interview segment with Vince Bugliosi from June 4th, 2007 (via WBZ-Radio in Boston):

The above radio interview is a real howl in some ways, too. And conspiracy theorists will be able to thrash Vince Bugliosi (aka: The Devil Come To Life, per many conspiracy kooks), because Vince is a bit of a prick during a portion of that program, hosted by a fill-in interviewer at the Boston station named Dan Rea.

Vince jumped Dan's case for asking a question that was, per VB, "incredibly and unbelievably insignificant."

I love VB's candor and "Get On With It" type of manner in these book-tour interviews, which, btw, are almost all identical, word-for-word, except when the host takes phone calls from assorted conspiracy kooks....then the show really gets good, because Vince is then forced outside his pre-arranged text/spiel.

Don't get me wrong....the VB "LHO Did It Alone" spiel is quite good, solid, and based on the evidence....even the 59th time I heard it; it's great. But the interviews really get good when a kook calls to say something like this (which occurred during VB's interview on Seattle's KIRO-Radio on July 1, 2007):

"Your book is superficial....the fatal shot came from the front; EVERYTHING points to this; policemen were sprayed with blood from the frontal shot." (Paraphrased comments from a rude and clueless caller.)

Vince laughed (naturally), and said: "Superficial?!! I worked 20 years on it! It's almost 2,800 pages. I guess I should have written another thousand pages. That caller {named Dick} is obviously allergic to the truth. I get kinda ticked off when someone calls my book 'superficial'. That's nonsense."

Those are paraphrased Bugliosi quotes above, based on my own memory from listening to the program, which hasn't shown up in a podcast version as yet, otherwise I'd be linking to it here.

The next two CTers who called to debate Vince on KIRO were even worse. One arrogant lady wanted Vince to explain why Jackie Kennedy used the word "they" a couple of times (both DURING the shooting and afterward, as if she could POSSIBLY have known that a conspiracy was afoot at that time), when Jackie said "What are they doing to you?" during the shooting itself and (later) "I want them to see what they have done."

And that same lady caller thought that it was odd that the bubbletop was taken off the car for the Dallas motorcade (even though the weather was perfectly clear when the parade began).

Given questions like those, it's no wonder that Vince loses his cool at times on these radio call-in programs.

Vince never wants to waste any precious minutes of a fairly short interview on minor, trivial stuff; he wants to hit on all the big-ticket items re. the assassination and Oswald. So when somebody asks about the Junior Jarman/Lee Oswald talk on the morning of 11/22 on the first floor of the TSBD or when someone wants to know why J.D. Tippit was on 10th St. at 1:15....well, VB tries to re-direct the conversation to more important matters, and sometimes with very funny results, because Vince gets irked very easily and quickly by conspiracy-loving people.

BTW, in the second half of the hour-long WBZ interview on 6/4/07, Vince evidently apologized for jumping all over the host (Dan). But, for some reason, only the first segment of the program was given a podcast link by WBZ; so the second part is unavailable. (I can't find it anyway.)

If the hilarious KIRO interview ever shows up via an archived weblink, I'll post it at Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com. It could serve nicely as a small microcosm of what some conspiracists think is really important when they have a very rare opportunity to confront Vincent T. Bugliosi (the author of the most comprehensive JFK book ever penned) with HARD-HITTING questions with respect to the John F. Kennedy murder case. :-)

David Von Pein
July 3, 2007

(PART 9)


















(PART 649)


David, let me ask a few questions [relating to the 2008 Discovery Channel program, "JFK: Inside The Target Car"]. In front of the fence or behind? Near the Triple Underpass? How much?


If you're referring to the comparison photo below (and I'm pretty sure you are), that "scope" view is taken from a north-side shooting position, and in front of the fence, right out in plain sight for anyone to see the sniper.*

* To be fair, that particular shooting location was actually a slightly different one from the one that Gary Mack, et al, decided would have been a doable shooting spot for some goofball gunman firing at JFK.

The actual gunman's purported position, if I recall the program correctly, was more-or-less ON TOP of the Triple Underpass (or slightly north of it), on higher ground. There's a short fence there that the Discovery people decided could have been a good place for a gunman.

But, in 2008, the foliage in Dealey Plaza was such that a shot from the HIGHER, behind-the-fence shooting location was not possible, because it was obstructed by the foliage. But the trees were not an obstruction in 1963 (per Gary Mack). So, in order to simulate at least the correct angle from the gunman to the limo, and in order to get an unobstructed view of JFK in the car, the Discovery people moved a little lower, in front of the fence/Underpass, and looked through the scope from the lower position.


Not only Jackie's actor was positioned absurd (as you said), also JFK's actor was placed wrong.


I disagree with you there. The JFK stand-in looks to be in approximately the correct position for the Z313 head shot, IMO. And having the JFK actor positioned correctly is really the most important point.

But I agree that the Jackie stand-in's posture isn't even close to being correct. And Gary Mack himself has also said she was positioned incorrectly, which is an especially odd error for Gary to make, since he probably knows the Zapruder Film forward and backward by heart.

But, then too, for people who might think that Mr. Mack DELIBERATELY placed Jackie out of position, you must also ask yourself this question:

Since Gary Mack certainly knows the JFK case inside-out (plus the fact that I believe Gary was staring right at a photo of Z-Frame 312 when he was positioning the stand-in "Jackie" in such a ridiculous posture in the limousine)....how could he POSSIBLY hope to get away with such deliberate trickery?

He is certainly smart enough to realize that such a deliberate "mistake" would be exposed by the many "JFK Assassination Junkies" of the world almost immediately after the airing of the Discovery Channel program. (And it was exposed immediately.)

On the flip-side of that coin, it's also hard for me to imagine Gary Mack making such a "Jackie" error by mistake either (knowing the photographic record of this assassination as I know he does know it).

So, I'm left in complete bewilderment as to how that error with Jackie ever came about in the first place, because it makes absolutely no sense no matter which side of the fence (CT or LN) you reside on.


Where was this car exactly positioned, shown in this frame? At the Z#313 spot?


I believe I'm correct in saying that the Discovery Channel photo shown earlier is supposed to be depicting the limo at Z312, one frame before the "impact" frame of Z313.


Every objective person must be skeptical about the accuracy of the DC [Discovery Channel] work in this documentation, because in fact they placed the car dummy/head dummy wrong in California --> ergo, what is correct and what's not, whether intentional or a mistake?


Why are you saying the dummy head was placed wrong "in California"? The comparison picture above shows the limo in Dealey Plaza itself, not in California. And the dummy heads that [Michael] Yardley actually shot at in California WERE positioned accurately.

But, even if the dummy heads WEREN'T positioned perfectly accurately during the test shots, it would matter very little from the following perspective:

No matter what exact position the dummy heads were in during Yardley's two simulated "Grassy Knoll" shots (as long as the Discovery filmmakers didn't have the heads turned completely around or otherwise in some obviously cockeyed position [which they didn't]), those two "Knoll" simulated shots were going to totally demolish a long-held belief of conspiracy theorists -- the belief that a shot from the Grassy Knoll could have struck President Kennedy in the head.

Or do CTers think that if the Discovery Channel people had only moved the dummy heads a few inches this way or that way, it would have meant that Yardley's two "Knoll" shots would have NOT either totally blown the first dummy head completely off its simulated neck....or would have NOT resulted in any damage to the LEFT side of the surrogate head via the Carcano bullet?

And anybody who might think it would have made any difference at all WHERE Yardley shot from when he fired his soft-point Winchester bullet at the dummy head is a person who must not have seen the results of that Winchester bullet [see video below]. Because regardless of WHERE Yardley fired that particular shot (be it from the front, side, or from behind), the damage was still going to be catastrophic...i.e., that bullet would have no doubt obliterated the JFK dummy head no matter WHERE it was fired from.

David Von Pein
August 7, 2009 [This forum link is no longer available.]

(PART 648)


The public record clearly indicates that LHO overslept that morning. Read Ruth [Paine's] and Marina's testimony. It occurred to me the other morning when I overslept. I dashed out the door and forgot my wallet and wedding ring. Couldn't LHO have done the same?


Not on 11/22/63, no. Because per Marina's Warren Commission testimony, Lee TOLD Marina to take as much money as she needed prior to LHO leaving the Paine house on November 22:

MARINA OSWALD -- "He told me to take as much money as I needed and to buy everything, and said goodbye, and that is all." [1 H 72]

I think I'm correct in saying, however, that the above testimony conflicts with what Marina Oswald told Priscilla McMillan in the book "Marina And Lee", because I believe McMillan has always stated that Marina told her that Lee left a note with instructions to "Buy some shoes for Junie", rather than verbally saying anything to Marina that Friday morning.

In any event, either one of those scenarios (speaking to Marina vs. leaving a written note) would indicate that Lee Oswald left behind the wallet and the $170 deliberately and not by accident.

Plus -- We know Lee didn't forget his "regular" wallet*, because that wallet was plucked from his back pants pocket by the Dallas police shortly after 1:50 PM CST on November 22, following LHO's arrest.

* It's fairly obvious that Lee must have had a spare wallet, with one of those wallets being used to store his life savings of $170 at the Paine residence; while the other wallet could be referred to as his "regular" wallet/billfold, wherein he kept smaller amounts of day-to-day money plus other items, like a forged Selective Service card with the name Alek J. Hidell on it, etc.

David Von Pein
August 6, 2009




Virtually all conspiracy theorists who are of the opinion that President John F. Kennedy met his violent death on November 22, 1963, as the result of an evil, elaborate plot orchestrated and carried out by ________ (the roster of potential assassins and conspirators is nearly endless to use in this blank space), are also of the opinion that Mr. Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission he worked for in the year 1964 were all wet and/or full of stinky fecal matter when it comes to the three words that have sparked debate the world over since the President's assassination -- the "Single-Bullet Theory".

But if conspiracists could shake loose the forever-strangling "All Evidence In The JFK Case Must Have Been Faked And/Or Tampered With" albatross that hangs around their necks, they could easily see that any theory that needs to be substituted for the Single-Bullet Conclusion lacks all credibility and can easily be shot full of holes via common sense alone.

Forgive the heavy dose of sarcasm that follows, but I think it is appropriate given the subject matter. I've put on my Arlen Specter hat when writing the comments below, which are comments that serve as a "faux notebook" of Mr. Specter's in a sense, as Arlen tries to figure out what the devil really occurred on Elm Street in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63. (And for the sake of my imaginary "Specter Notes", the dreaded "SBT" is NOT to be considered as an option for even a brief moment.)

I can just hear Mr. Specter now, as he attempts to explain the simultaneous wounding of President Kennedy and Governor John B. Connally in a Non-SBT manner -- which, of course, would be in a manner that needs to reconcile an incredible THREE-SHOTS-LOOK-LIKE-ONE shooting that the Houdini-like riflemen seemingly pulled off in Dealey Plaza.

In such a make-believe scenario, Arlen's notebook just might be filled with comments like this (as of early September 1964, just before the Commission hands over its Final Report to President Johnson):

[Arlen Specter Simulation On...]

We here at the Warren Commission have come to the conclusion that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were struck by three separate bullets (not counting the JFK head shot). These three bullets all disappeared...somehow...without a single one being recovered and placed into evidence.

Regarding the subject of bullets -- The Commission discounts Bullet #CE399 as being connected to the actual shooting in any fashion whatsoever....because we've been told by people with far greater minds and resources than that which the Commission possesses that Bullet 399 was "planted" in Parkland Hospital by some unknown conspirator in order to mislead the investigators and in order to falsely implicate one Lee Harvey Oswald in the President's demise.

Therefore, the Commission has no choice but to accept this rumor of bullet-planting as being an ironclad, undeniable fact, even though the Commission has no solid, verifiable evidence to back up such allegations of evidence tampering. But, I'm obliged to go with the flow and just assume that said bullet was a plant. Oh, well. So be it.

We at the Commission are at a loss to explain where all of these three missing projectiles vanished to. But I guess we'll just have to assume that they all just magically evaporated into a puff of smoke just after the THREE (unknown and unseen) separate gunmen squeezed off these rounds into the two victims.

We at the Commission are also at a loss to explain just how the bullet which entered Mr. Connally's back created an elongated entry wound without having hit President Kennedy (or some solid object) first. But, we'll just have to assume, I guess, that the bullet started tumbling in mid-air after having hit nothing but Dallas, Texas, atmosphere between the rifleman's weapon and the Governor's back.

Also...we at the Warren Commission are somewhat stumped as to WHY two separate bullets completely stopped after striking JFK's neck and back, with neither bullet causing an exit wound after entering, and with neither of these two bullets striking any hard or bony substances within the President's body. Another obligatory "Oh, well" is needed here it would appear. (Along with a vigorous shrugging of the shoulders, signifying complete and utter bewilderment regarding this matter, a matter that all conspiracy theorists think is totally unimportant and, therefore, doesn't mean a darn thing.)

The rest of the Commission staff and I are also unable to explain the fact that the autopsy report (signed by three doctors) unambiguously determined (on
page #6 of its report) that the bullet which struck JFK in his upper back positively emerged from the front of his neck and then went....well....where the hell did it go? It must have gone someplace. But I've been told by conspiracy theorists that I can't rely on a "Single-Bullet Conclusion"; so the answer must rest elsewhere.

And we know the bullet did not do any damage to the interior of the limousine, because the FBI's Bob Frazier testified to that fact during our interview with him. (Note -- Check on Mr. Robert A. Frazier's credibility...he may be "in" on the "cover-up" too, just like hundreds of others like him, who are bent on keeping the truth of President Kennedy's death a secret no matter what.)

Oh well, we'll just leave this additional little problem to greater minds in future generations. For right now, I'll just pretend this snafu concerning the autopsy report (saying that a bullet exited JFK's throat) doesn't exist at all.

The Commission's members and staff are also a little puzzled as to how in the world Governor Connally was struck by a separate shot in the back, even though he was seated almost directly in front of JFK in the car.

Given the bullet's entry point on Mr. Connally's back and its downward and slightly right-to-left course through the Governor's body, it would seem to us at the Commission that this bullet would have probably had to have passed through someone sitting behind the Governor prior to striking Mr. Connally.

But, various conspiracy theorists have told us that this one-bullet scenario must be impossible, so I guess we'll have to think of a non-SBT way for this bullet to get to Connally by not travelling through the man sitting behind Mr. Connally. Oh well...we'll try another theory I guess.

Another "Commission Stumper" for us dumbbells in Washington is the amazing "lining up" of the three wounds on the two victims -- with the back wounds on the President and Governor Connally, plus the wound on the front of JFK's neck, seemingly lining up pretty doggone close to being at an approximate 17-degree downward angle through the men, which is, as it turns out by gosh, an angle that leads back to a sixth-floor window in a building where a certain rifle with the serial number C2766 was found at 1:22 PM on November 22 (just 52 minutes after JFK and John Connally were shot by these [at least] three separate gunmen in Dealey Plaza).

Oh well, just a pure coincidence I guess. I'll mark it down as such a coincidence...but I want these incredible shooters/marksmen on MY side in the next war, by golly, I'll tell ya that right now!

We at the Commission, after looking long and hard at the Abraham Zapruder home movie of the assassination, are also a tad bit perplexed at just exactly HOW these THREE SEPARATE (ace) shooters in Dallas were able to fire their respective weapons in perfect, or near-perfect, synchronization from their three separate locations within Dealey Plaza so to have struck the two victims with these three shots/bullets at a point in time (per the Zapruder home movie) to make it appear that both men were struck initially by bullets at an identical point in time.

(Note -- Maybe the film has been "altered" in some manner....consult a certain "Mr. Fetzer" for further information on this possibility; because, sans alteration of said motion picture and sans a whole bunch of people running around covering up the real evidence, it looks to most of the Commission members and its staff as if this three-bullet scenario is a real turd of an idea.)

The Commission is also in a quandary over the Neutron Activation Analysis, which concluded that the Connally wrist fragments "most likely" came from bullet CE399 found at Parkland. [This "NAA" item is a bonus item. Since Vincent Guinn's NAA analysis did not occur until the 1970s, we can just pretend that Mr. Specter added this item to his notebook at a later date.]

But, if the Warren Commission is to believe the words of valid and bona fide conspiracy researchers who have studied this case long and hard, then Commission Exhibit #399, as I discussed earlier, was "planted" by evil henchmen in the hospital.

(Note -- Figure out a way to make myself believe that there was ANY way on this Earth that some crazy, suicidal conspirator(s) would have had a desire to risk blowing the conspiracy plot wide open by planting a bullet on a stretcher at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas before 2:00 PM (Central Standard Time) on 11/22/63, a time when Governor Connally was still in the operating room and, hence, no plotters had the slightest friggin' idea where all the "real" bullets connected with the assassination were located. Then call Vince Bugliosi in Minnesota or L.A. -- I need to talk to someone with a grip on reality here.)

[Specter Simulation Off]

The above serves as a paraphrased transcript of Arlen Specter's probable notes regarding an alternative to the Single-Bullet Theory--dated September 8th, 1964 [with an addendum added in 1978 for the NAA stuff]. Exact verbiage may vary from final notebook of Mr. Specter. But rest assured, whatever the final verbatim version of such a notebook would have looked like, the end result would have been undoubtedly just as laughable and impossibly ridiculous.


The Single-Bullet Theory is so obviously the most logical (and almost certainly correct) version of the wounding of both President John F. Kennedy and Governor John Connally....and for so many different and interconnected reasons (most of which are outlined in tongue-in-cheek style above).

Even the "evidence" which ISN'T present in the JFK murder case (but SHOULD definitely be in existence if the SBT is a false scenario) is telling us that the Commission's single-bullet conclusion almost HAS to be accurate -- e.g., no bullets found in the victims; no other bullets in evidence except CE399; no damage to the limo's back-seat areas; plus: virtually no damage done to the interior portions of JFK's upper back and neck (i.e., no broken bones and no hard, bony structures being struck by either of the TWO projectiles that conspiracists believe entered these regions of the President's body and failed to exit).

The total absence of injuries within President Kennedy's neck and back is enough--all by itself--to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that just a single bullet made a clean getaway through JFK's body, without pausing to do any substantial damage whatsoever.

It's always been amazing to me that so many people who bash Mr. Specter and the Single-Bullet Theory can then seemingly believe in some "alternate" scenario that is far more fanciful and full of implausibilities and complications and vanishing bullets than is the Single-Bullet Conclusion. And there MUST be a correct alternate theory if the SBT is untrue. So what the heck is it?! Conspiracists never say, of course.

In short, those who disbelieve the SBT are, by default, automatically choosing to believe some OTHER theory regarding the wounding of President Kennedy and Governor Connally. And ANY alternate theory in this matter falls way, way short in the common-sense and realistic departments--not to mention in the "physical evidence" category as well.

Only an outright fool could believe in an "alternate" theory to the SBT. Let's face it, the shooting DID occur -- these two men WERE injured on November 22nd in Dallas -- and somebody WAS shooting at them.

And I shall ask again -- Lacking the SBT, what is the correct shooting scenario to account for the seven wounds sustained by Kennedy and Connally? No conspiracy buff ever wants to tackle that perfectly valid question. Which says a lot--because no conspiracy theorist can answer that question without making a total goof out of himself.

But even if one day in the year 2099 (when some brave person decides to put forth an alternate theory that he/she thinks debunks the SBT once and for all), one thing's still a certainty: No other theory postulated could possibly match the EVIDENCE and, above all, the COMMON SENSE that the Single-Bullet Theory matches and possesses.


"You call it the [Single-Bullet] theory; I call it the 'conclusion'. It was a theory until we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the 'Single-Bullet Conclusion'." -- Arlen Specter; 1965

David Von Pein
March 2006



The Autopsy Doctors Sprouted The "SBT" Seeds

In Oliver Stone's 1991 motion picture "JFK", a major stepping "stone" to "conspiracy" that's used by Mr. Stone (and nearly all other conspiracy theorists who have studied the John F. Kennedy assassination since that sad event occurred in 1963) is the contention that the controversial "Single-Bullet Theory" is and was a completely preposterous myth that could never have happened in a million lifetimes, and was placed into the Warren Commission's final report regarding the Kennedy assassination solely out of NECESSITY. I, however, cannot disagree more strongly with such an allegation.

While it's true that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter is given the most credit for having come up with the "Single-Bullet Theory" to explain the simultaneous wounding of President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally -- as a point of fact, the "SBT" was in reality more than half way home (so to speak) as early as November 23rd, 1963 (well before Mr. Specter had ever gazed at any of the evidence in the JFK assassination case).

Why? --- Because the seeds that ultimately sprouted the wholly acceptable and utterly logical "Single-Bullet Theory" are right there in the November 1963 autopsy report signed by Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck.

It wasn't Arlen Specter who just arbitrarily decided (on a whim or ON HIS OWN) that a single bullet had gone completely through the upper back of President Kennedy and had exited his throat in the front. It was the AUTOPSY DOCTORS who made this critical determination on November 23, 1963 (one day after Kennedy's death and the FIRST DAY when ALL available and required information had been assembled and evaluated by the autopsy doctors; i.e., the first day when Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck had any knowledge at all that a bullet hole had been located in the front of President Kennedy's neck).

The remainder of the SBT was, of course, pieced together in the early portions of 1964 by Specter (and probably other Warren Commission people as well) while utilizing other important information and evidence surrounding the assassination.

The testimony of Robert Frazier of the FBI was an integral part of the "SBT puzzle". Frazier testified to the very important information about there having been no limousine damage in the rear-seat areas of the vehicle, proving that no bullet or bullets had penetrated the back seats or the Connally "jump" seats; nor did any whole or nearly-whole bullet(s) come to rest anywhere near JFK's or Connally's seats on 11/22/63.

And there's, of course, the other vital (bodily) link in the "SBT chain" -- John Connally's body and his wounds (with the "elongated" entry wound on the Governor's back being a tell-tale sign that the bullet which struck Mr. Connally almost certainly had hit something or someone else first before entering the Governor's back); plus the lack of ANY bullets in Connally's body (and none found in JFK's body either, which was determined at his autopsy); and the determination by Connally's doctor (Dr. Robert Shaw) that Connally's wounds were all most likely caused by just one single bullet [see video below].

Which leads us to the ONLY BULLET ever discovered anywhere near the victims that could have been linked in any fashion to the wounds sustained by Kennedy and/or Connally (the non-fatal wounds to JFK that is) -- famous Bullet #CE399, which was found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital by Darrell Tomlinson prior to 2:00 PM (CST) on 11/22/63, which would have been a ludicrous time for any conspirator(s) to have wanted to "plant" such a bullet -- because it was WAY TOO SOON to know for certain if OTHER missiles would be recovered from either of the victims, other bullets which (if found) would have rendered a "Planted CE399" completely useless and superfluous and, above all, PLOT-BLOWING!

Commission Exhibit No. 399 was linked to Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action rifle (to the exclusion of every weapon ever made).

Given all of the above (in its totality), can someone please explain how in the "Real World" (where most of the population resides) the Warren Commission could have come to any conclusion OTHER than the Single-Bullet scenario to explain all of these above-mentioned factors?

Obviously, they could not have explained the wounds themselves (and the wounds' physical arrangement on the two victims' bodies)....and the lack of bullets....and the lack of limo damage via ANY other logical and reasonable way -- other than to say what the Warren Commission ultimately did say: One single missile (CE399) travelled through John Kennedy's upper body, exited his throat, entered John Connally's back, traversed the Governor's chest (taking out a rib en route), exited the Governor's chest just below the right nipple, continued on its flight into Connally's right wrist, then exited the wrist where it became spent in the Governor's left thigh .... where it then was dislodged at some point (in the car or in the hospital), ending up on Governor Connally's stretcher, where the bullet was then discovered by hospital employee Darrell Tomlinson at approximately 12:50 PM to 12:55 PM, Dallas time, on November 22nd, 1963.

But the literal genesis of the Single-Bullet Theory lies NOT within the Warren Commission or Arlen Specter specifically -- it lies in the autopsy report itself, a report which was signed by three different doctors WEEKS before the Warren Commission even began to assemble its panel of counsel members and legal assistants (which didn't occur until mid-December 1963).

Let's have a look (verbatim) at just exactly what was determined to be the truth concerning the details of President Kennedy's back and neck wounds as of November 23, 1963 (six days before the Warren Commission was even created):

"Summary: Based on the above observations, it is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles, fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased. .... The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. .... The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea, AND MADE ITS EXIT THROUGH THE ANTERIOR SURFACE OF THE NECK. As far as can be ascertained, this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body." (Added emphasis my own.)

The above quotes come from page 6 of the official autopsy report on President John F. Kennedy (aka: "Pathological Examination Report"), bearing the signatures of all three doctors who were present at JFK's 11/22/63 autopsy at Bethesda Naval Medical Center, Maryland -- Commander James J. Humes, Commander J. Thornton Boswell, and Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck.

And those words were published on page 543 of the Warren Commission's Final Report.


The above passages from John F. Kennedy's official autopsy report absolutely destroy the idea spouted by conspiracy theorists of TWO separate bullets striking the back and neck areas of President Kennedy.

And, in essence, this reference to an 'Into-The-Back-And-Out-The-Neck' bullet path, as described by JFK's autopsy doctors, results in (literally) two-thirds of the "Single-Bullet Theory" being purported just ONE DAY after Kennedy's death. The "two-thirds" being -- An OFFICIAL explanation by the autopsy doctors themselves linking....

#1.) The entry wound in JFK's upper back to....

#2.) The exit wound in the front of his neck.

Why it is that the word of ALL THREE of these pathologists who signed off on the official autopsy report describing the wounds of a murdered American President are tossed into the nearest trash can by virtually ALL conspiracy promoters is something I have a difficult time reconciling (except to say that many conspiracy believers desperately NEED that particular autopsy report to be dead wrong in order to further the notion that THREE separate bullets struck JFK and John Connally that day in Dallas, instead of just the one "SBT" missile).

But the OFFICIAL record is crystal clear regarding the back and neck wounds to President Kennedy, and it's been crystal clear since November of 1963.

To repeat this ultra-important point -- The doctors said that just ONE bullet passed clean through John F. Kennedy!!

Therefore, unless every last one of those three autopsy doctors were (to a man) hopeless and utter incompetents or all three of them were lying scumbags who would deliberately falsify the most important autopsy report any of them would ever sign in their entire lives -- then the very first (and verifiably true) seeds and important links to the Single-Bullet Theory lie in that 1963 autopsy report -- and not just in Arlen Specter's mind (nor in any unsubstantiated "theory" placed on the table by Mr. Specter alone, as many conspiracy promoters seem to believe).

Conspiracy theorists should begin to accept the obvious -- that "obvious" being: the Single-Bullet Theory is the most logical and valid scenario to explain the seven wounds sustained by John F. Kennedy and John B. Connally in Dealey Plaza. And it is the ONLY possible explanation of the event that stands up to critical scrutiny, detailed analysis, and common-sense interpretation of the evidence when the entire batch of single-bullet-favoring evidence is gathered together in the same place.

Denying this fact is to play Oliver Stone's game -- a game highlighted by mystery killers firing from the Grassy Knoll, unexplainable disappearing bullets, and a series of bullet holes (made by THREE different gunmen) in TWO different victims that mirror a SINGLE-BULLET EVENT so closely as to be deemed perfect for the adoption of the "SBT" in the months following the shooting.

And I ask with the utmost sincerity -- Who in their right mind would have any desire to play that conspiracy-filled game of impossible-to-pull-off nonsense?
Not I, that's for certain.

David Von Pein
January 2006
February 2014