Part 1370 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of November 1—30, 2023. To read the entire forum discussion from which my own comments have been extracted, click on the "Full Discussion" logo at the bottom of each individual segment.
VINCE PALAMARA POSTED THIS LINK:
http://KennedysAndKing.com/Vince Palamara's Review Of Paul Landis' Book "The Final Witness"
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Vince,
Thanks for the link to your Landis book review.
But I have a big problem with the fact that you have (perhaps unintentionally?) taken a large chunk of my writing and then placed it in your book review as if you had written it yourself. And you've also placed no footnote of any kind after the words that I definitely wrote to indicate the true source of that paragraph.
The paragraph in question (which was originally written by me at The Education Forum on September 12, 2023 -- HERE'S THE E.F. LINK) begins with the words "The reason for why his total silence is not believable". ---- [Click.] *
* Please note that Joe Bauer, in his Education Forum reply here, obviously thinks that that particular paragraph (which Bauer himself quoted in his post) was, indeed, written by Vincent Palamara, with Mr. Bauer's reply to much of that paragraph being, "Right on Vince!"
I understand that mistakes and "source" oversights can happen. They happen to me in my writings too. And you, Vince, say in your book review (via a source note) that you had the help of K.K. Lane in putting together your list of questions for Paul Landis (with the part that I wrote appearing as your last "bullet point" item on that list in your review). So maybe K.K. Lane provided you with my quote for you to use in your review, and you (perhaps?) thought that the quote was something that Lane himself had written??
Could that be the explanation for why I'm finding a pretty good-sized amount of my written words within an article with only Vince Palamara's name on it??
Anyway, if you, Vince, would simply add a footnote to my quote that goes directly to this EF Forum post (or to this webpage from my blog, which contains the same quote plus lots of other informative stuff about the Landis topic), that would satisfy me. And, btw, I'm pleased and flattered that you would want to use some of my written words in your own review. I just don't think it's right to pass those words off as your own. (As I'm sure you'll agree.)
Thanks, Vince.
Regards,
DVP
VINCE PALAMARA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Thank you, Vince.
David Von Pein
November 2-3, 2023
================================
ALAN FORD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I see we have another indistinct and amorphous blob that is being turned into something that's now being labeled as absolutely definitive and ironclad by conspiracy theorists.
Pathetic.
Plus....
~Grin~
ALAN FORD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
"Reclaiming History" book excerpt (click to enlarge):
ALAN FORD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
FWIW / FYI / IAI [If Anybody's Interested]....
Here's that full discussion from January 2022.
And it then continues on Page 35 of that thread, here.
Excerpt from that 2022 discussion:
[DVP Quote On:]
Alan,
Please tell us what connection there is between the Ruth Paine curtain rods that you seem to be fixated on and the "curtain rods" that Lee Oswald lied about?
Even with a date discrepancy on the document you've posted many times now, tell us what the connection is.
Do you think Oswald DID take some rods into the TSBD and then the cops took them back to Ruth's garage?
Enlighten us all as you answer the proverbial question that can be asked of nearly all conspiracy theorists whenever they start talking about their murky theories----with that question being:
Where are you going with this?
[End 2022 Quote.]
And here is Alan's fabulously speculative reply.
ALAN FORD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Alan,
Your silliness about the "Exhibit 275" really meaning "27.5 inches" is quite a howler as well.
(Is the "276" supposed to really indicate "27.6 inches"?)
The amazing made-up crap from the desks of CTers never ceases to astound us all.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The odd numbering system occurred for many witness exhibits. Such as:
The "L.C. Graves Exhibits" begin with number 5003-A.
And then there's the "Hardin" exhibits, which begin with No. 5125.
And the "Harrison" exhibits start with #5027.
Plus a bunch of other oddball starting numbers for other Warren Commission witnesses too. (See this link.)
So Ruth Paine's exhibits being numbered 275 and 276 is not unusual IN THIS CASE at all.
Bottom Line: The March 15 date that appears on Warren Commission Exhibit No. 1952 is simply an error. It HAS to be an error, since those curtain rods weren't even retrieved from Ruth Paine's garage until March 23, 1964.
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
And here are many more witness exhibits which appear to be just randomly numbered with very high numbers, including the B.G. Patterson exhibits, which begin with #5311. And the Riggs exhibits, which begin with 5128. And then there's the Talbert exhibit series, which begins with numbers 1 and 2, but then jumps to number 5065 for some reason.
And, btw, the Ruth Paine exhibit numbers jump around too, going from #278-A to #461 and finally to #469 for the last one in the Ruth Paine series.
So there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason for the strange numbering system utilized by the Warren Commission for the numbers assigned to the exhibits that have the witness' name attached to them---which is something else I've also never understood. Why didn't the Commission just simply label every exhibit the same way (e.g., CE1, CE2, etc.)? Why did some witnesses warrant having their own names being attached to their exhibits? I've always wondered why that was done. ~shrug~
ALAN FORD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
OK. That explains part of the numbering system (I guess). But then the Ruth Paine exhibits jump from 461 to 469 without apparent reason. What's the reason for that particular jump, Alan?
And I also can't help but scratch my head and wonder why CE449 and CE459-1 and CE460 weren't labeled as "Ruth Paine Exhibit 449", etc.?
Quite a confusing numbering system indeed, with some exhibits dealing directly with Ruth Paine materials being straight "CE" numbers and some being labeled with "Ruth Paine Exhibit" numbers.
ALAN FORD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Alan Ford thinks that "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 270 is a freak outlier" in the Warren Commission's rather odd system of numbering the WC exhibits. And Alan has asked me if I could prove him wrong "by finding me one exhibit number anywhere that genuinely compares" with Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 270.
Well, after just a brief search, I was indeed able to find a total of FOUR such WC exhibits, all of which appear in WC Volume No. 21, with none of these four examples having numbers in the 5000s.
Here are those four examples:
Pizzo Exhibits 453A—453C.
Raigorodsky Exhibits 9—14A.
Semingsen Exhibit 3001.
Wilcox Exhibits 3002—3017.
Sorry, Alan. Looks like another crackpot conspiracy theory has just gone sliding down the drain. Better luck next time.
----------------
Note --- The "Pizzo" exhibit numbers shown above aren't just "out of the blue" numbers picked by the Warren Commission (which no doubt will make Alan Ford very happy). The WC, in the Pizzo instance, must have chosen the number "453" in order to match "CE453", which is an exhibit that also surfaces in Mr. Pizzo's WC testimony. So there is a "tie in" there. I tried to find such a tie-in with the other three witnesses mentioned in this post, but I couldn't do it. Mr. Wilcox, for example, certainly has no connection with "CE3002", because CE3002 is Lee Oswald's autopsy report and Mr. Wilcox worked at Western Union Telegraph Company in 1963. So there's no "connection" there at all.
ALAN FORD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No, you've just decided on your own that there's a "3000 club". But there are only TWO witnesses in this "club" (Semingsen and Wilcox). Whereas the "5000 club" has dozens of examples. But there are a mere TWO members of your invented "3000 club" (and both witnesses worked for Western Union).
Plus: as I said, I see no connection between Semingsen and Wilcox and the corresponding "CE" numbers (3001 thru 3017).
ALAN FORD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, it is.
Why didn't the Commission utilize more 5000+ numbers instead of STARTING at 3001 for the Semingsen Exhibit?
ALAN FORD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Regarding your [Alan Ford's] non-stop inquiry regarding the 3/15/1964 date on the CSSS document(s)....
Yes, Mr. Ford, you now have my official permission to designate my "repeated evasions" regarding that topic as a "tacit admission" on my part that I have no answer for it --- other than to keep repeating my own opinion that it is an (obvious) mistake, since the curtain rods weren't even retrieved by the Warren Commission from Ruth Paine's garage until the night of March 23rd, 1964.
But, by the same token, you cannot explain the March 15th date either (with any explanation that approaches anything of a PROVABLE nature, that is).
ALAN FORD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Talk about leaping to an unfounded and wholly unsupportable claim! Mr. Ford has sure done that in this discussion (starting here).
Via a series of cloak-and-dagger conspiratorial contortions and outright speculation, Mr. Ford has decided that there WERE, in fact, some curtain rods found in the TSBD after the assassination of JFK, even though the only actual evidence (and testimony) indicates the exact opposite -- i.e., no curtain rods were found in the TSBD (via CE2640, plus the fact that the police never found a single curtain rod anywhere in the Book Depository Building during their extensive searches of that building for evidence on the weekend of the assassination).
So what we end up with is more of the usual coming from a conspiracy theorist -- with that "usual" being nothing more that a bunch of wishful thinking.
ALAN FORD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The BIG/HUGE/TREMENDOUS/IMPORTANT difference between JFK conspiracy fantasists and myself is:
I require a total of 0 (Zero) liars (not counting Lee Oswald) in order for my Lone Assassin position to be supported and maintained.
CTers like Alan Ford, however, require a very large number of people to be telling many lies about various aspects of the evidence connected to the 11/22/63 events in Dealey Plaza and on Tenth Street.
In just this "Exhibit 275/Curtain Rod" instance alone, the CTers who think it was nothing more than a staged "charade" require several different people to be telling blatant falsehoods about the curtain rod evidence, including Ruth Paine, John Joe Howlett, Albert Jenner, J.C. Day, and (probably) Michael Paine. And it's very likely that CTers would place many other people at the Depository on this particular Liars List too.
But, as I've said many times in the past, there are a lot of conspiracy theorists who couldn't care less how many people they have to call rotten evil liars in order to try and support their silly theories. It would seem the CTer policy has been (and still remains today): The More Liars, The Better.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But in the "EXHIBIT NO. 275 / CURTAIN ROD" instance, which some CTers are now insisting was all just a "charade", if those CTers are correct, we'd actually have to believe that not only did people in "officialdom" fib/lie out their respective ass cracks, but we'd ALSO have to believe that Ruth Paine (and probably Michael Paine too) were lying about the curtain rods that Ruth said were stored in her garage both BEFORE and AFTER the assassination. And neither Ruth nor Michael are part of the police, the FBI, or "officialdom" in general.
And regarding the "SECOND-FLOOR LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER", which many many CTers on the Internet now firmly believe NEVER HAPPENED AT ALL .... the liars in that instance would have, just like the "Exhibit 275 Charade", also consisted of a COMBINATION of "officialdom" people telling one lie after another (Marrion Baker) and regular ol' citizens (TSBD Superintendent Roy Truly).
And then there's the Tippit murder (which many conspiracy theorists believe was committed by someone they are sure was NOT Lee Harvey Oswald) .... with witnesses like Johnny Brewer and Ted Callaway and the Davis girls and William Scoggins all being thrown under the bus and treated like liars and crooks by various CTers over the years. And none of those people I just mentioned can be labelled as being part of "officialdom" at all. They were all just ordinary Dallas citizens in 1963.
So, again, in the Tippit case, if the CTers are right, it would have been a combination of ordinary people PLUS various police officials who must have lied through their individual and collective teeth and then they all gathered together in Chief Curry's office at City Hall and decided to join forces to frame an innocent Oswald. It's just flat-out absurd.
And there are, of course, many additional examples that I could easily cite in order to support my previous (admittedly) tongue-in-cheek comment about "The More Liars, The Better" motto/mantra that seems to have been embraced in recent years by many Internet conspiracists. But if I were to cite all of those examples in just this one post, I wouldn't get any sleep for the next five days.
JOHN IACOLETTI SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Better read my quote again, Mr. Conspiracy. I never said there were Zero Liars in the whole case. What I said was this....
"I require a total of 0 (Zero) liars (not counting Lee Oswald) in order for my Lone Assassin position to be supported and maintained."
The above statement is certainly still 100% true even with liars like Russo, Hill, and Craig in the mix. I can easily maintain and support my Lone Assassin position even without those three people ever surfacing in any discussion.
Can CTers maintain and support THEIR position with only THREE measly liars in the mix? Not a chance. You need at least ten times that many (if not more).
P.S. -- People that I think were just simply "wrong" about something don't go into my "Liars" list. Maybe that's something that CTers like you, John, should learn.
JOHN IACOLETTI SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't accept any of the claims by any of those people, Mr. Conspiracy.
They were all "wrong", but not necessarily "liars".
Just like the many Parkland witnesses who said they saw a huge hole in the back of JFK's head. I have never called any of those witnesses liars. But they were all "wrong". And they were provably wrong too, with the autopsy photographs and X-rays providing the proof (for all time) that they were wrong.
JOHN IACOLETTI SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The JFK Conspiracy Fantasists have people scheming and plotting and planting and lying and conniving and altering and framing patsies all over the place in this case.
You think all of those never-ending accusations can be wiped out by replacing all of those terms I just used with the simple word "WRONG"?
Get real.
ALAN FORD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Now you're just making stuff up. There is NO EVIDENCE which points "precisely" to any curtain rods being recovered from the TSBD. None. And your fantasy and cloak-and-dagger crap regarding Paine Exhibits No. 275 & 276 doesn't come close to showing that any rods were found IN THE DEPOSITORY.
Why you think otherwise is yet another mystery.
I have said multiple times that I think the March 15th date on the DPD form is simply an error. Which it so obviously is, when taking into account the totality of the facts surrounding the two curtain rods that were recovered from Ruth Paine's garage on 3/23/64.
"Reclaiming History" book excerpt (click to enlarge):
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID THIS.
ALAN FORD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I think "this little exchange of ours" merely showcases the utter desperation, wishful thinking, and outright speculation that we (of course) have all been accustomed to seeing in virtually every argument put forth by JFK conspiracy theorists since the crime was committed in November of 1963.
So, thank you, Alan Ford, for being willing to showcase your massive amounts of speculation and your willingness (and eagerness) to call multiple people outright liars, all based on the words "March 15" on one document (plus a copy of said document).
Another fine (and extraordinarily fun and funny) example of CTer desperation and wishful thinking and speculation in action (re: the SBT) can be found HERE.
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
Here's another rare DPD image concerning the curtain rods, this one featuring a date --- March 25, 1964 --- which is a date that is perfectly consistent with the rods having been removed from Ruth Paine's garage on the night of March 23rd:
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The March 25th date shown in the photo that appears in my last post is consistent with what appears in CE1952, with that version of the DPD form saying the rods were released to Howlett on March 26.
Yes, there's a SECOND copy of the form which says March 24 for the release date, which I can't fully explain. Nor can you. It's one of those "unanswerable" anomalies (unless I can locate more documents in the future that can explain why there are separate copies of the same form featuring different dates).
But it's still quite clear that BOTH forms (the one that says March 24 and the one that says March 26) are referring to the exhibits numbered 275 and 276, which were, of course, the two rods taken from Ruth's house on 3/23.
David Von Pein
November 4-9, 2023
================================
PATRICK COLLINS SAID:
David,
From your Blog ["Oswald Timeline; Part 1"]:
[Quoting DVP:]
"It's my belief that Lee Oswald, during this (approx.) 10-minute time period around noon or shortly after, probably went to the west end of the sixth floor (where he had his rifle hidden in the brown bag). Oswald unwraps the rifle at the west end of the sixth floor and assembles the rifle at the west end (hence, Arnold Rowland sees a white man with a rifle at the west end of the building at approx. this time, maybe a little later, 12:15 or so, but keep in mind the approximation of all times)."
[End DVP Quote.]
I am curious to know why you think LHO assembled the rifle on the 6th floor and around noon?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Mainly because of Arnold Rowland's observations. Despite Vince Bugliosi's belief that Arnold Rowland was a liar (which is a position that I disagree with, although Mr. Rowland probably did embellish and "enhance" his story for his Warren Commission testimony -- Click Here), we can be pretty certain that Rowland DID see Oswald on the WEST end of the 6th floor holding a rifle shortly before the assassination.
Barbara Rowland, in my view, is the person who actually confirmed that particular fact when she testified that her husband, Arnold, told her AT THE TIME [on November 22nd in Dealey Plaza] about the man with a gun up in the window.
So unless BOTH Arnold and Barbara are big fat liars, then Arnold did see a gunman on the west side of the Depository at about 12:15 PM or so. And that gunman was no doubt Lee Harvey Oswald, IMO.
So that means that LHO was definitely on the WEST side of the 6th floor, with his Carcano in his hands, at about 12:15. And while trying to construct a scenario for why Oswald would have been over near that west-end window (which is the opposite end of the 6th floor from where he ultimately chose to shoot JFK from), I put forth the hypothesis that maybe---just maybe---he had assembled the gun somewhere near that west-end window, where he was observed by Rowland.
And if Oswald did, indeed, choose to stash the disassembled rifle somewhere on the west side of the sixth floor when he got to work that morning (prior to any of the "floor repair crew" arriving at work; with perhaps Oswald not realizing, or forgetting about, the fact that there were going to be TSBD employees working all morning in that west-end area of the sixth floor), then that would mean that LHO would not have had any opportunity to get to his rifle prior to lunchtime and assemble it. Which would mean he would have no choice but to wait until lunchtime and until after all the floor-fixers had vacated the sixth floor entirely.
My scenario is just a guess, of course. Just like yours, Patrick, is just a guess as well regarding your theory that LHO assembled the gun on the 7th floor (which might very well be true). But my scenario could be true as well. We'll never know for certain, because Mr. Oswald wasn't kind enough to fill in those pre-12:30 details for us before he was himself murdered.
Here's my "Oswald Timeline; Part 2", which has a give-and-take between myself and Dale Myers on the subject.
David Von Pein
November 8, 2023
[Via E-Mail]
================================
SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I've got an explanation that is 10,000 times "more likely" to be the accurate one when compared to any alternative theory concerning any alleged conspiratorial involvement of Linnie Mae Randle, Ruth Paine, or Buell Wesley Frazier.
But at this stage in your rapidly developing and accelerating conspiracy-oriented mind, I kind of doubt that my ho-hum explanation would interest you much. But I'll repeat a portion of my thoughts anyway (taken from this 2022 discussion):
"There's no way everything connected with the way Lee Oswald got his TSBD job could have been planned in advance by a band of CIA-sponsored housewives on Fifth Street in Irving, Texas." -- DVP; December 18, 2022
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID THIS AND THIS.
David Von Pein
November 11-12, 2023
================================
VINCE PALAMARA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And we know for a FACT—based on this and this (in tandem)—that both Clint Hill and Paul Landis were 100% dead wrong when they stated that the back of President Kennedy's head was "missing".
They aren't liars, they're just wrong, like all of the other Back-Of-The-Head ("BOH") witnesses.
And, very likely, one of the reasons for why most of the BOH witnesses had a mistaken impression of where the large exit wound on President Kennedy's head was located—possibly the #1 primary reason—clearly rests in the lap (literally) of First Lady Jackie Kennedy. Because Mrs. Kennedy, without doubt, manipulated and changed the configuration of JFK's head wound while the limousine was speeding to Parkland Hospital. We know that for a fact because Jackie told us so in her Warren Commission testimony. She said that during the drive to the hospital, she tried to "hold his hair on, and his skull on".
So, Jacqueline Kennedy, in effect, closed up the huge gaping hole in the right-front of JFK's head. And she must have done a pretty good job of "closing" it up too, so that the witnesses in Trauma Room No. 1 weren't even aware there was a huge gaping wound in the upper-right part of the President's head. Which left those witnesses staring at a head that was essentially intact (from their point of view).
So what they mostly saw was the massive amount of blood that was pooling, via gravity, toward the RIGHT-REAR portion of JFK's head, with much of that blood no doubt clinging to the right-rear (occipital) area of the head, giving the false impression that the one and only wound in the President's head was located in the right-rear (occipital) area of the head.
Incredible, you say?
Impossible for so many witnesses to be fooled by the closing up of one single flap on the President's head?
Many people think such a thing was impossible. But what better explanation is there? (And the "Fake Autopsy Photos & X-rays" explanation doesn't come even close to qualifying as a "better" explanation.)
David Von Pein
November 15, 2023
================================
GARY AGUILAR SAID:
I have it on good authority that the Parkland docs piece ["JFK: What The Doctors Saw"] will be available for streaming this coming Tuesday [11/14/23] at Paramount+.
Warren loyalists hate the Parkland doctors, who they regard as so stupid they couldn't tell the anterolateral portion of a human skull from the occipitoparietal portion. This special will no doubt give them even more reason to hate the Dallas doctors.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Basic Fact....
President Kennedy did NOT have a great-big hole in the BACK (occipital) portion of his head UNLESS all (or certainly most) of the autopsy photos AND autopsy X-rays AND the Zapruder Film have been faked / forged / altered / fabricated / manufactured.
The above is just a simple and provable FACT that has existed in this case since the day Kennedy was shot.
And how could anyone who is in their right mind possibly believe that such massive fakery and alteration actually did take place when it comes to all of those various photographic items of evidence I just mentioned (autopsy photographs + autopsy X-rays + Z-Film)?
A person who says they believe in such mass fakery is, in my opinion, practically admitting they are insane and ready for a rubber room.
My $0.02.
LARRY SCHNAPF SAID:
At the very end [of the "What The Doctors Saw" documentary], the doctors agree that the autopsy photos and xrays do not match the injuries they saw in the ER.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's good that (some of) the Parkland doctors finally made such an obvious admission.
We can only shake our heads and wonder why some of the same doctors said exactly the opposite in 1988, when four doctors told a NOVA/PBS audience that the autopsy pics that they were looking at for the first time somehow matched and corroborated the big "BOH" blow-out they each said they saw on 11/22 [see the video below]. ~shrug~
The most ridiculous statement made during the 1988 NOVA special was this preposterous quote that came out of the mouth of Dr. McClelland:
"I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly." -- Robert McClelland; 1988
~~huge shrug~~
Here's McClelland's 1988 "hands on" demonstration (and just minutes later he said that the autopsy photos matched this hands-on demonstration ["no discrepancy"]):
GARY AGUILAR SAID:
Oh, David!
This shows such desperation.
McClelland then, and again in the Paramount special, said he thought the photo showing the back of JFK's head to be intact only looked that way because someone, apparently Boswell, was pulling the scalp forward over the large rearward skull defect that he said was there, out of which he saw cerebellum fall out.
Why do you not tell the whole story, David?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Why won't you tell the "whole story", Gary? And part of that "whole story" is the FACT that McClelland's "pulled-up scalp" fairy tale is utter nonsense and just plain idiotic (even from a CTer POV). (Not to mention the fact that it's physically impossible.)
Why do I say that?
Because in order for McClelland's crazy "scalp" theory to be accurate, we'd actually have to believe that Kennedy's RIGHT-REAR SCALP was magically left untouched and undamaged by the same bullet that ripped a huge hole in the RIGHT-REAR SKULL of Kennedy....and then on top of that impossibility, we'd also have to believe that JFK's scalp had been "reflected" back on his head while he was at Parkland, in order for McClelland to be able to see any big hole that was underneath the intact scalp.
And neither of those things is the slightest bit believable. Kennedy's scalp could not have been totally damage-free IF there had been a huge "BOH" hole in the occipital area of his head. And, of course, the scalp was certainly not "reflected" (or peeled back) off the skull while Kennedy lay on his stretcher at Parkland Hospital.
Why various conspiracy theorists can't see the illogic that exists within Dr. Robert McClelland's "pulled-up scalp" theory is beyond me. Because the built-in "impossibility" of such a nutty theory is readily apparent to me.
GARY AGUILAR SAID:
David,
This [below] is the correct orientation of the back head photo, and it's obvious that someone, apparently Boswell, is standing and holding JFK's scalp over the back of his head. This is what McClelland is talking about, as if it weren't already glaringly obvious:
While I understand that you place great weight on official claims, let's not neglect that all three of JFK's pathologists, both Stringer and Reibe, as well as Saundra Spencer, agree autopsy photos are missing. In other words, the Dallas docs aren't the only ones saying there are problems with JFK's autopsy photos.
There's much more to the story, so please don't expect me, or anyone who's rational, to accept that, uniquely in the Kennedy case, the US Govt is telling us the truth, something you apparently desperately need to believe.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You must be kidding me, Gary!
When evaluating Dr. McClelland's absurd "pulled-up scalp" theory, you actually think it makes any difference whatsoever which way the BOH autopsy photo is oriented? That's crazy.
Because no matter which way you turn that photo---sideways or any other direction---the scalp in the back of President Kennedy's head is still going to be 100% intact (except, of course, for the small entry wound in the cowlick area, which is where Lee Harvey Oswald's 6.5-millimeter Carcano bullet entered JFK's head).
Which means, of course, regardless of how the BOH photo is positioned, Dr. McClelland's theory about the right-rear SCALP of JFK remaining (somehow and in some mysterious way) completely intact and undamaged, even though (at the same time) the "right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted" [Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert N. McClelland at 6 H 33], will remain a completely untenable (and impossible) theory to swallow.
So, Gary, I don't see how turning the autopsy picture (or the Dox drawing) sideways helps to rehabilitate the late Dr. McClelland's credibility concerning this matter one bit.
GARY AGUILAR SAID:
And while you're working on your rejoinder, please explain how the following credible witnesses from Parkland, who wrote their accounts on 11-22-63, happened to be soooo uniformly wrong (to say nothing of the many other Parkland and autopsy witnesses who said much the same thing):
Warren Report:
Page 518: Kemp Clark, MD: "There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region ... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebrellar tissue was extruding from the wound." -- [Undated, typed noted]
Page 520: "The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and brain tissue present with diffuse oozing ... attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted." -- [11-22-63, 16:20, Charles J. Carrico, MD]
Page 521: "A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted." -- [Malcolm O. Perry, MD, 16:30, 11-22-63]
Page 523: "The temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table." -- [Charles Baxter, MD, Assistant Prof of Surgery, 11-22-63]
Page 524-525: In a hand-written hospital note: "A large 3x3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region .... Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination." -- [Kemp Clark, MD, 11-22-63, 16:15 hrs.]
Page 529-530: "There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." -- [M.T. Jenkins, MD, 11-22-63, 16:30]
Regards,
Gary
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Although this explanation isn't exactly totally satisfying to me either, the best answer that I have been able to come up with to the 60-year-old head-scratcher of how the Parkland Hospital witnesses could have all been so "uniformly wrong" is — (drum roll) — Jackie Kennedy.*
* As I explained (coincidentally) just four days ago in a discussion at The Education Forum — HERE.
Also....
With respect to Dr. Baxter's specific comment in which he said "occipital bones were missing":
That specific observation by Baxter is provably wrong, because the X-ray pictured below (which was authenticated by the HSCA) proves for all time that there was absolutely NO occipital bone "missing" from the skull of John F. Kennedy when the autopsy was done on his body at Bethesda on November 22, 1963:
Related "X-ray" discussion HERE.
LARRY SCHNAPF SAID:
Gary and DVP,
Is this a question about scalp vs skull bone?
My understanding is that the scalp was lacerated but not a significant amount was missing as opposed to skull fragments. The images of the skull fragments that I have seen don’t seem to have any hair on them. If they had hair on them that would suggest presence of scalp. So if the scalp was largely intact—albeit lacerated by skull fragments—could the scalp be stretched over an underlying wound caused by missing skull?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Main point (still) being (re: McClelland's crazy theory)....
The SCALP in the back of JFK's head was NOT "blown out" (nor was it "lacerated"). Therefore, how would it even have been possible for McClelland (or anybody else at Parkland) to see any large "blow-out" at the REAR of the SKULL? Such an observation at Parkland was simply not possible, as the THREE different photographic items shown below adequately prove for all time, with those 3 items showing that there was no "missing" SKULL or SCALP at the right-rear (occipital) area of Kennedy's cranium.
Conspiracy theorists cannot get around these facts without resorting to the proverbial "Fake Pictures AND Z-Film" argument.
David Von Pein
November 11-20, 2023
[Via E-Mail]
================================
TONY KROME SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And that same 6th-floor assassination weapon was ALSO described (at various times on Nov. 22 and 23) as a German Mauser, a 30-30 rifle, and a Japanese weapon (and possibly even more inaccurate descriptions). They can't ALL be the right description, can they?
So if you have a desire to cling to bad information based on the early media errors, then, yes, you can easily "create" your own conspiracy theory. It's easy to do that kind of CT "creating". All you need to do is pick one of these many media mistakes and run with it as if it were the unvarnished 100% truth. But why anybody would want to do something so foolish is beyond me.
TONY KROME SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Indeed, it is "a big mix up".
Because....
We know that "Oswald" did not own an "Argentine Mauser".
And....
We know that CE139 is not an "Argentine Mauser" either.
I'm sure that many CTers, though, think it was merely a case of the Oswald Patsy Framers just being idiots and morons when they decided to plant an ARGENTINE MAUSER at the crime scene, even though those plotters had to know that the Oswald they were framing owned a MANNLICHER-CARCANO.
A brilliant strategy indeed.
David Von Pein
November 16, 2023
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Wanna see a truly "doctored" photograph?
Click Here. (Also pictured below.)
It's an obviously altered and doctored version of one of James Altgens' Dealey Plaza pictures which appeared on the front page of The Sun-Herald in Sydney, Australia, on November 24, 1963.
What the Sydney newspaper editors did, incredibly, is that they turned a portion of the bottom of a street light pole into the head of JFK. And the newspaper people also totally eliminated the entire light pole from the photo. The original and unaltered photograph can be seen HERE.
I know that some newspaper and magazine publishers have attempted to "enhance" various assassination-related pictures, but I don't think I've ever seen such a blatant and outright distortion of a photograph than that which we see in this Sydney newspaper example. It's shameless and inexcusable (IMO).
It's possible, I suppose, that perhaps other newspaper publishers have also used that "altered" version of the picture which erases the light pole entirely and then "adds in" what they want their readers to believe is the head of the mortally wounded President, but I don't recall seeing any other papers using it.
Here's the doctored image (with the "doctoring" extending to other parts of the picture too -- such as the accentuated markings around Jackie's pillbox hat). Click to enlarge:
David Von Pein
November 17, 2023
================================
DAVID FREE SAID:
Hello David,
I’ve been admiring your JFK work from a distance for a while now. (Actually from a very long distance: I live in Australia). I’m a big fan and user of your JFK YouTube channel—it really is an invaluable resource for any serious student of the case. I especially love those old radio and campus debates from the mid-to-late 60s—the ones featuring Wesley Liebeler, Mark Lane etc. They’ve been very handy in helping to shape and inform the stuff that I have been writing about the assassination myself. And I’m also a big fan of the book you co-wrote with Mel Ayton. If only there were more books like it!
You might enjoy this article that I’ve just published in The Sydney Morning Herald to coincide with the 60th anniversary. My thesis is that after 60 years, it might finally be time to declare that JFK conspiracy theory is officially dead—and that it never delivered any genuine or lasting breakthroughs, and achieved nothing except to pave the way for more damaging forms of conspiratorial thinking. Of course, there is no info in the article that you won’t already be very familiar with, given your expertise about the case. But you may be amused by one or two of the jabs I take at the conspiracy theorists.
I’m currently releasing a podcast about the assassination called “Ghosts of Dallas”. There’s a fair amount of archival audio in the podcast, most of which I have got from your channel—and I’ve given you and the channel a suitably appreciative shout-out on the podcast’s webpage and in the show notes etc.
Mainly I’m trying to tell the “epic story of JFK conspiracism” in a thorough and perhaps definitive way for the general listener who doesn’t know about stuff like the Walker assassination attempt, the curtain rods story, Jack Ruby and Sheba, etc, etc.
It’s funny, when we were pitching the podcast to the youngish American hotshots who commission projects for the podcast studios, several of them candidly admitted that they knew precisely nothing about the details of Kennedy’s assassination, but still tended to suspect that there had been some kind of conspiracy! Anyway, it’s people like that who I’m trying to reach and inform with this podcast.
Anyway, thanks again for your superb JFK video and audio archive. It’s invaluable for all of us who are engaged in the ongoing task of “reclaiming history” on this subject.
All the best,
David Free
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Hi David!
Thanks so much for your nice e-mail today. I appreciate the kind words. And I will most certainly read your article that you linked to, and I definitely look forward to also listening to each installment of your podcast regarding the JFK assassination. It should be a refreshing change from all of the non-stop "conspiracy" talk that I am constantly encountering on the JFK forums that I frequent. Thanks (in advance) for producing such an audio podcast.
Very best regards,
David Von Pein
November 17, 2023
[Via E-Mail]
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Video Recommendation....
The "Oral History" interview with Vivian Castleberry linked below is an absolute treat. I watched it for the first time today [November 21st, 2023] after learning that it is one of Stephen Fagin's favorite programs he has ever done for The Sixth Floor Museum's ongoing Oral History project. (Fagin is now the curator of the Museum.)
And after just one viewing, this 2004 interview with this remarkable lady (who was 82 years old at the time) now ranks as one of my favorite assassination-related interviews as well:
David Von Pein
November 21, 2023
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I just listened to Episode 3 of Rob Reiner's new 10-part podcast ("Who Killed JFK?") --- and it's just about what I would expect from conspiracy theorists, with all the usual Conspiracy Myths being recycled and rehashed for a new audience here in November of 2023, including the myth about the Warren Commission being forced to accept the Single-Bullet Theory when the WC found out about James Tague. Mr. Reiner and company, as usual, totally ignore (or failed to read and comprehend) Page 117 of the Warren Report, which clearly states that the Commission had considered multiple possibilities to explain Mr. Tague's slight cheek injury.
And then there's the usual CT denial with respect to what can clearly be seen going on with Governor Connally at frames 224 to 230 of the Zapruder Film, with Mr. Reiner assuring his listeners that Connally wasn't reacting to his bullet wounds until well after JFK was reacting to his (which is just a flat-out falsehood).
Etc., etc....
So, if you want to listen to this tripe linked below, just be prepared for the usual conspiracy-flavored conjecture and speculation.
David Von Pein
November 24, 2023
================================
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
To use one of Pat's favorite expressions here ---- Yikes!
You must be joking with that last post of yours, Pat. Because the doctors in the 1988 NOVA/PBS program most certainly did not say they had been "mistaken" when it comes to the location of the large wound they observed in JFK's head.
None of them said to the camera something like this:
I was mistaken. The large wound was, indeed, to the RIGHT-FRONT of the President's head, just as the autopsy photos show. Therefore, I must have been mistaken.
But instead of saying something like the above, the Parkland doctors said things like this:
"I don't see evidence of any alteration of his wound in these pictures from what I saw in the emergency room."
and....
"Nothing that I've seen would make me think it had been changed from what happened that day."
and....
"Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time."
and....
"I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly."
Crazy!
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yikes (again)!!
You, Pat, actually said what you just said above even though you know that two of the doctors in '88 did admit they were "mistaken" (or in "error") with respect to seeing the cerebellum.
So if they were ready to admit they were "mistaken" on that issue, then why not admit (on camera) that they were mistaken about the location of the wound?
Plus....
Dr. McClelland's laughable "pulled-up scalp" explanation is the proof right there that he certainly was NOT admitting (in any fashion) that he was mistaken about the big BOH wound he has always said he saw. Because both BEFORE and AFTER he went into the NARA room to view the autopsy photos, McClelland still maintained there was a big hole at the REAR of Kennedy's head/SKULL. And that is a SKULL wound we know he could not possibly have seen....and the X-ray below is the proof he couldn't have seen any such "BOH" hole, because all of the skull bone in the right-rear of JFK's head is still present and accounted for in this X-ray. (I wonder if the doctors were shown this X-ray at NARA in 1988 for the NOVA show. Anybody know?)
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But Dr. McClelland never saw any "left temple" wound. He got that erroneous info from Dr. Jenkins. See the quotes from McClelland below (via an interview that Vince Bugliosi had with McClelland in 2002).
Quoting from Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History" (page 406):
-------------------
"It was getting late in the evening, Dallas time, but before I ended the interview I reminded Dr. McClelland of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note at 4:45 p.m. on the day of the assassination, he had written that the president died "from a gunshot wound of the left temple." "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the president's left temple. Dr. Jenkins had told me there was a wound there, though he later denied telling me this." "
-------------------
Many more excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's 2002 interview with Dr. McClelland can be found HERE.
Also go to the 14:21 mark in THIS 2009 INTERVIEW with Dr. McClelland, which is where McClelland talks about the erroneous "left temple" observation (which he, again, attributes to Dr. Jenkins and not to his own observations).
David Von Pein
November 27-29, 2023
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
As the 60th anniversary of President Kennedy's death quickly approaches here in November of 2023, I wanted to renew a little bit of interest in what is, in my opinion, the very best motion picture film or documentary ever produced about JFK's 1963 assassination....with that film being David L. Wolper's 1964 masterpiece, "Four Days In November".
Here's a review for the film that I wrote at Amazon.com in July 2001:
“Four Days In November is my all-time favorite program dealing with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. You really get a sense of re-living the events of November 22-25, 1963, when America's all-too-young, 46-year-old leader was gunned down on the sunny streets of Dallas, Texas.
This 1964 black-and-white documentary, skillfully narrated by actor Richard Basehart, was filmed only months after the events, making the re-creations that were filmed for this movie all the more effective, since the people involved, the locations, the landmarks, and even the automobiles had not changed to a great degree (if at all) since the tragedy occurred. I truly had the sense of being there BEFORE it happened because of the very good re-created scenes.
This wonderfully-edited chronological documentary guides the viewer through all four of those dark November days that shocked the nation in late 1963. An integral part of this program lies in its outstanding musical score, by Elmer Bernstein. Mr. Bernstein's stirring score fits just perfectly here, adding emotional impact to each portion of the film.
In addition to many re-created scenes, there is a hefty amount of stock news footage presented throughout this 122-minute film, some of which you probably have seen before, and some you probably haven't. The Joan Crawford/Richard Nixon clip was one I'd never seen in the past, as well as the footage of Lee Harvey Oswald's funeral, which nearly no one attended.
One particular re-created scene in the film that has an especially eerie feeling to it is the scene where we see Wesley Frazier driving his 1954 Chevrolet sedan toward the "drab bulk" of the Texas School Book Depository Building, which looms ahead in the foreground. Frazier was the 19-year-old Depository co-worker of Lee Harvey Oswald's who gave Oswald a ride to work on the morning of the President's assassination.
The Zapruder Film is not represented in this documentary. It was to be yet another 11 years before the public at large was to see Mr. Zapruder's infamous film. Four Days does include a sequence from the Nix Film, however.
Wolper Productions sidestepped all the conspiracy theories [thank goodness] and stuck by the Warren Commission Report for this documentary.
Many of the facts surrounding JFK's assassination have been disputed and debated by researchers for decades. And this tragic crime will likely remain a topic that shall cause heated discussion for many more years to come.
But what the film Four Days In November does accomplish is to allow the viewer to re-live those sorrowful November days, in the order in which the events transpired, based on the evidence available. This is definitely one program that deserves to be in anyone's JFK collection.”
David Von Pein
July 2001
Related "Four Days" Links:
David Von Pein
November 5, 2023
