(PART 889)


The reason Oswald ran away was because he was a CIA operative who knew he was in the middle of something dangerous and had to escape in order to go to his failsafe rendezvous at the Texas Theater.


Just think folks -- Ralph actually thinks that the above imaginary cloak-and-dagger tripe is more believable than merely accepting the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered John Kennedy and then also killed Officer Tippit after fleeing the scene of the President's murder.

To people like Ralph Yates, fantasy and the "fantastic" always seem to be preferred over true facts and logic.

Ralph probably also thinks Oswald never shot at General Walker. Right, Ralph?


David, the facts of the case are what lead Ralph to his belief, vs. the ease of believing the wholly unbelievable cover story you choose to believe.

You are the one who has juxtaposed fantasy and reality. "Fantastic" is not necessarily diametrically opposed to reality. In this case, it is "fantastic" to believe that Oswald was the lone gunman.

The facts of the case make the belief that Oswald acted alone and killed Tippet [sic], "tripe."



I choose to respectfully disagree with your assessment of what constitutes "facts" and "fantastic" in the JFK case.

I learned many years ago that a conspiracy theorist's version of the "facts" in this case are miles away from being proven "facts". Take the old standard of the "Malcolm Wallace fingerprint" as just one of many examples. For years, tons of conspiracists were touting that print as undeniable "proof" that Wallace was a shooter in the Sniper's Nest. Now we've even got other CTers coming forth to debunk that bogus theory.

Another example of an alleged conspiracy-related "fact" turning out to be complete hokum is the so-called "mysterious death" of Eddy Benavides (Domingo's brother). See pages 424-426 of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" for more information about how the conspiracists have botched the true facts concerning Eddy's demise.

And then there's the stale tale of how Lee Oswald never ordered ANY rifle at all from Klein's Sporting Goods in 1963. And dozens of additional myths that many conspiracy theorists to this day still erroneously regard as "facts".


The hardest thing for most people to believe is that a known mafioso was able to sneak into the basement of the Dallas Police Department and murder the patsy because "he felt sorry for Jackie". Later it came out that Ruby had worked for LBJ back in 1948. Coincidence? What's most interesting is that the transfer of Oswald was held up for an hour and didn't proceed until Jack Ruby appeared on the scene.

The Warren Commission had to concede that all of the sniper's shots took place in 5.6 seconds and that they've never found anyone who could duplicate that incredible feat.

Perhaps even more shameful is that the Warren Commission wants us to believe that a virtually pristine bullet had smashed through Kennedy's 3rd vertebra, exited his neck, penetrated Connolly [sic], broken his rib, smashed the radial bone of his wrist, cause a total of 7 wounds, left behind fragments of copper and lead throughout his body - YET THE BULLET WAS THE SAME WEIGHT AND HAD NOT BEEN DAMAGED! Sorry to shout.

If Oswald had been able to kill the President with a rusty, out of focus, single action Italian rifle from 100 yards while witnesses placed him in the 2nd floor lunchroom drinking a coke - I think he would have been bragging about it - not claiming to be the patsy that he obviously was. Funny that he should use those words and then get rubbed out in a Mafia hit the next day [sic; it was actually two days later].

Sorry, you've got to be a real sap to buy the government line on this obvious coup d' etat.


What was I just saying above about the so-called "facts" told by conspiracy believers? Well, "Brother Bruce" just provided several more:


Totally wrong, of course. The bullet (CE399) that went through both Kennedy and Connally was, indeed, "damaged". It was flattened somewhat and the base of the bullet shows quite a bit of damage:

And the bullet most certainly lost some of its original weight. It weighs 158.6 grains now. It started out in the area of 160 to 161 grains. So, once again, a CTer's "facts" aren't really facts at all.

Bruce incorrectly asserted:

"The Warren Commission had to concede that all of the sniper's shots took place in 5.6 seconds and that they've never found anyone who could duplicate that incredible feat."

Two more false declarations by Big Brother Bruce. The Warren Commission never boxed itself in to a "5.6 second" timeline for the three shots. Page 117 of the Warren Report proves that the Commission was acknowledging the fact that the three shots could have been spaced as far as 7.9 seconds apart.

And the notion that Oswald's shooting "feat" in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, was a marksmanship performance that could only be duplicated by God Almighty Himself is more pure tommyrot spouted by the conspiracy theorists. More on that HERE.

And Bruce's assertions about Jack Ruby and the alleged "Mafia hit" on Lee Oswald in the DPD basement are still more hunks of fanciful speculation without a granule of proven truth in them.

The fact is that when one examines the details of Jack Ruby's known movements and whereabouts shortly before he shot Oswald on the morning of November 24, 1963, it becomes nearly impossible for a reasonable and rational person to believe that a pre-planned "conspiracy" was involved in LHO's murder at all, as demonstrated HERE and HERE.

Bruce also stated:

"...witnesses placed him [Oswald] in the 2nd floor lunchroom drinking a coke..."

Dead wrong (again). Bruce, of course, is talking about the Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter. And neither man (Marrion Baker or Roy Truly) said that Oswald was "drinking a Coke" when they saw him on November 22nd. Just the opposite, in fact: BOTH men said to the Warren Commission that they saw NOTHING in Oswald's hands during the brief lunchroom encounter.

And in case Brother Bruce wants to bring up Warren Commission Exhibit No. 3076 (re: the Coke) ----> Oswald, Baker, Truly, & The Coke


You keep dreaming fella. The Government wouldn't lie to you. Oswald and Ruby were just a couple of lone nuts wandering around Dallas that weekend. Whatever you say. Just keep taking those pills and please stay out of my neighborhood.


No prob, Brother. I have no intention of ever visiting your neighborhood. I'd probably be immediately arrested by Jim Garrison and thrown in jail on a trumped-up charge of conspiracy to cover up the murder of JFK.

The great thing about this case is, for the most part, I don't need to rely on the allegedly evil and wicked "Government" at all. Oswald's and Ruby's own ACTIONS are telling us a good deal of the story. And those actions most certainly do not add up to "conspiracy".

Do you think the "Government" was controlling both Lee Oswald's and Jack Ruby's actions and movements on November 21, 22, 23, and 24, 1963?

Did the evil Government tell Ruby to lounge around his apartment until 11:00 AM on Sunday morning, even though Oswald was supposed to be moved at around 10:00?

As you said --- Keep dreaming, fella.


You're livin' in a dream world if you think that Lee Oswald stuck his gun out of the 6th floor of the book depository and managed to blow the President's head backwards onto the trunk of the limo from 100 yards.


You have fallen for yet another one of those slippery "conspiracy myths" again, Bruce.

What in the world is so difficult to believe about someone shooting a person riding in a slow-moving open-top limousine that's only 88 yards away? It was a very easy shot, Bruce.

You surely are aware that Oswald had been trained with a rifle in the U.S. Marine Corps, right? And that he was a pretty good shot while firing RAPID FIRE at up to 200 yards. And that he achieved scores of 48 and 49 (out of a possible 50) while firing his rifle in the Marines at targets that were 200 yards away.

And yet people still insist Oswald couldn't hit the broadest side of Mama Cass. Get real.


What was Oswald's motive? Tell me why Oswald would even want to shoot the President? If you can answer that I'll give you some respect.


Nobody will ever know for certain what Oswald's motive was. But the evidence of Oswald's guilt isn't going anyplace. It shall always be there (even for a silly LN "dreamer" like me to analyze). And only a person who is totally ignorant of the evidence could possibly say that LHO was completely innocent. Was all of the evidence against him fake? If you believe that, then you should hide your head in shame for saying that I am the one who is "livin' in a dream world". The evidence is what it is. And it's all pointing toward Oswald.

Author Jean Davison made this observation in her book:

"The reader [of conspiracy books] will understand the difficulty these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent a story that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for 'curtain rods', left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought a package into the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against Oswald is strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up will inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt."
-- Jean Davison; Page 276 of "Oswald's Game"


David, how you're portraying the kill shot is not factual...


You mean when I said this yesterday (which is nothin' but the truth)?....

"What in the world is so difficult to believe about someone shooting a person riding in a slow-moving open-top limousine that's only 88 yards away? It was a very easy shot, Bruce." -- DVP

And if you're talking about JFK's head snap to the rear, I'll have more to say about that a little later in this post.


...and you're managing to ignore Ruby's entire history and the connections he has with all parties involved.


That's a giant leap of faith on your part, Tom. You say "all parties involved", as if it were an established fact that other "parties" were unquestionably "involved" in President Kennedy's assassination. But it's not an established fact in the slightest. Not even close.

Plus, the idea that Jack Ruby was a bigshot in the Mafia is absurd. Just read the testimony of any person who actually KNEW him. They say it's laughable to believe that Jack was this big-time mobster who would have been entrusted with the important job of knocking off Oswald. But, you can believe that if you want to look silly. So go right ahead and believe it. But don't expect everybody to follow you down that goofy road.

Regarding Jack Ruby's motive for wanting Lee Harvey Oswald dead, check out my webpage HERE.


The cherry-picking you're doing to contort the truth here is necessary to believe what you believe.


Pot....meet kettle.


Amongst the undeniable truths are the physics of JFK's head movement...


And one of those "undeniable truths" regarding the movement of President Kennedy's head after Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano bullet struck the back of JFK's skull is the fact that his head moved initially FORWARD by a couple of inches before it moved backward, indicating the bullet entered the President's head FROM BEHIND. Let's have a look in super slow motion:


...the autopsy...


Well, let's take a look at what the three autopsy surgeons had to say in their official report, which was signed by all three of those doctors--Humes, Boswell, and Finck (were they all liars?)....

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds. .... The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- Page 6 of JFK's Official Autopsy Report [Warren Report; Page 543]


...the bullet weight (which you are dead wrong about), etc.


When we have a look at what the FBI's Bob Frazier said about the weight of Commission Exhibit No. 399, you can see that the statement I made yesterday -- "And the bullet most certainly lost some of its original weight. It weighs 158.6 grains now. It started out in the area of 160 to 161 grains." [DVP; 1/30/15] -- is identical to the testimony given by Mr. Frazier in 1964. Here's what Frazier said in Warren Commission Volume 3, Page 430:

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the exhibit-that is, 399?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains."

MR. EISENBERG -- "How much weight loss does that show from the original bullet weight?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161 grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed---160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains."


So, Tom, is Robert Frazier a liar too?


Bottom line: you are not going to be moved from your position, and that's fine. Plenty of people thought the world was flat. Plenty of people deny science to this day. You're one of them.


What a crock. The fact is, it's the conspiracy clowns who continue to "deny science" when it comes to the many newer scientific tests that have been done to simulate the JFK assassination. The latest hunk of "science" that CTers totally ignore are the tests done in the 2013 PBS program "Cold Case JFK".

And before that, the conspiracists totally ignored (or misinterpreted) the tests performed in the excellent 2004 Discovery Channel documentary "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet".

And before that, it was Dale Myers' fine computer animation work that was being ignored by the conspiracy hounds.

And as far back as 1964, the conspiracy crowd has always found some way to skew or mangle or misrepresent the findings made by the Warren Commission during its detailed re-enactment of the assassination in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on May 24, 1964, which is a re-enactment that resulted in photographs like this one and this one being published in WC Volume #18, which are photos that fully support the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory.

But I'm accustomed by now to conspiracy theorists totally ignoring the autopsy report and pictures like CE903. CTers can better feed their fantasies if they just pretend those things don't even exist.


Typical of people your ilk, you set up a straw man. NO ONE said Ruby was a "big shot." NO ONE. Ruby's associations with the mob went back decades, he was a bag man/gun runner, and it was precisely the fact that he was not a big shot that he could be used in that manner. He was a minor functionary.

And as far as the "all parties involved," that is based upon a preponderance of the evidence. That you choose to deny that evidence, as I've stated, is your right. Several very good books (and I'm not talking about the fringe elements you want to cherry pick arguments with) have been devoted to Ruby's history, his connections with the Dallas mob and the local police, as well as his connections with Oswald.

Interesting that he was at the press conference and had some magical knowledge of the correct name of the Fair Play committee Oswald was associated with in New Orleans. Wonder how he got that scoop? Interesting that he wanted to be moved to Washington DC to testify in front of Warren. Why would a guy who wanted to save JFK's widow the stress of a murder trial, need to be moved just to testify to that? If that makes sense in your world sir, your world is, indeed, flat.


As is typically the case when talking with a rabid conspiracy theorist who seemingly believes in the "kitchen sink" approach to the massive elements of alleged "conspiracy" in the JFK case, almost every word uttered by such a conspiracy theorist (Tom A. included) needs straightened out, because each statement is the exact opposite of the truth.

Ruby wanted to be taken to Washington to specifically tell Earl Warren and President Johnson that he was NOT involved in a conspiracy--not the other way around. Ruby's mind was quickly leaving him in 1964. He thought there was a massive plot going on in Dallas to blame JFK's murder on the Jews. That's how unhinged Mr. Ruby was becoming as he sat in jail in 1964.

With regard to Ruby possessing "some magical knowledge" about the Fair Play For Cuba Committee during Henry Wade's midnight press conference, the provable answer to that is very simple, and that answer is --- By the time Wade gave that press conference late on the night of November 22nd, it was common knowledge that Lee Oswald had been affiliated with the FPCC in New Orleans. The name "Fair Play For Cuba Committee" had been broadcast on television and radio several HOURS before Ruby (and others) corrected Mr. Wade on the name of the pro-Castro organization.

Go HERE for the proof that the name "FPCC" was being heard on TV by approximately 3:30 or 4:00 PM (CST) on November 22nd.

Plus, it's quite possible (even probable) that since the various media outlets were broadcasting the name "Fair Play For Cuba" in the middle of the day on 11/22/63, then Ruby might have simply heard the reporters talking about the "FPCC" in the DPD hallways that afternoon or evening. There were multiple ways in which Ruby could have heard the words "Fair Play For Cuba Committee" without having to rely on any "magical" powers of any kind, and also without ever having known Lee Oswald in the past.

And, as I mentioned, there were OTHER people besides just Jack Ruby who shouted out the correct "FPCC" name during the Wade news conference. So why don't the conspiracists ever ask: Where did those OTHER people get their information about the FPCC?

But no CTer ever cares about the fact that other people also shouted out "Fair Play" besides Mr. Ruby, which everyone can easily hear for themselves by listening to the Wade press conference below:


You're admitting that the "magic bullet", which is the lynch pin for the Warren Commission's conclusions, lost only 1.4 - 2.4 grains after it was fired.

Buddy, they scraped 3 grains out of Connolly's [sic] wrist. More was removed for testing. There were additional grains left behind in JFK after smashing through his vertebra.



More outright lies being spouted by "Brother Bruce". The CE399 bullet left NOTHING inside JFK's body, and only left a very small amount of lead inside Governor Connally. More details here.


Wow, that bullet really was magic. It made seven wounds, smashed bones, took several turns, changed direction, went through clothes and ended up on an unoccupied gurney at Parkland Hospital in pristine condition.

And it was fired by a guy with no motive - using a rifle that hadn't been fired that day - and fired by a guy who the FBI proved hadn't fired a rifle that day.

You've got a great case there pal. Keep working it - someone will bite.


Oh Brother, "Brother".

It would take me at least another hour to correct all the falsehoods "Brother Bruce" just spewed in his last pathetic post. So I'll just suffice to say --- Nothing Bruce just said is anywhere near the truth (as per usual with CTers).


If it was so pathetic - why did it get you so flustered? You say that you could correct my interpretation of Warren's description of the magic bullet in "one hour"? If you really believed such tripe and could prove it in just one hour, why wouldn't you do it?

Are you afraid you'd just be digging yourself into a deeper hole of lies and obfuscation. If anyone deserves the label "conspiracist", it's you lone nutters who refuse to open your eyes to the truth.


Who's flustered?

The CE399 bullet was not "magic". And it didn't need to swerve right and left to hit both Kennedy and Connally. Only people who have fallen for Oliver Stone's B.S. believe in such silly things.

Also see:


I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people. I think we also need to figure out a way to move towards prosecuting them. These persons are just in flagrant denial of the obvious evidence of Oswald's CIA relationship.


Oh goodie! Now Ralph thinks I deserve to be prosecuted for believing in Oswald's lone guilt.

Yikes! What a strange, mixed-up world Ralph Yates lives in.

(NOTE -- This will probably have to be my last post for a while, because I can hear some footsteps on my porch. The FBI has arrived with a warrant for my arrest. It looks like Ralph Yates' wish has become reality. The charge --- "Believing That Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Alone". It strikes me as a curious and odd reason for having three husky FBI men escort me to the pokey. But there must be some new law on the books that makes it a criminal offense to believe in the **known and documented facts** of a particular murder case. Very strange indeed. I only hope my cell is next to Vince Bugliosi's so we can have some nice chats. You see, Vince was thrown in jail this morning on the same oddball charge.)


You lone nutters have never had to worry about being persecuted, arrested, strong-armed or murdered. History has shown that the folks who attempt to tell the truth about the assassination are the ones who've been silenced through threats and murder. Believing and espousing, as you do, that two lone nuts were involved in the assassination insures that you'll be coddled and supported by the murderers.


Whew! What a relief! Thank you, Bruce. Now at least I can be confident that the three burly FBI agents who just arrested me (thanks to good ol' Ralph Y.) won't be strapping me into a hot chair at any rate. I'll probably just get 10 to 20.


Does it please you to be in league with the liars and murderers?


If it in any way separates me from people like you, then yes, I'm pleased. Very pleased.


You told me that you didn't have the time to refute my contentions...


I never said anything of the kind. All I said was that one of your recent posts full of inaccurate information would take me "at least another hour" to address in any detail. I didn't say I didn't have the hour.


Instead of rattling on about how wonderful you are...


When did I ever say that?


...why didn't you just spend the time answering a few questions?


Yeah, right. Like I haven't been doing just that for the last two days in this thread.

You're not doing too well, Bruce. You're batting a perfect .000 so far. I hope you finally get a base hit sometime. But in looking ahead to your questions below, I fear you're destined to go hitless for the rest of this season. You seem to want to believe in every half-baked, already-debunked theory that every conspiracy author has ever put in print.


Here are [the questions]:

Why did Oswald purchase a rifle using a Money Order and his well known alias when he could have bought a rifle, anonymously, at any of a hundred gun shops in Dallas?


I guess those dastardly plotters who were setting up Oswald blew it (yet again) when they attempted to frame him with a mail-order rifle, because people like you, Bruce, can see through that little scheme like a lace curtain.

BTW, the stuff about being able to waltz into "a hundred gun shops in Dallas" and walk out with a rifle that could never be traced is very likely just one more in a long line of conspiracy-flavored myths that have been foisted upon America by clueless conspiracy writers.

It's highly unlikely that any brick-and-mortar store selling guns would have kept NO records at all of their gun purchases. In fact, there's evidence in the Warren Commission documents and FBI files to indicate that some Dallas gun merchants did, indeed, keep records of the people buying guns from their shops. (Which is only common sense that they would have some records of those purchases, of course.)


How do explain the Zapruder film which clearly shows the kill shot coming from the knoll?


The Zapruder Film shows no such thing. Didn't you see my earlier post about the initial FORWARD movement of JFK's head?

Plus, all of the visible blood spray is located to the FRONT of Kennedy's head, indicating the shot came from the rear. Ask any forensic pathologist, they'll say the same thing, with the possible exception of Cyril H. Wecht, of course.

And the large exit wound in JFK's head is in the RIGHT-FRONT-TOP portion of the head---not in the rear of the head. Again, this indicates the bullet entered from behind and exploded out the other side--at the right-front.


How do you explain the finding of a Mauser on the 6th floor?


There was no Mauser at all. The police officers who said that a Mauser was found in the Book Depository were simply mistaken [see video below]. And that's because a Mauser does, indeed, look pretty much exactly like a Mannlicher-Carcano, as we can see here:

And here's the proof that a CARCANO, not a MAUSER, was found by the police on the sixth floor of the Depository on 11/22/63.


Why did it take 48 hours for the FBI to find a palm print on the alleged murder weapon?


You're mistaken. The FBI never found ANY palmprint on the rifle at all. And that's because the palmprint had already been lifted off the gun by Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/63 before the rifle was turned over to the FBI at 11:45 PM CST that night.

Also see this document.


Now I just found out you're a real big shot with a lone nutter web site and all the trimmings, so those questions should be easy for you.


They were. Quite easy.


I don't think Oswald did it. Why don't you prove to me that he did.


The evidence (plus Oswald's own lies and actions) proves that Lee Oswald was a guilty double-murderer. But conspiracy theorists just simply refuse to believe that the evidence is legit and genuine. And CTers almost always completely disregard or misrepresent Oswald's movements and actions, which strongly indicate his guilt.

Just follow Oswald from November 21st through November 22nd and then tell me he was just an innocent "patsy". You'll look mighty silly if you do.


You don't have a motive. What have you got?


All of the physical evidence and Oswald's guilty-like actions. That's all.

What have you got (besides hundreds of conspiracy books filled with misinformation)?


These gents [Mel Ayton and DVP], especially Mr. Von Pein, who I had the pleasure of debating for 24 hours, are very sincere in their contention that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy and the murderer of Officer Tippit. Whatever your own feelings, you can be sure that the authors have done their due diligence and are "calling it as they see it". An all around compelling read that belongs on the shelf of all assassination researchers. No matter what your personal feelings are regarding the big event - this book will be a worthwhile addition to your library.


After a day's worth of back and forth posts, I realized how sincere David Von Pein is in his belief that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin of President Kennedy. He has also concluded that Jack Ruby, acting alone, managed to sneak into the Dallas Police Dept. and murder Oswald.

Von Pein's sincerity impressed me and I took it upon myself to erase my initial negative review and replace it with a positive review; Not because I've become a "two lone nuts" conspiracist, but simply because I felt that his dedication to the subject (mis-guided though it may be) is worth, at the least, some kind of an "atta boy".

The funny part of the story is, the whole time that I was debating Mr. Von Pein, I didn't realize that he was one of the authors of the book in question. I figured him for a troll - looking to gin up the conversation a bit. Could be that a bit of senility is beginning to envelop the old grey matter (or it could be cataracts) - who knows?

We managed to conclude our posts last night with pleasantries all around. I sat down and glanced over at the book in question on my lamp table and noticed, for the first time, that the cat I'd been "conversing" with for the past 24 hours was one of the authors. I laughed out loud (at myself) for a good half an hour. When you get old, a good belly laugh is a very healthy and invigorating experience. We all have far too few of them these days. Funny! I'm still laughing.

Anyway; Do I wish that David would embrace new research that points to Lyndon Johnson as the man behind the assassination? Yes, of course I do. I've been studying the assassination since December of 1963 when I was a young adult and student in Massachusetts. A friend showed me a copy of Harry Truman's 12/22/63 editorial from the early edition of the Washington Post. Oddly, the former President's controversial editorial (which advocated the elimination of the CIA's operational capabilities) was not included in later editions.

In those early days, the only place you could find alternative assassination material was in the underground press. One of our professors brought the Sunday London Times to class every week during the Spring '64 semester. Europeans had already figured the assassination for a domestic conspiracy. Unfortunately, neither the European's opinions nor the LBJ exposes were being published on this side of the pond. I found that curious because people were frantically thirsting for information about the assassin but all we could get was Warren Commission propaganda.

Every couple of weeks we'd read about a prima facie assassination witness who'd died mysteriously, but no one dared to editorialize about it. Operation Mockingbird was in full swing here and there wasn't a mainstream paper or publisher in the Country that dared to point the finger at anyone but Lee Oswald. Those who did had a funny habit of turning up dead.

I'm convinced that Lyndon Johnson backed a coup that was put together by the same people who'd succeeded at regime change in Iran, the Congo, Guatemala (and attempted same in Cuba). JFK was roundly hated by many very powerful groups. None of them, working alone, would have dared to assassinate a President. However, knowing that the VP cum Commander in Chief was going to back their play - they endeavored to put "the big event" into action.

It's not my intent to initiate another debate. Von Pein and I agreed to disagree. .... I do recommend the book. It's important that folks on both sides of the assassination debate understand exactly what is in question and being debated here.

This will be my last word on the subject, so ya'll have free rein to beat up on me and tell me what a big fat chowder head I am. Peace out.


Thank you, Bruce.

David Von Pein
January 30-31, 2015
February 1, 2015

(PART 888)


You've seen pictures of that so called "Sniper's Nest"....IF IF those shells [had] struck the boxes they would have hit the north/south face of the upper box and bounced right back at the shooter or they could have ended up along the EAST wall. They would NOT have ended up under the south facing window.


It looks like Walt The Super-Kook wants to totally disregard some additional Warren Commission expert testimony (from the FBI's Robert A. Frazier this time).

Beginning at 3 H 401, Frazier talks about the tests that the FBI performed in order to illustrate "the positions on the floor at which cartridge cases landed after being extracted and ejected from the rifle, Commission's Exhibit 139." [Frazier's quote, at 3 H 401.]

To further illustrate the ejection pattern of the tested cartridge cases, diagrams and charts were drawn up by a draftsman and the diagrams were entered as Warren Commission exhibits 546 and 547.

[Warren Commission Testimony:]

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Mr. Chairman, may I introduce these diagrams as Commission Exhibits Nos. 546 and 547?"

JOHN McCLOY -- "They may be admitted."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Could you give us the results of your tests by using these diagrams, Mr. Frazier?"

ROBERT FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. In this test, Commission Exhibit 546, the diagram illustrates the positions on the floor at which cartridge cases landed after being extracted and ejected from the rifle, Commission's Exhibit 139.

In the top portion of Exhibit 546, the barrel was held depressed at a 45-degree angle, and in the lower half of the exhibit it shows the pattern with the barrel held in a horizontal position. Each spot marked with a figure on the diagram shows where one cartridge case landed in both instances, and each one is marked with the distance and the angle to which the cartridge case was ejected.

With the barrel held in the depressed condition, all of the cartridge cases landed within an 85-inch circle located 80 degrees to the right front of the rifle. That may be confusing. It was 80 degrees to the right from the line of sight of the rifle and at a distance of 86 inches from the ejection port.

Now, this circle will not necessarily encompass all cartridge cases ejected from the rifle, since the ejection is determined not only by the angle of the weapon, but more by the force with which the bolt is operated. A very light force on the bolt can cause the cartridge case to tip gently out and fall at your feet. However, under normal conditions of reloading in a fairly rapid manner, we found the cartridge cases to land in this circle.

The same situation is true of the test made with the muzzle in the horizontal condition. All of the cartridge cases landed within a 47-inch circle, which was located at right angles to the ejection port, or 90 degrees from the line of sight, and at a distance 80 inches from the ejection port. In both of these tests, the ejection port of the weapon was held 32 inches above the floor.

In the second test performed, Commission Exhibit 547, the test was made to ascertain how high above the ejection port a cartridge case would fly as it was being ejected. After ejecting numerous cartridge cases from the weapon with the barrel held in a depressed condition, it was found that the cartridge cases did not exceed two inches above the level of the ejection port. And with the muzzle held horizontally, it did not exceed 12 inches above the level of the ejection port."

[And then, at 3 H 402, Robert Frazier tells the Warren Commission something that completely destroys Walt's theory about the location of the bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest...]

MR. EISENBERG -- "I now hand you three Commission Exhibits, 510, 511, and 512, which are photographs which have been identified as giving the location of the cartridges--cartridge cases--Nos. 543, 544, and 545, on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building. I ask you to examine these pictures, and to determine whether if the rifle had been fired from the window shown in these pictures, the location of the cartridge cases is consistent with the results of the tests you ran to determine the ejection patterns."

MR. FRAZIER -- "I would say yes; it is consistent--although the cartridge cases are--two of them--against the wall. There is a stack of boxes fairly near the wall, and the position of the cartridge cases could very well have been affected by the boxes. That is, they could strike the box and bounce for several feet, and they could have bounced back and forth in this small area here and come to rest in the areas shown in the photographs."

MR. EISENBERG -- "In making your tests, did you notice much ricochet?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes; considerable. Each time a cartridge case hit the floor, it would bounce anywhere from 8 inches to 10 to 15 feet."

[End WC Testimony.]

So, we have Bob Frazier of the Federal Bureau of Investigation telling the world via his Warren Commission testimony that the location of the ejected rifle shells as seen in the official Dallas Police crime scene photographs is perfectly "CONSISTENT" with the shell-ejection pattern that Frazier observed during his post-assassination tests (which are tests that were performed WITH THE SAME EXACT RIFLE, Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano).

Case closed on another stupid theory gushed forth by a conspiracy theorist [Walt Cakebread] who lives strictly by the rigid rules set forth in his own self-published "Anybody But Lee Harvey Oswald" guidebook.

In short, Walt obviously has no desire to accept ANYTHING of an "official" nature regarding this murder case--whether it be from Robert A. Frazier of the FBI, Captain J. Will Fritz of the DPD, Lieutenant J.C. Day of the DPD, Henry Wade of the District Attorney's office, Earl Warren of the Warren Commission, or anybody in-between.


To tell you the truth, I've always thought that the "Shell Ejection Pattern Tests" were altogether unnecessary. But it just goes to show the thoroughness and the depth of the FBI's and the Warren Commission's investigation into the murder of President Kennedy.

I mean, even without those cartridge ejection tests, it couldn't BE more obvious that somebody fired three shots FROM OSWALD'S C2766 MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE out of that sixth-floor Depository window. So the ejection-pattern tests were totally superfluous, IMO.

And there's something else for conspiracy theorists to ask themselves here too---

Would a Presidential Commission or J. Edgar Hoover's FBI have actually gone to the trouble of doing superfluous tests (like those cartridge ejection tests) if the main goal of each of those two organizations (WC and FBI) was to COVER-UP the truth of the assassination in order to pin the whole thing on an innocent man named Oswald?

In my opinion, the answer to that last question has to be a resounding "No".

Those ejection tests are just one more indication (among many) that the Warren Commission and the FBI were leaving no stone unturned in their respective investigations surrounding the murder of the 35th U.S. President.

David Von Pein
January 2, 2010

(PART 887)



There is no doubt now that the CE 399 in the photo above [this photo] was not fired from a 6.5mm Carcano rifle, nor any other 6.5mm calibre rifle.


It seems apparent you [Robert] think these bullets were all fired in a .25 caliber rifle, and that the FBI and Army shooters pretended these bullets had been fired in the rifle found in the building.


And Robert Prudhomme, therefore, also has no choice but to believe one of the following two things....

1.) The "real killer" shot JFK with a .25 caliber weapon, even though a large part of the "plot" was to frame a patsy named Oswald who owned a 6.5mm. Carcano weapon.


2.) Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't being "set up" as a patsy IN ADVANCE of the assassination.

I'm quite confident that either option above is very unpalatable to a prolific rewriter of history (and the facts) like Robert Prudhomme.


I did a careful measurement on paper of the bullet designated in the photo as CE 399.

I drew a straight line parallel to the sides of the bullet...


Nobody can simply draw lines on a picture of a bullet (or on any picture) and expect perfect, exacting information. It's impossible to extract three-dimensional measurements from a two-dimensional object without applying photogrammetry skills. But perhaps Bob P. doesn't realize this fact....

"Photogrammetry describes how three-dimensional spatial relationships can be extracted from two-dimensional photographs or images. Without taking into account these relationships, accurate interpretations of two-dimensional images are impossible. In short, you cannot simply draw or overlay lines on a two-dimensional image and extract three-dimensional information." -- Dale K. Myers


"I don't know how many ways to say it, but let me try it this way -- no one can deduce a three dimensional angle in space by holding a ruler or protractor against a two dimensional photograph or computer monitor. The principles of photogrammetry explain why this methodology leads to false results." -- Dale K. Myers; August 20, 2008


Did you apply photogrammetry to your detailed measurements of the CE399 photo(s), Robert? If not, your calculations are pretty much worthless.

But just ignore that fact about not being able to derive perfect data from two-dimensional objects, Bobby. It'll be better for your constant attacks on Robert Frazier if you do. And there will probably still be at least two or three misguided souls on the Internet who will be foolish enough to believe your crackpot ".25 caliber" theories. After all, never underestimate the type of crap the public will buy. Even David Lifton's book got up to #5 on the best-sellers list. So there's hope for your outlandish rantings too.


Of course, Dale, David and the WC know everything there is to know about the SBT from watching the Z film, which just happens to be two dimensional, but that's different, right? :)


Dale Myers applied photogrammetry techniques before finalizing his work on his Z-Film computer model. Therefore, the computer was able to accurately extract 3D info from the 2D film.

Did you apply those techniques, Bob?


Pat Speer has very likely made the very same mistake of not applying photogrammetry when he attempts to prove that the paper bag Detective L.D. Montgomery is holding in these pictures is not the same paper bag that appears in the National Archives today as Commission Exhibit No. 142.


No kidding, Dave? He went right to town on it with all the high tech equipment, did he? Is that how he made the following mistakes in his cartoon?

1. Dale Myers shows the Magic Bullet going straight through the neck, almost at midline. This course would have taken the MB through the cervical vertebrae. Yet, autopsy x-rays show pristine cervical vertebrae, requiring the MB to pass completely outside of the C7 vertebrae, yet still manage to tear up the right side of JFK's trachea. It is estimated the MB had to be travelling from right to left through JFK's neck at a minimum angle of 23° to accomplish this, yet Dale's cartoon shows the bullet going almost straight through.

2. Dale Myers shows the Magic Bullet entering John Connally's back and exiting his chest, implying a through and through wound that pierced Connally's right lung. According to the medical report, the MB did not penetrate Connally's right lung but, rather, stayed on the OUTSIDE of Connally's rib cage, following the outside of the 5th rib for 10 cm.

3. Dale Myers shows the Magic Bullet entering the palm side of Connally's wrist, and exiting the back side of his wrist. Once again, the medical report contradicts this and tells us the MB entered the back side of the wrist, and exited the palm or bottom side.


All of Dale Myers' work is excellent (of course). But I certainly don't need Dale's computer model to demonstrate what the Zapruder Film has vividly shown since the day of the assassination---and that is one bullet going through the two victims at Z224.

If you, Bob P., can't see the SBT in action in the following Z-Film clips, it's not my fault. But I sure can see it. And so can most people who aren't visually impaired....



One question, and one question only. Answer this question to my satisfaction, and I will join the Lone Nuts.

Dale Myers' cartoon shows the Magic Bullet entering JFK's back very close to the spinal mid line, even though many reports place the back entrance wound 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal mid line.


You don't think 1.5 or 2 inches is "very close to the spinal mid line"?

The JFK entry point in Myers' model looks fine to me....


Here's a question for you, Bob....

What do you see here? Why is John Connally flinching his shoulders here? And what is causing the look we're seeing on his face? This clip ends at Z225....


Sorry, Dave, you're ignoring my question. I really want to hear your answer on this, and I will hound you on this forever, if need be.

Let's look at the still from Myers' cartoon you posted:

Does it look like the bullet is entering JFK's back 1.5-2 inches to the right of his spine? Hardly. Dale pretty much shows the bullet going through the spine. Not only that but, if the sniper's nest is 9 degrees laterally separated from the midline of the limo, why does Myers show the path of the bullet almost parallel to the limo?

And, finally, how did the Magic Bullet go straight through JFK's neck, as shown by Myers, without hitting any cervical vertebrae?


Dale Myers' model works fine, Bob. Here are some additional images from his computer animation, plus JFK's autopsy photo on the right. The back wound is just where we find it in the autopsy picture, slightly to the right of the spinal column. Click to enlarge.....

Now, Bob, how about answering my last question from a little bit earlier regarding Connally. Is all of this shrugging and flinching and mouth-opening and grimacing and lapel-flipping being caused by something OTHER than a bullet?

Let us hear your anti-SBT explanation with respect to the things we can see happening to Governor John B. Connally in the following Zapruder Film clip which ends at Z225.

I await your astute and stellar observations. ....



What you are seeing is a film sequence that has not been compensated for camera movement.

I agree looking at the sequence it does indeed suggest that Connally's left shoulder is rising.

However - and this is important - the individual frames do not show that. Taking the last frame in your sequence, there is a large rise in the left shoulder and it is very close to the bottom of Jackie's hair.

However, the individual last frame in your sequence does not show that.

Forgetting the contribution that frame sequences make to the observable image - i.e. a film strip and an individual frame is not the same - there is no similarity between the last frame in your sequence and what is suggested by the last frame in your gif.

If what your gif suggests is reality, then that last frame should also demonstrate this lifting of the left shoulder.



You're wrong, as proven by the comparison Z-Film frames below which I culled from my in-motion gif clip. Connally's left shoulder is unquestionably higher in Z225 than it was in Z222 (and the last frame in my gif clip is, indeed, Z225, not Z227, as you have incorrectly labeled it in your photo, James):

Plus, there is this toggling clip below of Z224 and Z225. Nobody can possibly deny that Connally's shoulders are RISING between these two Zapruder frames. You aren't going to deny that, are you James? And look at the movement of Connally's necktie in this clip too. That's also very significant. He's flinching without a doubt. Now what do you suppose could have caused this kind of a reflex action in Mr. Connally at this particular time in Mr. Zapruder's home movie?....


Also note, the area where your gif suggests Connally's left shoulder is rising coincides with the area of Jackie's jacket which happens to be black!!!!!


Wrong. The trim around Jackie's jacket isn't black at all. It's navy blue. The dark blue color of her suit jacket's trim is easily discernible in the bright sunlight....


I think that what you are seeing is not JBC's shoulder rising but is actually a shadow cast on to Jackie's jacket, probably by Nellie Connally's head, as the car moves forward and she herself moves. I think that JBC is just twisting in the seat.


And do you think it's also just a coincidence that Mr. Connally's necktie starts to do a dance and starts RISING and curling up at the exact same instant we see the so-called "shadow" being cast on Jackie? (His "twisting" in his seat caused the necktie to do its dance too, is that correct?)

And what about Connally's facial expressions at this exact same instant too? His mouth opens at exactly Z225. It looks to me like he's grimacing. And that grimace starts at precisely the same instant we see his shoulders flinch and his necktie rise and curl up.

Conspiracy theorists like to say that I am the one in denial when discussing the JFK case. I think I can turn the tables on the CTers in this particular discussion. Because it takes a large amount of "SBT denial" in order to be able to dismiss all of these things we see happening to Governor Connally in Z-frames 224 and 225:

Shoulders hunch up (flinch).
Right shoulder is pushed very slightly downward and forward.
Mouth opens.
Distressed look on face.
Suit coat bulges outward (aka: the lapel flip).
Necktie rises.

And then when we go up one more frame--to frame number 226--we see Connally's right arm start to rise (at the exact same instant when President Kennedy's arms begin to rise as well). And it was, indeed, Mr. Connally's right arm (wrist) that was struck by a bullet in Dealey Plaza.




But it's not just Connally's left shoulder that hunches up at Z225. His right shoulder rises slightly too. How can there be any doubt of it? I think the frames you used are too small and not zoomed in enough to show the very quick rise then fall of both of Connally's shoulders.

You really think this apparent shoulder movement is ALL just shadows or some other photo anomaly? Come now....


If anyone wants to suggest that John Connally's body could possibly be casting a shadow onto Jackie in the Zapruder Film, that is impossible. The shadows in Dealey Plaza were falling toward the NORTH, not the SOUTH. We can easily see that fact in the Altgens picture [below]. Any shadow being cast by John Connally would have fallen in JFK's direction, not Jackie's....

Governor Connally's very brief shoulder flinch is no shadow. It's Connally's body tensing up and involuntarily flinching after Oswald's bullet just pierced him in the back.

If it were a shadow being cast by Nellie Connally's head onto Mrs. Kennedy's pink jacket, then it sure came and went incredibly fast, didn't it?


As the limo turns towards its left as it proceeds down the street, I would imagine it is eminently possible for a shadow to have been cast from Nellie's head onto Jackie's jacket.


And you think the shadow on Jackie just disappears after a few frames? And it just HAPPENS to look exactly like Connally's shoulder rising and falling. Because in the gif below, we can certainly see no shadow being cast on the left side of Jackie's suit jacket in the frames immediately after Z230....

And what about John Connally's RIGHT shoulder? It's rising slightly at exactly Z225 too. Is that just a "shadow" as well?

Governor Connally is flinching at Z225, Ian. The Z-Film proves it. And I think you just don't want to accept that reality. Nor does any other CTer in the world.


Anyone who bases a narrowly focused argument on a portion of the Z-film is building a structure on an unreliable foundation, IMO.



We all know that even if Bullet CE399 was somehow captured in flight on Zapruder's movie as it sliced through both Kennedy and Connally, there would be many conspiracy theorists who would still deny the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory.

This discussion revolving around what people see in the Z-Film is a prime example of CTer denial in action. Even when there is fairly firm proof of John Connally reacting to the bullet striking him prior to Z225, it's still not nearly good enough "proof" for CTers who (for some odd reason) continue to deny the SBT. (I mean, even WITH the SBT in place, those CTers can still believe in the make-believe Grassy Knoll shooter and, hence, a conspiracy.)

And so what we get is one excuse after another for dismissing the visual signs of the SBT in the Z-Film. It's quite humorous to see all the lame excuses the CTers have for tossing the SBT in the gutter.

And this simultaneous movement of both JFK's and Connally's right arms is merely a "coincidence" too. Right?....


The WC Report is Mr. Von Pein's "bible."

His faith is unshakable: "They said it, I believe it, end of story."

Even if the facts don't line up well. Notice how many of his replies rely on "must have" or "could only have" type responses...or which ones cause him to bring forth "straw man" arguments.

Now, I'm NOT a CTer. I'm not sure WHO killed JFK. But there are so many of the Warren Report conclusions that are either demonstrably false or which are extended speculation that I no longer believe the report.

I hope we discover who killed JFK. Since even Jesse Curry couldn't place Oswald "at that window, with that rifle" at the moment the fatal shots were fired, I think the case is basically unsolved. Now, if evidence is someday uncovered that it definitely was Oswald at that window, firing a rifle, to the exclusion of any other human being, at the moment the fatal shots were fired, THEN the Oswald-did-it story becomes irrefutable. Until then, it's simply speculation.


The Oswald-Did-It story is reasonable and rational speculation based on the EVIDENCE.

It's the conspiracy theorists who seem to possess the silly desire to make Lee Harvey Oswald blameless for all three attempted murders he committed in the year 1963 (Walker, Kennedy, and Tippit; and it's four if we count the attempted murder of Dallas policeman M.N. McDonald). But the evidence surrounding those murder attempts does just the opposite. And isn't it the evidence that's normally utilized to solve crimes?

Now, if someone could some day prove to me that the large amount of evidence that points to Oswald in the Walker, Kennedy, and Tippit crimes was all fake, then I'd have no choice but to turn in my "Lone Assassin" badge. To date, however, nobody has come close to proving to me that any of the evidence in those cases was fake.

To use Mark Knight's own words:

"Until then, it's simply speculation" that the evidence that exists against Lee Harvey Oswald is not legitimate.


What about John Connally's grimace at Z225? (Or don't you see that either, James [Gordon]?)

What about Connally opening his mouth at exactly Z225?

And what about that hat/arm flip starting at Z226? Is this another "distortion" in the film?....

BTW, James.....

There's no way that Connally's flinching/shoulder shrugging is just "distortion" in the film [as James Gordon suggested in this post]. And the movement of Connally's NECKTIE at the exact same time as the flinching seals the deal, IMO. Or do you think Connally's tie movement is just "video distortion" too?....



You are making my point for me.

This arm movement you talk about is not in the individual slides. If it is a factual element of data, it has to be in the individual slides. If it is not on the individual slides but it is on the movie, then it is a result of distortion of some sort.

Movies do not create changes in the data, they reflect the changes in data. Put another way, the arm/shoulder cannot be seen to move in the movie if that movement cannot be seen in the individual frames.

Now, I agree in your clip the right arm/shoulder [of John Connally] does indeed appear to move. But that change is not on frame 224 — therefore it has to be some kind of distortion on the film.


You must be joking, James.

You're coming up with lots of lame excuses to totally discount ALL of the obvious signs of distress on JBC in the Z-Film. You're now even denying that Connally raised his right arm quickly at Z226.

But it took me three seconds to confirm you don't know what you're talking about. The following three frames are from Costella's Z-Film frames at James Fetzer's website. These are frames 224, 225, and 226. And every single thing that you say is NOT in these frames, I can easily see.

E.G., the hunching of JBC's shoulders is easily discernible when toggling between frames 224 and 225 here. And the white blob that appears in Z226 is also very visible, and that white blob is, of course, Connally's light-colored Stetson hat as he rapidly raises it in front of his face after Oswald's bullet has ripped through his wrist 2 frames earlier.

All of this is easily seen if you line these three frames up in separate tabs in your browser and then toggle back and forth between them.....

FRAME 224 .... FRAME 225 .... FRAME 226



I have no idea what you are talking about when in Z224/225 gif you mention John Connally's tie? What point are you making?

At the moment I am just working on your Z225/226 gif. Were you aware that between these two frames Zapruder lowered his camera? That is why you see such movement that suggests to you that Connally has been injured and is flinching. When these frames are stabilised, all we see is Connally turning to his left.


But the 225-226 clip isn't the one showing the flinching. It's the 224-225 clip that shows the flinch/shoulder-hunching, and quite clearly. And this two-frame GIF below looks pretty "stabilized" to me.

And look at Connally's necktie here. It's "bulging outward", perfectly consistent with the movement we would expect to see in a tie being worn by someone who has just FLINCHED, which we also see in the 224-225 clip.

So what's causing the "tie bulge", James, if it's NOT also related to the flinching we see Connally doing here?....


James Gordon seems to want to come up with SOME type of excuse so that he won't have to call Governor Connally's movements what they really are -- "flinching", "arm-raising", and "grimacing".

Conspiracy theorists do the exact same kind of crap with JFK's forward head movement between frames 312 and 313. They say it's merely a "blur", or some kind of "video anomaly". It can't REALLY be the President's head moving forward though, they'll say.

But how many of these "It's not really what it seems to be" excuses is one excuse too many?


There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these frames - especially from 225 to 228 - demonstrate that Connally has been struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is going on - but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is doing.

Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224 and 225 Connally turns around 20º to his left. That is what you are seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet -- it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is turning his body left.

As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left. What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames is:

a) that 20º turn between 224 and 225

b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226 - 228

That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when actually Connally is turning to his left.


This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.

It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging", James? Get real.

And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth? Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?

And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?



You clearly have no idea what you are talking about!!

It is perfectly evident to me that you have no IT skills. You have made no attempt to discover whether the gif, you are using yet again, has corrupt frames…….which indeed it has. Tomorrow I will show you the quality of the frames you are basing this nonsense on. You have made no attempt to determine whether the gifs you are showing to this forum actually show what you say they show.


I need to point out that your poor research of the gifs you are presenting on this forum really angers me. This tie evidence is only part of this present gif, but until I look at it tomorrow I will not be able to say why the tie does what it is doing. Go back to the movie I described earlier and you will see the tie’s movement does not happen there. Whatever is making you think the tie is moving or what, is only part of this very poor gif.

That should bother you that one gif shows this tie movement, whereas the other one does not. If the tie is doing what you suggest, then both movies should show it. In addition, the actual slides do not support this point about the tie. The only evidence that shows this tie movement is a gif that has corrupt frames.

How you are able to tell expression of such poor--and indeed even distorted frames--is beyond me! Some of these frames are really distorted, yet you can tell expression.

I note you are now saying that Connally’s right shoulder is rising. It is turning to its left as Connally turns his body. That is what you are seeing. It is clear to me that you are basing everything on a very poor gif and are not verifying your findings with the frames themselves. I find it of some interest that you are clearly not interested that the frames on which this gif is based do not agree with what the gif is suggesting to you.


Incredible. What a pack of deniers we've got here. You guys win the 2015 prize in the category of....

"Failure To See The Obvious".


For the record, I have several other versions of the Z-Film (collected from various online sources, that is), and I just checked each one, and every single version I have shows exactly the same reactions on the part of John Connally. I'll post them all again below.

So, I guess James Gordon's next move is to tell me that ALL of these clips (which have come from different Internet sources over the years) are filled with nothing but "corrupt" frames too. ....

Shoulders rising (and tie bulging outward):

Different version---with the shoulders also rising and the tie moving in the exact same manner as in the clip above this one (just an illusion, Jim?):

And here's another, again showing the very distinct rise of Connally's shoulders, plus the hat flip, plus the tie movement:

And here's yet another source for the same Z-Film scene, again showing JBC's shoulders hiking up at Z225 (also "corrupt", James?):

If James Gordon comes up with more lame excuses to deny what his eyes are seeing in all of the above versions of the Z-Film, he'll win a new trophy --- the "Robert Groden Award" --- in memory of Mr. Groden's fiasco at the O.J. Simpson civil trial, where Groden was shown 30 different pictures of Simpson wearing the very same shoes, but Groden still insisted one of the photos showing the same shoes was a fake.



Maybe you should not be scolding fellow forum members until you have done some homework.

You say to Robert [in this post], “Don’t tell me YOU can't see the tie moving in the various clips I provided earlier, Bob. You aren't going to deny that John Connally's tie IS moving around at Z225, are you? Take a look again…”

In doing so, you are suggesting that he ought to see what is evident if only he looked.

What you are seeing is a consequence that between Z 223 and Z 224, the colour as well as the position of the tie and the silver roof support clash.

In Z224, the roof support cuts through the tie so that we only see the upper and lower parts of the tie. In-between is the roof support.

These frames shown through a gif suggest the tie is moving when actually it is not. The shape of the tie has changes because of this clash.

You really ought to do your homework.


This is getting more hysterical with each passing hour.

James Gordon provides further proof that he's lost in the woods. James now seems to think that I think Connally's tie is moving between 223 and 224. I never claimed any such thing. The tie isn't moving (or "bulging") between 223 and 224, and I have never said it was. The tie is bulging outward, without a doubt, between Z224 and Z225, just like I've been saying all along. Why James is moving the time period up to 223-224 is anyone's guess. ~shrug~

The way things are going now, it looks like it will only be a few days more before James Gordon will be denying the existence of John B. Connally in the car at all.

And once again I want to point out to James my previous posts in this thread [Posts 104 and 105] which feature SIX different "versions" of the Z-Film and Z-Film GIF clips, which I collected over the years from multiple different sources. They are not from the exact same source that James thinks contains "corrupt" frames. And one of those six sources is the 1998 MPI digital version of the Zapruder Film. And surely James isn't going to say that MPI's version consists of "corrupt" frames. Are you, Jim?

And in all six of those Zapruder Film examples that I provided, Governor Connally's reactions between Z224 and Z227 can be seen. Every single one. So Jim will have to call ALL SIX sources "corrupt" in order for Connally's tie NOT to be moving at Z224-Z225 and for Connally's shoulders NOT to be flinching at Z224-Z225 and for Connally's right arm NOT to be jerked skyward at Z225-Z226.

Good luck with all that, Jim.



If you applaud John Connally's support for the Warren Commission [such as in THIS POST], then I assume you also support his emphatic claim that he was not injured with the first shot. That he was in the process of turning to his left when he was shot. That is exactly what he is doing between Z 222 and 230.

Why do you feel Connally is right to support the Commission but wrong about when he was injured?


He's not wrong about when he was injured, James.

John Connally's testimony and his other comments in interviews are in perfect harmony with the SBT and the overall "Lone Assassin Fired Three Shots" scenario.

Connally ALWAYS said he was not hit by the first shot, but was hit by Shot #2. That's exactly what I think happened too. So I don't think JBC is "wrong" at all. He's 100% right. And he was in the process of turning to his left when he was hit by the SBT bullet at Z224.

As for JBC's anti-SBT stance, that is something he HAD to have gotten mostly from his wife Nellie. We certainly know that JBC himself couldn't know if JFK was hit by the first bullet or the second bullet, because JBC always said he never physically SAW Kennedy after the shooting began....

"I never saw either one of them [JFK or Jackie] after the firing started." -- John B. Connally; 1964 Warren Commission Testimony

Regarding Connally's "The President had slumped" remark in the bedside interview with Martin Agronsky....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/What Did John Connally See?


While it would be most convenient for your position, David, to believe Nellie was the only obstacle between big John and the single-bullet theory, this is a puff of smoke burped out by those refusing to look at the record.

1. Connally's initial belief was that the first two shots--the ones he was later told were fired by Oswald using a bolt-action rifle--were extremely close together--and were fired by an automatic weapon.

2. At the request of the Warren Commission, he studied the Zapruder film, and came to believe Kennedy was hit before going behind the sign, while he was hit just after coming out from behind the sign.

3. He trusted his doctor Robert Shaw, who told him the bullet hitting him had not hit Kennedy first.

So it wasn't just Nellie that told him the SBT was incorrect--it was everything he trusted...his ears, his eyes, his doctor, AND his wife.



And yet, despite all that information being gathered by John Connally, he was still all wrong about the SBT.

But Connally did say he thought the SBT was "possible" when asked about it by CBS News in 1967....

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?"

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


So, unlike nearly all "Internet CTers", at least the Texas Governor was a reasonable critic of the single-bullet conclusion.


Having studied these frames - Z 222 to Z 230 - it is clear that what is happening is that John Connally is turning his body to the left so that by Z 230 he is actually facing forward. These frames in a gif would demonstrate that - were Z 226 and Z 227 and Z 228 not partially or wholly blurred. Unfortunately they are blurred and when incorporated into a gif these same frames throw up extraordinary results. It is these same extraordinary results that allow members like you [David Von Pein] to suggest that these very frames actually suggest that John Connally is reacting to being struck by a bullet when - in fact - he has not been struck.

Aside from your statement about the tie, nothing you say about these frames stands up to serious scrutiny. That leads me to wonder who is it, that is actually in “total denial.”


Let me try this approach....

1.) James R. Gordon knows for a fact that John B. Connally was shot by a rifle bullet on 11/22/63 at a point in time which James also knows is very close in "real time" to Zapruder frames 224-230 (give or take a FRACTION OF A SECOND).

2.) Therefore, since #1 is so obviously true, there is probably a point in the Zapruder home movie that shows Connally's initial reaction(s) to being hit by the bullet that injured him.

3.) As I have illustrated about 99 times now, Zapruder frames 224 to 227 indicate some definite changes in Governor Connally's appearance that could very easily be said to be "involuntary startle reactions" to some kind of external stimulus.

4.) When factoring in #2 and #3, in tandem, what do you suppose the odds are that the movements by John Connally seen in Zapruder frames 224-227 are movements that have nothing whatsoever to do with the injuries sustained by John Connally at almost that exact same time (give or take a FRACTION OF A SECOND)?

5.) There are no frames in the Zapruder movie AFTER approx. Z230 in which any kind of "jerky" or "startle" type reactions can be seen with respect to Governor Connally's movements.

With the above five things in mind, James, do you still want to stick with this conclusion?....

"It is these same extraordinary results that allow members like you to suggest that these very frames actually suggest that John Connally is reacting to being struck by a bullet when - in fact - he has not been struck." -- J. Gordon


You agreed that between Z 222 and Z 230 John Connally is indeed seen to be turning left. And this is critical to this whole story. Between Z 222 and Z 230 John Connally is turning left to face forward. The dispute here is that in making this turn you are interpreting moments in this turn as demonstrating evidence that John Connally has been wounded when in fact all that is happening is that John Connally is turning to his left.


Let me repeat my earlier question that I asked you a day or two ago....

"It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging", James? Get real."


Nor does John Connally’s hat begin to flip at Z 226 forwards.


That's an astonishing statement, James, in light of the fact that I've already provided you with SIX different versions of the Z-Film (collected by me from various Internet sources, including the MPI "Image Of An Assassination" digital version), which ALL show the hat flip beginning at the exact same moment--Z226.

Here once again is one of those six versions produced earlier, and this is a good quality version, which positively proves you are wrong regarding the hat flip. It's occurring at Z226, just like in all of my other versions. Deny it if you desire, but it's here just the same:


These “jerky” and “startled” reactions that you talk about only occur between Z 226 and Z 228. And these are blurred frames. These reactions have nothing to do with John Connally, they are a consequence of Zapruder moving his camera...


Incredible, Jim. Simply incredible. Your denial has reached a new zenith. It's not an easy task to totally dismiss so many VISUAL clues about John Connally's reactions that everybody can easily see right before their own eyes. But you have managed to accomplish it. My congratulations go out to you.


BTW, another thing that is happening with John Connally in the clip below is that his head moves DOWNWARD just slightly at Z225....

This can be "measured" (at least in part) by looking at Jackie and then comparing the level of Connally's head to Jackie's in Z225. JBC's head moves a little LOWER than Jackie's head behind him. This type of head movement (akin to a "ducking" motion) is also in perfect harmony with all of Connally's other movements at Z225 --- the flinching shoulders, the opening of his mouth, the startled look (which is not there on his face at Z224, at least as far as I can tell; but, I'll grant you, the frames aren't super clear, but they are clear enough to make these basic determinations, IMO). And I also detect Connally's eyes closing shut for one frame at Z225 too. Again, perfectly consistent with an involuntary flinch right after he was shot.

So, we've got....

Flinching of the shoulders.
Scrunching of the head downward.
Mouth opening.
Eyes closing.
Lapel flipping.

All in just Z224 and Z225 alone.

Then, just one frame later, that hat flip---which James says is just a figment of my imagination too....

And yet, even with all of the above, according to CTers, Connally HASN'T been hit by a bullet yet. The bullet's going to hit him in another one second or so (probably even less than that). And his RIGHT WRIST is going to get smashed by that bullet---which, per CTers, HASN'T yet hit him as of Z226, even though the same RIGHT ARM/WRIST goes flying upward at 226. Go figure that. I sure can't.

That's a lot of stuff for me to be fooled by, don't you think? It's a whole array of things in Z224-227 that James Gordon is filing in his folder labelled....

Things that appear to be happening to John B. Connally in the Z-Film, but aren't really happening at all. It's all due to either "corrupt" video frames, Mr. Zapruder's camera movement, and/or the simple fact that Governor Connally is merely turning to his left in his seat.

Yeah, sure James. And I'm going to win TWO lotteries next week.


Let's have a look at the private message I received on the morning of May 16, 2015, from Education Forum administrator and moderator James R. Gordon....

[Quote On:]

Posting privileges removed


I know this should not happen, but you have really got under my skin.

I am really very angry with your sarcastic mockery of myself and your arrogant self conceit.

I understand this is not the way I should behave, but I am just so angry at the way you have treated me that I have resorted to something I would not normally do.



[End Quote.]

Here is my reply to James at 12:37 PM EDT on May 16, 2015....

[Quote On:]

That's okay, James. I was halfway expecting something like this to occur, what with you being the head man at The Education Forum.

But to be totally clear, James, you DO realize, of course, that I have not broken a single forum rule during our discussion about John Connally and the Single-Bullet Theory. Right? And if "sarcastic mockery" were truly legitimate grounds for having posting privileges suspended at your forum, then I dare say that more than half of your current members would have long ago suffered the same penalty that you just imposed upon me.

David Von Pein

[End Quote.]



You misunderstand the present administration: I am not the head man. When this administration [at The Education Forum] came together, the leader then and now is Kathy [Becket]. We do allow each member to act independently and that is what you saw today [5/16/15]. And if truth be told, I am aware I really did act before thinking. I was very angry and it was maybe intemperate to act as I did.

However, this situation has raised issues that I had not thought about which may - and stress may - not be fully covered by our guidance to members. However, the administration see this guidance as more a work in progress than fixed statutes.

I accept that you have a very firm understanding of the assassination, and I do not expect that to change. However, the way you treat members - like you have done with me - and humiliate and insult them has raised a serious question. The thread on the SBT is one where members really do want an open discussion. However, although members raised questions for you, you simply brushed them away. One member of the admin team said to me that you “will always make light of any "inconvenient" [to you] facts, and will then ridicule anyone who supports those facts.” I would hope that - even if that is the case now - it would not always remain the case and that you could be more positively involved in debate.

This forum needs someone with your grounding in and understanding of the Warren Commission - but I have been wondering since I suspended your privileges whether the EF needs someone who looks down on those who hold a different opinion to the assassination that you hold. If you are just going to inform fellow members of your opinion and those of the Commission, as opposed to openly discussing issues that members really want to discuss, then I am not sure what the EF benefits from this - let alone what you benefit from it.

I would be interested in hearing your thinking on this issue.




I think I have been "openly discussing" various issues at the EF forum. Yes, my opinion is pretty firm on the "LN" and "WC" side of things, but that's because I believe ALL of the physical evidence supports Oswald's guilt (and supports the SBT as well).

And when someone decides to (IMO) misrepresent things--as I firmly believe you have done when examining Connally's reactions in the Z-Film--then I think I should call them on it and point out those misrepresentations (and/or errors in their thinking). And most of the "LNer vs. CTer" debates, IMO, really DO come down to pointing out and correcting the misrepresentations made over and over again by the CTers on forums. I see it all the time---on Edu. Forum, on Facebook, on Duncan MacRae's forum, on McAdams' newsgroup, on IMDB---everywhere. CTers perpetuate myth after myth, year after year, and that's a big reason I post on forums today---to give the other side to anyone who cares to absorb it.

Most CTers, of course, think that it's I who "misrepresent" the facts. I feel strongly otherwise. So there's the perpetual stalemate --- Who's right? Who's wrong? That debate will likely never end.

But, James, you are just not seeing things properly if you really think that all we're seeing in John Connally's movements in Z224-Z228 is merely a man turning to his left in his seat to face forward. I see LOTS more than that. And I think--deep down--you do too.


BTW, here's yet another GIF clip showing Zapruder frames 224 and 225. This one appears to be a little better in overall quality than the darker Z224-225 clip that I've posted a million times previously. And in this version, we see all of the exact same things that we see in the other 224-225 clip --- Connally's shoulders rising, his mouth opening, his head moving downward slightly, and his necktie bulging outward:


I acknowledge that my suspension of David Von Pein’s posting privileges was hasty and wrong. I apologise to members for making such a hasty decision and will endeavour not to act again in such a way in the future.

David Von Pein’s posting privileges have been restored [as of 9:44 PM EDT, May 16, 2015].


Thank you, James.


I've heard CT's try to prove the HSCA right about 190 and the hit on Kennedy, in order to debunk the evidence of simultaneous JFK/JBC reaction as clearly seen in the 224-225 range. If the HSCA is right then the lapel flip would almost certainly have to be the wind and thus (in the swirling mind of some CT's) it can be discounted as evidence of a SB [Single Bullet] strike at all.


Yes, Brock.

Plus, given that absurdly early Z190 timeframe for the SBT, the HSCA has to totally ignore (or maybe they just didn't see) the quick hat flip that Governor Connally performs at Z226. It's either ignoring that hat flip, or the HSCA has to claim that the "hat flip" at Z226 was part of the "delayed reaction" exhibited by Connally after the Z190 shot.

But that type of INvoluntary quick REFLEX type of reaction (the hat flip) is not something I can envision coming TWO FULL SECONDS after the wrist was actually struck by the bullet. We'd have to believe that 36 Z-Film frames passed before Connally's right arm decided to go northward. That's way too long, in my opinion.


Just read this and saw that DVP had his posting privileges returned.

It was great to read DVP forcing those dolts to shove their heads up their own asses to avoid acknowledging the clear indications of the SBT.


[James Gordon] got angry because DVP was challenging his core beliefs. [Gordon] needs the SBT to be false because he needs Oswald to be a patsy.

Actually DVP was hammering these clowns with facts. They were getting destroyed in the debate so they had to make it into something DVP is doing wrong.

These conspiracy hobbyists can't wrap their heads around the notion that their ideas are not worthy of respect.

And you can go to the discussion on the SBT on Education Forum and see the number of snide remarks and put downs DVP had to endure. The difference being he didn't cry about it. He made his bones in the nuthouse, and you'll develop a tough skin in that place.

See, this hobbyist [James Gordon] is completely out of touch with reality. DVP was not parroting the WC or just throwing out unsupported opinions. He was backing up his contentions using the evidence. He was showing why he was right and these folks were wrong. And man did they hate that.


Some assclown named Robert Prudhomme keeps threatening to provide a "thrashing" on the issue but never seems to have anything to contribute. James Gordon is desperately trying to find justifications to ignore the clear indications that Connally was shot, and some other mental midget keeps popping in to say he doesn't bother arguing with LNers (and it's clear to see why not, he might be forced to think and defend his cherished fantasies).

But they will never give in on this point as it would take them one step closer to the truth, and that is where they fear to tread.


Amen, Bud. Thank you. Always great to read your posts [many of which can be found here]. You always hit the bull's-eye with your first shot.

David Von Pein
January 2015
May 2015
June 2015