(PART 936)


I just wonder how a document can be filed the day before it was written. If that leads one to believe it could be faked then so be it.

Perhaps you can explain. Oh no, guess you can't.


No, I can't. But I certainly wouldn't conclude that the various dates that show up on certain documents indicate any kind of fakery. Because it makes no sense for someone faking a document to put into the record a copy of that fake document which includes dates on it that would make that fake document look like an obvious fake document. Therefore, the answer likely resides outside the realm of "fakery".

But, maybe the plotters working for Hoover's FBI weren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. :)


I agree with your last comment. The evidence manufacturers weren't the brightest.


But you have no doubt that the evidence was, indeed, "manufactured", versus it being real and legitimate evidence that was merely being collected and handled by a bunch of idiot country cops who didn't know what they were doing. Right, Ray?

It's remarkable that your "evidence manufacturers", who certainly "weren't the brightest" people in the world, were able to pull off the alleged frame-up of Oswald---what with them being idiots and all. How did they manage it, Ray?



They didn't. That was brought about by the Warren Commission believing everything the FBI and the CIA told them.


The Warren Commission didn't "collect" any of the evidence. Nor did the FBI or CIA. The DPD did.

Too many CTers wrongfully claim that it was "the Warren Commission's evidence". Total nonsense. The WC didn't collect or test the evidence. The WC merely evaluated it.


I notice no reply from you about about the shoulder wound.


The wound IS where it is, as anyone can see via the autopsy photograph. The wound is in the UPPER BACK. Not the NECK. Perfectly consistent with what we see in CE903 (within the "margin of error" leeway that MUST be afforded the WC regarding that exhibit, as I discuss HERE).


The FBI took a number of pictures of the re-enactment.


Yes, they did -----> THE SBT PERFECTION OF CE903


Wait, are you really trying to say that the opposite angle photos taken by the FBI do not depict the SBT trajectory? Like they were just taking random photos with the rod at random angles?

Shaneyfelt TESTIFIED under oath about the trajectory's proximity to the back wound. It was an essential part of their re-enactment. Are you really trying to pretend that those photos were not taken to depict the trajectory in relation to the back wound? And that it's just a coincidence these photos were not introduced into evidence?


Well, Pat, this one below sure as hell wasn't taken with the intent to depict where the bullet entered or exited President Kennedy. It's not even close. And I don't think Specter ever thought the bullet entered this high on JFK or exited under his chin....


It looks like the string on the wall, as well as Arlen Specter's pointer/rod, are always being kept at the same angle (17.72 degrees) in the various "opposite angle" photos and in CE903. But the key is the positioning of the victims---particularly the JFK stand-in.

In the "opposite angle" photo below (the second picture), the JFK stand-in is quite clearly NOT in the exact same posture that the real JFK was in on 11/22/63. The stand-in is leaning back hard on the car seat (his suit coat is even visibly overlapping onto the back seat). That doesn't match JFK's posture in the Croft picture at all.

So it would be my guess that Specter (for some reason) was just trying out different postures using the stand-ins and then having pictures taken of those INCORRECT postures.

But as we can see in the "Croft/CE903" comparison below, the posture of the stand-in for President Kennedy as depicted in CE903 looks very close to the actual posture of JFK in the Croft photo on Elm Street on November 22nd.

The opposite-angle pic below shows the stand-in's posture to be closer to the real JFK's position at the time of the shooting. But Specter's rod still isn't SPOT ON perfect over the chalk mark. But it's awfully close. And, as I mentioned in one of my CE903 articles here, some amount of slack and margin-of-error needs to be applied here. (Or can any CTer find it in them to cut the Warren Commission ANY slack at all. Not even one inch or so, which is what we're talking about here? Or is utter 100% perfection in the re-enactments the only thing that will be tolerated by conspiracy believers?)


What? They lined up the chalk mark on Connally's jacket with the exit wound on "Kennedy's" throat--and found that it was consistent with the trajectory from the sniper's nest (the string in the background). They also found, however, that when they did this the trajectory passed INCHES away from the location of Kennedy's back wound.

Specter, one can only assume, then decided that this should not be told [to] the public. He made sure that the photos showing the chalk mark were not entered into evidence. And instead presented the public with CE 903, which FAILED to show the location of the back wound.


I mean, this is a man [Arlen Specter] who continued to claim the back wound was a wound on the back of the neck in his autobiography, published in 2000.


Which is nothing but semantics....and provably so, because of what we see in Commission Exhibit 903, which places the entry in the BACK, not the neck. So the fact that Specter continued to incorrectly use the word "neck" is meaningless and is debunked by the very exhibit with Specter in the picture -- CE903.


No, it's not semantics. It's lying. As demonstrated on my website and in my presentations, Specter ALWAYS called it a back wound until he saw the autopsy photo proving it was both a back wound and that the Rydberg drawing had been inaccurate. He then and only then began calling it a neck wound, and continued calling it a neck wound for the rest of his life.


I don't care WHAT Specter called it, Pat. The more important point is, IMO, where did he place the wound in the re-enactment demonstration we find in CE903?

And the answer is --- IN THE UPPER BACK.

Do you really think Specter is placing the wound in the NECK of the JFK stand-in here, Pat? ....


How did the bullet get through JFK without hitting any of his vertebrae?


Oh, come on, Bob. You know the pat answer to that one....it was a "magic" projectile.

(What else?)

Now, a question for you, Bob...

How did TWO bullets---which are the TWO separate missiles that you and many other conspiracy theorists quite obviously believe went into JFK's body but never exited---manage to make their way into the President's body without EITHER of those bullets striking the President's vertebrae?

Were slingshots being used by the assassins, Bob? Is that why neither of those two bullets exited the other side of JFK's body? And BOTH bullets somehow put on the brakes before reaching the vertebrae of President Kennedy? (Yeah, right.)

Looks like you've got double the problems. You've got TWO "magic" bullets. And they're also "vanishing" bullets too. So that just adds to your miseries, doesn't it?

But I'm not allowed to ever ask the "WHERE DID THE BULLETS GO?" question, am I Bob? And, of course, no CTer will ever be able to reasonably answer that important question anyway. So why bother asking it, right?


[Secret Service] Special Agent Bennett said he saw the bullet hit the President four inches down from the shoulder.

Was he lying, as well, David?


Yeah, Ray. Like Bennett SAW THE BULLET IN FLIGHT as it entered the President's back.

You must be kidding.


Yet another bona fide witness who was lying then. Strange how the ones who don't support the Warren Commission were all lying or mistaken.


I never said Bennett was lying. I merely pointed out the obvious --- SS Agent Glen Bennett could not possibly have seen the bullet entering JFK's upper back, and therefore, Glen Bennett could not possibly have known for certain how far down on JFK's back the bullet entered.

Isn't this fact even obvious to you, Ray Mitcham?


Once again Von Pain [sic], you use the trick of quoting something which hasn't been written. Where did anybody say [that] "Bennett saw the bullet in flight". You seem to have the gift of misquoting other posters' entries.

It is not just sloppy posting, but deliberate misquoting by you. Typical.


Re: Glen Bennett....

Once again.....

I was merely stating an obvious fact --- i.e., the only way that Glen Bennett could KNOW for certain that a bullet hit the President "about four inches down from the right shoulder" would be to either see the bullet in flight (which, of course, is humanly impossible) or to see the bullet hole in Kennedy's body or clothing or to see the blood oozing from a wound in the President's back. Other than these methods, tell me HOW a witness could state for certain exactly where on JFK's back the bullet entered?

Main point being --- Bennett GUESSED. And his GUESS wasn't too far afield, I will say that. And he also GUESSED about the head entry wound too, which, interestingly enough, is a guess that is completely at odds with the LOW head entry found in the autopsy report, but is consistent with the autopsy photos....

"A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head." -- Glen A. Bennett; 11/23/63

And as a side note here .... you can bet your last greenback that you'll never ever hear a conspiracy theorist quoting the above Bennett quote concerning the head shot that Bennett said came FROM BEHIND. But the CTers sure love Glen Bennett when it comes to his amazing ability to pinpoint the location of President Kennedy's back wound.

So, Bennett's guesswork was fairly accurate as things turned out. But there's no way he could have known with any certainty precisely how many inches below the shoulder JFK was struck.


Once again, I reiterate, no amount of your rubbishy explanations will alter the facts.

He saw the bullet hole in JFK's back. Is that really too hard for you to understand?

"He guessed". How the hell do you know he guessed? Did you ask him? Or is it just your assumption? Or he had to have guessed because it doesn't suit your theory?

As I previously said, no matter what rubbish you keep coming up with, your position is untenable.


You're getting more hilarious by the minute, Ray. Do you think Glen Bennett whipped out a ruler and dashed up to JFK's car and started measuring distances?

OF COURSE Bennett's "four inches" statement was a guess. How could it possibly be anything else BUT a "guess"?


If Bennett saw the bullet hole in "JFK's back", he would have been looking at this wound (with the President's bunched-up jacket over the top of it, of course), and this wound isn't four inches below the shoulder. And no amount of rubbish spouted by Ray Mitcham (or Glen Bennett) will alter the truth that resides within this photograph....


Even you could estimate the position of a hole in somebody's jacket if you saw it. (Come to think of it, maybe from your past utterances, you couldn't.)

Tell me why Bennett would say that the shot hit four inches below the shoulder if he didn't see it?

Oh, I forgot, Special Agent Bennett spouted rubbish. This from DVP!!

Regarding the head wound, he saw a huge wound at the back of the President's head. He was quite right. But he didn't say it was an entrance wound.


Bennett said the fatal bullet "HIT THE RIGHT REAR HIGH" of JFK's head. Does that sound like he thinks the shot entered from the front? Of course not.

But Bennett's "four inches" guess was just that--an estimate/guess.

So we have a choice here---

We can believe the BEST evidence for JFK's back wound (which is the above autopsy photo).


We can believe Glen Bennett's guesswork as he witnessed the shooting from the Queen Mary SS car.

Gee, that's a tough choice, isn't it?

(But guess what choice Ray Mitcham is going to make?)


What you got, David?


I've got the best evidence of all, which is evidence that forever trumps any and all witnesses --- this photograph that you apparently want to ignore....


Really. What caused the complete blackout at the lower part of the back of the head, just above the ruler, David? Photoshop? :)

Photos can't be faked in your world, can they?



In 2009, researcher John Fiorentino sent me a digital copy of a very high-quality version of one of the autopsy photos showing the back of JFK's head. It's the B&W equivalent to the "red spot" color picture seen below. And that photo which was sent to me by Fiorentino clearly shows each and every hair on the back of President Kennedy's head.

There is a version of that B&W photo on the Internet right now, but the version John sent me appears to be a better one, displaying higher resolution and greater detail.

So, Ray, do you want to suggest that somebody PAINTED IN the individual hairs on JFK's head in that black-and-white picture that I currently have on my computer's hard drive?

BTW, I would post that photo right here on this forum, but I promised John Fiorentino that I would not post it anywhere on the Internet. I cannot remember if John told me how he obtained a copy of that autopsy picture. But the slightly lower-quality version of that B&W pic also seems to show some of the individual hairs on JFK's head in the occipital area too. And for that matter, the red-spot picture below also seems to depict some of JFK's individual hairs in the occipital as well.


That's a different photo, David.

Mind discussing what colored the back of the head [in this photo]?

Photos can't be altered, can they, David?

They can't be faked, can they, David?

They can't be substituted, can they, David?

I prefer evidence from people who were there and physical evidence which can't be denied.

Seems you are desperate to support the Warren Commission. Best of luck.


Just a minute here, Ray....

I just talked about seeing a high-quality "back of the head" autopsy photo which positively depicts EACH HAIR on the President's head.

So are you now suggesting that some photo-fakers "blacked out" just ONE photo, but left the other photos alone?

Or, as I asked previously, do you think the evil plotters and cover-uppers decided to DRAW IN the hairs that I can see on the back of JFK's head in that HQ pic I talked about before?

Which is it? Or would you rather not talk about such silliness? (I couldn't blame you. Because what you seem to be suggesting is awfully silly.)


Why don't you post the photo, David? It seems to me that your going on about the "other photo" is even more bizarre than when people who go on and on about the "other film". There's nothing secret about any photo Fiorentino sent you, is there?


Not that I know of, Pat. But in my conversation with John Fiorentino back in May 2009 when he sent me the photo (and I got that date from the timestamp placed on the photo by my computer when I downloaded it to my hard drive; the e-mail message from John is long since gone, since I've never found a way to transfer my old "filing cabinet" e-mails to a new computer), John requested that I not spread the picture all over the Internet. I can't remember the reason for that request, but he made such a request of me nonetheless. And I have always honored it.

But as I mentioned before, there are lower-quality versions of that very same black-and-white autopsy photo on the Internet right now. In fact, after having just now looked through my computer folder marked "JFK Autopsy Photos", I noticed that I have saved a copy of the lower-resolution version of the picture. And since this isn't the copy given to me by John Fiorentino, I'll share it below. And as you can easily see, there are discernible hairs on the back of JFK's head visible even in this smaller version of the photo. The version John gave me is quite a bit bigger (656 x 850 pixels). The one below is only 348 x 450.

BTW, Pat, I think you're probably correct about David Belin himself supplying John with the high-quality version of the photo, because I noticed the message "For you -- Publish it -- DB" in the corner of the picture. But, quite obviously, Fiorentino did NOT want ME to "publish it", and I never have.


FWIW, David, there was a hi-res scan of the BOH photo on Lancer for a number of years. I think it was a scan of the photo as published by Groden, however. What I'm mostly concerned about is that the photos were taken in pairs. Are you sure the photo you have is exactly the same as the photo you've just posted? Or is it the other one of the pair?


I just checked, Pat. The photo John F. gave me in 2009 is the exact same picture as the one I posted previously.


Because if it's the other one, you should be able to match it up with the one you've posted in a GIF, and create a 3-d image showing that the back of the head in the photos was not painted in. As you know, I think the photos are legit. If you have evidence that will help prove this point, well, then, I think you should go ahead and do it.


A researcher named John Mytton has created just the kind of 3D GIF you are talking about, using the "red spot" color photo and the B&W photo seen above. They merge together perfectly....


Does no one else notice a distinct horizontal boundary in the BOH photo? About level with the top of his right ear, we see wet one-inch-long hair above this boundary, and what appears to be some kind of weird fuzz below it.

This photo is as fake as the back yard photos.


John "the researcher" Mytton's comical "3D" display only makes the fakery easier to see.


But we must keep in mind this all-important point ----

Internet CTers will ALWAYS find some kind of "fakery" in EVERYTHING connected with the JFK murder case. It's as inevitable as a windy day at Wrigley Field.

"When you are desperate enough, and you scour the evidence thinking real hard how each thing could be fishy or suspicious, you will come to the conclusion that everything you look at is fishy and suspicious. It's inevitable." -- Bud (at the acj/aaj newsgroups); June 21, 2010


One question about the BOH photo:

Where did JFK's long hair go?


Those idiotic plotters are at it again, aren't they Bob? They decided to give JFK a haircut when they "faked" all of the autopsy pictures. Oops!

And they left the Mauser on the sixth floor (even though they were trying to frame their patsy with a Carcano). Oops again!

And then they screwed up the paper trail for Oswald's rifle purchase, making it look like he bought a 36-inch gun instead of the 40-incher that the plotters used to frame their one and only patsy with. Another oops!

"They" can't get anything right, can they? Remind me to never hire those boobs the next time I want to cover up a Presidential assassination.

As JFK himself said in the 7/25/63 phone call below (referring to the "silly bastard" in the accompanying picture)....

"I wouldn't have him running a cathouse!"

I feel the same way about the stumblebums who the conspiracy theorists assure me were responsible for engineering and/or covering up your death, Mr. President.


The biggest mystery in this discussion is:

Why does Bob Prudhomme seem to think John F. Kennedy had "long hair" on 11/22/63? His hair is anything but long here (especially in the back of his head), perfectly matching what we see in the autopsy photographs....

David Von Pein
May 1-8, 2015