(PART 1012)


"Lone Nut Theorists" have one thing in common. They all abuse the US Constitution. The guaranteed right it gives us of a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts.

The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence—a presumption of guilt—as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.

Lee Harvey Oswald was never even properly criminally charged with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Those who continue to label him as an assassin and/or the killer of JFK are demeaning the very Constitutional rights that they exploit in the process. The requirement that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a crime in order to convict a defendant is no exception.

The burden of proof imposed on the prosecution and the presumption of innocence granted every defendant are based on the "Due Process" Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.


That's a pretty big generalization, Gary. When the evidence points squarely at Oswald, who should be blamed? He will obviously never be tried and convicted, but I for one can't dismiss his guilt because he was killed before being brought to trial.

For me, the infamous "them", or the equally blatant smearing of other men's reputations (LBJ, Bush Sr. etc.) that is offered up by the conspiracy theorists is no better. For me, it's what does the evidence show? It points directly at Lee Harvey Oswald. That cannot be ignored.


Oswald was arraigned for JFK's murder. And was killed so he could not go to trial. The presumption of innocence is a creature of law where the rules apply in the courtroom and do not apply in the Court of Public Opinion.


Gary states "Lone Nut Theorists" have one thing in common. They all abuse the US Constitution.

My response: If someone makes an assumption of guilt without any merit, they have violated the presumption of innocence. But, if someone examines the available information and believes it is irrefutable evidence of guilt, they are not -- especially since we have never seen a trial and one is not likely. I don't think it intentional to be unlawful. However, that said, using "alleged shooter" is much more correct.


I just don't see how a reasonable person who has examined even HALF of the evidence in this case can hold the belief that Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt (in TWO murders) has NOT been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.


As I have said to many over the last 38 years: I find no fault in those who believe Oswald killed JFK because of the consistent and mind-blowing propaganda and dis-information campaign operated by the authorities of that time.

That operation has continued, to some degree, however, people like myself, who actually investigated the assassination, found its bizarre and obvious mis-handling by those who were responsible to see justice done to be nothing less than outrageous. Those are the devils in the details.


But those "details" that you devilish CTers love so much can easily be manipulated and RE-interpreted to mean things that the CTer WANT them to mean. Take the Katzenbach memo as one such example. And certain witness testimony as another---Lee Bowers, for example. And Bill Newman.

Conspiracy theorists have been propping up those two witnesses for decades in an effort to "prove" that a gunman was on the Grassy Knoll. But when we examine the testimony and public statements of Bowers and Newman further, we can really see that neither witness "proves" that a shooter was on the Knoll. Far from it.

In fact, William Newman is actually a pretty good "LN" type of witness when we decide to actually LISTEN to Mr. Newman's explanation of what he saw and heard in Dealey Plaza (versus just merely accepting the garbage printed in conspiracy books written by people like Mark Lane and others).

So, yes, I agree that the "details" are important. But conspiracy theorists, in my opinion, are much more inclined to misinterpret and/or deliberately mangle those "details" than are lone-assassin believers. And Bill Newman is a perfect example, as we can see right here.


My research has led me to discover that in terms of manipulation, misquoting, lying, it's not the government, it's been the CT authors. Your example, David, of the Katzenbach letter is a prime example.

But for me the biggest lie is the manipulation of the seating positions regarding the single bullet. That is outrageous.


Precisely right, Paul. I think it was Bob Groden on a radio show not that many years ago who was still insisting that John Connally was sitting DIRECTLY in front of JFK when the shooting occurred. Even though Groden had undoubtedly seen the Hess & Eisenhardt limo diagram published by the HSCA, which shows that Connally's jump seat was located somewhat INBOARD in relation to Kennedy's back seat. (Not to mention the many photos and films taken on November 22 which verify that Connally was definitely sitting INBOARD and LOWER than President Kennedy in the car.)

Plus, we know from the photos that JFK was pretty much jammed as far as humanly possible to the RIGHT in his seat (so that he could comfortably rest his right arm on the top of the door frame and easily wave to the large crowds in Dallas).

So that fact (JFK being as FAR RIGHT in his seat as he possibly could be) makes for an even more pronounced "Kennedy Was Sitting To The RIGHT Of Connally" seating arrangement on 11/22/63. But many CTers still like to drag out the old myth about how the bullet couldn't have gone through both victims because Connally wasn't sitting to JFK's left at all.

The devil's in the details alright. And just look at what some CTers have done to that "seating arrangement" detail. They've mangled it to fit their needs. (Just ask Oliver Stone.)

David Von Pein
August 30, 2015

(PART 106)


https://books.google.com/LIFE Magazine Article (July 5, 1963)
http://jfklibrary.org/JFK's Speech In Berlin (June 26, 1963)



http://dvp-potpourri/Interviews With Gerald Hill Of The DPD











(PART 1011)


I disagree with the handwriting "experts", who were anything but "experts." His [Lee Oswald's] handwriting is a piece of piss to copy.


So Cadigan and Cole are liars then, huh Lee?

"A piece of piss"??? :)


Cuba and his "visit" to Mexico City. Plus, what you have written answers none of the questions or irregularities I posed and posted, Dave. It's no good just saying 'We know he ordered the guns' when there are massive problems with the order. It's no good just saying 'Oswald invented the name' [A.J. Hidell] when the name was never used as an alias by him other than on the gun orders.

When I wrote my post defining a lone-nut's inability to look at the evidence within a wider context, this is exactly the sort of thing I meant.

Bottom line: You believe that a presidential assassin made up a fake name, ordered some firearms from two different states using that fake name in the hope that he could distance himself from the sale, then had them delivered to a P.O. Box that he had set-up in his real name, against all the odds and postal regulations he managed to receive and collect them, he then shot the president with the rifle, but was then lifted just over an hour later with an ID bearing the fake name that led the FBI directly to the rifle sale in less than 12 hours?


Oswald was both smart and stupid at the same time. (Not an uncommon blend of human traits, actually.)

Oswald, of course, didn't purchase his mail-order rifle so that he could kill JFK. He bought the rifle to kill General Walker. (But, yes, it's a similar situation--i.e., buying a gun through the mail using an alias, and then using that gun to commit the illegal act of an assassination attempt. But he did it all the same.)

I've often wondered why in the world Oswald didn't get rid of Rifle C2766 after his unsuccessful attempt at murdering Edwin Walker. LHO surely had to be following the Walker story closely, and probably knew the bullet had been recovered from Walker's house. Keeping the rifle after that point in time was stupid on Oswald's part. But he kept it all the same. Maybe his cheapskate nature played a part in it. Perhaps he said to himself: "I'm not spending $21.45 on a rifle just to fire one bullet from it." :)

Oswald, however, was smart on 11/22/63, in that he was able to keep his rifle hidden all the way up to 12:30 PM. And the "curtain rod" lie was pretty smart too, because it gave Oswald a double excuse for the "package" -- 1.) the excuse for riding to Irving with Wesley Frazier on Thursday night; and 2.) the curtain rod lie explained the physical package on November 22.

We can second-guess Oswald's motives and gun-purchasing actions all day long, but the best evidence tells us that Lee Harvey Oswald DID, indeed, order two guns via mail-order in early 1963. Stupid or not--he did it.


This is your core belief, that he did it, but it doesn't answer the questions about the extra wallet found in Oak Cliff, why Will Fritz kept withheld that wallet from the FBI for five days...


Huh? What wallet? Are you suggesting there really WAS a "mystery wallet" that was turned over to the FBI by Captain J.W. Fritz "five days" after the assassination? I'd sure like to see that wallet. (Of course, it doesn't exist.)

The wallet seen in Ron Reiland's film could have belonged to anyone at the scene of the crime--including J.D. Tippit. And I don't think there is any document that expressly says that Tippit's wallet was taken out of one of his pockets after Tippit was taken to Methodist Hospital (and then, later, to Parkland Hospital). If such a document exists, please post a link to it.


...how Fritz knew about the Beckley address before he was supposed to...


This is more "conspiracy myth". If Fritz was made aware of Oswald's 1026 N. Beckley Avenue address at an "early" time on November 22nd, it very likely came about in a regular and ordinary manner.

Are you suggesting that Fritz was "in" on a plot to frame Oswald on the afternoon of November 22nd? Why on Earth would Fritz and the DPD want to FRAME an INNOCENT Oswald for either JFK's murder or Tippit's murder? That's just plain silly talk. I know a lot of people believe that Fritz was part of some kind of "Let's Frame Oswald" plot. But, in my opinion, it's just nutty to believe such a thing in the first place.


...and why the name Hidell didn't surface through the media until the firearm sales had been established resulting in the embellishment of the Warren Commission testimony of the arresting officers.


So the name "Hidell" wasn't mentioned by anybody prior to Jesse Curry's hallway interview at City Hall on Saturday, November 23rd. Big freakin' deal! So what? What does it prove? Answer: It proves nothing.

And we're only talking 24 hours or so after the assassination. Curry mentioned the name "A. Hidell" to the press and the world on live television on the afternoon (or early evening) of November 23.

And I suppose you think Marina Oswald was a liar too, right? She testified that she first heard about her husband using the alias "Hidell" while she and LHO were still living in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, many months before the assassination.


Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA concluded that Lee Oswald used the alias "Hidell" to order the C2766 rifle that killed JFK and the revolver that killed Officer Tippit.

Can you, Lee Farley, provide a good, solid, and reasonable explanation for why BOTH of those U.S. Government investigative committees totally blew it when it comes to Oswald using the Hidell alias (if, in fact, strong evidence actually points in the other direction--i.e., toward the direction of the name "Hidell" being invented by someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald)?

And how is it possible for BOTH of those committees (the WC and the HSCA) to have gotten things so totally wrong (from the CTers' POV) with respect to their identical conclusion of Oswald being the person who killed JFK and Tippit? (Particularly the HSCA, which was an organization that desperately wanted to find a conspiracy in the case.)

BOTH the Warren Commission and the HSCA were filled with liars, Lee? Do you really believe that? Really??


I'm taking my daughters out for the day. I'll respond on my return. If I refer to something as being a "piece of piss", it is Liverpool vernacular that means "easy." Everyone can produce it. There is so much wrong with your reply, it looks like it's going to be a late night. Maybe some other members can start while I'm away.


You can save yourself the trouble, Lee. I know what your responses will be: Total conjecture and nothing of substance. As per usual.

You're a JFK Conspiracy Theorist, so how could I expect ACTUAL EVIDENCE to back up a CTer's claims, when no such actual evidence exists in the first place? After all, you're not Houdini.

And in the final analysis, a bunch of speculation and suspicions coming from a covey of Anybody-But-Oswald hobbyists couldn't possibly matter less when stacked up against the huge pile of evidence that proves Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer.

David Von Pein
August 15, 2010

(PART 1010)


You think dyslexia only affect spelling, Dave? What kind of cretin are you? Learn about dyslexia and come back for a grown-up discussion.


LOL. This is a screamer. Farley posts something about dyslexia as it relates ONLY to something Oswald wrote down on a piece of paper (i.e., his writing/spelling)....but I guess I'm supposed to attach the OTHER meanings of dyslexia to Oswald's WRITTEN WORDS.

Was I supposed to be able to magically HEAR Oswald talking to himself in a dyslexic fashion by way of studying his WRITTEN WORDS on a piece of paper, Lee?


Oswald had problems mixing lower case and capital letters.


Farley thinks mixing lower and upper case letters is a form of dyslexia (even when Oswald spells the word correctly--like "DALLAS, TeXAS").

But I don't think that's really any form of dyslexia--because, as mentioned, Oswald spelled it correctly, without transposing letters around. I'd call it an Oswald quirk. Not dyslexia. Heck, I do the very same thing lots of times when I print something.

DYSLEXIA -- (Merriam-Webster): "A variable often familial learning disability involving difficulties in acquiring and processing language that is typically manifested by a lack of proficiency in reading, spelling, and writing."


Oswald's quirk of mixing lower-case and upper-case letters only occurred when LHO was PRINTING something. It didn't happen when he was writing in cursive style, such as the example [below] that Lee Farley was using previously when he was talking about Oswald's dyslexic tendencies.

On the money order for the rifle (CE788), for example, except for the word "box" and the "A" in "A. Hidell", everything Oswald wrote on the money order to Klein's was written in cursive. So, naturally, we're not likely to see the combination of lower-case and upper-case letters here, and we don't:


I would agree with you on that. I jumped the gun. See how easy it is?


Dyslexia Footnote----

I'll admit--I'm no "dyslexia" expert. And maybe I "jumped the gun" too, Lee. My apologies. Perhaps the mixing of lower-case and upper-case letters is, indeed, a form of dyslexia (even when the person is spelling the words totally correctly, as in Oswald's many "DALLAS, TeXAS" writings).

Another thought on this point though:

I really think that this particular "shortcut" of a lower-case "e" instead of an upper-case "E" is actually more akin to laziness than anything else. I said in a previous post that I, myself, tend to take such shortcuts with lower-case letters when I'm printing out words.

And, come to think about it a little more, I think it's invariably the letter E that I most often take that shortcut with. It's much easier (and faster) to print a lower-case E than it is to take the time to print an upper-case E, with the upper-case version requiring four separate strokes of the pen/pencil, vs. just one single curly stroke with a lower-case "e".

Perhaps Oswald felt the need to take this oft-used "E" shortcut too. Could be just plain laziness. Or wanting to write stuff out as fast as possible.

My $0.02.


Oswald had problems mixing lower case and capital letters. It is common in many people who suffer from dyslexia. Oswald suffered from this. It's not something you can turn on and off.


Well, in the case of the letter "e", I think you're wrong. Lee Harvey Oswald did, in effect, turn it "on and off", because he didn't always use a lower-case "e" when he was PRINTING.

Below are two examples of what I mean -- when printing his own first name, Oswald would many times capitalize the two Es in "Lee". But at the same time, he would use lower-case letters for the L and D in "Oswald".

But as far as the specific letter "E", Oswald would sometimes use upper-case and sometimes lower-case when PRINTING out his words.

For example, in CE792 and CE794, we see that Oswald used a mixture of lower-case and upper-case Es multiple times -- he used upper-case Es for "Lee", "New", and "Orleans". But he used lower-case Es for "Texas", "Magazine", and "Fairmore".

This indicates that he certainly had some control over the letters he was printing. In other words, his lower-case Es don't appear to be "involuntary" on his part.


What I meant by "turning it on and off" was that all of this is done unconsciously, Dave. There's a learning process that he has gone through on these examples you provide. He didn't sit and make a conscious decision to use an upper case E on his name and a lower case e on the word TeXAS, each time he wrote it. He "learned" to do it that way. He saw it in his head that way and that's what got transfered onto paper.


You could be right, Lee. But I'd also say it's possible that Oswald CHOSE to print certain letters the way he did, vs. it being done "unconsciously" on LHO's part.


The final point I'll raise on his handwriting is this:

It's very easy to forge, don't you think? Especially the way he seems to go over his own writing several times with the pen.

Give me 20 minutes and I could provide you with handwriting very similar from my own hand. You did suggest sarcastically that Jack Ruby was forging Lee's handwriting. If you think I think this then think again. I believe it was one of your family members. RVP. But, I'd sooner you reply to my post regarding the name "Hidell" and the anomalies involved.


No, it would not be easy to forge (according to the handwriting analysts who have studied Oswald's writing and printing). If a person's unique writing were easy to forge and fake, then no handwriting analyst in the world could say this:

"Commission Exhibit No. 793 was written by Lee Harvey Oswald...based upon finding the same combination of individual handwriting and hand printing characteristics in both the questioned writing and the known standards." -- James C. Cadigan (FBI) [7 H 426]

David Von Pein
August 14-15, 2010

(PART 1009)


This is a good documentary that even most conspiracy theorists should be able to appreciate. Lots of air time for conspiracy....


To see the entire 93-minute program, GO HERE.


This documentary is a series of "What if" and "There's something fishy here" CT jargon. It offers no evidence of any material game-changing flaws with the WCR.

The reason the WCR and the SBT held up for 52 years was that they were correct and supported by the evidence.


I agree, Ed.

However, the '99 "Warren Commission" program is worthwhile because, if for no other reason, it gathers together for on-camera interviews so many different CTers and LNers for the same documentary. I've listed most of them (but not all) in this logo that I created to advertise this documentary on my sites:


Thanks David.

I saw this for the first time and found it balanced unlike almost all of the MSM coverage on the 50th. This program gave many good reasons to doubt the WC findings.

I can't see how one could watch this objectively and still have confidence in the lone nut conclusion.


I can, Ted. A lot of "CTers" get to have their say in the program, but in the final analysis, those CTers still don't have any solid evidence to back up their suspicions.

The LN (Oswald-Did-It) side has all the bullets and guns and paper sacks and shells and prints.

The CT side has great lip service---but beyond that, not very much. If only the conspiracists had a non-Oswald bullet fragment, or David Ferrie's fake eyebrows left behind in the Sniper's Nest, or....something. Anything! But, they don't.

David Von Pein
August 24-25, 2015

(PART 1008)


I hope ya'll will indulge me with this request. Since I got back into JFK research in 2013, after taking a 14-year hiatus, I had hoped that the community had found some things all on every side of the debate could agree upon. Do you think we could attempt to do this or is there no hope?


Offhand, I would say there is no hope. Though, of course, it would be well worth the effort if any success at all could be achieved.

The biggest problem as I see it would be in defining precisely who "all" is. Theories range from JFK committed a disappearing act and is still alive to the Lone Assassin "theory".


Unless someone can publish indisputable evidence regarding either guilty or not guilty, sadly, Gayle, there's no hope.


Well, that's a hard one, isn't it? I suppose this would have to be done in levels or surveys. For instance, if you believe there were Navy Seals in the trees shooting JFK, you couldn't be included. So I suppose there would have to be some sort of initial filtering. I know that's not politically correct and I realize everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but we have to find some common foundation. As to whether or not there was a conspiracy could be defined, I suppose, to begin.


Scott, therein is the problem. Nothing is completely indisputable.

I can dispute the world is round. It is therefore disputable.


I'm an indefatigable idealist...there has to be a way!


Actually, indisputable evidence of Oswald's guilt as the sole shooter has been established to those without bias of some sort. The greater unanswered question today should be: Is there any evidence Oswald was manipulated by another person or groups of people?


Paul, I respectfully submit that there isn't indisputable evidence LHO was the sole shooter.

Why did so many witnesses see/hear shots from areas other than the TSBD?

Can we first agree that there were many groups in Dallas there that day who were threatened by JFK and could've been a part of helping the murder occur?


I think there are great minds on both sides. With that said, I think there are biases, guilt, agendas and more on both sides. It is a definite minefield for abuse and rancor, but since we all care, why not work together?


Saddest to me is that we are all in the same position yet cannot pull together.

You are actually thinking you can pull both sides together when the CTs cannot even agree with EACH OTHER.


When the conspiracy movement can, without bias, look at the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt as the shooter, there is a possibility of moving on.

52 years of theoretical nonsense (still unproven) of planted evidence, altered evidence, multiple shooters, etc. etc., has bogged down every individual who has looked at this case.


I would submit, Mr. May, that there is still evidence being uncovered, both proving WC [Warren Commission] and all the other tax payer funded groups got some right and some wrong. For example, I have been talking to a witness for several weeks now. He believes the WC, but he has also shared the things they got wrong with him.

With flawed studies come flawed conclusions, whether governmental or private.


Consensus on JFK is a difficult subject. As of this evening, other than agreeing on the victim, the location and the date, is there anything out there LN's and CT's can agree on?


Can we agree there were many groups who publicly stated their dislike for the Kennedy family and had (in some minds, not mine) reason to want him dead?


I think two important first steps toward "consensus" would be these:

1.) If everyone could agree that Lee Harvey Oswald, whether he was a shooter or not, was certainly NOT completely "innocent" on 11/22/63.

2.) If everyone could agree on the fact that Oswald definitely DID own and possess the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (CE139; serial number C2766).



As for number one, I go with not completely innocent. And for number two, he owned a rifle....just personally unsure if it was a MC, Mauser, Enfield or what.


Are there any posters who believe Oswald was 100% innocent of any involvement of any kind on 11/22/63?


I don't and never have believed him 100% innocent.


Ms. Jackson, do you believe, based on your own research of a shot from the front or the grassy knoll?


I do, Mr. May. Whether or not it hit the president or the street, I cannot say.


May I ask why you believe this?


My grandfather (shows my bias), Virgie Rackley's testimony...Forrest Sorrels and Stavis, Smith and Price testimonies...oh and Summers.


So, you totally rule out the science and rely entirely on witnesses. Is my statement accurate?


Paul, I don't totally rule out science by any means. Sherry Fiester has done forensic research to prove a frontal shot. I just am not as convinced as y'all are concerning the WC.


Regarding my earlier point about the rifle....

Gayle, there can be no "reasonable" doubt that Oswald owned not just any ol' rifle. And it wasn't an Enfield or a Mauser. It was an Italian rifle with the serial number C2766 on it. Waldman Exhibit 7 proves that Klein's mailed the C2766 weapon to Oswald's P.O. Box.

And the C2766 rifle has at least one of Oswald's prints on it. And we also know beyond "reasonable" doubt that THAT C2766 rifle fired bullets into Kennedy's car (CE567 and 569 prove that--they are the front-seat fragments found in the car).

So that should give us consensus on OSWALD NOT BEING COMPLETELY INNOCENT (as agreed on by almost everyone) and OSWALD OWNING THE JFK MURDER WEAPON. That's a good (dual) starting point.


We also know Holmes had access to the PO boxes and was an informant and interviewer, David.

With so many questions involving the integrity of the investigation, I just cannot say this was the same rifle. But I'm not the arms expert you guys are, I concede. Gerry Hemming said it was his rifle, but like the WC, it's hard for me to believe all he said too.


But, Gayle, Harry D. Holmes of the POST OFFICE had absolutely NOTHING to do with the palmprint OF OSWALD'S that was found on the C2766 rifle by Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department.

Do you think the Oswald print was planted on the weapon?


I don't know if it was or wasn't, David.

Here's what I do know....

The DPD was getting heat from the FBI and Mayor Cabell....the Dallas Secret Service was kind of doing their own thing much to the chagrin of the DC boys...then you have DPD guys who are members of the KKK, the JBS and more who were scared that one of these groups may have had a hand in this so they're worried about their association...then you have Ruby's buddies on the DPD and the Sheriff's office hiding things....then innocent people like my grandfather being intimidated and having lived through the depression not wanting to upset the Apple cart...add to that disgruntled Cubans, pompous oil rich men who wanted to stay that way putting pressure on these law enforcement agencies AND add to it being election time??? Yes, I can see where things wouldn't have gone like they should.


Ms. Jackson...what you just presented is pure speculation not supported by evidence.


Yes it was, Mr.May....it was. But I was answering David's question as to what I thought and why.


If one cannot objectively digest the documented physical evidence, then consensus is not possible. On anything.


I just don't see how there can ever be consensus if the CT side will not accept as indisputable that Oswald owned and possessed C2766 on 11/22. There is NO evidence at 52 years to dispute this. None.


Thank you for laying out some of your beliefs above, Gayle.

But, as Paul May correctly pointed out, those items you mentioned belong in the "speculation" and "what if?" categories....not in the "evidence" category.

And I guess that brings up another key point --- can there ever be "consensus" on what evidence in the JFK case is VALID AND LEGITIMATE evidence, versus all of the evidence being considered tainted or manufactured in some manner?

It's always been my belief that the evidence could not possibly have been planted (and that includes the evidence in the Tippit murder as well), because we have the evidence scattered throughout (essentially) FOUR different crime scene areas ---

1.) The Book Depository (the bullet shells, the rifle, the paper bag, and LHO's prints on various objects on the sixth floor)....

2.) The President's limousine (the two front-seat bullet fragments)....

3.) Parkland Hospital (Commission Exhibit No. 399)....

4.) And the Tippit murder site at Tenth & Patton (the four bullet shells from Oswald's revolver).

That was one heck of a wide-sweeping operation of evidence planting and/or evidence manipulation if we're to believe conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio (and many other CTers who seem to believe that NONE of the physical evidence passes any kind of smell test for legitimacy).

And, IMO, when a theorist has to resort to a belief in THAT much deception regarding virtually everything that points squarely at Lee Harvey Oswald, well, then I say it's time to put on the brakes and re-think such a belief in wholesale fakery.

Plus, I should also point out that all of that evidence was collected by MULTIPLE law enforcement agencies too---not just one agency. The DPD was heavily involved in gathering and collecting the evidence, but so was the Secret Service (for the bullet evidence in the limo and for CE399, with the DPD not even touching the stretcher bullet or the front-seat fragments at all on 11/22/63).

So what we'd have to believe, if the CTers are correct about the evidence all being tainted, is an amazing LIKE-MINDEDNESS (and willingness to immediately frame an innocent man) on the part of multiple law enforcement organizations. I ask---is that even remotely likely in this case? Or in any case?


David? I hope I'm not being looked down upon as an ignorant tin foil hat person, but in regards to the WC, we must begin at the beginning....what were the edicts the men of the WC given?


Gayle, I would never "look down" on you. (I see no foil hat on your head.) :-)

But you must also consider the important fact that the Warren Commission members weren't the ones who found and COLLECTED the evidence. The DPD and the Secret Service and ordinary civilian witnesses (like Domingo Benavides and Barbara Davis and Darrell Tomlinson) did the "finding" of the evidence. The Warren Commission didn't even exist until a week later.

So I think some of the conspiracy theorists should consider re-thinking the longstanding mantra of the evidence being "THE WARREN COMMISSION'S EVIDENCE". It wasn't the WC's evidence. The WC merely evaluated it. They had nothing whatsoever to do with the collection of that evidence.


Thank you, David...but in my long-winded speculation, I tried to explain how that evidence was collected...or in some cases not collected. :-)


Question for Gayle ---

Do you think Lee Oswald lied to Buell Wesley Frazier when he (Oswald) said the paper bag he was carrying on 11/22/63 contained curtain rods?

And if that was a lie, can you think of any conceivable reason for Oswald to tell such a tall tale (twice) to Buell Frazier other than to keep Frazier from knowing that the package really held a rifle?


Yes, I think he lied. No, I don't know why.

Buell says the bag was too short for a rifle, but no curtain rods were ever found.


The Warren Commission's biggest failure lies with the confusion it created with some of the evidence it put in the record....and some that it inexplicably didn't. If you also include the lack of important information from CIA, FBI (and ONI to a lesser degree) then it seems really unbelievable to consider the conclusions to have been based on complete knowledge when that simply was not the case.

There is nothing in the official record that conclusively proves that Oswald was the sole culprit in this crime.


I disagree, Conan. Again I'll stress what I said to Gayle earlier --- the Warren Commission was seven days away from even being created when virtually all of the incriminating physical evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald was found and collected (and even tested).

The Dallas Police Department pretty much knew Oswald was guilty prior to 11:30 PM (Dallas time) on November 22, 1963. And since when do the police formally charge someone with TWO murders within a half-a-day of the murders being committed if they have no solid evidence at all to back up such serious charges?

The police charged Oswald with J.D. Tippit's murder at 7:10 PM on 11/22/63 and with JFK's murder at 11:26 PM that same day. And yet many CTers think that Oswald was totally innocent of BOTH of those crimes. Both of them! That's crazy talk.

Truth is, the DPD had ample evidence (and positive witness identification in the Tippit murder) to feel confident enough to officially charge Oswald with double murder before midnight on the same day the murders occurred. That fact alone is a pretty strong indicator that Mr. Oswald was no innocent "patsy".


I am aware of all of that, David. I am even perfectly willing to believe that there was a single shooter. But, I am also of the belief that the intent of these government agencies to redact, destroy, or lock away information for decades is about more than just simple embarrassment and protecting sources.

It is perfectly reasonable to question the veracity of government investigations such as the Warren Commission.


That the DPD KNEW Oswald did it so quickly is another reason I have doubts as to the evidence (and of course the mishandling of evidence).

How did they know to go to Beckley when Marina didn't even know how to get there?

How did LHO get to Beckley so quickly?

Lots of questions in that scenario for me, as I have lived in Dallas my whole life and know how quickly government works around here. :-)

By the way, thank you everyone for debating civilly! It's so refreshing!


Gayle, I think the Dallas Police were able to trace Oswald to the Beckley address by way of first talking with Ruth Paine. Ruth knew the telephone number of the Beckley roominghouse but she didn't know the address. So the police likely used the phone number as a cross-check to get the address. And this could have happened very quickly after the police obtained the phone number from Mrs. Paine. A policeman could have simply called the number and asked whoever answered "What's the address there?" I think that's what probably happened.

I know that some conspiracy believers think the DPD were able to find out the Beckley address too quickly, and they'll point to various times provided in the testimony and/or the written reports of the police officers. But human beings are often very poor when it comes to trying to nail down times with absolute precision and accuracy. Take Earlene Roberts as an example. She claimed that Oswald spent 3 to 4 minutes in his very small room on Beckley after the assassination. But she also said that Lee was in that room "just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on" [6 H 440]. And even Grandma Moses with severe arthritis wouldn't need to take three or four minutes to just grab a jacket and put it on.

As for your question of "How did LHO get to Beckley so quickly?" --- I'm wondering if you really meant to say "Tenth Street" instead of "Beckley". But anyway, Oswald getting to either of those locations (to Beckley after leaving the TSBD and then to Tenth Street to encounter Officer Tippit) was not a Herculean feat at all.

Re-creations have been done to clock the timing of both of those excursions, and it was shown that Oswald did have time to get from the Depository to his roominghouse at 1026 North Beckley by 1:00, and enough time after leaving his room to get to Tenth and Patton in time to kill J.D. Tippit [Warren Report; Pages 163-165].

And several independent researchers have re-created the route from Beckley to Tenth Street and have been able to make it there on foot in about 11 minutes or so. Plus, nobody knows for certain how fast (or slow) Oswald was walking (or running) during his trek from Beckley to Tenth Street.


What makes you so certain that the police asked Mrs. Paine for the number?

And what makes you so certain that the police called the boarding house? Is there proof of that?


There are the following two reports from Dallas Deputy Sheriffs Harry Weatherford and Buddy Walthers which explain it....

"While standing near the phone bar, I saw a black telephone address book which I picked up and thumbed through, finding in the "O's" the name of Lee Oswald. Texas School Book Depository and the telephone number. Then another phone number, which I believe was written in pencil. I asked what this number was, pointing to this pencil number, and Mrs. Payne [sic] said that is the phone number where Lee is living. I gave this number to Deputy Buddy Walthers and told him to call the Sheriff and advise him of our findings." -- Harry Weatherford; November 23, 1963

"Mrs. Payne [sic] then gave us a telephone number and stated that was the phone number of Lee Oswald, however, she advised she did not know an address where he was staying. At this time, I called Sheriff Decker and advised him of this and he criss-crossed this telephone number and gave us an address of 1026 North Beckley. He advised he would dispatch other officers to cover this address." -- Buddy Walthers; November 22, 1963


This brings up the "almost but not quite" factor. CTs claim Lee could "almost but not quite" have made it to Patton in the allotted time...and from the 6th floor to the 2nd "almost but not quite" in the allotted time.

To me, these are among the weakest CT arguments. Considering a fleeing assassin would no doubt be in a hurry to escape, there seems little doubt it could and in all probability would be possible. I have seen it said "no one saw him running", which is not in any way conclusive.


Looks like there were several instances where Oswald had "just enough time."

Imagine Oswald's luck that day!! If the timing fails during just one of those actions, then the official story doesn't work.


I've always maintained the timing of certain events (such as Oswald getting from Beckley to 10th Street and Oswald going from the sixth floor's Sniper's Nest to the second-floor lunchroom) should be very tight. Why wouldn't those timelines be very tight?

I think we can all agree that Oswald wasn't just sitting up on the sixth floor picking lint out of his belly button after he had shot JFK in the head. He was no doubt MOVING as quickly as he could to get off of that sixth floor and put as much distance as he could between himself and the sixth-floor crime scene.

And we know via Secret Service agent John Howlett's re-enactments that even at a walking pace, a person can make it from that Sniper's Nest to the lunchroom on the second floor in less than 80 seconds. Why CTers refuse to accept that re-enacted timing is a mystery to me.


I contend we should reach a consensus [that] the timing we are discussing of 6th to 2nd floors as well as Beckley to Patton are feasible.


Maybe these ideas can be part of a consensus:

1.) No one is certain if Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the moment of the assassination.

2.) The timing of the first shot is truly unknown.

3.) Questioning the veracity of a government investigation like the Warren Commission is reasonable.


Conan, questioning is surely responsible. However, accusing revered dignified people from the commander in chief to chief justice of the Supreme Court without hard credible evidence is reprehensible. I have little tolerance for those who do so.


I have never accused the members of the Warren Commission of doing anything nefarious regarding the Kennedy assassination. However, I freely criticize some of their judgement and some of their efforts in substantiating the FBI's case against Oswald. That was their mandate, after all. The one clear exception I must make regarding a myriad of nefarious actions (once again mostly unrelated to JFK) and orders is with Allen Dulles. I would not under any circumstances consider him a good human being.


Conan, it's my belief that the Warren Commission wasn't even needed when it comes to being able to answer the most important questions surrounding this case, which are --- Did Lee Oswald kill President Kennedy and J.D. Tippit?

As I said before, the Dallas Police had enough evidence and information to charge LHO with those murders long before anybody ever heard the words "Warren Commission". So the DPD certainly didn't need Earl Warren's or Gerald Ford's or Arlen Specter's help in figuring out who the guilty party was.

Now, as far as being able to definitively answer the question of "Was there anyone else involved with Oswald?", neither the Dallas Police Department nor the Warren Commission could positively answer "No" to that question. But I've certainly never seen anything in the "hard evidence" category that would indicate Oswald had any co-conspirators. All I've ever seen is mush and guesswork in an effort by CTers to answer that question about conspiracy.

Have you ever seen anything that rises above "mush" status that could conclusively prove (or at the very least, strongly suggest) that a conspiracy existed in the JFK case, Conan? I sure haven't.

And while Ruby's shooting of Oswald certainly adds fuel to the conspiracy fire for CTers, when we examine Jack Ruby's known movements and behavior on November 23 and 24, it's my considered opinion that it's virtually impossible to squeeze any kind of a pre-arranged plot or "conspiracy" into Mr. Ruby's actions in the DPD basement on 11/24/63.


There is no "hard evidence" that Ruby had anything to do with Kennedy's assassination. But, Ruby's movements at DPD starting Friday evening are not exactly the actions of a person who decided to kill Oswald in the basement on a whim. Motivations aside, that is the epitome of premeditated murder.

What I can't seem to wrap my head around is the lack of will to consider other solutons to this case (be it conspiracy or not) and give it its proper due, when the lies and obfuscations (and yes, some have very reasonable, non-sinister explanations) are so well known.

It is easy to see how this mess came about and to me it was more about political legitimacy and the genuine fear of being perceived as weak as a country. Let's face it, blaming an assassination on a dead man is far more convenient in many ways. There likely WASN'T a conspiracy to murder the President. But, there was DEFINITELY a "conspiracy" to obfuscate the whole truth....and there is a difference.


The timing of everything was so tight that Oswald was even able to get three shots off in 6.3 seconds. That's pretty remarkable considering the timing and all.


Oswald probably had more than 6.3 seconds. And you don't count the FIRST shot in any shooting timeline anyway. The bullet's already chambered. So it's really 8+ seconds to fire TWO more shots after the first. Why is that so hard to fathom? I'm guessing even I could do it, and I've never fired a rifle in my life.


Probably don't count, and close only counts in horseshoes.


OK, Scott, so anyone's "6.3 second" timeline "don't count" either. Because it, too, is just a guess. Ain't it?


Refer to your WC. Their best guess is your answer.


I often refer to the WC. I would suggest more CTers refer to it too. Particularly Page 117 of the Warren Report (my favorite page in the whole book), where it says the following --- "The three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds."

See? The Warren boys weren't saying absolutely that Oswald had just 5.6 seconds. They were allowing for up to 7.9 seconds for the three shots. Go to Page 117, Scott. It'll do you good.


In other words, they couldn't get their shit straight?


No, Scott. They were being forthright and honest by giving a RANGE of times (4.8 to 7.9 seconds) for the three shots. And that's because it is largely a GUESSING GAME as to the exact amount of time Oswald had to take his shots in Dealey Plaza.

Just like the Warren Commission didn't want to get pinned down on any exact Zapruder Film frame for the Single-Bullet Theory either. So they used a RANGE of frames (Z210-Z225). And they were right too, because the bullet is (IMO) striking both victims within that 16-frame span. Good job, Warren Commission.

In short, the WC did the only thing they could do given the evidence they were evaluating --- they said Oswald did it.

Should all seven of the Warren Commissioners and the whole WC staff have just pretended that all the evidence that pointed to Oswald was fake or tainted in some manner? Would that determination (which has been made by many CTers over the years) have been more responsible than telling the world that Lee Oswald was the lone assassin?


Hell, my kid could have written a better 800-page report.


I'm not surprised you say that, Scott. A hard-boiled CTer wouldn't be satisfied even if Oswald had confessed to Ike Pappas (on tape) just before he was shot by Jack Ruby. Nothing "satisfies" a veteran Internet conspiracy theorist. Not even the 2,800 meticulous pages of "Reclaiming History".


David, in the end, after it was all said and done, the Commission themselves questioned the validity of their report, including Ford, Earl Warren and LBJ.

Allow that to sink in.


More myths. I never once heard Gerald Ford question the Commission's basic findings. And the same goes for Earl Warren. You're putting too much faith in conspiracy authors who love to use hearsay as "proof" that Warren said this to someone, or that Ford said that to someone else. Let me hear FORD or WARREN themselves saying it. I doubt they ever did.

My basic rule of thumb for the last few years (after dealing with the "Internet" brand of conspiracy theorists for quite a long while) is --- If a CTer says something, it's likely just another myth.

Take the "OSWALD COULD HAVE WALKED INTO ANY STORE IN TEXAS AND BOUGHT A RIFLE THAT COULD NEVER BE TRACED" theory. Jean Davison posted some material a few years ago [here and here] that pretty much blows that myth to pieces. But CTers still seem to like Oliver Stone's version of events better than the verifiable truth. Go figure.


Better get a new ruler.


Why, Scott? My ruler works fine. Almost perfectly, in fact. Because nearly every time I go to check up on something that a CTer insists is the absolute truth, I invariably discover that the CTer was just blowing smoke out his rear end.

In other words --- JFK conspiracy theorists endorse myths, and they never want to let go of them. Take that "5.6 seconds" myth we talked about earlier. That's a myth. And Page 117 of the Warren Report proves that it's a myth. And yet we still hear CTers to this day exclaiming that the Warren Commission never ever considered the idea that Oswald had longer than "5.6 seconds" to pull off the shooting.

And the "magic bullet" garbage is another myth that CTers won't let go of either--no matter how many times they're set straight.


So, it looks like Jim Hess was right. There's not much hope for a consensus on much of anything when conspiracy theorists talk to lone-assassin believers about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

David Von Pein
August 23-24, 2015

(PART 1007)


I see that the price for all five of Doug Horne's volumes of pure fantasy has gone up recently at Amazon.com [as of late February 2010]. A person now has to shell out $125 to get all five volumes of Mr. Horne's invented tripe. A ridiculous sum to pay for a batch of fables that would probably embarrass even Aesop.

I wonder if anyone in Mr. Horne's camp has ever bothered asking themselves this question (re: Dr. James J. Humes):

If Dr. Humes had been the type of vile, despicable conspirator that Mr. Horne says he was, then why on Earth would Humes have ADMITTED to burning ANY autopsy documents when he testified in front of the Warren Commission and the HSCA and the ARRB?

The fact that Humes ADMITTED to burning various autopsy documents in his home fireplace is virtual proof, right there, that Humes HAD NOTHING TO HIDE with respect to any of his testimony in front of the above-named Governmental committees.

It couldn't be more obvious, via just plain ol' common sense, that when Humes admitted (three times) to burning some of the autopsy materials, it means that such "burning" was definitely NOT DONE TO CONCEAL ANYTHING CONSPIRATORIAL IN NATURE. Otherwise, Humes would have kept his mouth shut about destroying stuff in his fireplace.

Common sense can go a long way in the JFK investigation. It's just too bad that very few conspiracy theorists possess very much of that human trait. Because if they did, they would also be asking themselves:

If JFK was shot from different locations in Dealey Plaza, then how in the world did the so-called conspirators expect to possibly frame JUST ONE SINGLE PATSY NAMED LEE HARVEY OSWALD for the President's murder?

It's food for Horne-battling thought anyway. Isn't it?

David Von Pein
February 22, 2010 (EST)

(PART 1006)


Is D. F. Drittal written in the same handwriting [on the mail-order coupon for the Smith & Wesson revolver]? It doesn't appear to be to me.


The FBI's James Cadigan said it is, yes. (Just as I said in this post, where I quote Cadigan's Warren Commission testimony.)

But, of course, the "D.F. Drittal" portion of the coupon is really supposed to be written by someone other than the person who is ordering the gun.

So, if Oswald had any sense at all, he would have written the name "D.F. Drittal" in a slightly different writing style from that of his own handwriting--in order to fool the people at Seaport Traders into thinking that this fictitious person named "Drittal" had really signed the order coupon and was really vouching for this guy "A.J. Hidell".

But, per James Cadigan's testimony, Oswald obviously didn't disguise his handwriting well enough to fool a questioned documents expert like Cadigan.

Why is there this extreme need by conspiracy theorists such as Jim DiEugenio to pretend that Oswald never ordered the revolver from Seaport Traders? What a bizarre notion.

Even if the order coupon never existed--who cares? It doesn't matter one bit. Because Oswald was caught red-handed with Revolver #V510210 in his hands in the Texas Theater just 35 minutes after somebody killed Officer J.D. Tippit with Revolver #V510210.

This is kindergarten math here. Oswald's guilty.


Here's a composite photo I just now put together, showing the words "Dallas, Texas" printed on two different Warren Commission exhibits -- CE790 and CE794 -- the latter being a change-of-address card that Oswald filled out in 1963. Notice any similarities?:


And why "Drittal"?


Why not Drittal?


And why fill out the forms at all? You make it seem like Jimmy D [DiEugenio] is some sort of idiot for not putting two and two together and acknowledging that Oswald owned the pistol said to have been used to kill Tippit.


I think your next four words that you wrote below should tell you something....


Okay, it's his gun.


So, you're admitting that Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210 WAS Lee Harvey Oswald's gun?

That's a good start to realizing that the OWNER OF THAT GUN (who had that same gun ON HIM when he was arrested) is very likely the person who used it to fire the bullets FROM THAT GUN into the body of Officer Tippit.

And please don't say — But the bullets couldn't be matched to that V510210 revolver, David — because that fact doesn't mean Oswald's gun did not murder Tippit, and every reasonable person knows it.

And the lack of J.M. Poe's initials on two of the shells doesn't prove anything either -- because there are TWO MORE SHELLS at that crime scene that conspiracists love to ignore completely. And those OTHER two shells were ejected from the ONLY GUN that was being dumped of its shell casings on Tenth Street right after Tippit's murder.


He [Oswald] had it on him when he was arrested in the theater, and acknowledged it to interrogators, but how come we don't have any evidence -- records or witnesses of him picking it up at the Post Office, or the rifle for that matter, and when did he do it if he worked six days a week and the PO was closed on Sundays?


Why do conspiracy seekers think that Oswald HAD to pick up his guns at a specific time of the day? Maybe he got the guns BEFORE work hours...or AFTER work. Nobody can know for certain. But there's certainly at least a few minutes of a few different days when there was a window of opportunity for Oswald to collect his guns from the post office and the REA Express office. Or: maybe Oswald ducked out of worked for a short time one day. Who can know?


Did somebody pick up the weapons for him?


There was no need for that. See my last comments above.


And why did he go through the whole rigamarole of ordering the pistol and the rifle through the mails and the PO box with the aliases and money orders, when he could have gone to Green's down the street and bought both with cash and no records of his identification to purchase them?


Can you PROVE that H.L. Green's in Dallas didn't keep records on the PEOPLE who bought guns from them in 1963?

This issue of Oswald being able to walk into any gun store or department store in the state of Texas and buy a gun without a speck of paperwork being left behind is something that I do not think has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. My guess is: it's another silly myth created by conspiracy theorists.

Maybe SOME stores didn't keep records of their gun transactions. But I think that SOME did keep full records of such firearms purchases. And Jean Davison has been recently looking into this matter more deeply, and has posted some interesting information on it, such as the two posts HERE and HERE.


So he's guilty in your mind, but you still haven't figured out how he got the guns from the Post Office, or where he got the bullets from, or where the rifle and pistol were when he went to New Orleans and Mexico City, and what's with that strap--the one on the rifle said to have been used to kill the President? Where'd that come from? The US AF officer holster strap. I know, it doesn't matter, as long as Oswald is guilty, all the other questions are meaningless.


I want to know if there's ever been a murder case in U.S. history where it has been mandatory to find out WHERE the accused killer acquired his BULLETS to put into his gun(s)?

And has there ever been a case in history where it's been required to know with 100% certainty where the accused murderer got the strap that he put on his rifle?

And has there ever been a case where it's been a requirement to know WHERE the murder weapon was stored for a certain period of time TWO MONTHS BEFORE the murder was committed?

You're concentrating on all the wrong things, William Kelly. You're looking right at the killer who practically has a smoking gun in his hand (in the case of the Tippit murder anyway, with Oswald trying to kill more cops in the theater with the very same gun he had just used to kill Officer Tippit) and you are, in essence, ignoring the obvious and asking unimportant and trivial questions instead.

You might just as well ask this --- Gee, I wonder where Oswald got those shoes he was wearing when he was arrested in the Texas Theater? I really don't think he could have done all that walking on November 22 while wearing those particular shoes. They look too uncomfortable.

David Von Pein
August 12, 2010

(PART 1005)


I've been doing a lot of work on the so-called "mystery photo" of late, and have lightened up the dark section of the photos, and morphed them together. (Yes, there are two of them.) This has led me to some surprising conclusions.

But, first things first. I have long assumed the gash apparent on the gif file below is the 15 by 6 entrance measured at autopsy. (This gash was circled by the late Jack White on the first of the images in the gif.)

So, gun experts, hunters, rock throwers, etc, what do you think? Does this look like a bullet entrance along the back of the head, as described by the autopsy doctors? Or merely "congealed blood", as claimed by the only single-assassin theorist to address this issue, Dr. Chad Zimmerman? Or is it something else entirely? ....


This thread is quite possibly the most dangerous thread ever started on this forum. If people come to agree that that's a bullet hole, then it's game, set, and pretty much match. It would mean that the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and Clark Panel were wrong, and that those pushing the single-assassin theory under the belief it's backed up by the "experts" (which is pretty much everyone in academia and the media) has built their castle on quicksand. They would then be forced to embrace the original statements of the doctors, at which point the statements of the HSCA Pathology Panel--including that the brain photos absolutely rule out a bullet entering near the EOP's exiting from the top of the head--could be presented against that scenario.

In short, it would force a re-opening of the case among those currently hunkered down in the Oswald-did-it bunker.



Before I answer your question, I would like to ask a question.

What the heck is this photo anyway?

I have heard so many different takes on it, that I cannot keep them straight.

To this day, some experts cannot explain what it is or why the camera was oriented like that.

Was the point to make it as unrecognizable as possible? Because if that was it, they succeeded.


I'm with Jim on this one. I need some visual aids because I can't make heads or tails of this. Could someone have cropped it for obfuscation purposes?


On November 1, 1966, on a list of the photos prepared for the National Archives, Drs. Humes and Boswell described the black and white versions of the "mystery" photo as "depicting missile wound over entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of the scalp" and the color transparencies of this image as depicting a "missile wound in posterior skull, with scalp reflected."

On November 10, 1966, moreover, Drs. Humes and Boswell, along with autopsy radiologist John Ebersole and autopsy photographer John Stringer, signed a version of this report prepared by the Justice Department that changed these words a wee bit, quite possibly as a result of a typo. This report described the black and white photos as depicting a "missile wound of entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of scalp.” The "over" had been changed to "of" and "the scalp" had been changed to simply "scalp". The color transparencies of this image, not surprisingly, bore the same description as the November 1 inventory.

So, the doctors, accompanied by radiologist Ebersole and photographer Stringer, when writing an inventory list for the archives, initially claimed this photo showed the entrance wound on the back of the head.

The Clark Panel later claimed it showed the forehead. And the HSCA did them one better and claimed it showed an exit near the forehead by the coronal suture.

I feel certain, however, that the initial inventory was correct. For a number of reasons...within this inventory the doctors claimed the back wound was on the back, NOT on the back of the neck as they'd claimed both in their Warren Commission testimony, and in the weeks and months following their inspection for the archives. We have reason to believe, then, that the inventory was the real deal (outside the Justice Department's last minute addition that no photos were missing).

That this inventory was a problem is confirmed, moreover, by what happened next. The doctors were called back a few months later to write a new report, in which they confirmed the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings for CBS. They fought with the justice department over this report, but eventually relented. And that still wasn't good enough. The justice department then pressured Boswell into writing them a letter telling them they should have an independent panel double-check their findings. The justice department then put together a secret panel to do just that, but with the additional instruction that they were supposed to help refute the junk in Tink Thompson's book (which made much of the fact the low entrance wound was incompatible with a blow-out wound on the top of the head).

The findings of this panel were then sealed for a year, only to be released at the beginning of Jim Garrison's trial of Clay Shaw. The timing of this release, moreover, derailed Garrison's attempts at getting Wecht access to the autopsy materials, so he could testify at the trial.

So what were the findings? That the photos of the back of the head with the hair showed an entrance wound at the top of the head, 4 inches higher than determined at autopsy. That the x-rays confirmed an entrance wound in this location. That the photos with the reflected scalp showed forehead, and not the posterior skull. And that the back wound was well above the throat wound, and supported the single-bullet theory. In short, the Clark Panel was a total scam.

In any event, someone within the Justice Department knew the 1966 inventory and 1967 reports written by the autopsy doctors would cause an uproar if released. So, mere days before the end of the Johnson Administration, Justice Department official Frank Wozencraft--from the office of legal counsel, and thus a lawyer personally beholden to Johnson--ordered the archives to refuse access to anyone seeking to read the 1966 inventory and 1967 report under the completely made up grounds that any description of the president's wounds in a government report was considered private as per the government's agreement with the Kennedy family. (This was a flat-out lie. The agreement with the Kennedy family had no such clause.)

As a result, these documents didn't surface for years. '73 or '74, after LBJ was dead.



Cairns said he thought the Harper fragment was low occipital, near the base of the skull, and not upper occipital, where some of the Parkland witnesses placed the large head wound.


Either one of those options—low occipital or upper occipital—is absolutely impossible, because we know that there is not a single solitary bit of occipital bone missing (or blasted out) anywhere on President Kennedy's head, which is a fact that is verified in the X-ray shown below (and also shown in HSCA Volume #7, at 7 HSCA 112):

And FWIW, it's my opinion that the "mystery" photo (also known as the
F8 autopsy photograph) is virtually worthless as far as being able to prove anything about JFK's head wounds. It's a mess, IMO. And I didn't just start saying that today....

"The F-8 photo is, in my opinion, essentially worthless and useless. At least
from the standpoint of trying to PROVE anything definitive regarding the location of the wounds in JFK's head. Others disagree, of course. But, in my view, F-8 is
just a big mess. I can't make head nor tail out of it. Maybe other people can,
but I can't. .... In a way, that F-8 photo is TOO GOOD. It evidently is a picture taken DEEP inside Kennedy's cranium, which doesn't leave very much stuff visible OUTSIDE the cranium for proper orientation. And therein lies the big problem with it, IMO. What's UP and what's DOWN? It's hard to tell."

-- DVP; September 8, 2014

"Don't ask me anything about that mess known as F8, because it's an ink blot test as far as I'm concerned. Totally useless. In a way, that picture is TOO GOOD. If we only had some more "orientation" features within F8, it would sure be more useful. It's an incredible picture, though, I must say. I've often wondered just exactly how (and where) the camera was situated and maneuvered in order to snap that picture?" -- DVP; April 1, 2009

"John Canal thinks F8 is a "simple photo". That must be why [according to some people anyway] Dr. Baden testified with F8 upside-side in 1978, huh? For Pete sake, John, just take a look at all of the major disagreements concerning F8 over the years among the people who post on just the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup. And there are some very smart people posting there too. And yet many people say F8 shows one thing, while a different batch of people say that F8 is depicting something else entirely. A "simple" photo? I think not. F8 is essentially a worthless and useless mess. But if you want to rely on that "simple" F8 photograph, more power to ya (I guess)." -- DVP; May 17, 2009

"The autopsy photo known as F8 is a complete mess. And if you took the time to explain it to me 101 different times, I doubt it would still make much sense (from a "Which Way Is Up On This Damn Picture?" point-of-view). It would still be a total freaking mess. IMO, autopsy photograph #F8 is not aiding anyone at all who is attempting to locate certain wounds (entry vs. exit points, etc.) on John F. Kennedy's head. Because everybody's got a different "official" opinion on the picture, it seems. In other words, how can mud possibly bring about clarity? IMO, it can't. So I'll choose to dismiss it entirely and utilize better and clearer-to-interpret evidence." -- DVP; August 17, 2008


Thanks, DVP. Your inability/refusal to come to grips with what's in the photo is not uncommon, and has helped fuel my fire in trying to understand the photo. But insinuating that the photo is worthless unless we know exactly what it shows just isn't true.

As stated earlier, the shape of the drainage hole scientifically disproves the orientation for the photo pushed by most LNs, and presumably the HSCA FPP. The proportions of the jar and drainage hole prove the photo was taken at an angle from above. And yet the exposed bone in the photo (supposedly forehead) is flat to the camera. This would be impossible if the skull was lying flat on the table, facing up, as pushed by most LNs (including Bugliosi, if I recall).


It's not that I "refuse" to "come to grips" with the F8 mess of a picture. I just don't think it's possible to utilize F8 as a reliable or definitive piece of evidence.

With so many different opinions about what the photo is depicting, how can anyone use the F8 picture to bolster ANY kind of a theory? I don't think that's possible.

Even if you're right, Pat, about the orientation of the picture, I still can't see any way to DEFINITIVELY say that "this is an entry wound" or "this is positively the exit wound", etc. Because even WITH a proper orientation of the photograph, it's still a big inconclusive mess regarding President Kennedy's head wounds. (IMHO.)


What do you think that shape is in the gif I've created? No thoughts? Nothing?

And is it just a coincidence that shape is 15 by 6, when the mythical cowlick entrance is not?


What makes you think the "shape" that you are convinced is the entry wound measures exactly 15 by 6 millimeters?

And even if it IS the entry wound, why couldn't it be located high on JFK's head, near the cowlick, which is the place on the head that the Clark Panel and the HSCA determined the entry wound was located via OTHER (multiple!) photographs and X-rays?

Tell me again why the "shape" you think is the entry wound in the F8 picture cannot possibly in a million years be located anywhere near the cowlick area of John F. Kennedy's head?

Thank you.


Just look at the photo, David. For that shape to be the cowlick entry, the bone in the background would have to be the front of the head--as opposed to the posterior cranial fossa. And not only that, the whole left side of the head would have to have been missing. It just doesn't add up. If you want to show how it could add up, then please do. I've been wrong before, and am always willing to learn.


There's no way I can add anything definitive with respect to the F8 photo, and that's because I do not think it is possible to determine the exact location of various parts of President Kennedy's head in that picture. As I said before, I could probably stare at it all day long and it wouldn't help me out much.


As far as the measurements, that the proportions match 15 by 6 is demonstrated on the slide. That it is actually 15 by 6, however, is less solid, and is based on the relative proportions of the shape and the back of Kennedy's head under the assumption the shape is on the back of Kennedy's head.


Okay. Thanks, Pat.


Just to illustrate how easy it is to play "Let's Find A Possible Bullet Hole In JFK's Head In The F8 Photo", I don't see why the object within the white circle couldn't be yet another candidate....


When one looks at Kennedy's position at frame 312/313 [of the Zapruder Film], and considers that the fatal bullet supposedly came from six floors up, it's truly hard to believe the bullet would change direction and exit from the top of Kennedy's head.

And that's not the only HUGE problem with the scenario pushed by the doctors and Warren Commission. The brain photos--which I know many assume to be fake but bear with me--are purported to demonstrate that no bullet entered low and exited high. That is what the Clark Panel and HSCA believed, and this is undoubtedly one of the main reasons they decided to go with the cowlick entry. If they didn't, they felt, they'd have to assume there'd been two shots to the head, and thus, two shooters.

So, much as the autopsy doctors, who knew that sectioning the brain might show there'd been two shots to the head, and therefore never sectioned the brain, the Clark Panel and HSCA Panel (and staff) knew that going with the cowlick entry was the only way to maintain the single-assassin conclusion. And so go with it, they did. Never mind that none of the witnesses to the autopsy saw such a wound. Never mind that they had to blackmail Humes into going along with it in public testimony, and then cut him off when he started to walk it back.

Now, there are some, such as Sturdivan, who have convinced themselves that a high-velocity bullet descending from six floors up and entering low on the back of the head will nevertheless exit from the top of the head. But this wasn't borne out by any of the tests performed for the commission. Nor any tests since. While it's true bullet trajectories turn after striking curved surfaces and curve to an even greater degree if the bullet is deformed, this would be an extreme case, whereby a bullet traveling--what?--1700 fps would have to make a 45-degree turn within an inch or two of entering the brain, while leaving no readily observable bullet impact on the brain.

The brain just doesn't offer enough resistance, IMO, to counteract that much forward momentum if the bullet was traveling nose first. And if it was tumbling, well, that's even worse. While a tumbling bullet might very well change direction within a skull, it could not do so without traveling sideways within the brain, and creating a lot more damage than was noted by the doctors.

That's my understanding, anyhow.



And, IMO, that total LACK of brain injury in the LOWER sections of JFK's brain is one of the main reasons we can KNOW for certain that the bullet probably did not enter LOW on the head [see the video below]. It must have entered higher up on the President's head, just as the Clark Panel and HSCA concluded (and correctly concluded, IMO)....

"On one of the lateral films of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed. Also there is, embedded in the outer table of the skull close to the lower edge of the hole, a large metallic fragment which on the anteroposterior film (#1) lies 25 mm. to the right of the midline. This fragment as seen in the latter film is round and measures 6.5 mm. in diameter.


The foregoing observations indicate that the decedent's head was struck from behind by a single projectile. It entered the occipital region 25 mm. to the right of the midline and 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The projectile fragmented on entering the skull, one major section leaving a trail of fine metallic debris as it passed forward and laterally to explosively fracture the right frontal and parietal bones as it emerged from the head."
-- Via the 1968 Clark Panel Report


More "F8" discussion here:
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/search="F8 Autopsy Photo Is A Mess"

David Von Pein
August 21, 2015