(PART 1255)


Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days ....

There was something very wrong with that typed letter dated Nov 9th.

There was the accompanying hand-written letter, and reference in both to 15 days and time in Mexico City.

From Sept 18th thru Oct 2nd is 15 days... yet even a 15-day visa has a grace period to travel THEN it is good for 15 days in country.

It is within this letter that we are introduced to the concept of Oswald feeling that he couldn't "do whatever it was" down there since he had to leave by Oct 2nd.


While the type-written letter is dated Nov 9... the envelope is postmarked Nov 2. The "15-day visa" like "Lee, Harvey Oswald (H.O.LEE)" is a mistake thread which from my view betrays the evidence's creation.


One of the greatest FBI assets at the time was the US Postal Service. With inside access to all the processes and procedures, "creating" mail after the fact is truly not so difficult.


I don't think the postmark says Nov. 2, David. I think it says Nov. 12. The "1" in the 12 is just very faint and can hardly be seen.


11/12/63 was a Tuesday, while November 9 was a Saturday. So the November 12 date on the postmark makes perfect sense too, given the fact that Nov. 12 was the Tuesday after the national holiday which fell on Monday, Nov. 11 (Veterans Day). And the post office, of course, was closed on Veterans Day. Ergo, Oswald's letter was postmarked the next business day---Tues., Nov. 12th.

And it makes sense that the letter Oswald wrote to the Russian Embassy (Commission Exhibit No. 15) is dated on a Saturday, since Oswald was, indeed, spending that weekend (plus the Veterans Day holiday on Monday, November 11) at Ruth Paine's home in Irving.

There is also the following portion of Ruth Paine's Warren Commission testimony regarding the date on which Lee Oswald borrowed Ruth's typewriter to compose his letter to the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C.:

RUTH PAINE -- "This was on the morning of November 9, Saturday. He asked to use my typewriter, and I said he might."

ALBERT JENNER -- "Excuse me. Would you please state to the Commission why you are reasonably firm that it was the morning of November 9? What arrests your attention to that particular date?"

MRS. PAINE -- "Because I remember the weekend that this note or rough draft remained on my secretary desk. He spent the weekend on it. And the weekend was close and its residence on that desk was stopped also on the evening of Sunday, the 10th, when I moved everything in the living room around; the whole arrangement of the furniture was changed, so that I am very clear in my mind as to what weekend this was."

MR. JENNER -- "All right, go ahead."

MRS. PAINE -- "He was using the typewriter. I came and put June in her high-chair near him at the table where he was typing, and he moved something over what he was typing from, which aroused my curiosity."

MR. JENNER -- "Why did that arouse your curiosity?"

MRS. PAINE -- "It appeared he didn't want me to see what he was writing or to whom he was writing. I didn't know why he had covered it. If I had peered around him, I could have looked at the typewriter and the page in it, but I didn't."

MR. JENNER -- "It did make you curious?"

MRS. PAINE -- "It did make me curious. Then, later that day, I noticed a scrawling handwriting on a piece of paper on the corner at the top of my secretary desk in the living room. It remained there. Sunday morning I was the first one up. I took a closer look at this, a folded sheet of paper folded at the middle. The first sentence arrested me because I knew it to be false."


As to that stamp showing the 12th... when there's a "1" it shows a "1".


You're attempting [in this post] to compare the March '63 postmark on the Klein's envelope with the postmark seen in CE16 from eight months later. But that's not a reasonable comparison at all. In fact, it's an altogether silly comparison. Many factors could explain why the "1" in the March 12th postmark showed up very clearly, but the "1" in the postmark on Oswald's November 12th envelope didn't show up very well. And the postmarks are from totally different cities (Dallas vs. Irving). So why would anyone feel that that is a fair comparison in any way?

Plus, the fact that the November '63 envelope seen in CE16 was mailed in Irving, Texas, provides a further indication that Oswald wrote and mailed that letter while he was staying at Ruth Paine's residence in Irving during the weekend of November 9-11.

In any event, Oswald's Russian Embassy letter most certainly could not have been postmarked "Nov. 2", because Oswald didn't even write the letter until November 9, which is a date pretty much confirmed via Ruth Paine's testimony that I previously posted.

Also note the somewhat dim nature of the "1" (as well as the "9") in the "1963" part of the postmark in CE16....



The "1" didn't show up at all. It's not there. It never was.

Perhaps you should go look for it in the Apollo Moon Mission threads. You might be able to come up with a better argument after that sojourn to an altered reality. The one you are presenting here isn't going to work out well for you.


The "1" is definitely there in CE16, Michael. I can see it. It's just very dim. And another reason I know it's there is because Oswald wrote that letter on 11/9/63. Therefore, the postmark for such a letter cannot possibly be 11/2/63.

Are you actually claiming that the envelope seen in CE16 is a fake envelope with a forged postmark? Really??

The "1" is easier to see if you use a magnifying glass when viewing this image:


From Marina Oswald's Warren Commission testimony:

MARINA OSWALD -- "...I know that he [Lee Oswald] was typing there. I don't know what he was typing."

J. LEE RANKIN -- "And it is Ruth Paine's typewriter that you are referring to, when you say Ruth?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "Ruth Paine. Because Lee did not have a typewriter, and it is hardly likely that he would have had it typed somewhere else."

MR. RANKIN -- "I hand you Exhibit 16, which purports to be the envelope for the letter, Exhibit 15. Have you ever seen that?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "The envelope I did see. I did not see the letter, but I did see the envelope. Lee had retyped it some 10 times or so."

MR. RANKIN -- "Do you recall or could you clarify for us about the date on the envelope--whether it is November 2 or November 12?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "November 12."

MR. RANKIN -- "I might call your attention, Mrs. Oswald, to the fact that Exhibit 15, the letter, is dated November 9. Does that help you any?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes. Then this must be 12."

MR. RANKIN -- "That is the only way you can determine it, is it?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes."


Let's be fair to Dave.

He says there is a faint 1 in the postmark date. I also see what appears to be a faint 1.

Portions of the letters "TEX" at the bottom of the mark are faint as well.

So Dave may have something.

On the other hand, it appears to me that the faint 1 is printed at a counter-clockwise angle. If that is not a optical illusion, then I doubt the faint 1 is real.


There's also the fact that there appears to definitely be ENOUGH ROOM to easily fit a "1" right in front of the "2" in that CE16 postmark. Now, whether that extra little bit of space is significant, I really have no idea. Perhaps that "gap" is always present (even when an envelope is being stamped with a date with just one number in it).

Maybe somebody at the The International Machine Cancel Society could be of some help. (I've talked to a few members of that organization a few years ago during another "Postmark" controversy, regarding Commission Exhibit 773.)



Of course there is room there, stamps need to leave room for when a 1 is actually there.

You seem to be ignoring the "noise" of the paper itself and the limitation of the file.

The thing you are calling a "1" is simply part of the pattern in the paper. A real 1 looks like the 1 in front of 1963.

I put arrows near similar paper designs and even took one, rotated it to be vertical and show how identical they are.

Sorry buddy, no "1" there. So explain how a letter typed on the 9th is postmarked the 2nd?


So, those bumbling/stumbling plotters strike again! They want everybody to think Oswald sent a letter to Washington AFTER November 9th, so "they" fake an envelope which has "Nov. 2" on it, right? Even though those same plotters COULD have put ANY date on the envelope via the postmark that was apparently a "fake" postmark. Correct?


The things CTers believe never cease being incredible---and hilarious.


Focus Dave... 6 month application yields a 15-day visa... how dat?


Beats me, Dave. I guess it's just one more thing (among many) that your idiotic plotters and Patsy Framers did wrong when they were framing Oswald in November of '63.

Just a few examples....

Per many CTers....

....The unknown "they" who were in the process of allegedly "framing" Lee Harvey Oswald screwed up the dates on the letter and/or envelope in Commission Exhibits 15 and 16.

....They screwed up the length of time for the visa that Oswald was supposedly applying for.

....They screwed up everything imaginable relating to Oswald's rifle purchase (e.g., the length of the gun, the postmark on the Klein's envelope, they permitted the "fake" order to get to Klein's way too soon [in just 24 hours], they didn't check LHO's employment records closely enough at Jaggars and thusly had the "fake" rifle order being mailed at a time when the CTers say Oswald couldn't possibly have left work to go to the post office, etc.).

....They screwed up the Backyard Photos of Oswald holding the rifle (e.g., the shadows are all wrong, Oswald is "leaning" over in an impossible fashion, etc.).

....They screwed up the part of the frame-up at the car dealership (because Oswald The Patsy couldn't really drive nearly well enough to test drive a car at the high speeds and in the reckless way that Mr. Bogard said he did).

....They screwed up the part of the frame-up at Dial Ryder's Irving Sports Shop (because Oswald's rifle was already supposed to have a scope on it).

And on and on and......on.

Face it, David Josephs ---- the people that many conspiracy theorists think were framing Lee Harvey Oswald (in advance) in 1963 must have been total morons.


Y'know Dave... the extra BS you tag onto the end of your "I don't know" reply is superfluous.

IOW - nobody needs it or cares for it... I did not ask you 15 questions, I asked one for which you do not have an answer.

That you can regurgitate the same WCR arguments that have been debunked on these pages is a laugh.

The final laugh is you talking for "many CTers". Defend your own pathetic arguments and let me defend mine... K?

Don't tell me what I already know, if you could PROVE you are right about any one thing of significance, you wouldn't be the posting laughing stock you are.

We all appreciate you aggregating videos and films... your inability to construct a coherent defense of any of your/WCR conclusions is all that anyone cares about anymore.

As the mouthpiece of the WCR you have no credibility here... just like Specter, Jenner, Liebeler, Ball and on and on.

Until you actually attempt gaining some credibility... why should anyone care about your repeated description of who CTers are and what you think we think?

You can't get any of the WCR evidence to support your conclusion... that must really suck for you.


What must really suck for you and your CT brethren, David, is to have to admit that the basic fact I mentioned previously is 100% true (if Oswald had been framed for JFK's murder, as so many conspiracy theorists firmly believe), which is this basic fact....

"Face it, David Josephs ---- the people that many conspiracy theorists think were framing Lee Harvey Oswald (IN ADVANCE) in 1963 must have been total morons."

And that you have the gall to actually say this to me....

"You can't get any of the WCR evidence to support your conclusion."

....only goes to show how "out to lunch" you truly are.

Do you really think that reasonable and sensible people who reside outside the doors of Internet JFK forums are actually in such a deep state of denial about the JFK evidence that they are going to believe the B.S. you just uttered about there being no evidence in the Warren Report whatsoever which supports the conclusion that Lee Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy? Yeah, right.

The fact is (and always has been) that virtually ALL of the evidence in the JFK case supports the WCR conclusion of Oswald's sole guilt in the murders of both JFK and J.D. Tippit.

But apparently, if you're a CTer posting on an Internet JFK forum, ALL equals NOTHING AT ALL.

What a (CTer) crock.


The Warren Commission gave plenty of evidence for conspiracy with their acceptance of the EOP wound. And in the "Tracking Oswald Part 5" thread, you did not respond to my common-sense rebuttal to the cowlick entry theory:

1. Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed,

2. He always said he could examine the entry wound within the intact-open cranium,

3. There is almost certainly no way you could remove the brain without also removing the "cowlick" area of the skull!

Given how shattered the skull was around the large defect, it is also obvious that the "cowlick" area of the skull would naturally separate!

It's almost as if the Doctors deserved to be heard out when they spent their whole lives shouting from the highest mountains that the wound was near the external occipital pertuberance [sic]! About six other autopsy witnesses gave statements also indicating a low entry wound in the head!



Over the years, I've discussed the "Cowlick vs. EOP" topic at great length with (mostly) John A. Canal. I've archived most of those discussions here.

Quick Note --- Regardless of exactly WHERE on the head the entry wound was located, we know from all the autopsy doctors (plus the autopsy report) that there was only ONE entry wound in JFK's cranium...and that ONE single entry hole was located at the BACK of Kennedy's head.

So, CTers are defeated either way, regardless of whether it was an "EOP" entry location or a "Cowlick" entry location.


Then you should also know the contradictions raised by a single-assassin theorist believing any connection between the EOP wound and the large head wound.

I don't want to search your blog because I've brought the brain removal-EOP issues up with other LNers elsewhere before and they only resort to childish gish gallop BS. I'm pretty sure the EOP wound can be the only answer.


Not according to Dr. Petty....


OMG, to bring in Petty's jocular testimony at that phony TV trial is so utterly ridiculous as to be absurd.

This is the guy who said, "It would be nice to have the brain."


Oh really Chuck? Would it also be nice to have the actual pictures of the sectioned brain? Would it also be nice to have the brain weight the night of the autopsy?

Because without any of those things you have no idea of where the bullet(s) entered or exited.


Yeah, I knew you [Jim D.] wouldn't be able to resist digging your claws into Dr. Petty after I posted his '86 testimony. You're as predictable as a morning sunrise. (But, then again, I suppose I'm just as predictable—in an "LN" sort of fashion. So, it's a draw on the "predictability" score.)

Side Note---

Earth to Jim DiEugenio:

Just because you love to continually refer to "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (1986) as a "phony trial", that doesn't mean everybody on the planet has to agree with your assessment of that television program. It's actually a very good mock trial, in which we were able to see real assassination witnesses being examined on TV by a prosecutor and a defense lawyer for the first and only time (not counting the Clay Shaw Trial, which, of course, was not televised).



...without any of those things[,] you have no idea of where the bullet(s) entered or exited.


That is totally wrong (and absurd), Jim. Even without the brain, we know the bullet (singular) entered THE REAR part of the head (and whether it was the "EOP" or the "Cowlick", it was still the REAR of the head, perfectly consistent with a shot coming from Oswald's window in the Depository). The autopsy photos and X-rays prove that "ENTERED THE REAR OF THE HEAD" fact. Plus the autopsy report proves it too (which is a report that almost all CTers think is a total lie from start to finish, of course).

And even without the brain, it's clear that the bullet (singular) exited the RIGHT SIDE of JFK's head (toward the front), just as the Zapruder Film clearly and amply demonstrates....

So, Dr. Petty was 100% correct when he said: "It would be nice to have the brain." Yes, it'd be nice. But it's certainly not imperative to have it in order to answer the big questions concerning the head entry and exit locations.



To use the Zapruder film to declare:

1.) Directionality, and

2.) The number of bullets to the skull

Is a use that is particular to you. And only you would stoop so low as to use it for those purposes.

The probative evidence concerning those matters would be the autopsy. But as Martin Hay pointed out in his destruction of your horrendous book, you did not care to examine that area in any depth or scope.

I don't blame you at all for that, Davey Boy. It's a real loser for you and I am glad you know it, since it reveals that you are not ready for the old folks home quite yet.


You're as hilarious as ever, "Jimmy Boy". You just implied that I—DVP—am the only person in the history of the world who has ever utilized the Zapruder Film to demonstrate that JFK was struck in the head by only ONE bullet, with that single bullet coming from behind (per the Z-Film).

All I can say to you after you made this weird and flat-out ludicrous claim....

"Only you would stoop so low as to use it [the Zapruder Film] for those purposes."

....is Huh?? (and maybe WTF??)....because virtually EVERY Lone Assassin believer in the world at one time or another has utilized Abraham Zapruder's 26-second home movie to bolster his or her arguments about President Kennedy being hit in the head only one time from behind, including such prominent LN authors as Gerald Posner (see Page 475 of "Case Closed", 1994 paperback edition) and Vincent Bugliosi (see the many references made to the Z-Film as it relates to Bugliosi's arguments concerning the fatal head shot in "Reclaiming History", including the excerpt printed below)....

"It had to be pure oversight on the part of someone at the HSCA to not publish this enhanced [high contrast] reproduction of Z313...for this reproduction is almost, if not equally, as dramatic as that of the head snap to the rear, only it shows vivid, graphic evidence that the fatal shot to the head at Z312—313 was fired from the rear. As can be clearly seen, the terrible spray of blood, shell fragments, and brain matter a millisecond after the president was shot appears to be to the front. I now had more than enough evidence, of every species I would possibly need, to demonstrate to the jury [at the mock trial in London in 1986] that at the all-important moment of impact, Kennedy's head was pushed forward, not backward, proving the head shot came from the rear." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 486 of "Reclaiming History"

But, amazingly, apparently (per James DiEugenio) it is David V.P.—and ONLY me—who has used the Zapruder Film as a tool of "head shot analysis" and study. How about that folks? Jimmy says that I'm all alone when it comes to that type of Z-Film analysis. Incredible.

My goodness, if Jim's memory is so bad he can't even remember that major authors like Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi have (many times) utilized Mr. Zapruder's amateur movie to buttress their arguments pertaining to JFK's head wounds, then perhaps Mr. DiEugenio is ready for the place that he just said I'm not quite ready to reside in just yet—the "old folks home".

I'll get you a rocking chair, Jim.


And for Jim D. to suggest, as he did above, that no conspiracy advocate has ever used the Zapruder Film to try and support their position that JFK was shot in the head from the front (and with multiple bullets, per many different CTers) is a suggestion that is not only dead wrong, it's downright bizarre!

I can't count how many times I've talked to CTers who have insisted, based on their own subjective Z-Film "analysis", that the film is providing the absolute PROOF that JFK was struck in the head from the front, thereby proving that a conspiracy existed to kill the President in Dallas.

Jim, even you yourself have done that very thing you are claiming that only I have done (re: "directionality") --- you have stated in the past your belief that the Zapruder Film shows that JFK was shot in the head from the front, when you said this nine years ago:

"The only part of the head that looks like it's being impacted is the front." -- James DiEugenio; November 27, 2008

So, once again, we're treated to a Pot/Kettle moment from a conspiracy theorist named James DiEugenio.

Thanks, Jim.


David, your sequence shows JFK's brain exploding, spraying motorcycle officer Hargis to his left rear. There wasn't much left to examine, though much has been made of it. The bit Jackie grabbed off the trunk, some of the left side with particles in it per the "x-rays"? Official illustrator Skip Rydeberg [sic] describes brains as having the consistency of scrambled eggs. You do believe his depictions are accurate?


The Rydberg drawings are awful. I've said that for years. The biggest mistake made by the Warren Commission was their failure to examine (in detail) the autopsy photographs and X-rays. That was a huge blunder on their part, no doubt about it. And that's why we have to be satisfied (as far as the Warren Report and the 26 volumes are concerned anyway) with those awful Rydberg drawings, which have caused more harm than good for decades, prompting even more people to scream "Cover Up" at the top of their lungs.

But when the autopsy photos did finally become available to the masses (albeit in bootleg form), we can see that the WC was right anyway --- i.e., JFK was shot only from BEHIND --- just as the autopsy said.

But it looks like you, Ron, believe in the conspiracy myth that Jackie was retrieving a piece of JFK's head off of the trunk of the limousine---which is merely a theory that has never been proven to be a fact. Yes, there's Clint Hill's testimony, but beyond that, there's merely amateur Z-Film interpretation of Jackie Kennedy's movements on the trunk and what those movements SUPPOSEDLY mean. I have my own ideas on the matter, as expressed here.



Doesn't it give you pause that the HSCA had to move the entrance wound from the EOP to the cowlick in order for the trajectory from the TSBD snipers nest to work??


But that's only because the HSCA (Thomas Canning) didn't factor in the possibility of the bullet being slightly deflected and therefore CHANGING DIRECTIONS after entering JFK's skull, which is a scenario that is very likely, IMO.

That bullet, after hitting the back of the head at full velocity, likely didn't stay on the EXACT same trajectory. That can make all the difference in the world. (See Dale Myers' analysis on this point here.)


Doesn't it bother you that the autopsists -- who held the body in their hands -- saw that the wound was at the EOP. Yet their judgement was trumped by the HSCA experts who saw only a drawing of the head with an exaggerated/fabricated cowlick hole?


Huh? Why are you saying the HSCA experts "saw only a drawing of the head"? The HSCA didn't ONLY have the Ida Dox drawings at their disposal. They also had full access to all of JFK's original first-generation autopsy photographs and X-rays (and they even published the X-rays in their 12 volumes of supporting evidence). And it was those actual AUTOPSY PHOTOS (not the Dox drawings) that convinced the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel that the entry wound in JFK's head was located about four inches (3.9 in.) above the EOP. And the Clark Panel's 1968 examination of the autopsy materials supported the "cowlick" entry as well.

Where does the entry wound appear to be in these photos below, Sandy? Low on the head or high on the head? Or don't you see a bullet hole at all here? ....



Let me restate the questions so that you can't ignore the points I'm trying to make (by focusing instead on other, unimportant points).

Doesn't it give you pause that the HSCA moved the entrance wound location from the EOP to the cowlick?


Yes, it gives me "pause". But what the heck am I supposed to do about it? The HSCA did what they pretty much had to do, and they concluded what they pretty much had to conclude, given the nature of the photos and X-rays (plus the re-examination by the HSCA of the Clark Panel's findings).


Doesn't it bother you that the autopsists -- who held the body in their hands -- saw that the wound was near the EOP. And yet their judgement was trumped by the HSCA experts who were shown a drawing of the head with an exaggerated/fabricated cowlick hole?

Here is the drawing the HSCA experts were shown. Note the exaggerated/fabricated cowlick hole:

And here is the photograph which doesn't show the hole:

And lest you counter by saying that the color back-of-head photo does show a hole in the cowlick...

Here is a gif that shows it is not a hole at all, but rather is a small clump/curl of hair:


Regarding your first comment above....

Once again, why on Earth are you saying something so silly? The HSCA did NOT rely on the Dox drawing to reach its conclusions at all. They relied on the ORIGINAL AUTOPSY PICTURES AND X-RAYS, which most certainly DO show a hole in the back of the head, 100 millimeters above the EOP, as measured by the Clark Panel.

And both autopsy pictures (the color one and the B&W one) definitely DO show a hole in the BOH, high on the head. I see it in both photos. And it's especially visible in both pictures when viewing the animated GIF image. (A "curl of hair"?? That's funny.)



What I said was the following, which, as you always do, you left out:

The probative evidence for directionality, and the number of bullets that hit the skull would be the autopsy, not the Z film.


What a laugh! Like Jim DiEugenio actually BELIEVES anything in JFK's autopsy report. You think the whole autopsy was a farce (just like you think EVERYTHING about the "official" case was a farce and a fraud and a lie).

So why did you even bother mentioning the autopsy in your above post? You certainly don't actually believe what the autopsy says, right? The autopsy says that JFK was struck twice and only from BEHIND. You think that's a complete lie.

And please don't pretend that I have ONLY relied on the Zapruder Film for my opinions about JFK's head wounds---because I have not done that at all, Jimmy. Here's part of a conversation I had on March 24, 2007:


[After watching the Zapruder Film], out of 35 students in my classroom, 35 said the [head] shot came from the front; 0 said the shot came from the rear.


Well, heck yes, they all thought that from JUST focusing on the "back and to the left" reaction of JFK on the Z-Film. Cripes, who WOULDN'T?

But out of those 35 classmates of yours, how many have ANY idea what the autopsy report says regarding JFK's head wounds? And how many have ever read the Warren Commission testimony of one James J. Humes, the lead autopsist? Any of them do those things? (I'm doubting they have.)

The "back and to the left" motion of President Kennedy's head is definitive proof of NOTHING with respect to the precise direction from which the bullet came.

The Zapruder Film is ONE PIECE of evidence to look at and evaluate, sure. But why would anybody simply stop after watching the Z-Film, toss up their hands, and say "That's it! He was shot from the front! Let's have lunch!"?

That's silly.

Read the autopsy report and the doctors' statements. Put the pieces TOGETHER. Don't leave them isolated (like most conspiracy theorists seem to want to do).

And there are the autopsy photos too....which tell us this:

There was only ONE entry hole in JFK's head -- and it was IN THE REAR of Kennedy's head. Hence, there is no way POSSIBLE that the head shot came from the FRONT.


Jackie Kennedy was reaching across the trunk for the debris from JFK's skull, which she later handed to the attending physicians at Parkland. And there are multiple witnesses on this. Just like the motorcycle cop who said he was hit by blood and tissue so hard. (Please do not recycle Posner's BS on this one.)


I don't think Jackie retrieved anything off the trunk, but even if she did, it's yet another SO WHAT? / WHO CARES? situation that CTers try to make out to be so utterly important. And the reason it's a non-issue (and proves nothing as far as the directionality of the head shot) is because JFK's head obviously DID go backward violently after Oswald's bullet hit JFK from the REAR --- and nobody's denying the backward movement of the head. Who COULD be stupid enough to DENY that backward movement? It's on the Z-Film for all to see.

So, since the head did move violently backward after the shot, why couldn't a piece of skull or brain tissue have been thrown onto the trunk for Jackie to pick up? Obviously, such a scenario (with Oswald as the lone gunman) is very very possible (although it probably didn't happen).

David Von Pein
July 25-27, 2017