(PART 1296)


I’m clearly upsetting you folks [at The Education Forum] and promise to go on an extended hiatus, but here is why I giggle at 98% of conspiracy theorizing:

1. You’re planning a Presidential assassination.

2. Your chosen patsy will be on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

3. You have no way of knowing or controlling how many people will be in Dealey Plaza or where they will be, how many will have TV, film or still cameras, or how many will be astute observers.

4. If you placed the real shooter(s) elsewhere in the TSBD and/or in the Dal-Tex Building, it would be virtually impossible for anyone to prove the shots had not been fired by your patsy.

5. You could easily complicate the issue of proof (and enhance your chances of a successful assassination) by shooting at JFK both as he came down Houston Street toward your patsy and as he went up Elm Street away from your patsy.

6. Instead, you choose not to shoot at JFK at all as he comes down Houston Street but to place shooter(s) on the Grassy Knoll, in a manhole, on the overpass or at other location(s) in front of JFK as he moves away from your patsy.

7. Because you have made this choice, you must confiscate or alter films and photos, intimidate and murder witnesses, alter the body, fake the autopsy photos and x-rays, terrorize the doctors at Parkland, and do the myriad of other extremely high-risk things conspiracy theorists believe were done; the conspiracy outlined in steps 4 and 5 would have required none of this.

8. Because you have done this, your conspiracy must involve a vast network of seemingly unrelated people and agencies, whereas the conspiracy outlined in steps 4 and 5 would have required no more than a handful of people.

9. Despite confiscating and altering films, intimidating and murdering witnesses, altering the body, faking the autopsy photos and x-rays, terrorizing the doctors at Parkland, and doing the myriad of other extremely high-risk things conspiracy theorists hypothesize were done, you allowed the patsy to walk out the front door of the TSBD.


Indeed. I've been pointing out the obvious flaws in the "Let's Shoot JFK From The Front And Blame A Patsy In The Rear" scenario for years now....

"I've often wondered if ANYONE who believes in the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was nothing but a mere patsy has ever even pondered upon the pre-assassination thought process that must have been dancing through the collective conspiratorial craniums of those unknown plotters who were the brilliant architects of the incredible plot that featured a lone patsy being framed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. .... Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off frame-the-lone-patsy plot really NOT consider the possibility of ALL SIX of the bullets [per the script utilized in Oliver Stone's fantasy film "JFK"] being fired by the three assassins striking President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza anyway)? .... [Stone's film is] great movie-making, but the 'patsy' plot is just idiotic." -- DVP; 2005 & 2010


The Patsy Plot Silliness (Part 1)

How To Frame A Patsy (And How Not To Do It)

DVP Movie Review For Oliver Stone's "JFK"


You can do that by ignoring a likely scenario. It's likely that Oswald was not supposed to be a lone shooter. He was to be the one shooter who got caught. There was obviously more than one shooter. But they decided to claim Oswald was the lone shooter when something went wrong. Like Oswald being taken alive, for example. And obviously claiming that Oswald was a lone shooter makes NO SENSE AT ALL. But they got away with it, and we've seen how they got away with it for 55 years.


The beauty of my request is that you don't have to engage me at all. Just show the rest of the world how the above scenario can be explained in terms of common sense, logic, or any basis other than the conspirators being escapees from an asylum.

One way, of course, is to separate the assassination conspiracy from the cover-up conspiracy. Never mind what the assassination conspiracy was, the cover-up conspiracy was to destroy all evidence of more than one gunman in furtherance of the Lone Nut explanation. But this would have required an elaborate, convoluted, multi-agency effort beginning almost instantaneously after the assassination and continuing for decades thereafter - scarcely more plausible than a unified conspiracy theory.

I thank Ron for his comments. But when you say "Such complications were the choice the assassins made when they decided that it was important that the president be seen butchered in broad daylight," this is an after-the-fact assumption that this is what the assassins wanted. The logical extension of this is what Sandy suggested on the Prayer Man thread: the conspirators were so brazen they didn't even care if their patsy was standing in full view on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination.

Every which way I examine the various conspiracy theories, they all bump their heads on common sense and logic. Jake has pointed out that sometimes the final explanation of an event doesn't mesh with what seemed at first blush like common sense and logic. Sometimes what really happened is truly bizarre. But here we do know there was a Presidential assassination in broad daylight. We do have mountains of evidence as to what occurred. We aren't simply speculating in the dark. .... In these circumstances, it is not unreasonable to say "Show me how what you think happened would have been consistent with rational assassination planning or makes any sense at all."

What I see on the part of conspiracy theorists is an effort to force-fit the square pegs of their theories into the round holes of common sense, logic, evidence and reasonable inferences. They essentially work backwards. You can ignore me (and DVP) and this observation, but I don't believe you can counter it by anything other than more force-fitting of square pegs into round holes. You can say "Nonsense!" or "Ignore him!" or "Easily dismissed!" but I don't believe you can provide a convincing substantive response.



The fact that no one shot on Houston surely suggests that a lone nut in the TSBD was not to blame...


You're not thinking things through here, Jake. If Oswald had shot with the car on Houston Street, he would have literally been FACE-TO-FACE (in a sense) with the largest amount of fire power in the motorcade---the Secret Service. Waiting until the cars turned onto Elm makes perfect sense to me. Such a delay guaranteed that all the SS agents (and many of the policemen on motorcycles) would be looking AWAY from Oswald's location, thereby making return fire more difficult.

In addition, as you (Jake) correctly pointed out yourself, an early shot on Houston could have meant an easy escape route for the President, by taking the car straight ahead on Houston instead of turning onto Elm. Perhaps that's another reason Oswald didn't want to attempt a shot on Houston. He knew that if the car got to Elm, there was really no escape routes available at all. The car would be forced to proceed straight on Elm toward the Triple Underpass. No side streets to escape on. Even if the first shot were to miss the target (which I believe it did), Oswald knew he'd still have several more seconds to get off additional shots before the car could possibly speed away from the kill zone.

And based on the Tom Dillard picture of the 6th-floor window (below), which was taken just seconds after the last shot was fired, I think it can practically be proven that the sniper who occupied that Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the TSBD had every intention from the get-go of firing at the President only AFTER the limousine had turned onto Elm Street. And I say that because of the configuration of the boxes stacked on the window sill of the sixth floor --- i.e., those boxes are situated in such a way so that the top "rifle rest" box is pointing southwest---down Elm Street (and the corner of that top box is easily visible in Dillard's photo below).

And I think it's reasonable to assume that the assassin placed that top box on the window ledge at some point PRIOR to JFK's car coming into Dealey Plaza. The assassin would not want to be burdened with the chore of rearranging his rifle-rest boxes at the last second or during the assassination attempt itself. I think even most conspiracy theorists would agree with me on that last point.


There was obviously more than one shooter.


Then why does all of the physical evidence point back to just ONE shooter named Oswald on the 6th floor?

Can you answer that last question without interjecting the words "fake", "planted", or "destroyed" into the discussion?


What a waste of electricity and bandwidth.


Yeah, I agree. CTers are a waste, aren't they?


Thanks for playing. You get a home version of our game, and a $35 gift certificate for Spiegel...


Chicago 60609???? Great! Thanks.


David, you do have a sense of humour (and recall...I forgot the zip code, but recognized it immediately)!


Thanks, Geoff.

I have to maintain a sense of humor when dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists. For, I ask, how can a reasonable person not bust out laughing when confronted with the proverbial "Multi-Gunmen, One-Patsy" conspiracy theory being discussed in this thread? It's just too laughable for words. Especially when we add in the following layer of absurdity which has been crammed into the theory by this forum's very own Mr. David S. Lifton of Orange County, California....

"It was a plot not just to murder President Kennedy by shooting him, but then (i.e., afterwards) to alter the medical facts of the case (i.e., alter the wounds, remove bullets, etc.) -- all of that done to change the story of how JFK died. To alter the "medical facts" and thus change the "legal facts" as to how JFK died for the FBI, and for any subsequent investigation, whether it was a presidential commission, a congressional investigation, whatever. It would not matter. Viewed that way, this was a plot "with a built-in cover-up"--and was akin to a piece of domestic espionage." -- David Lifton; May 5, 2013

Now, I think all sensible persons with their wits about them can fully agree with me when I say that a robust sense of humor is certainly required after reading the above paragraph.

Would you not concur, Mr. Heinricks? :)


Let me point out that:

Shooting JFK full-frontal on Houston Street and succeeding first obviates the triangulated-fire ambush pattern, and its values of mortal certainty and subterfuge; second, it draws direct attention to a shooter in the TSBD, instead of creating an atmosphere of uncertainty of firing positions, the value of which should be obvious; third, there is enough circumstantial evidence from film and witness reports to determine that the first shots from various positions occurred as the limo turned from Houston onto Elm, which calls Bollocks! on the thematics of your argument (not meaning you, Geoff).


I love this thread! It's fun to watch the conspiracists flop around as they try to convince themselves that the alleged (and insane) Multi-Gun, Solo-Patsy plot was a plan that a band of JFK-hating assassins would have actually wanted to put into action in 1963.

My favorite part of David Andrews' last post of utter desperation is this....

"...creating an atmosphere of uncertainty of firing positions, the value of which should be obvious."

In other words --- Why make this a fairly simple crime and shoot the target from the location of our lone patsy, when we could make things ultra-complicated and run the risk of exposing the multi-gun plot immediately by firing at Kennedy from God knows how many non-"Patsy" locales, thereby "creating an atmosphere of uncertainty of firing positions, the value of which should be obvious"?

Is it "obvious" to you, Lance?

Yeah, me neither.

But, like I said to Geoff earlier --- "I have to maintain a sense of humor when dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists." :)


Go read the back threads, where this stuff was hashed a long time ago. You're counting on the membership forgetting that we won these arguments.


So you say. But I say your "Conspiracy" side hasn't won an argument yet.

And you're not even close to winning the "common sense" side of the "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy" argument. That one went to the "Lone Nutters" in the first round.


There were two conspiracies --- one to kill Kennedy (and blame it on the Russians and Cubans), and the other to cover up the first.


And — incredibly! — BOTH "conspiracies" had one very important thing in common --- Frame Lee Harvey Oswald!

What remarkable like-mindedness on the part of the TOTALLY DIFFERENT PEOPLE involved in each of your two make-believe "conspiracies".

Wouldn't you agree with my "remarkable" comment, Sandy?

David Von Pein
December 22-23, 2018

(PART 130)


This is the typical three blind mice--Lancie Boy [Lance Payette], FC [Francois Carlier] and DVP--and their appeal to authority. That is, if the HSCA or the WC says something is true, then ipso facto it's true.

They then discount or forget matters when the HSCA was honest enough to say something fatal to the WC: like the HSCA found that Ruby lied during his polygraph test. And further, the FBI rigged the test in advance. To any normal person that would carry the impact of a harpoon through the chest. Somehow, it just runs off their backs like water in a shower: What, me worry?

Now FC, and DVP, like to quote the HSCA report on this matter, right? But yet they do not use the declassified record of the HSCA as produced by the ARRB. None of these guys do. Lancie boy thinks it's the dark side of the moon.

But it's not. It is available and it's been written about. And it directly impacts the HSCA report as written. See, the HSCA knew about what you quote: the doctors at Parkland saying they saw that hole in the rear of the skull. But they said, no these witnesses were mistaken since it disappeared at Bethesda. Well, it did not. And Gary Aguilar found the documents released by the ARRB which showed they knew about these other exhibits they had saying that witnesses at Bethedsa saw this hole also. In other words, the HSCA lied in its report. And when Gary confronted them with this, none of them would accept the blame for writing that prevaricating statement. Not Purdy, not Baden, not Blakey. Real profiles in courage, eh? (The Assassinations, edited by Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, pp. 273-77)

But it's actually worse. See, the HSCA said they used certain photo techniques to recognize patterns in the photos and then claimed they were real. They said that unfortunately they could not find the original camera and lens at the DOD to do an actual comparison test.

Well, guess what, FC? That was not really true either. The ARRB found evidence that the DOD had given the HSCA the camera that was used originally. But the HSCA said that this camera was not the right one since their experts said they could not produce a match. As Gary writes, it may be that the lens had been switched out in the intervening years. But no one can be certain because of the simple matter that the HSCA test results on the camera are gone. So there may be an innocent explanation, and there may not be. (ibid, pp. 279-80) Hard to trust a body in which no one somehow remembers who wrote a rather deceptive description of about 20 witnesses' testimony about the back of JFK's head.

None of these guys does this kind of work. And they do not even read the books where the info can be found. That is why I call them the three blind mice.


But it's not JUST the authentication of the autopsy photographs and X-rays by the HSCA, Jimmy Boy (which is nice for LNers to have, granted), but there's also the other "photographic" piece of evidence (i.e., "virtual proof") that exists in this case which practically proves, all by itself, that the conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they keep insisting that JFK had a huge hole in his occipital---the Zapruder Film. So, is that film a fake and a fraud too, Jim?

In your plethora of appearances since 2006 on Len Osanic's All Conspiracy Radio Network, Inc., I've noticed that you've been hesitant to come right out and admit that you think the Z-Film is phony. Around the edges of your comments, you've hinted at possible Z-Film fakery, but, unlike your CT-loving colleagues, you've stayed away from totally endorsing such a silly notion. Maybe you'd like to now go on the record and state your unequivocal opinion regarding the topic of "Zapruder Film Fakery/Forgery". Eh, Jim?

Because if the Z-Film isn't a big fat lie (at least as far as this "BOH" discussion is concerned), then how can you possibly still maintain that President Kennedy had a big hole in the back part of his skull after he was shot in the head? The Z-Film shows no such back-of-the-head blow-out.

"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large exit wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly provide better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively, and beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 (when the president's head exploded) and frame 328 (almost a second later) clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the right front of the president's head. The back of his head shows no such large wound and clearly is completely intact." [Bugliosi's emphasis.] -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 410 of "Reclaiming History"


OMG, Davey, so you ignored everything I wrote, correct?

About the HSCA report giving the wrong info in their report what you and FC relied upon, right?

Then you ignore the stuff about the camera also and how the HSCA fudged that one.

And now you bring up the Z film as the last bastion?

I am not big on the Z film alteration, that is true. But if you really listened to me, what I have said is that if there is such a case, the Wilkersons have made a pretty good argument for it being just about this issue: the rear skull wound was blacked out.

Can we now drop this. Like Soupy Sales, you never get tired of the custard pie in the face, do you?


And I think I've made a pretty good argument [below] to show that nobody "blacked out" anything in the Z-Film....


The big difference between what you believe and what I believe is this: I can give a reasonable explanation for the most glaring and obvious contradiction regarding the location of the head wound, whereas you CAN'T.


You think that your claim that has the autopsy pictures being fakes is a "reasonable explanation"? I beg to differ. Such a conclusion is not "reasonable" at all. Far from it. It's nothing but utter desperation. And, furthermore, such a conclusion has been proven to be incorrect. Just check out 7 HSCA 41 yet again. (But you think all 20 experts on that Photo Panel lied their eyes out, don't you? Which is yet another unreasonable conclusion to reach, of course.)

And that's what we're left with most of the time with JFK conspiracy theorists --- a series of unreasonable explanations and wholly unsupportable conclusions.


Sure it's a reasonable explanation... because it's possible.

In contrast, you believe that 20 medical professionals at Parkland all saw the wrong thing, and that twenty more at Bethesda also saw the same wrong thing. And you think THAT is reasonable?? It's utter lunacy!



I hate to repeat this again, but you cannot be serious about that alleged authentication?

As Gary Aguilar pointed out many years ago, not only did the HSCA misrepresent the witness testimony on this issue, they also misrepresented the fact that they could not find the original autopsy camera. They did. But they could not get a photographic match. So they then said well, the camera lens or shutter must have been altered. Which may or my not be true. But the ARRB--you do know who they were right?--could not find the notes on the experiment they did to determine such a thing occurred.

Further, if the x rays are authenticated as the originals, then how does one explain the appearing 6.5 mm fragment that was not there originally, and the disappearing particle trail that was there originally and then vanished? Because you do not mention them, does this mean they do not exist? In your world of faith, maybe. But in our real world of testimony and evidence, they do exist. As do the densitometry readings of Mantik as described by Doug Horne in Volume 2 of Inside the ARRB.

Again, I do not know if you simply hide all this data in order to mislead, or are somehow unaware of it. Maybe it's a mixture of the two. But really, it's an unflattering display for you and your web site. Why not stick to Leave it to Beaver?


Of course I'm serious. You know that I am. The HSCA did numerous tests to confirm the validity of all of the original autopsy photos AND X-rays. Read their conclusions again——starting RIGHT HERE. It's pretty detailed. Is all of that information nothing but a pack of lies? All of it!!? Come now.

Is there anything in this case you don't think is phony? At some point, the "Everything Is Fake" mantra repeated by conspiracists becomes very tiresome, desperate-sounding, and—quite frankly—very silly.


The best evidence indicates that Tippit was actually killed at about 1:06 p.m.


One of the very best reasons (logically-speaking) to know that J.D. Tippit was not killed as early as 1:06 is because we know that Domingo Benavides didn't start pumping Tippit's microphone until 1:16 PM.

If Tippit had been shot at 1:06, that means we'd have to believe that Benavides waited for TEN FULL MINUTES to get into Tippit's car and use the radio. And there's no way in the world there was a TEN-minute gap between the actual shooting and Domingo pumping that radio microphone.

Just do a test of your own---sit at your desk and say "START", and then wait for 10 minutes until you do something else. If you do that, you'll see how absurd it would be to believe that Benavides waited for 10 full minutes to get into Tippit's patrol car.

Or would you like to now pretend that Benavides' initial (failed) attempt to use the police radio occurred much earlier than 1:16 (despite the "pumping" noises heard on the DPD Radio Tapes at 1:16, which I believe were first discovered by Dale Myers in the late '90s, and which occur about 90 seconds before T.F. Bowley's successful attempt to report the shooting via the same radio in Tippit's car)?


DVP neatly sidesteps the fact that Jim [Hargrove] just showed how the FBI altered the evidence.

Geez Davey, why do you not just scream and jump up and down and say, "What do you mean it's all fake?"


Was the Dudley Hughes "1:18" ambulance slip "altered" too, Jim?


DVP neatly sidesteps the fact that Jim just showed how the FBI altered the evidence.


You CTers really are the epitome of One Trick Ponies. I don't think there has been one piece of evidence in the JFK case that hasn't been deemed "fake", "altered", or "planted" by at least one conspiracy theorist at one time or another since 1963.

Let's just review some of those pieces of evidence (just off the top of my head; I'm sure there are dozens of additional examples as well)....

....The autopsy photos --- fake.

....The autopsy X-rays --- fake.

....John F. Kennedy's body --- altered.

....JFK's brain --- stolen, switched, tampered with, and/or deep-sixed by evil conspirators.

....Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 --- stolen from Ruth Paine's garage and/or planted on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building in order to frame Lee Harvey Oswald.

....The entire paper trail for LHO's rifle purchase --- fake.

....The entire paper trail for LHO's revolver purchase --- fake.

....The Backyard Photos of Oswald --- fake.

....Commission Exhibit 399 (the "Stretcher Bullet") --- fake.

....The two large bullet fragments found in JFK's limo --- fake/planted.

....The 3 bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest --- fake/planted.

....The 38-inch empty brown paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest --- fake/planted.

....The Zapruder Film --- fake/altered.

....The paper bus transfer found in Oswald's shirt pocket --- fake/planted.

....Any and all identification cards found on Lee Oswald's person on 11/22/63 that had the name "Alek J. Hidell" on them --- fake/planted.

....The limousine's windshield --- replaced immediately in order to hide the real evidence from view.

....Commission Exhibit No. 15 (Oswald's 11/9/63 letter to the Russian Embassy in Washington) --- fake.

....The four bullet shells found at the Tippit murder site --- fake/planted.

....Some of the DPD Radio Logs --- fake/altered.

....The two blank Klein's ads found among Oswald's belongings in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/23/63 --- planted.

....All of the evidence indicating that Lee Oswald fired a rifle shot at General Edwin Walker on 4/10/63 (including Commission Exhibit No. 1, LHO's handwritten note to Marina) --- fake.

Whew! Those patsy framers were sure busy!

And when a list like the above is assembled, it's easy to see just how ridiculously over the top the conspiracy theorists have taken their silly fantasies regarding the alleged "fake" evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases. For if all of the above items had truly been faked and/or manufactured by a gang of conspirators and/or cover-up operatives in 1963, then I think every reasonable person reading this post should be able to agree with me when I say that miracles are, indeed, possible.

And yet, somehow, amazingly, the JFK conspiracy theorists who continue to promote the idea that most of the evidence in the Kennedy case is fraudulent still seem to be proud of their over-the-top beliefs---even though it involves a belief in the impossible (and a belief in miracles).

Go figure.


Question: How much of the evidence against “Lee Harvey Oswald” is fake?

Answer: ALL OF IT, except, of course, for the many mistakes made during the hasty cover-up.


Thanks, Jim Hargrove, for putting that belief in writing (and in a succinct form). I'll now be able to use your quote whenever I want to highlight yet another CTer's absurd "Over The Top" beliefs relating to the evidence in the John F. Kennedy murder case. Much obliged. (And the placing of quotation marks around Lee Harvey Oswald's name is another humorous little idiosyncrasy to be found among the current batch of 21st-century conspiracy fantasists. As if there was actually more than one "Lee Harvey Oswald". Too cute.)


That story by [Dale] Myers [linked here] is hilarious.

Sort of like Davey finding that postal worker who said, "Heck yeah, we can deliver a package 700 miles and have the guy get it within 12 hours. Even without zip codes. Do it all the time."


Oh how quickly James DiEugenio forgets the things I've told him in the past. Such as THIS AUDIO CLIP from a radio program that aired in January of 1952! And this letter is making a 3,000-mile trip, not just 700 miles. And it's making the cross-country trip in helicopters and propeller-driven aircraft, not jet aircraft! ....

"You could mail a letter in San Bernardino [California] tonight, and it would be in New York tomorrow morning."


I don't think so, Dave.

First, I doubt that post offices were even open in the evening back then. Second, once the mail arrived in New York in the morning, it would still need sorting and delivery.

I think that the point of this postal worker's statement was that any mail collected and sorted by the end of the workday in San Bernardino, California would be in New York (City?) the following morning... waiting to be sorted and delivered. Of course it would arrive that quickly, having been transported by helicopter to the airport and then to NYC by airplane.

Though, granted, the sorting may have been completed that morning. And possibly the delivery.

Air mail has never been very fast during my adult lifetime. It takes at least a couple days to receive a letter from anywhere, even from my next door neighbor. (A letter from Provo first goes to SLC, and then back to Provo.)

(My apologies, Jim, if I stepped on your toes with this reply, given that the question was addressed to you.)



As Sandy noted above, it does not mean one thing that you found a fruity postal worker to say what you wanted him to say.

The point is, I live in California. I know what it takes to deliver a letter in a big city--WITH ZIP CODES and censors etc.

I can mail a letter from say Long Beach to Chatsworth, and a lot of the time it will not get there in one day. I know since I have done it.

So saying, well it got on a plane and went there--that means little or nothing.

It's what happens before and after that counts.

And what you are proposing simply will not pass the reality test, in state. Forget going across the country. That is pure fantasy land.

But, you spend a lot of time there.


I don't need to fly to Fantasy Land to prove my point about Oswald's letter. I've got rock solid PROOF that it travelled from Dallas to Chicago in one day. And that proof is in the form of the three documents pictured below (CE773, CE788, and Waldman Exhibit No. 7).

CE773 is clearly dated March 12 (10:30 AM);

CE788 [the money order Oswald bought at the Post Office] clearly has the date of March 12 on it;

And Waldman No. 7 [the Klein's internal order form for Oswald's rifle purchase] has the date March 13 stamped at the top of it.

Now, just try convincing a reasonable jury of 12 men and women that all three of these documents are fake (which clearly is the fantastic belief possessed by most of the Internet conspiracy theorists here in the 21st century)....



It does not mean one thing that you found a fruity postal worker to say what you wanted him to say.


Oh, so you think that I myself arranged to have this guy who works for Los Angeles Airways to appear on Groucho Marx's radio program in 1952 so that he could talk about being able to get a letter to travel from California to New York in less than a day?

Seeing as how I wasn't even born until 1961, that would have been a nifty little trick on my part, wouldn't it? :)

Or maybe you got mixed up and were really referring to the time I received the assistance of former postal worker Jimmy Orr when talking about the topic of Oswald's rifle order---in this discussion.



Don't even bring that whole phony rifle transaction up again, OK.

It's a loser. We found two bank supervisors and Sandy found the regulation. David Josephs also did fine work on it. In fact, I think it all looks worse now. Even with your fruity postal worker, who I am sure will also vouch for the Single Bullet Fantasy.

But, in another sense, your continuing and appalling attitude that the idea that the FBI or DPD would not fiddle around with evidence? I mean do you know how silly and naive you sound in light of what is known today?

The DPD was the single most corrupt big city police force in America at that time. No city has had more serious crimes reversed due to DNA evidence than Dallas. I mean there are whole states that are not as bad as that city was in this regard. Also, as Joe McBride has shown, there was a significant number of Klansmen on that force. Think they liked Kennedy? I mean you heard what Alexander said about Kennedy, right? You heard what Leavelle said also?

How do you reconcile what I think is your admiration for JFK with those comments? Do I need to repeat them for you?

As per the FBI, you cannot be serious: with that wide-eyed open mouthed disbelief about the practices of J. Edgar Hoover. I mean, please. Are you still psychologically in sixth grade on this aspect of the case? You do know how many devastating exposes have been written about how badly Hoover either faked or altered evidence in high profile cases, and then lied about it afterwards, right? There are several books on this subject, the one I refer to most is Gentry's. If you want me to be specific, I will. But this extended as far as having double agents planted in communist cells who would then create evidence and testify falsely on the stand against some poor innocent lefty. Does it get worse than that for an FBI director?

Now, recall, in these other cases there was at least the semblance of an adversary system in court. In other words, the defendant had an attorney, judge, and rules of evidence and testimony were in play.


Therefore, it was even easier to get away with this stuff than in a normal case. So what was going to stop Hoover from doing this kind of thing? Or the CIA, or the Secret Service?

So for you to sit there misty eyed and argue, "Are you saying the FBI or DPD would not play by the rules?" And then play something like the Battle Hymn of the Republic in the background--I mean do you know how ignorant that kind of view of America is? You might still believe in Leave it to Beaver. And Ozzie and Harriet.

After Vietnam, Cambodia, Watergate, the revelations of the Church Committee and the Pike Committee and myriad other crimes and scandals, most adults do not.



Don't even bring that whole phony rifle transaction up again, OK.


Don't be silly, Jimmy. The "rifle transaction" subject is one of my very favorite topics in this whole case. I've spent many many hours working on the two pages of info linked below. So, of course I'm going to bring it up as often as I possibly can, mainly because (IMO) my arguments (and hard evidence) surrounding the "rifle" topic are so much better, believable, and sensible than anything the conspiracy fantasists have countered with since 1963.

David Von Pein
December 17, 2018—January 2, 2019




Connally said he never bought the official story for five seconds.


And yet Mr. Connally said all this pro-Warren Commission stuff on November 23, 1966 (at 6:03 and 7:16). Go figure....

The best part of the above 1966 press conference is when John Connally called Mark Lane a "journalistic scavenger". Hear, hear!

DiEugenio and others will no doubt say that Connally (much like Robert Kennedy) was in the habit of saying one thing to the "MSM", but behind closed doors, Connally was saying something entirely different. But after listening to interviews and news conferences with John Connally (like the one above), I begin to wonder about the claims coming from CTers, such as DiEugenio's claim above---"Connally said he never bought the official story for five seconds". Is there any audio or video of Connally actually saying anything like that at all? If such audio or video exists, I've certainly never heard or seen it.


Davey cut out the other part of the quote.

When the reporter asked him [John Connally] why he did not say anything about it, he said that the country needed closure. (McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 418)


Are you saying that the 8-minute press conference video I posted also should have contained Connally saying something about "needing closure"? Did Joseph McBride cite the 11/23/66 Connally News Conference as his source for that "closure" comment?

If not, do you have a video or audio clip of Connally saying that? Or is it just a text quote coming from a CTer? Just curious.


And he [Connally] always insisted he was hit by a separate shot. And he told the same thing to Groden when he and his wife visited Dealey Plaza.


Big deal.

In my opinion, he almost certainly got most of his SBT criticism from his wife, Nellie, who never believed the SBT either. But, as I have been saying for many years, John Connally is (literally) the VERY LAST PERSON in the world who can say FOR SURE whether he and JFK were struck by the same bullet --- and that's because: John Connally, as he himself has said, did not see JFK at any time after the shooting started.

I truly think that I could have convinced John Connally of the truth of the Single-Bullet Theory in about 2 minutes if I could have shown him my webpage linked below.


After viewing those Zapruder Film clips, Mr. Connally would have had no choice but to say to me --- "I was wrong. I can see now that I was reacting to the shot that hit me as early as Z225. Thanks for the clips, DVP."

David Von Pein
December 17, 2018

(PART 129)


Every step of the way, the Single Bullet Fantasy collapses under scrutiny.


That's total nonsense, Jim. In fact, when a sensible and reasonable person looks at all of the variables pertaining to the Single-Bullet Theory, it becomes blatantly obvious that the SBT is the only conclusion that makes any sense at all [as I explain in great detail at the link below].

No other (anti-SBT) theory comes even close. And nobody on the "CT" side of the fence has ever come forward with an alternate theory to share with the world that isn't completely laughable. Why don't you be the first, Jim? I'd love to hear your shot-by-shot anti-SBT theory. Give it a shot. I'm overdue for my daily belly-laugh anyway.



The Single Bullet Fantasy never happened. It's that simple. When that obviously planted bullet was found, the WC was stuck with it. Because if they did not use it, then they would have to admit that 1.) not only was there a conspiracy, but 2.) the cover up was working in hand with the plot; or why else plant the bullet--albeit on the wrong stretcher.

In every single forensic element, the SBF is simply and completely indefensible. That is why the story changed three times within two months of the shooting.

If Larry Schnapf ever gets the money to complete his real computer simulation, he is going to utterly humiliate Dale Myers and his cartoon. (Although Bob Harris already has.)

Now your side has fallen back to the stance that, well see, it's more coherent than anything you guys have. What shamelessness. As Bob Tanenbaum once said, this is like the prosecution saying to the defense, "What have you got?" See, it does not work like that in the real world. The defense is not mandated to prove its case. The prosecution has to do that and you cannot. But even with that, I have tried to put together a scenario in Destiny Betrayed which I think is pretty solid. But the thing is, the WC screwed up the evidence so badly when the trail was warm, that it makes it that much harder to find out what really happened. Especially today, after the ARRB did not fulfill its mandate properly and Trump is still on bended knee with the CIA.

So please, that ignorant and smart aleck bluster might make you feel good, (for what reason I do not know). And it may help you score points with the likes of FC [Francois Carlier], Reitzes and McAdams. But as far as a real world inquiry into the facts, it's just junior high school smart alecky stuff.


OK, "Jimmy". Whatever you say.

Reprise ..... The Ultimate In SBT Denial


That evidence about the probes is really strong for the fact the bullet did not transit.


And that has been reasonably explained by Dr. Boswell. But I'm guessing that Jim D. doesn't like this explanation about the "probing" at all. Right, Jim?....

"We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it." -- Dr. J.T. Boswell; February 1996; ARRB Testimony


...and Trump is still on bended knee with the CIA.


Jim's reference above to President Donald J. Trump gives me a good excuse to post this video that I found a few weeks ago lurking on YouTube. It's Off-Topic, yes, but it's worth it because it's so darn hilarious....

David Von Pein
December 11-16, 2018



Do you believe it was Oswald himself who spoke over the phone with the consulates in Spanish and broken Russian?


Either that, or somebody mixed up the calls (and the callers). Because there was certainly NOT an "imposter Oswald" roaming the streets of Mexico City in September and October of 1963. And the main reason we can be certain of that fact is because----

The one and only "real" Lee Harvey Oswald positively DID travel by bus to Mexico City in late September '63. That fact has been proven in many different ways, not the least of which is available in Oswald's own words in Commission Exhibit No. 15.

Do you really think this is a fake letter, Sandy (complete with a fake LHO signature)?....


Yes, Dave, that is a fake letter. It was sent by the CIA to the Russian Embassy as part of its plan to blame JFK's assassination on Russia and Cuba.

There are two possible reasons why the CIA wanted the blame to go to Russia and Cuba. 1) The assassination was a false flag operation that would give the United States an excuse to invade Cuba; or 2) it was a scheme to get President Johnson to do a coverup. Which he did, because he wanted to avoid a potential WW3.

I'm still trying to figure out for myself which of those two possibilities was the case.

BTW, it's easy to forge a letter like that and to fake a signature.

Another BTW... if we were living in the sixties and debating whether or not the CIA was overthrowing governments and killing foreign leaders, you'd be denying it all while we CTers would be exploring the evidence. You'd be denying that the CIA was secretly testing LSD on unwitting civilians. You'd be denying that the government was knowingly exposing American citizens to dangerous radioactive fallout. And on and on.

You'd be wrong on all counts, just like you're wrong about the Kennedy assassination.


"Yes, Dave, that is a fake letter." -- S. Larsen

Yeah, naturally. Why did I even bother to ask? Everything inconvenient to CTers is fake.

What a cop-out. Unbelievable.


Mexico City Addendum....

I've yet to get an answer from any conspiracy theorist to this question I asked 8 years ago....



Who was Kostin?


Kostikov. Oswald just got the name wrong.


Davey, you are going to tell me that Oswald, who spoke fluent Russian, somehow talked to this guy who was named Kostikov about getting an in-transit visa to Russia from Cuba, and he screwed up his name that badly?

Now, you do know that there was a Soviet agent named Kostin, right?


No, I didn't.


You are aware of the other serious problem with that letter, right?


Re: CE15 and the envelope.... 


In the letter, Oswald says he met with Hosty and Hosty gave him a warning.

Davey, when did Hosty meet with Oswald, prior to MC [Mexico City] or directly after?

And that is not all. But I am surprised you missed that obvious faux pas.


In the November 9th letter in question [Commission Exhibit No. 15], Lee Oswald tells us the exact date of Hosty's visit---November 1. But Oswald then goes on to tell one of the multiple lies that he told in the letter by implying that he and Hosty met face-to-face, which, of course, never happened on Nov. 1 (or on Nov. 5).

But let me get this straight, Jim....

You think the CE15 letter is totally bogus, right? And yet you think that the plotters who concocted that letter would want to put things in it that would tend to PROVE its "bogus" status? That's similar to crooks who have a desire to videotape their own heists, isn't it? Were your "plotters" really that stupid? Or could it be---just maybe!---that the great James DiEugenio of Los Angeles is full of beans when it comes to CE15 (and so many other matters regarding the events of November 22, 1963)?

(I'll vote for the latter option.)



Did the reality that these were not facts, but actually false, did that influence any of the members of the WC or the FBI to suspect that something was up with the letter?

Answer: No.

And in fact when you trotted it out a couple of days ago to say, "See, Oswald was in Mexico", did you acknowledge any of these problems with the letter?

Answer: No.

Would you have acknowledged them if I had not brought them up.

Answer: No.



Do you think the letter (CE15) is a "fake" letter, which was written (and signed) by someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald?

(Silly question, I know. But I'm just looking for confirmation of that belief.)


Note DVP did not contest any of the answers I gave above, that is NO NO and NO.


Is it utterly impossible for you to tell the whole story about any piece of evidence in this case?

Answer: Yes.



Is it utterly impossible for you to fairly and reasonably and rationally look at a piece of evidence in the JFK case (any piece at all!) without concluding that that piece of evidence was faked, planted, or manufactured by someone?

Answer: Yes.


...did you acknowledge any of these problems with the letter?



What you think of as "problems" with the letter are, in fact, mostly just the deliberate LIES being told by a person--Lee Harvey Oswald--who liked to LIE when it suited his needs. And the "Kostin" error was likely just an honest mistake on Oswald's part.


You did not answer my question, did you?

Instead you went into our usual tantrum about "Everything is fake!"

This is a diversion on your part since you cannot face the facts on this particular issue on which you thought you had a slam dunk: See, LHO was in Mexico.

It backfired on you. The name was wrong, LHO did not meet with Hosty, and he could not have known the diplomat was transferred. Plus that diplomat said he never met with Oswald. That is four strikes.

Those are facts that you do not want to deal with. And you escape into a world of assumptions, just like the WC did.

I never said the letter was a fake. That is something you said about me that is false. I indicated that there were serious problems with the letter. Problems you want to paper over and never bring up.

I recommend everyone read this article on the letter.

It is an honest treatment of the facts, facts which DVP does not want to detail.


And you escape into a world of assumptions...


Geesh! A CTer is whining about an LNer escaping into "a world of assumptions"????

That's hypocrisy at its finest indeed.



There is a difference between making assumptions that are based on the evidence, versus making them in spite of the evidence.

The WC did the latter all day and every day. So did Bugliosi. Whenever there was a problem with the evidence, Bugliosi would say, well that is OK since we know Oswald did it.

Recall, the WC and VB are the prosecution. Not the defense. They had the burden of proof. Therefore, they should not be able to use many assumptions, particularly when they clash with the evidence. Especially considering the high standard to prove guilt in a murder case.

But see, if you recall, Oswald was murdered, literally in the arms of the Dallas Police. After screaming he was just a patsy, he never got his day in court. Unlike the Nazis at Nuremburg, he never even had a lawyer.

I find it interesting that he was rubbed out the morning after he made the Raleigh call to John Hurt.

Which is another thing I was going to ask you:

Did the WC know about Oswald's Saturday night call to John Hurt?


Let me answer my own question, since DVP will take 12 hours to reply.

There is no evidence that they did know about this call. Which now makes about 9 instances where the WC could not get to the bottom of a key incident or did not know about it.

I urge everyone to read this fine article on the Raleigh Call. You will never see anything like this posted by DVP or FC or the Arizona lawyer [Lance Payette]. Please read this all the way through, it brings up some very real questions about what Oswald was thinking in detention with no lawyer.


But every one of those things WAS known to the HSCA. And what again did the HSCA conclude?.....

They concluded that only Oswald fired shots that wounded JFK and John Connally.

But, per CTers, we're supposed to believe that this SECOND official investigation into the President's death was corrupt too, even though that very same committee DID conclude there was a "probable conspiracy" in the case. Go figure the logic of the CTers when it comes to sorting out that dichotomy.

It's always a fascinating pastime to watch the CTers preach to me about how the HSCA came to a conclusion that Oswald did not act alone, but then those same conspiracists will, in their next breath, talk about how they think that same HSCA "covered up" this or "falsified" that --- e.g.:

Most Internet CTers believe that the 20 members of the HSCA's Photographic Panel decided to lie through their collective teeth when they concluded that there was no fakery whatsoever to be detected in any of Oswald Backyard Photos and there was also no signs of any "altered" images amongst any of the JFK autopsy photos or X-rays.

Plus, there are the bald-faced liars, per many conspiracy theorists, who were part of the HSCA's handwriting panel, which concluded that all of the various documents allegedly written in Lee Harvey Oswald's own handwriting or handprinting WAS, indeed, the actual handwriting and/or printing of Lee Oswald and was not the result of fakery or forgery.

That makes over two dozen rotten liars among just those two HSCA sub-panels alone. And the CTers have no problem at all believing that those 2 dozen or so people decided to toss their morals and scruples out the nearest window in order to paint Lee Oswald as an assassin (even though, per the CTers, those people had to know they were reporting something to the public that was exactly the OPPOSITE from the actual truth).

Call me stupid and naive, but I just don't think you could get SO MANY different people, working for the same investigative organization, to tell one lie after another concerning the various pieces of evidence connected with the JFK case.

A good question, IMO, to ask is --- How is it possible to get so many JFK conspiracy theorists to believe that so many people (ranging from the Bethesda autopsy doctors, to the Warren Commission, to the Clark Panel, to the HSCA) would be willing to tell so many lies---for decades on end---regarding virtually everything connected with Lee Oswald and the assassination of John F. Kennedy? Has the "research" world gone crazy? Or were they all merely hypnotized by the clever and deceptive Mark Lane way back in 1964? The answer to that inquiry remains a mystery to me.


I never said the letter [CE15] was a fake. That is something you said about me that is false.


Who do you think you're kidding, Jim? Of course you think the letter is a fake and a fraud. You have no choice BUT to believe it's a fake letter.


Because you have said repeatedly in the past that you do not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald ever visited the Cuban and Russian embassies/consulates in Mexico City in September of 1963.

And since the bulk of Oswald's letter in CE15 deals with Oswald admitting the fact that he did, indeed, go to both of those locations in Mexico City, then how could you possibly NOT think that that letter was totally phony?

Or maybe you've changed your mind and you now want to admit that Oswald did, indeed, visit the Cuban and Russian embassies in '63. Is that what you want to do now, James? If not, then you have no choice but to believe that the letter we find with Oswald's signature on it in Commission Exhibit No. 15 is a totally fake document. So why pretend you believe otherwise?

David Von Pein
December 12-14, 2018

(PART 1295)


Do you agree or disagree that DCM [Dark Complected Man] sits down on the curb, puts a radio up to his face and turns towards the grassy knoll.


I can't fully agree with that statement re: DCM, because we don't know for a fact that DCM was carrying any "radio" with him at all. You're just guessing. (CTers do a lot of that, I've noticed.)


You agree DCM sits on the curb?




You agree DCM looks towards the grassy knoll?


Yes. But, so what? A lot of people were looking (and running) toward the Grassy Knoll at that time. DCM was merely watching the various people run up the slope.

You actually think that because DCM merely LOOKED toward the Grassy Knoll, that fact signifies something "conspiratorial" on his part? If so, you're really desperate to grasp any straw you can find, aren't you?


Do you agree he has something up to his face?


Not necessarily. The thing you think he's got up to his mouth might just be part of the person standing to his right-rear. I can't tell. The picture's not clear enough. (See the photo montage below.) But I doubt that he's holding anything at all. He certainly has nothing in his right hand in the clearer picture just to the right of the fuzzier one. And those photos seem to have been taken at almost an identical point in time. Take note of the position of DCM's left hand and arm in both images. The position of that arm looks exactly the same to me.



Do you agree this thing appears to have an antenna?


Very hard to tell. The thing you think is an antenna could easily be something else or a photo anomaly. I can see the same type of "straight white line" formed on the back of the uniform of the motorcycle cop in the very same image. What do you think caused that white line? It's certainly not an antenna on the policeman's back.

But let me ask you this:

Are you really suggesting that Mr. Dark Complected Man was part of some assassination plot, and he just casually and calmly decided to get on his walkie-talkie and radio in a message of some kind to his co-plotters within seconds of the shooting --- right out in the open where he knew he was being photographed and filmed?

Talk about some large-sized gonads! Mr. DCM sure had those, didn't he?

Bottom Line:

All the suspicions about "DCM" and "Umbrella Man" and "Black Dog Man" and (a newer one) "Tan Jacket Man" are nothing more than that --- unsupportable "suspicions" by conspiracy believers who are looking for conspirators behind every bush and retaining wall and oak tree in Dealey Plaza—and even right out in the open on Elm Street with open umbrellas and walkie-talkies while being filmed performing their conspiratorial work. It's just plain (dare I say it again?)——silly.

David Von Pein
December 11-12, 2018

(PART 128)


This guy [Fred Litwin] is a complete poseur. I did some work on him. He is the Canadian version of the useless carnival barker David Horowitz.

But if you read this you will see that his work, if that is what you wish to call it, is simply and completely pitiful. At best it's an obsolete relic, at worst it is simply a diversion from the unearthed facts.

In the sixteen downloadable pages of his chapter on Garrison, I could find not one declassified ARRB document that he read or used. Not one. And as I note that is really bizarre since the ARRB did some decent work in New Orleans. Who does he use as sources then? Aynesworth and Phelan. Without telling the reader about their intel associations and their denials of them. He then gets even more silly and drags in, of all people, Paul Hoch. I explain why this is bonkers in the piece. And he accuses Gary Aguilar of not being intellectually honest.

From what I could find out, the guy made a lot of money in the computer field and then became a Culture Warrior up in Canada. He is trying to be their Bill O'Reilly. Like we need another Fox News clown in the JFK case. Ridiculous.

Read it and weep.

KennedysAndKing.com/Jim Garrison Vs. Fred Litwin: The Beat Goes On (Part 2)


Excellent, detailed analysis.

My question. What motivated Mr. Litwin to write and market this disinformazia?

Was it money, notoriety, or some misguided political agenda?


Canadian television interview with Fred Litwin (November 22, 2018):


The CBC interview of Fred Litwin (posted by David Von Pein) is utterly appalling.

How did this dishonest, erroneous nonsense get televised in Canada?

Did the CBC interviewer really not know that Richard Helms admitted under oath that Clay Shaw was, in fact, a CIA asset? That Shaw was, in fact, guilty of perjury?

And what is Litwin's nonsense about two pathologists employed by the Kennedy family claiming that autopsy findings supported the Lone Nut in the TSBD narrative of the Warren Commission?

Someone needs to contact the Chairperson at CBC, Michael Goldbloom, and let him know that Fred Litwin is a bald-faced liar.


What kind of junk/crap are you trying to peddle here, W. Niederhut? You surely know that there were seventeen (17!) different pathologists over the years who have ALL maintained that President Kennedy was shot only TWICE, with both shots coming from BEHIND.

Even mega-CTer Dr. Cyril Wecht (one of those 17 pathologists) agrees that the autopsy photos and X-rays show only wounds that were caused by bullets that entered JFK from the rear.

You owe Fred Litwin an apology for calling him a "bald-faced liar". But maybe you think those seventeen pathologists (from Bethesda to the Clark Panel to the HSCA) who agree that Kennedy was shot only from behind are the real "bald-faced liars", eh?


If anything I was too soft on this guy [Fred Litwin]. He gets on Ontario TV and recycles the GIGO from his book.

He actually said that what closed the door on conspiracy for him was that the ARRB's 2 million pages was nothing but a zero.

Well, yeah, if you did not read them or choose not to address them, it's nothing. But as I quoted in my article, either Freddie Boy did read them and he does not want anyone to know about them, or he did not read them at all. These documents completely puncture the false image of Garrison and New Orleans that he is trying to peddle.

Clay Shaw was a highly valued contract agent for the CIA going back to the fifties. They admitted that in their own document. He was involved in at least two, probably three covert projects for the Agency. This is why he had a covert security clearance. They admitted that also. As I proved in my piece, Shaw committed perjury at least four times on the stand. And as I also showed, he could simply not tell the truth because it would open the door for more questions he simply could not answer since it would be too incriminating. What makes it worse is that the FBI knew what the facts were, and the CIA covered up for him with an internal lie.

David Ferrie lied his head off to the FBI. He then tried to obstruct justice by collecting evidence that would expose his perjury in the immediate days after the assassination.

Litwin even misrepresents the stuff about the Kennedy family and the autopsy artifacts. The Secret Service had those at first, until around 1966. Then a deed of gift was put together. When Garrison tried to get them for the Shaw trial, the government mightily resisted, and as Wecht would say later, the government lawyer screamed in court they would appeal until Hades froze over. But Ramsey Clark had no problem getting them for the Fisher Panel so that good ole CIA buddy Russ Fisher could change the original autopsy in order to cover up the exposure of it by Tink Thompson in his book. Again, that is not me saying that, it's Fisher saying it.

So what happened was that CIA buddy Russ altered the entrance point of the rear skull wound by raising it four inches, in other words about as far as you could on the back of the head. Then, someone, we do not know who, added a 6.5 mm fragment on the X-ray to make that alteration/falsification more credible. Neither Humes, Boswell nor Finck could recall seeing that artifact in the morgue. What makes it so hard to buy at all is that it's about 50 per cent larger than the one they did see. Yet try and find it in the report.

The other thing that happened is that they erased a particle trail that Humes wrote about which connected the lower entrance wound upward.

So let us tally up what Russ did: 1.) Raised the rear entrance 2.) added a bullet fragment which just happens to be 6.5 mm disk shaped 3.) Erased a particle trail.

Oh and I forgot. Stringer denied taking the pictures of JFK's brain in the archives today. He never used that film, or the press pack technique.

All of this was unveiled by Jeremy Gunn and the ARRB. As was the stuff on Shaw and Ferrie.

Fred Litwin should be ashamed of himself.

But he is a Culture Warrior. People like him and Daniel Pipes don't care about facts. In fact, they are actually at war with facts because they lead to an inconvenient political truth about America.


Were the 17 pathologists who confirmed ONLY REAR ENTRY WOUNDS all liars, Jim? Or do you want to pretend that all the photos are fake?


Davey Boy:

In how many murder cases does the fatal wound change location, does the fatal bullet miraculously show up on the x rays five years later, and particle trails disappear? Plus the official photographer denies he took the most important pics? Can you name an instance outside of the movies or fiction?

(Sound of crickets in the night)

I have no idea what you are talking about with that second comment. Everything I listed and mentioned above is factual and shown by the government's own ARRB documents, which Litwin denies. If you want to say that these documents and this testimony is fake then that makes you quite a conspiracy theorist.


Jimmy Boy,

Not a one of those things happened, of course.

...The fatal entrance wound never "changed" locations. It was always in the same place on the BACK of Kennedy's head. And the "red spot" photo proves it was high on the head, not low. Mistakes have been made by some people (including the Bethesda doctors) over the years as to the precise place on JFK's head where that wound was located, but the biggest mistake was made by Humes & Boswell on the night of the autopsy by not measuring the vertical distance of the wound from ANY body landmark. Incredibly, it appears they didn't measure the "north/south" distance from any landmark at all! But the photographs confirm it was 100mm. above the EOP. Why not go with the BEST evidence (in this case, those photos)? Or am I supposed to believe this autopsy picture is a phony?

....Nobody KNOWS what the "6.5mm opacity" is on the A-P X-ray. Nobody can say for CERTAIN. Maybe it's a metal (bullet) fragment, but maybe it's not. We'll likely never know for sure.

....And your constant refrain of "The particle trail disappeared" has me shrugging too. What are you talking about? The "particle trail" is easily visible in the lateral X-ray of Kennedy's skull. Why would anyone insist it has "disappeared"? It hasn't disappeared at all. ~shrug time~



On February 13, 1996, the following dialogue took place between Jeremy Gunn and Jim Humes. The X rays were in front of the witness when Gunn asked the following question:

Q: Do you recall having seen an X ray previously that had fragments corresponding to a small occipital wound?

A: Well I reported that I did, so I must have. But I don't see it now.
(The JFK Assassination, by James DiEugenio, p. 152)

If this is too hard to figure Davey, Gunn referred to the occipital area because that is the area in the lower rear skull where the original doctors placed the entrance wound. As Humes admitted, and DVP will not, he saw and reported about a trail of particles that originated from that wound and rose upward. As many people have noted, they are gone today.

Your point about the disk shaped object tries to dodge the issue. Why did the pathologists not see this in 1963? Especially since it's bigger than [the] largest one they did see by a factor of fifty percent. But beyond that, is it credible that they would miss a disk shaped object that was in perfect position to complete the arc of the fragments and was also the right caliber? Maybe to Litwin and DVP, but not to the rest of the 99.9 per cent of the public who do not know about it.

Your last point is nothing but sophistry. The original autopsy had the fatal entrance wound at the lower rear of the skull. Will you have the cajones and honesty to admit that? Russell Fisher changed the entrance wound location and raised it four inches higher to the top of the skull. But if it was always there then why did Baden have Ida Dox paint in raised edges around it to make it look more like a bullet wound than a blood drop.

These are simple facts of the case which, like the others, you do not want to admit. Just as Litwin does not.



Thanks for posting the ARRB testimony by Dr. Humes concerning the X-ray.

Yes, there are some problems and some discrepancies concerning the autopsy of President Kennedy. I cannot deny that fact. Nor have I ever tried to deny that these discrepancies and oddities exist in the record of this case. But I certainly don't believe that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel (and his 3 colleagues on that 1968 panel) decided to falsely "move" the entry wound in JFK's head northward by a total of four inches as part of some sinister and covert cover-up operation.

That theory, in my opinion, is ridiculous (and, frankly, laughable), mainly due to the fact that the total amount of "net gain" that would have been attained via such an underhanded piece of on-paper surgery to the President's skull would have been extremely minimal to the people who were orchestrating such a fraud so as to fool the public at large.

Because whether the wound was right at the level of the EOP on JFK's head or 100 millimeters above that location (as determined by Dr. Fisher's Clark Panel in '68), the end result (either way) would have been a conclusion that has one single bullet striking the President's head--with that one bullet entering JFK's head from behind.

And both of those possible entry points--whether it be a high point or a low point--are both perfectly consistent and compatible with the conclusion that has Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone assassin firing his rifle from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building (especially when factoring in the likelihood that the bullet that crashed into JFK's head probably changed directions somewhat after striking the hard skull, thereby eliminating any definitive conclusion that any investigative body would hope to reach about the precise angle of trajectory of the bullet as it travelled through the President's cranium).

For more about that pesky "6.5mm. Object" seen in one of JFK's X-rays....


Mr. Von Pein,

I am a physician, (Harvard Medical School '83) and I have studied the original medical reports from the Parkland ER. JFK, clearly, had a right frontal entry wound that blew a fragment of his right occipital skull backward, behind the limo--consistent with the Zapruder film.

My understanding is that the physician who conducted the Bethesda autopsy was not even a forensic pathologist, and was quite reluctant to sign off on the substandard "autopsy" that may well have been conducted on a surgically altered cranium.

As for Fred Litwin, I will stand by my original comments about his utterly appalling interview on CBC television. He made several blatantly false statements. I would give him the benefit of the doubt and attribute his errors to ignorance, but I don't believe that he is ignorant.


Well, since you believe that President Kennedy sustained a "right frontal entry wound that blew a fragment of his right occipital skull backward", then you really have no choice but to also believe that ALL THREE of the photographic pieces of evidence depicted below (the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, and Abraham Zapruder's home movie) must have been faked and manipulated by someone so as to completely eliminate the right-rear blowout of the President's skull. If you choose to believe in such wholesale fakery of the evidence, be my guest. But you'll pardon me if I excuse myself from sitting at your table.


P.S. This is my last comment to you. I do not wish to converse with you, going forward.



Davey wants to ignore the fact that, as Pat Speer discovered, Fisher admitted in a medical journal that the reason the panel was convened by Clark was for the express purpose of refuting some of the junk in Thompson's book. (DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination, p. 150)

Ramsey Clark was so disturbed by the Saturday Evening Post preview of Six Seconds in Dallas that he got hold of some of the proofs of the book. As anyone can see from looking at Thompson's book, p. 111, he creates a very large problem in trajectory since you have a bullet fired downward which is now going upward in JFK's skull. So Thompson showed how Humes and Boswell conned Rydberg into making a drawing in which JFK's head is much more ante flexed than it really is in the Z film at Z 312. In fact, its almost like Kennedy is bending over to look at his navel. 

Fisher's revisions solve this problem in all aspects. You raise the entry to straighten the trajectory, you then get rid of the lower particles, and the coup de grace, you place a 6.5 mm fragment where it needs to be. And by the way, in my book, with testimony from Custer, I show how this had been practiced before the fact with Ebersole and his so called White House "bust of Kennedy" which needed bullets and trajectory lines taped on it. Yep, that is not a joke. (p. 160)


And they went through all that fakery and legerdemain just so they could say basically the EXACT SAME THING --- that being: the bullet entered JFK's head from behind. Right?

And, Jimmy, you're not going to sit there and tell me that Dr. Russell Fisher, the Chief Medical Examiner for the state of Maryland since 1949, would have held the opinion in 1968 when he was a part of the Clark Panel that a bullet which has just hit a very hard object like the skull of President John F. Kennedy could not possibly have changed its trajectory after striking that object? You don't really think that Fisher held such a belief, do you James? Anyone who thinks Dr. Fisher held such a crazy belief in the year 1968 must, themselves, be a little crazy.

Ergo, there was no good reason whatsoever for Russell S. Fisher to want to engage in the type of "Let's Raise The Entry Wound By Four Inches" scheme that James DiEugenio thinks he did engage in.


Wrong. When you actually read the statements and testimony of men like Clark, Spitz, Petty and Baden, it's clear they believed the brain photos proved a bullet hadn't entered near the EOP and exited from the top of the head. And that this led them to conclude the bullet exiting high must have entered high.

Well, think about it. They realized the evidence suggested more than one head shot, and opted to claim the autopsy doctors were mistaken about the EOP entry, rather than admit this fact.


Wrong. The medical evidence doesn't suggest any such thing, and the HSCA and Clark panels knew this. There was only ONE entry hole in JFK's head. All the autopsy doctors substantiate this, as does the autopsy report itself. If the HSCA and Clark panels saw any proof of the "EOP" entry in any of the photos or X-rays, of course they would have said so. There was no logical reason under the sun for those men to start lying about where that entry wound was.

Conspiracists have invented various reasons for the HSCA and Clark people to want to raise the wound up into the cowlick, but that's the fertile imaginings of the CTers at work and nothing more than that. The fact is: those men studied the photos and X-rays and saw the wound high on the head....so that's what they reported. Simple as that. (The unproven theories of CTers notwithstanding.)

David Von Pein
November 23-26, 2018


(NOVEMBER 22, 1963)


"Excellent video, like always, David Von Pein!! Don't know what I'd do without this guy's amazing JFK coverage! No other channel on YouTube has 90% of the footage/coverage that David Von Pein has. Just flat out amazing stuff right here! Thanks again, DVP!! YOU ROCK!!" -- An Anonymous Person; November 17, 2018

"David, what a find. Another wonderful historical document from that day. I have devoured all of the “as it happened” videos and audio from your fine channel, and was very excited to see you post this. Thank you so much for all of your work compiling these fascinating pieces of history." -- Brandon Grimes; November 16, 2018