(PART 1290)


Where is the exit? ....

Here is something that I think most of us have thought about before but have not debated openly I think in awhile.

If the anterior neck wound is an entrance, where is the exit hole?

IMO, this issue had driven some people to theorize it's not an entrance.


Probably the bullet went into the chest.


It's a fake issue.

A false mystery spread by those who don't know the first thing about the murder of JFK.


But if it went into the chest, did it deflect off something? It must have, right?

The other point I wanted to air is this:

Is JFK's reaction with his hands going up, is that really an indication about his neck wound? Other people, like Don Thomas and Martin Hay, have argued it's actually not.


It's an indication of something. It looks to me like he freezes at that moment, as if he's been hit with something that partially paralyzed him. His hands never get to his throat. I'm one of those that think he was hit in the throat from in front first.


There is some evidence that there was a bullet recovered (e.g., the receipt for missile thing). And the late Robert Morrow said that he knew one of the doctors at the morgue and he told him that there was a bullet taken out of Kennedy's back.

That is something that I think is explainable.

But the no exit for the throat wound is a real puzzler to me.


But that "puzzler" completely disappears if you and other CTers would just face the obvious fact --- i.e., one bullet went clean through JFK's upper body, entering his upper back and exiting just where the autopsy doctors concluded it did exit---the front of the throat at the site of the tracheotomy.

All the mysteries about disappearing bullets totally vanish if conspiracy theorists would simply accept the SBT truth.

And, Jim, you do realize (don't you?) that it's not just "no exit for the throat wound" that should have you bewildered. It's the OTHER bullet that didn't exit too (i.e., the one that you claim entered the upper back and also disappeared). Where's THAT bullet as well? You said earlier that you think the back wound bullet disappearing is "explainable". But is it reasonable to think that BOTH of those bullets that you say entered JFK's upper body BOTH just disappeared without a trace (whether it be in a sinister or non-sinister manner)? To me, that explanation isn't reasonable at all, especially when we consider all these knowable factors....

Don't CTers ever step back and look at the following four things in tandem with one another (and all 4 of these things do, indeed, exist---simultaneously!---in this case)....

1. There's a bullet hole of ENTRY in JFK's upper back.

2. There's a bullet hole in JFK's throat (which, according to Dr. Perry, could have been "either" an entry or an exit wound; and Dr. Carrico said the very same thing).

3. There's a bullet hole of ENTRY in John Connally's upper right back.

4. There were NO BULLETS in John F. Kennedy's body.

Now, based upon the above 4 basic facts, how can anyone maintain that the bullet which caused Connally's upper-back wound could not possibly have been the same bullet which also caused President Kennedy's upper-back wound --- especially when factoring in the additional fact that Governor Connally was sitting in a position in the limousine that most certainly placed him in the path of any bullet that would have exited from JFK's throat?

When evaluating all these variables (and others not discussed here), it's simply impossible (IMO) for the Single-Bullet Theory to not be the truth.


DVP Sez: "but, but, but,..... The Warren Commission! The Warren Commission!"


And heaven forbid somebody should actually have the gall to agree with something the Warren Commission said, right? (Oh, the horror of it!)

But I don't really need the Warren Commission to figure out the SBT at all. All of those individual factors I talked about in my previous post---when combined---pretty much seal the deal on the validity of the SBT. And anybody can easily evaluate those things. You don't need to be a doctor or a physicist or a person with an extraordinary IQ.

Just add up all the things that make the SBT the ONLY possible reasonable conclusion. When you perform that kind of math, it's a piece of cake. But CTers refuse to total up the facts surrounding the SBT. That's why they've been lost in the woods on this issue for more than 50 years and are forced to ask unanswerable questions like this one that James DiEugenio asked in his thread-starting post (which, of course, is just the type of question I've been trying to get the CTers to answer for years) ---- "If the anterior neck wound is an entrance, where is the exit hole?"


If the autopsy pathologists lied about how much they knew about the throat wound -- what did they have to lie about?


You're inventing lies that never existed, Micah.


What do you think Admiral Galloway meant when he told Arlen Specter that during the autopsy it was an "assumption" that the bullet had emerged from the President's throat, or later to the HSCA when he said the doctors "suspected this [a tracheotomy made over a bullet hole] during the autopsy, but couldn't prove it"?


Sure, the conclusion about the bullet exiting JFK's throat was an "assumption" on the part of the autopsy surgeons. Of course it was. But it was also the only REASONABLE assumption the doctors could reach given all the knowable factors involved.

Do you really think they should have reached the same conclusions that CTers have reached over the years? Such as, two separate bullets entering JFK's body but neither bullet exiting and then both bullets disappearing or being dug out of the body by conspirators who stole Kennedy's corpse before the "real" autopsy began?

Come now. Let's keep our heads here, shall we?

After all, Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck were medical pathologists, not fiction writers.


The Humes WC Deposition and the Sibert-O'Neill report give the misleading impression that the autopsy pathologists did not seriously conceive of the throat wound as a bullet wound during the body examination. Something must have happened off the record.


What if we drop the "Assumption" all together. Perry said the phone call came [on] Friday night. Ebersole and Stringer remember the phone call during the body examination. Humes said there was only one phone call while Perry always remembered two.


Jenkins, Lipsey and other witnesses remembering discussion about the throat wound referring to it as a bullet hole. Plus, you probably agree that the perimeter of a bullet hole may be visible in the autopsy photographs showing the tracheotomy. They knew all about the throat wound way earlier.


I disagree. But even if the autopsy doctors DID think the tracheotomy wound masked a bullet hole DURING the autopsy examination---where are you going to go with such a revelation?

Do you think that if the doctors fudged on the exact time of when they realized the trach wound was also a bullet hole, this alleged "fudging" somehow bolsters the conspiracy theory that has JFK being shot in the throat from the front? Is that it?

But how would such "fudging" by Dr. Humes (et al) benefit and aid any type of multi-shooter conspiracy theory in the JFK case?

Whether the doctors found out about the bullet hole in the throat on Friday night or Saturday morning, the wound would still have been declared in the autopsy report to be the wound of exit for the bullet that entered JFK's upper back.

Or do you think that Dr. Humes deliberately fudged (lied) about the time of the Perry phone call in order to give the autopsists a more valid excuse for having not dissected the neck wound completely? Is that the underlying "conspiracy" theory buried within this discussion?


Oh my God, seriously? "It doesn't matter if the autopsy pathologists lied about forensic evidence, I have gifs of both JFK and Connally's arm twitching at z225"???


This has got nothing to do with the Zapruder Film. The autopsy surgeons, of course, knew nothing about the existence of that film when the autopsy was going on. So why did you even bring up the Z-Film at all? Just to jab a dagger in my eye regarding my belief in the SBT? I was talking about what Humes & Co. would have concluded even if they had known about the bullet hole in the throat on Friday night. And the answer is: They most certainly would have concluded the very same thing they ultimately did conclude---that the throat wound was a wound of EXIT for a bullet that had entered President Kennedy's upper back.


Are you willing at the very least to admit that Humes' WC testimony is intentionally misleading? If the autopsy pathologists had every reason to think the tracheotomy was originally a bullet wound during their body examination, do you think they may have fudged the time to cover for their incompetence? Too lazy to dissect the throat wound or didn't have the guts to tell the officials breathing down their necks they needed to wait another hour to excavate further?


Well, Micah, since I don't think Dr. Humes talked to Dr. Perry on Friday night at all (and, therefore, Humes didn't confirm that the trach wound also masked a bullet hole on Friday), then I don't think Humes' WC testimony was "intentionally misleading" either.

I do think that Dr. Humes did exhibit a bit of "incompetence" on Friday night during JFK's autopsy at Bethesda when he did not contact Parkland Hospital that very night while JFK was still on the autopsy table, so he could confirm the information about the trach/bullet hole in a much more timely manner. That, in my opinion, was a very stupid delayed decision on Humes' part, and I've said so in the past as well....

"The biggest and most stupid mistake, IMO, made at the autopsy was when Dr. Humes refused to call Parkland Hospital in Dallas WHILE JFK WAS STILL IN THE MORGUE. Instead...he waited until 10 AM the next morning to call Dr. Perry at Parkland. (I guess Humes was worried he would interrupt Perry's slumber or something by calling late on Friday night. Just silly.)" -- DVP; April 16, 2010


Addendum regarding Dr. Humes (from 2015)....

"Everything Dr. Humes did during the autopsy on 11/22/63 at Bethesda, while President Kennedy's body was lying on the autopsy table, indicates that Dr. Humes did not positively know that there was a bullet hole in JFK's throat. And we don't have to take just Dr. Humes' word for this. We also have the Sibert/O'Neill report to guide us, too. In that report...it states the following
on Page 4:

"Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets."

Therefore, via the above excerpt that comes from the report written by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, it's quite clear that the autopsy doctors (including James J. Humes) were not fully aware during the course of the autopsy of the existence of the bullet hole in the lower part of President Kennedy's throat."

-- DVP; June 17, 2015


C'mon, David. You embarrass yourself when you try to claim the SBT is the only possible conclusion fitting the facts. The reality is that virtually every fact related to the SBT suggests it's basically Bigfoot...a scarcely believed myth for whom the "evidence" is largely missing and/or discredited.


Then what's the alternative scenario, Pat?

I challenge you to come up with a reasonable, sensible, and believable anti-SBT theory which is based on the actual evidence (and wounds) in the case. Can you do that without using the words "fake", "manipulated", or "cover up"?

Good luck.


The trajectory from the back wound to the throat wound passes right through bone.


Dead wrong. But I guess you think you know more about these things than the four doctors on the Clark Panel who signed off on this conclusion in February 1968 (emphasis DVP's)....

"The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck." -- Clark Panel Report


Do guilty people try and hide and/or destroy the evidence of their crime? Yes or no please?


Yes, usually they do.

In this case, for whatever unknown reason, Oswald (who is the only truly "guilty" person associated with the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit, IMO), didn't even attempt to hide and/or destroy the bullet shells and the 38-inch brown paper bag he left lying right in the Sniper's Nest. And he could certainly have taken those easy-to-conceal items with him when he left the TSBD. But he didn't. Why, you might ask? I haven't the slightest idea. We'd have to dig Lee up and ask him to find out the reason. (He tried his best to "hide" the rifle though.)


Do you concede that even if the SBT was correct, that it is possible LHO was not the shooter? Yes or no please?



There's too much stuff on the "Oswald Did It" table (including Oswald's own guilty-like actions following the assassination---which includes the Tippit murder, which was undeniably committed by LHO) to even consider answering your last question with a "Yes".


Do you concede that there is a possibility that the medical evidence was altered, tampered with, lost, or destroyed?


Altered? --- No way.

Tampered with? --- No way. 

Lost? --- Perhaps.

Destroyed? --- Yes. Three items specifically come to mind --- 

....The Hosty note. (Obviously done for CYA purposes by the FBI. Certainly NOT done to cover-up any "plot" relating to the actual assassination.)

....Dr. Humes' blood-stained autopsy notes. (Destroyed by Humes for the exact reason he stated in his testimony---because they were stained with the President's blood. Perfectly reasonable.)

....And Humes' first draft of the autopsy report. (Burned by Humes because the first draft was inaccurate in some respects and therefore should not be relied upon. Hence, it was an expendable item. A perfectly reasonable thing to do, IMO. Similarly, the FBI agents usually "destroy" their original notes after they transfer their notes to a final, formal report. Should that practice of the FBI routinely destroying their own notes also be looked upon as being suspicious or sinister in some fashion? If so, why?)


Do you concede there is a possibility that the shot angles could be from different point or points other than the TSBD?


No. There is no reliable enough evidence to indicate that any shots came
from any non-TSBD location. And I do not think the many witnesses who said they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll are "reliable enough". Here's
why ----> http://jfk-archives/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses


Where is the exit wound?


Thanks for trying to get this back on track.

But whenever DVP jumps in rooting his single bullet fantasy stuff, forget it.


Oh, I can easily answer your "Where is the exit?" question, Jim....

There is no "exit" wound for the alleged "entrance" wound in the throat---because the alleged entry wound in the throat was really an exit wound---just as the three autopsists said in the official autopsy report.

But, of course, as far as most conspiracy theorists are concerned, this Official Autopsy Report of President Kennedy might as well have "Charmin" written across the top of it. That's how it's treated by CTers anyway. They think it's a worthless and useless document, worthy only of being flushed. (A pathetic way to treat such an important document, to be sure. But that's the way it is in Conspiracy Fantasy Land.)


The story of finding the bullet at the autopsy is confirmed here, page 76.


You need to back up to Page 75 of that ARRB deposition of Edward Reed, because you, Cory, have totally misrepresented what Reed was talking about when he mentioned a "bullet". He was clearly talking about being aware during the autopsy that a bullet had been found in Dallas. He wasn't referring to any bullet being recovered from JFK's body during the autopsy.

In fact, when discussing whether any bullet was found by the autopsy surgeons during the autopsy, Reed specifically said these words on Page 77 of his 1997 ARRB deposition --- "But there was no bullet."

And to show how bad Mr. Reed's memory was about some things in 1997, he stated he was pretty certain that President Kennedy's body arrived at Bethesda at about 4:30 PM on November 22nd. (Mr. Reed apparently was not even aware of the fact that JFK's body didn't even land in Washington on Air Force One until 5:58 PM on 11/22/63, which means his "4:30" body arrival time is impossible.)

With blatant errors like that "4:30" mistake on display in Mr. Reed's deposition, it makes you wonder what other things Reed might have misremembered 34 years after the assassination.

ARRB Footnote....

Interestingly (and humorously) enough, according to that document issued by the ARRB which features the testimony of Edward Reed, apparently little 2-year-old "John F. Kennedy, Jr." was the President who was really assassinated in Dallas.

Well, I guess this means that even an Assassination Records Review Board can make an honest mistake every now and then. :)


You only discount evidence of people who were actually at the autopsy because they make a simple mistake over the time and add "Jnr" to the end of the President's name, if you are DVP. He consider these "blatant errors" because they disagree with his arguments.


Oh brother. The Pot/Kettle irony is so thick in that last quote of Ray's, you could slice it with O.J.'s knife.

The fact is, of course, that conspiracy theorists will constantly "discount evidence of people who were actually at the autopsy...because they disagree with [their] arguments". Like, say, the following extremely important conclusions reached by three people who "were actually at the autopsy":

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds. .... The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased. .... The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. .... The other missile...made its exit through the anterior surface
of the neck."
-- Page 6 of JFK's Autopsy Report [Warren Report, Page 543]

Conspiracists own the patent on "discounting evidence because they disagree" with it. Don't they, Ray?


The complete 1992 JAMA interview with Dr. James Humes can be found HERE.

David Von Pein
July 24-31, 2018

(PART 1289)


For the "Ultimate In SBT Denial" ————>



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

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

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

a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.

b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.

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


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

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

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

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

[End Excerpt.]

Lots more SBT Denial can be found here (and at the link above).


Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all.


The bullet from the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report was phonied up.


How do you "get rid of" something that is so obviously true?

Good luck.


The irony abounds here. They [the conspiracy theorists] argue that Connally can't be seen to be reacting to anything because the frames are "blurred." Blurred or not, it's obvious to an open-minded person that Connally is clearly reacting to something that is causing him great discomfort.

But this same mindset tried to sell us on the "badge man" and the "black dog man" based on shadows and light.


Yeah, Connally reacted? So what? He HEARD a shot and was startled.


And you think ALL of the stuff we see John B. Connally doing between Zapruder Film frames 224 and 230 are the results of him merely HEARING a gunshot (e.g., flinching, mouth opening, lapel bulging, and THE ARM/HAT FLIP), right Tony? (And remember that that arm flip is the SAME arm (wrist) that WAS wounded during the shooting. Just a coincidence, right?)

Thanks, Tony, for again proving my point about CTers exhibiting "The Ultimate In SBT Denial" whenever they view these clips from Abraham Zapruder's home movie....

David Von Pein
July 14-19, 2018

(PART 1288)


Anybody ever own this 1960s board game?....



Yes, Micah, I've seen that video before (from 1977's "Kentucky Fried Movie"). It is, indeed, hilarious.

"And a stroke of luck---22 material witnesses die of unnatural causes!"

But I'd like to see an "LNer Version" of that "Scot Free" board game commercial. The narration could then go like this....

"Your opponent spins the spinner and lands on The Carcano Rifle and then The Curtain Rod Lie and then The Tippit Murder --- all of which point straight toward the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. But, no worries! The other side's got Mark Lane and Jim Garrison and David Lifton to twist the known evidence into an unrecognizable pretzel----and, suddenly, the guilty assassin is easily able to get off——Scot Free! (Available now from Shoot At Your Target From The Front, Even Though Your Patsy Is In The Rear, Inc., a division of Idiotic Assassination Plots That Couldn't Possibly Succeed, LLC.)"


Does the game use Monopoly money torn in half?


No, but it does utilize multiple Magic Gunmen, who are able to fire two separate bullets into President Kennedy from the front and the back, and somehow have those two missiles vanish off the planet before anyone can see them ---- even though neither of those bullets struck anything solid enough in JFK's body to allow both of those missiles to suddenly stop all of their forward movement inside the upper back and neck of John F. Kennedy.

Pretty cool game, huh?

(But it's only a board game. Therefore, Magic Gunmen like that are things you can believe in.)

David Von Pein
July 17, 2018

(PART 127)


A very good reason for dismissing EVERY witness who said they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll is an often ignored statistic concerning the number of those witnesses who said the shots came from MORE THAN ONE DIRECTION....

http://jfk-archives/Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses

Per John McAdams' latest study, done in 2013, there were a mere THREE earwitnesses (Holland, Millican, and Landis) who reside in the "Shots Came From Two Directions" category.

Here's the witness-by-witness breakdown ----> CLICK HERE.


This is utterly ridiculous.

As Pat Speer has noted, there was never any kind of rigorous and systematic cataloguing of the ear witness testimony. And to say there was is simply balderdash. Pat has gone through the sourcing on this chart and exposed it for the unreliable and ersatz evidence that it is.

If the FBI had ever done a rigorous and systematic catalogue, then obviously the results would have been as the films show. Or [is] DVP going to say, You nutty people: you would believe your lying eyes over John McAdams' chart?


Gary Aguilar wrote that, after the assassination, Secret Service agent Elmer Moore spent a lot of time at Parkland. The Dallas doctors, up until about 12/11, had been talking to the press and they said that the throat wound was an entrance wound. But now Moore set up shop in the place. With the official autopsy report in hand, he began to turn the tide. For example, with Malcolm Perry. He also began to get this story in the local papers, e.g. the DTH [Dallas Times Herald] of December 12th. That story said the throat wound was an exit wound and at a downward angle. (LOL.)

Moore also got some SS agents to alter their testimony to the FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill, in order to discredit their report, which was Specter's agenda also. (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 167-68)

When Moore showed up to testify about his perfidy to the Church Committee, he had a lawyer in tow. Why? Because he understood that talking a witness out of his testimony in a criminal case was a felony. As many have written, Moore then became Earl Warren's personal escort through the hearings, and he admitted he talked to him every day.


Final comment about Moore. He despised Kennedy. Said he was pink, and selling us out to the commies--he actually got scary talking about this issue. (ibid) This is the kind of inquiry that the Warren Commission was.


David, we must not forget Agent Elmer Moore and his apparent unfortunate interaction with Dr. Perry.


Well, B.A., since I don't for an instant believe that ANYBODY (Elmer Moore or anyone else) was involved in any kind of a cover-up in order to conceal a conspiracy in JFK's death, then any conversation that Moore might have had with Dr. Malcolm Perry was, IMO, most certainly not sinister or underhanded in any way at all, and any such conversation was certainly not an attempt by Mr. Moore to cover up the true facts in the JFK case. (And that's because the "true facts" indicate that Oswald was the lone assassin....and, ergo, Dr. Perry was, indeed, mistaken when he initially said the throat wound was a wound of entrance.)

The same thing applies to the FBI's "midnight call" to Darrell Tomlinson as well. The details of the FBI's mindset at the time of that call are not known either. Conspiracy theorists, however, are more than eager to assume that "cover-up" and "conspiracy" must be involved in there someplace when it comes to that telephone call. But that doesn't have to be the case at all. And the same goes for Moore/Perry.


Darrell C. Tomlinson [July 25, 1966]: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock--uh, excuse me, that's Saturday morning--after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on the phone and told me to keep my mouth shut.

Raymond Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?

Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found…

Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there any particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you to talk about it period?

Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it--period.


This is one of the last bastions of the shameless defenders of the Warren Report.

See, there really was no cover up, by anyone. Even when they admit it, like Moore did. Even when the words came out of their own mouths and a credible witness was there. Even when the guy brings a lawyer to the Church Committee because he knows what he did was a felony.

This is what I mean by the rarified air channel in which DVP exists. It's somewhat similar to the air pressure over the Bermuda Triangle.

As per the FBI not being involved with a cover up, I mean pulease. Even Hale Boggs said such was the case. Recall that quote, "Hoover lied his eyes out to the Commission." (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 233) But nothing is ever enough for DVP or the late Bugliosi.

One of the most mendacious sentences in Bugliosi's tree killer waste of a book was when he said that there was not a scintilla of evidence to support the proposition of an FBI cover up in the JFK case. (ibid, p. 246) I actually thought he meant that in a satiric way; yes, Vince, there is a mountain of evidence to indicate such was the case. But the lawyer was trying to avoid a huge logical problem for himself and his book. If he admitted what Hoover had done, then this made it very unlikely the WC could be correct since the Bureau did by far the largest part of the inquiry. So therefore, he told a huge prevarication about the FBI's performance in this case.

But not only that, he did a pretty drastic make up job on Hoover. Including deodorant. I mean by this time, there had been at least five full-length exposes of just how bad Hoover was. Bugliosi kept the worst from his readers. As do all the WC zealots: DVP, Davison, McAdams etc. They never want to admit just how bad Hoover was, since it would be a natural reflection of what he did in this case.

So I really took Vince to task on this whole issue, since he made it easy for me to do so. I spent 37 pages exposing just how much Bugliosi left out of both his portrait of Hoover and the diddling of the FBI with the evidence in this case. I especially liked it when I could use actual FBI agents who were so sick of what Hoover had done in the JFK case, since they saw that event as the beginning of the end of the Bureau's reputation with the public. So I used witnesses like Bill Turner and Don Adams. But really all one has to do is recall this key fact: The FBI report was so bad that the WC failed to compile it as part of the volumes. And Hoover never swallowed the Magic Bullet. In fact, he literally tried to erase it from history with a patch over the curb to hide the Tague hit. I really had fun with that one. So will everyone, except DVP. (ibid, pp 250-54)


Bullshit, Jim.

J. Edgar Hoover was, let's face it, utterly clueless about many things that he shouldn't have been clueless about as of 11/29/63. But, nonetheless, he was.

Do you, Jim, think Hoover was just feigning his ignorance when he uttered these nonsensical "facts" to President Lyndon Johnson during their telephone conversation on November 29th, 1963?....


J. EDGAR HOOVER -- "He [JFK] was hit by the first and the third [shots]. The second shot hit the Governor. The third shot is a complete bullet, and wasn't shattered; and that rolled out of the President's head, and tore a large part of the President's head off. And in trying to massage his heart at the hospital, they apparently loosened that, and it fell onto the stretcher."

Rolled out of the President's HEAD??? Hoover is completely daffy here! Even SEVEN DAYS after the crime! Incredible ignorance! And yet, per James DiEugenio, this bumbling fool name J. Edgar is supposedly orchestrating the biggest (and most successful) "cover-up" in history. ~LOL~

It's just a good thing Hoover had good [i.e., non-clueless] investigators like Bob Frazier and Sebastian Latona working for him.


HOOVER -- "All three [shots were fired] at the President....and we have them."

Hoover, in the above quote, is saying to LBJ that the FBI had in its possession ALL THREE BULLETS that Oswald fired. Again, this is complete ignorance on the part of Mr. Hoover. Not conspiracy. Not cover-up. Just a lack of accurate information concerning the physical evidence in the case.


HOOVER -- "Those three shots were fired within three seconds."


LBJ -- "If Connally hadn't been in his way..."

HOOVER -- "Oh yes....yes. The President no doubt would have been hit [a third time]."

LBJ -- "He [JFK] would have been hit three times."

HOOVER -- "He would have been hit three times."

Director Clueless outdoes himself with the above gut-buster.


OMG Davey, that was some pivot by you, worthy of Elgin Baylor.

And it shows you will never admit the deliberate alteration and obfuscation of evidence by the FBI.

I thought I roasted you pretty well, along with Vince [Bugliosi], about how Vince tried to cover up what the HSCA told us about the FBI rigging the polygraph test. If you recall, I pasted you all over this board on that one. But somehow, Davey now seems to forget about that issue and about how Vince deliberately covered it up in his book. That short memory serves you well in your continual denial of the facts of this case and what Hoover did in it.


Davey actually used to praise the FBI report on the case.


Yep. And I still do....

"The 400-page original FBI Report contains quite a bit of detail on the background and the early life of President Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, which is information that was obtained relatively quickly by J. Edgar Hoover's Bureau, with this information then written up in the FBI's December Report in a very reader-friendly style. Overall, in my opinion, the FBI's December 1963 Report is a good overview of the tragic events that transpired in Dallas on November 22, 1963. But Mr. Hoover's original Report is certainly not without a few (pretty large) mistakes, such as when the FBI reached the erroneous conclusion that each of the three shots fired by Lee Harvey Oswald struck one of the two victims seated in the Presidential limousine." -- DVP; April 2008


...the JFK assassination was not actually investigated in 1963 or 1964.


I hope you don't mind if I fervently disagree with you on this point, Jim.

In fact, I think your above quote is one of the silliest things you've ever uttered. And that's really a major accomplishment, considering the items that are contained within "The DiEugenio 22", which I never get tired of highlighting.

I know this will come as a massive shock to you, James, but I actually agree with Vincent T. Bugliosi on this (please don't faint)....

"In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. Even leading Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg acknowledges that the Commission "checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xxxii of "Reclaiming History"


The Warren Commission (and Vince Bugliosi) actually had something that conspiracy theorists can only dream about having ---- that is: HARD EVIDENCE to work with—e.g., Oswald's guns, bullets and fragments and shell casings from Oswald's guns, Oswald's lies, the Tippit murder witnesses, Oswald's unusual actions on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22, etc.

Whereas CTers have nothing that even comes close to matching the Lone Assassin/Oswald evidence. And the likely reason for that is --- No such hard "conspiracy" evidence exists. And never did.


When confronted with the clothing evidence, Dale K. Myers created animation depicting JFK's jacket collar elevated an inch up into the hairline -- an obvious fiction!


The clothing seen in Dale Myers' computer animation is meaningless. The clothes have nothing to do with where the bullet hole is located in KENNEDY'S UPPER BACK in Myers' computer model. Myers added the clothing for cosmetic purposes only. So the amount of "bunching" that Myers places on JFK's jacket does not mean a thing. It's merely to make the animated figures look more realistic.

(See the last paragraph in the image below, which is from this FAQ page on Myers' website.) ....


If anyone wants to see what a shameless water carrier DVP is for Dale Myers, please click this link:


Anyone can see what happened here. Because the illustrations are profuse. It's not just the phony computer illustration about the bundled-up top of JFK's neck with the shirt collar disappearing underneath the jacket. It's the peculiar shape of Kennedy's head and neck and how his head protrudes from his neck at an angle. Just compare that to the JBC model.

For DVP to insert Myers' utterly deceptive denial, and to say in effect, "What do you believe, Myers or your lying eyes?" this is what causes people like Joe McBride to wonder if someone is paying him. I have never done as much, but for DVP to fail to understand why someone with Joe's background would think so in the face of this witless fiasco, that shows an almost astonishing lack of self awareness of himself and his psychology.



All of DiEugenio's never-ending complaints about Dale K. Myers' computer animation project are tackled by Dale himself in this FAQ....


If Jim wants to think Dale is merely lying through his teeth in that extensive FAQ session, go ahead Jimmy. We can just add Dale to Jim's mile-long list of liars associated with the JFK murder case (if he's not already on the list, which he no doubt is).


Should not have done that, Davey.

If there is one person our site has utterly destroyed, it's Dale Myers. And again, the fact that you dismiss all of this, even when it's done with illustrations, shows just how around the bend you are on this issue. Sort of like Nixon still punning Vietnam after he knew the war was lost. Even Ambrose had to admit that he was really unbalanced about Indochina.

https://kennedysandking.com/Dale Myers: An Introduction

I advise everyone to read each of these critiques, since taken as a whole they leave Myers with no leg to stand on.


~another yawn~


All of DiEugenio's never-ending complaints about Dale K. Myers' computer animation project are tackled by Dale himself in this FAQ.

Addendum / Basic Observation....

"As I've said a thousand times before -- the luck of those multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza apparently never ran out. Did it? Those assassins were even able to fool Dale Myers' computer overlays and key framing....with those crackerjack killers pummelling JBC & JFK with several bullets (all of the vanishing variety, naturally) in just such a pattern (and with ideal SBT-like timing to boot, per the Z-Film) so that decades later a man at his computer could come up with an animation -- BASED ON AN ACTUAL FILMED RECORD OF THE EVENT! -- that would make this MULTI-shot event look exactly the same as the SBT purported by the WC in 1964. Where's the champagne?! Those ever-efficient, magical assassins deserve an endless supply of it for that magnificent hunk of "public duping". Wouldn't you agree?" -- DVP; May 19, 2007


This is a perfect illustration of what a zealot DVP really is.

Of those five articles in that link that destroys Myers, only one is by me. And mine does not deal that much with what Myers is trying to defend himself against in that blog entry. Harris, Speer, and Mili and Kelin can all fend for themselves and anyone can see the distortion of anatomy that Pat uses Myers' own work to decapitate him with. It's right there for anyone to see except a zealot like DVP. Zealots by definition cannot see.


Myers...was so grateful for that opportunity to break into the mainstream,
that when the producer of the show died a few years ago, Dale thanked him profusely. A bit too profusely. There, he admitted what he had previously
denied. The show did have a focus on Oswald as triggerman from the
beginning. [Click Here.]

If a man cannot be honest about something as basic as that, how can anyone believe him about anything? Except DVP, who with, such things as honesty do not matter.

Which is why he is what he is.


Seeing as how the above claptrap is coming from someone (DiEugenio) who considers the late Jim Garrison to be an honest man of the highest possible integrity (even though Garrison knowingly prosecuted an innocent man on a charge of conspiracy to murder the President), I can only request that some member of this forum lend me their "POT/KETTLE" icon asap! I need it badly here (in addition to multiple "ROFLs").

But, that's why Jim D. is what he is --- a walking Pot Meets Kettle emoji.


Even though I went after Bugliosi's book tooth and nail...there goes DVP using that discredited tree killer as a source.


Bugliosi's book has not been "discredited" in any major way whatsoever. Certainly not with respect to his main bottom-line conclusions, i.e.: 

....Oswald killed Kennedy.

....Oswald killed Tippit.

....Oswald shot at General Walker.

....The Warren Commission conducted a very good investigation and reached a proper conclusion based on the available evidence.

....There is no solid evidence for conspiracy in the JFK case at all.

And just because James DiEugenio wrote a book that claims to have "discredited" virtually every last thing uttered by Vince Bugliosi in his 2007 tome, that most certainly does NOT mean that Vince's book HAS been "discredited".

"Discredited" obviously has a completely different definition to a CTer like DiEugenio than it does to many other people. I mean, let's face the music here....

The guy who just said Bugliosi's tome has been "discredited" is the very same guy who, incredibly, actually believes that Oswald didn't fire a shot at EITHER Kennedy OR Tippit (OR Walker either)!

And there's also this list of fantastic things that Jim believes (or says he does)....

"[Marrion] Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015

"Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly on the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

"A Mauser was the first weapon found and...a Mauser shell was found in Dealey Plaza." -- James DiEugenio; April 3, 2015

"It's like I have always said, the WC was the Troika: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, with Warren for window dressing." -- James DiEugenio; August 1, 2015

"I think that that whole thing about burning the [autopsy] notes...was just a cover story." -- James DiEugenio; December 11, 2008

"I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. .... What's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other [west] end." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010

"Specter and Humes understood that the probe was gonna be a big problem. They thought the photographs would never be declassified. So Specter made up this B.S. story about the strap muscles, never knowing that that story was going to be exposed." -- James DiEugenio; July 16, 2009

"I have minimized the testimony of Linnie Mae [Randle]. I do so because in my view it is highly questionable." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

"I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." -- James DiEugenio; August 5, 2015

"I just proved that CE 399 was not found at Parkland." -- James DiEugenio; June 4, 2010

"At Bethesda, the military severely curtails the autopsy so that no one will ever know the true circumstances of how Kennedy was killed. Also, the FBI switches the bullet found at Parkland Hospital to fit the second rifle found at the TSBD, a Mannlicher Carcano." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

"I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides [Howard] Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010

"You cannot even prove he [Lee Harvey Oswald] ever had possession of the handgun." -- James DiEugenio; June 25, 2013

"I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010

"JBC [John B. Connally] does not react until around frame 237." -- James DiEugenio; August 2010

"I am not calling [Dallas police officer M.N.] McDonald a liar, the evidence is doing it." -- James DiEugenio; July 26, 2015

[End Fantasy Quotes.]

And yet, with beliefs like that laundry list above hanging out there for all to see, I'm supposed to believe that Vincent T. Bugliosi is really the one who has been "discredited", plus every official committee who has ever looked into the JFK murder case. Those committees, via Jim's definition, have also ALL been "discredited" too.

Please, James! Give a reasonable man with a weak bladder a freakin' break for once!


David Von Pein evaded all of this.


You don't actually expect me to fall at the feet of DiEugenio when it comes to ANYTHING he says about the JFK murder case, do you Michael?

Get real. (And take a glance at the litany of things [quoted in my last post] that Jimmy has gotten COMPLETELY WRONG when it comes to evaluating the facts in this case.)

With a laundry list of absurdity like that one (and this one) staring everyone in the face who cares to look, the only question that remains is:

Why would anybody who considers themselves to be a reasonable person ever take James DiEugenio of Los Angeles seriously about ANYTHING relating to the events of November 22, 1963? (Which is not just a smart-ass or smart-alecky remark on my part....it's a truly valid and legitimate question from my point-of-view.)



You ignored each and every item in that bill of indictment for Clay Shaw. Michael is absolutely correct on that.

Every part of that list is made up of evidence that was rolled out by the ARRB.

I did not originate this, it is all in documents and/or testimony. Some of the points I footnoted, some I did not. I could have footnoted them all, but I think I have a reputation on this site for honesty and scholarly discipline. If someone can show I do not, then so be it, go ahead.

You were not able to answer any of it in a coherent way. Why can't you just man up and admit that? You do not know jack about New Orleans. Why is that so hard to admit?


I know enough to know that there was NO SOLID EVIDENCE against the man that Garrison was prosecuting.


You then doubled down on that by using the fraudulent volume RH ["Reclaiming History"] by the hack Bugliosi. And you get more custard pie on your face. You did not have the barest idea about what happened at Shaw's trial. You then trusted Bugliosi and he ended up being untrustworthy.

You never get tired of falling on your face, do you? And we are supposed to ignore that because you do?


Well, Jim, with a trail of purely laughable quotes like the ones I cited in a previous post --- like "I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction" and "Baker never saw Oswald" and "I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit" --- do you really think that YOU are the one who should be talking about someone ELSE "falling on [their] face"?

And, I say again, with such unbelievably wrong beliefs in your hip pocket (beliefs that are NOT supported by the actual EVIDENCE at all!), why should anyone take seriously ANYTHING you have ever said regarding the JFK case? If you can't even figure out the really easy ones---like Oswald ordering the C2766 rifle and Oswald shooting J.D. Tippit four times---then how can anyone expect you to get ANYTHING right at all? (Seems like a sensible question to me.)

David Von Pein
July 12-15, 2018

(PART 1287)


This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr. James Humes burning his notes:


"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy." -- David Von Pein

Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having blood stains on it.

I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2) x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.

I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then, after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)

I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st conclusion. That may explain why he did [not] elaborate as to what those "errors" might have been. Those errors might have been:

1) Generally, before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed.

2) The clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them, so it may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about it.

3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol.

4) Finally, the conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.

Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the wound!"

David Emerling
Memphis, TN


[Quoting David Emerling:]

"I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat."

Yes, even a klutz like YOU can SEE the throat wound. But then again, you're not a doctor. The original theory when they found out about it was that the bullet hit the back of the head and exited the throat. Now, aren't you glad I'm here to show you things you never knew about before?

This came out shortly after midnight.


Thanks, Tony, for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article [pictured below].

It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on Saturday, November 23rd!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound as well....

"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the Adam's Apple." -- The Boston Globe; November 23, 1963



Hey, look, folks, it's an artist's sketch published in the Boston Globe, so it must be accurate! That pretty much nails it.

The Parkland ER photos showing the entry wounds in JFK's throat and right forehead must have been fakes.


Of course, I wasn't implying that the Boston Globe was correct when they said the bullet went from JFK's HEAD to his THROAT. That theory is, of course, absurd. But at the time the Globe published its article on 11/23/63, they had no idea that JFK had a wound in his upper back. They thought (at the time) that Kennedy had just two wounds---the head wound and a bullet hole in his throat.


I wonder why the Globe would have published such a wildly inaccurate, goofy sketch about such an utterly tragic event (which was especially tragic for the people of Massachusetts)?


Because they thought JFK had been hit by only one bullet (coming from the TSBD), and they knew he had a massive head wound and a wound in his throat.

Given those limited facts regarding the wounds, it's really the only conclusion they could have reached at that early stage on November 23rd. The media people certainly had no info concerning the autopsy as of Nov. 23.

In fact, I think that even weeks (or months) later, there were reporters and media people speculating as to whether there had, in fact, even been an autopsy done on JFK's body.


As a follow-up to my last comment above, below is a newscast from the NBC Radio Network that was aired on November 26, 1963, four days after JFK was killed. And after I first heard this radio newscast several years ago, I recall thinking to myself that it seemed mighty strange for the news media—four full days after the assassination—to not have any confirmation on whether there had even been an autopsy conducted on JFK's body——even though the same media obviously knew that Kennedy's body had been taken to Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of the assassination. (The "autopsy" excerpt is located at 4:10 in the video.) ....


I should defer to the true experts here, but, from what I have read, the Parkland ER physicians spoke openly to the media about the widely observed entry wounds in JFK's throat and right forehead --- and the missing right occipital-parietal skull fragment that was, obviously, an exit wound.

It was only later, under duress, that the Parkland medical staff testimony was altered to, awkwardly, conform to the "lone nut" in the TSBD with the cheap Carcano government narrative.

Secondly, there was ample witness testimony about a shot being fired from the "grassy knoll." The extant videos also show, quite clearly, that everyone ran to the grassy knoll in search of the assassin(s) immediately after the shooting.

So, no, the Boston Globe sketch does NOT describe what was known about the assassination on 11/23. Instead, it describes a false narrative that was inconsistent with the reports from Parkland, and the witness testimony from Dealey Plaza.

Where did the Globe get their false narrative?


I would guess that the Boston Globe people pretty much tried to figure it out for themselves---armed, as they were, with the sketchy information that they had at that time, such as:

....Two known wounds in JFK's body (throat and head);

....The shooting having occurred on Elm Street in Dealey Plaza (after JFK's car had already passed the assassin's window);

....An alleged lone assassin on the 6th floor of the Book Depository Building;

....And a lone suspect (Lee Harvey Oswald) in police custody who happened to work in the TSBD.

The preponderance of evidence after Day 1 (Nov. 22) indicated THREE shots, ONE assassin firing from the Depository, and only TWO known wounds in the President (head and throat), although we could now argue over the fact that the Globe article seems to totally ignore the huge EXIT wound that the Parkland doctors said was located at the BACK of JFK's head. In fact, the Globe sketch doesn't include ANY "large wound" in the President's head at all. ~shrug~

It's interesting to note, however, that the Boston Globe newspaper---on Day 1 [November 22nd PM]---came very close to pinpointing the true location of the entry hole in the back of President Kennedy's head. In fact, according to the autopsy surgeons (with whom I personally disagree on this point), the Globe nailed it just about to the inch---low on the back of the head near the EOP.

I wonder if any other media outlets got that close to the truth regarding the location of the entrance wound in JFK's cranium on Day #1?

The byline on the Boston Globe story indicates it was written by "Ian Menzies (Globe Science Editor)".


David Von Pein, all you do is deny everything, every piece of evidence that doesn't fit the official Warren Commission theory, and defend the transparently phony Warren Report. Your role is that of a professional Conspiracy Denier. It's entirely predictable, and your posts could have been written in late 1964. In case you haven't noticed, this is 2018, and a lot of independent research has been done, and many documents and witness statements have come out that weren't public back then, as well as abundant new evidence.

I don't know why people bother arguing with you here. Your role seems to be to take up time and space by reiterating your few simple points and attacking others' arguments through rote denial and to deflect any genuine questioning and investigation. You seem to spend many hours each day at this task.

The only interesting question is, Who is paying you?



You're entitled to your opinion about the JFK assassination....and so am I. If you want to think the Warren Commission's 10-month probe was nothing but a "transparently phony" investigation, you're free to believe that if you want to. But that doesn't mean I have to swallow such a notion too---and I certainly don't. Believing that the Commission had a hidden agenda to frame Oswald as the lone killer and to cover-up any and all evidence of a conspiracy is a belief that, in my opinion, is a patently silly one.

When you've got to accuse so many people in Officialdom of lying and covering up and hiding the truth, etc., I think it's time to re-think your position. But it seems that most of the CTers I've talked to over the years don't think it's unreasonable at all to believe that a whole bunch of people connected with so many different organizations (such as the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the Clark Panel, the DPD, the FBI, and the Secret Service, among others) all decided to jump on board the "Let's Frame An Innocent Lee Harvey Oswald As The Sole Assassin" train. But, to me, that scenario is simply ridiculous (not to mention virtually impossible to pull off, especially considering all the evidence that exists against Oswald in this double-murder case). I'm supposed to actually believe that ALL of the evidence in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases is fake, phony, and manufactured? (Come now, my good man. Let's be sensible here.)

And, Joseph, do you truly think that a person who has been interested in President Kennedy's murder for over 35 years (like myself) couldn't possibly believe in Oswald's lone guilt without also being on the payroll of one of the alphabet agencies (or any agency)? Is that why I was treated to your closing "Who is paying you?" salvo in your last post? Even though I don't agree with any of your theories in the Kennedy/Tippit case, your Internet posts normally rise above the level of such juvenile inquiries.

David Von Pein
July 10, 2018
July 11-14, 2018