Part 1378 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of July 1—31, 2024. 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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Here's a somewhat rare interview with former Chief Justice Earl Warren. In this excerpt, Mr. Warren engages in a discussion about the Warren Commission:
(Thumbnail).jpg)
To hear the complete 56-minute interview, Click Here.
David Von Pein
July 1, 2024
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The conversation linked here is from a discussion I originally had with a Mr. David Axelson at one of Amazon's forums in 2015, which was two years before Amazon decided to discontinue and completely delete all of their "forums" and discussion boards. Fortunately, however, I was able to archive a lot of interesting JFK-related Amazon Forum discussions at my own website before all of them fell prey to the big "Delete" button in cyberspace....
The topic:
How Would You Defend Lee Harvey Oswald In A Court Of Law?
BENJAMIN COLE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And after the defense attorney had shown the Zapruder Film to the jury, the prosecutor would then call all three autopsy doctors to the witness stand, who would each testify to the fact that their examination of JFK's body revealed beyond all possible doubt that President Kennedy had been struck in the head by only ONE single bullet, with that bullet entering the rear portion of JFK's skull, not the front part of his head.
And the prosecuting attorney, for good measure, would almost certainly show the jury the composite photo below (or something very similar), to illustrate the fact that the BACK of the President's head remained completely intact after the bullet struck him in the cranium, despite what the various Parkland witnesses said to the contrary.
Perry, your witness.
BENJAMIN COLE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But the Zapruder Film actually proves the opposite of what you're contending. The Z-Film proves the head shot came from BEHIND, not from the front:
....FORWARD head movement between Z312-313.
....All brain/blood/tissue is seen toward the FRONT of Kennedy (i.e., coming out the large exit wound near the FRONT).
....The back of the head completely blood-free and intact.
.gif)
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'm confused about something here....
There are conspiracy theorists who seem to want to believe that the "red Ford" [6 H 453] that was in front of witness Domingo Benavides at the time of Officer Tippit's murder was, in fact, the red Ford Thunderbird owned by Igor Vaganov.
And there are apparently some conspiracists who also want to believe that Igor Vaganov was the person who actually killed J.D. Tippit.
So my question is: How could Vaganov have shot Tippit at the exact same time he was driving down Tenth Street in his red Thunderbird?
All of the witnesses said that Tippit's killer was walking on the sidewalk just before the shooting. Nobody ever said the killer was shooting from a moving car.
Please, Greg D. (or anyone else), help me understand this strange set of beliefs that some CTers seem to possess.
Are there some CTers who think Vaganov shot Tippit from the sidewalk and
that somebody else was driving the Thunderbird? And was the Thunderbird supposedly the "getaway car" that Vaganov then jumped into after the
shooting?*
* DVP EDIT --- Not a single person bothered to answer the questions I asked above concerning Vaganov. My inquiries were completely ignored. ~shrug~
P.S. / BTW / FYI / FWIW....
For a look at the two-page endnote concerning the topic of Igor "Turk" Vaganov in Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", CLICK HERE.
JOHNNY CAIRNS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, I would (of course) make the argument to a jury that there was no massive exit wound to the back of JFK's head. Why would I argue anything else (given the photographic record PLUS the testimony that I'd be getting from the three autopsy surgeons, who each would swear under oath that there was no huge hole in the back part of the President's head)?
Would you argue that this conclusion reached by the HSCA's Photographic Panel was just a big pack of lies?....
PETE MELLOR SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And how would you go about PROVING that all of the various pieces of evidence that incriminate Oswald are "fraudulent"?
Thus far in 60 years, not a single person on Earth has PROVEN that any of the evidence is fraudulent, let alone all of it.
Good luck to you.
JOHNNY CAIRNS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Mr. Cairns,
Your #2 choice above is, of course, totally absurd. I have never once said or even vaguely implied that any of the "back-of-the-head" witnesses were part of an "elaborate conspiracy" to "conceal" the true nature of the President's head wounds.
For reasons we'll probably never know with any certainty, those witnesses who thought they saw a large wound in the back part of President Kennedy's head at Parkland Hospital were (simply) wrong -- i.e., they were innocently mistaken -- i.e., they were incorrect in their individual assessments regarding the actual location of the large wound in the President's head. But they certainly weren't part of some cover-up scheme.
It might seem incredible to some people (and downright impossible to others) that so many medical professionals could all be mistaken about the location of the President's head wound. But, in my opinion, such a mass mistake did, indeed, occur on November 22, 1963.
More of my thoughts about how such a multi-person error could have happened can be found HERE and HERE.
JOHNNY CAIRNS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Johnny,
The bottom-line choice is, of course, this:
1. Believe that a lot of people made a rather significant (but innocent and unintentional) error regarding the location of the large wound in JFK's head.
Or:
2. Believe that the various autopsy photographs and X-rays have been falsified and altered to make it appear that JFK had no large wound at all in the back of his head....PLUS....believe that all (or certainly most) of the (20?) members of the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel deliberately lied in HSCA Volume 7 when they concluded (as a unit) that all of the autopsy photos/X-rays were genuine and had not been altered in any manner (even though, per CTers, they had to have known that that conclusion was nothing but a big fat falsehood)....PLUS....believe that the Zapruder Film has also been faked/altered so that it can (falsely) show no large wound of any kind in the rear portion of Kennedy's cranium....PLUS....believe that all three autopsy surgeons lied their heads off in their autopsy report and in all of the official sworn testimony they would ever provide for the rest of their lives.
Now, which choice do you think is the most likely to be accurate?
For most conspiracy theorists, it's #2 (naturally). For every LNer who has ever walked the Earth, #1 wins the day.
Stalemate....as always.
JOHNNY CAIRNS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, it does (if you want to believe that the witnesses at Parkland did, in fact, actually see a large gaping wound in the back of JFK's head). Because there's no huge hole in JFK's SCALP in this photo either:
And the Parkland witnesses insist there was a huge BLOW-OUT in the rear of the head, which would (of course) have no choice but to include a SCALP "blow-out" too.
Unless you want to postulate that Kennedy's perfectly-intact scalp was reflected backward while he lay on his stretcher in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland -- and his scalp got that way on its own, without any doctors' assistance.
Such a notion regarding the scalp of the President is, of course, preposterous.
David Von Pein
July 8-11, 2024
================================
JOSEPH McBRIDE SAID (Via YouTube):
Just about all the evidence in the Tippit case is just full of errors and problems.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
An absurd statement there, to be sure.
Oswald cannot possibly be innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit. And anyone who knows anything about the evidence should, of course, know why this is true.
RON BULMAN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's not me that makes Lee Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder so blatantly obvious. It's the bullet shells and the witnesses and Oswald's own guilty-like actions that are telling us who the guilty party is.
I just refuse to join the "All The Evidence Against Oswald Has Been Faked AND All The Eyewitnesses Who Positively Identified Oswald At Or Near The Tippit Murder Scene Were Wrong Or Lying" club.
And let's face facts: a conspiracy theorist has no choice but to be a member of the above-mentioned fraternity in order to believe Oswald did not shoot J.D. Tippit.
And it wasn't just the members of the Warren Commission who concluded Oswald killed Tippit. The HSCA came to that same conclusion as well (which many conspiracy advocates seem to forget—or ignore):
Therefore.....
David Von Pein
July 9, 2024
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
On July 13, 2024, in Butler, Pennsylvania (35 miles north of Pittsburgh), a
20-year-old young man named Thomas Matthew Crooks attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump.
Crooks managed to fire a rifle at Trump from a rooftop near the location where Trump was speaking at a rally, with one of the bullets grazing Trump in the right ear. Crooks was then shot and killed by law enforcement officers.
GERRY DOWN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In his post above, Gerry Down has listed some very interesting comparisons and parallels between Crooks and President Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Another such parallel that can be made is this one:
Each of those gunmen chose a high perch from which to carry out their attempted assassinations. And both shooters were lucky enough to find themselves being left completely alone for a number of minutes prior to firing their rifles, with no witnesses or bystanders or police officers directly interfering in any way with their preparations as they each got into position to shoot at their respective political targets.
History certainly does have a habit of repeating itself.
KARL KINASKI SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, but if you were to take up residence on Mars or Venus, I'm sure you'd find that all of the assassination attempts that have ever occurred on those planets were all conspiracies and cover-ups too. It's just what conspiracy theorists like you do—create plots where none ever existed.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Maybe Cliff can now tell all of us WHY any assassin(s) would have any desire at all to fire two obviously non-lethal, low-velocity rounds into JFK's body?
Did the brain-dead shooters only want to slightly wound the President, vs. ending his life forever?
CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, all of those Oswald bullet shells and bullets and guns and prints plus LHO's guilty-like actions weren't "genuine leads" in the JFK case at all, were they Clifford? We should, instead, be focusing all of our attention on some sort of "heart attack dart gun".
(And yet Cliff Varnell, incredibly, has the gall to call a bunch of other people "stupid". Pathetic CTer nonsense....as per usual.)
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Donald Trump was quite obviously struck by something during the July 13th assassination attempt (probably a bullet or bullet fragment), but after looking at this remarkable picture below, which seems to actually show a bullet speeding past Trump's head, I'm wondering how this speeding bullet could have struck the UPPER part of Trump's right ear? The trajectory looks too low. It looks like the bullet would hit the LOWER part of the right ear, not the upper portion. But perhaps the angle of the photo can explain that apparent discrepancy. ~shrug~
RON BULMAN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I sure hope nobody thinks that my previous comment about the trajectory of the bullet somehow indicates that I think there was any kind of a conspiracy or cover-up associated with the Trump shooting. Because I certainly believe no such thing.
I'm merely suggesting that the trajectory of the bullet seen in the photograph just might indicate that it wasn't that exact bullet that struck Donald Trump, but instead it could have been one of the several other bullets fired by the shooter that injured the former President.
David Von Pein
July 16, 2024
July 18-29, 2024
July 26, 2024
