Part 1397 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of February 1—28, 2026. 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.
😁 TONGUE-IN-CHEEK BREAK.... 😁
FRED LITWIN SAID:
A massive CIA disclosure -- the fatal head shot came from the storm drain....
LANCE PAYETTE SAID:
Fred has, of course, got the wrong storm drain. The actual storm drains in question were (1) behind the picket fence, and (2) on the roof of the Dal-Tex building. There was also a storm drain in Ruth Paine's garage, although its precise role in the JFKA has not been determined. Oswald, or rather Hidell, attempted to order a storm drain from Klein's but opted for an old Mauser with a 4X Weaver scope because the postage was $943 less.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Plus, there was a storm drain located in the back room of Johnny Brewer's shoe store, which allegedly leads straight to Elm Street in Dealey Plaza.
And we know who Brewer had lunch with on 11/21/63 --- none other than that master plotter himself, Montgomery Burns!
Just a coincidence? I think not. 😁
David Von Pein
February 1, 2026
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Here are some videos from WFAA-TV (Channel 8 in Dallas) that I recently added to my video collection:
(Thumbnail).png)
(Thumbnail).jpg)
David Von Pein
February 9, 2026
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Since we know without a doubt that there was no MISSING BONE OR SCALP in the "occipital" region of JFK's head, I'm wondering if Dr. Humes really meant to say "somewhat into the temporal and FRONTAL regions" when he wrote this paragraph of President Kennedy's autopsy report....
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
If the word "occipital" is replaced with the word "frontal" in the above paragraph, it becomes a much more accurate paragraph (based on the autopsy photographs and X-rays, plus a look at the Zapruder Film as well)....
I'll also provide the following excerpts from the 1996 ARRB testimony of two of JFK's autopsy surgeons, Dr. James Humes and Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, which is testimony that most certainly indicates that these two autopsy physicians KNEW that there was no missing bone or scalp in the OCCIPITAL portion of the President's head:
QUESTION -- "Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears over the occipital bone?"
DR. HUMES -- "No. No."
QUESTION -- "None whatsoever?"
DR. HUMES -- "No."
QUESTION -- "There were tears, however, over the temporal--"
DR. HUMES -- "Temporal and parietal."
----------------
QUESTION -- "Can you describe generally where there was any missing bone from the posterior portion, to the best of your recollection?"
DR. HUMES -- "There basically wasn't any. It was just a hole. Not a significant missing bone."
QUESTION -- "So a puncture hole--"
DR. HUMES -- "Puncture hole."
QUESTION -- "And no bone missing--"
DR. HUMES -- "No."
QUESTION -- "Anywhere in the occipital?"
DR. HUMES -- "No, no. Unless maybe--you know, these drawings are always strange. Unless the part of this wound extended that far back. I don't think it did, really. Most of it was parietal temporal."
----------------
DR. BOSWELL -- "This is what's missing here."
QUESTION -- "So you're pointing at what I would describe as the temporal and parietal bone on the right hemisphere?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "I guess that would--actually, that looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here."
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Now you finally admit that Dr. Humes *DID* write "occipital".
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
When did I ever deny that?
Answer -- Never.
Why on Earth would I deny that Dr. James Humes wrote a word that I can see for myself in the autopsy report?
I suspect he SHOULD have written "FRONTAL" there, however. And the Humes/Boswell testimony I cited above provides some good evidence that I'm correct in that assumption, with Dr. Boswell even using that very word -- "FRONTAL" -- to describe one of the missing areas of JFK's head as he looks at an X-ray during his ARRB session. And guess what word he DIDN'T use in that testimony? Answer -- "Occipital". ....
DR. BOSWELL -- "That looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here."
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Hey Davey!!! You've admitted that the Autopsy Report states that the large wound, devoid of scalp and bone, extended "somewhat" into the occipital... You've admitted that the occipital is in the BACK of the head... When are you going to retract your lie and admit that the prosectors put the wound in the back of the head?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Earth to Ben (again)----
There is NO MISSING SCALP OR BONE in JFK's occipital.
Sorry. But that's the way it is---regardless of the flawed language that we find in the autopsy report on WCR Page 540.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Isn't it interesting that DVP thinks he can simply declare a part of the autopsy report "flawed language?"
It's not flawed, David. It's very clear and precise. We can't help that you don't like it, but you can't just decide it's "flawed."
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh really? Please point out the "absence of scalp and bone" in the occipital in any of these three items shown below. I await your logical "All three of those items are fake, Davey" retort....
JOHN CORBETT SAID:
Based on what little we have seen of the photos and x-rays, I wouldn't be willing to go so far as to say Humes miswrote what he meant to say. I only know of the one photo of the BOH. My understanding is that the scalp was pulled up for that shot, so it may well have been concealing missing bone. If the drawings that were produced are accurate, so too is Humes' description of the defect.
It would be good from a historical standpoint if the full set of photos and x-rays were made public to clear up any confusion about the nature and extent of the wounds, but I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime. We will have to rely on the original AR, as well as the findngs of the review panels which looked at the autopsy materials to tell us what happened.
BROCK T. GEORGE SAID:
The level of fracturing was massive in JFK's skull and only so much can be told looking at the few relatively poor quality pictures of the body and X-Rays that are in the public domain. I also hope that wider access to the originals will be considered by the Kennedy family as JFK's immediate family members and close associates slowly die off and as the case slips back more and more to being of historical interest only.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But even though we Internet users have only seen some of the autopsy photos (none of which are the originals), there are many people who HAVE seen ALL of the ORIGINAL (higher-quality) photos and X-rays, such as Dr. Baden of the HSCA. And here's what Baden said....
"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." -- Dr. Michael Baden
In addition, the copies of the autopsy pictures and X-rays we DO have for Internet use are certainly good enough to answer this question:
Was there any "absence of scalp and bone" in the occipital area of JFK's head?
After looking at these images, it couldn't be more obvious that the answer to the question I just posed above is --- No.
Plus, a few years ago, John Fiorentino sent me a very high-quality black-and-white autopsy photo of the back of JFK's head. And in that picture, it's very clear that all of President Kennedy's scalp in the occipital is present and accounted for. No "occipital" scalp is missing whatsoever. I can see every individual hair on JFK's head in the occipital.
BTW, I'm not claiming there wasn't some DAMAGE done to the "OCCIPITAL" area of JFK's head. There most certainly IS occipital damage. We can easily see the fractures in the occipital bone in the X-ray. But what I'm emphasizing is that there was no MISSING (or "ABSENCE OF...") scalp or bone in the occipital area of Kennedy's head. And I think the autopsy pictures and X-rays prove that fact very clearly (even second- or third-generation photos).
BROCK T. GEORGE SAID:
I would even go so far as to say that even some *minor* missing scalp was possible that could fit Humes' description. Because even with a high quality BOH photo such as Fiorentino let DVP see, the possibility remains that a minor defect could have gone unobserved amongst JFK's thick hair.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But let's just consider the incredible DOUBLE hunk of photographic deception (not FAKERY, mind you, just ordinary, non-sinister DECEPTION) that we would have to swallow in order for there to be ANY missing "occipital" SCALP or SKULL BONE....
We'd have to believe that the less-than-perfect (but still pretty decent) "Internet" Fox copies of the autopsy pictures and X-rays just happen to NOT show--in tandem--ANY missing occipital bone or scalp, even though (per your suggested theory) there really is a certain amount of missing occipital BONE AND SCALP.
Such a double example of photo deception (or "misinterpretation" might be a better word) would, in my opinion, be truly remarkable---if not completely impossible....or improbable beyond belief.
Plus, we can really make it a TRIPLE batch of misinterpretation if we were to add the Zapruder Film to the photographic mix, because the Z-Film certainly doesn't show any missing occipital either.
In addition --- If we accept the "somewhat into the occipital" portion of the verbiage found in the autopsy report, we'd have to almost certainly conclude that a goodly-sized chunk of the "parietal" bone that extends into the BACK of the head was ALSO missing. And that's because in order for the 13-centimeter "large irregular defect" to actually have reached ANY occipital bone and scalp, that same 13-cm. wound would have HAD to have crossed into the PARIETAL bone that extends into the back of JFK's head as well.
But we know from those same autopsy photos and X-rays that there also is not a single bit of PARIETAL bone missing in the BACK part of Kennedy's head.
So I stand by my first post in this discussion --- i.e., Paragraph #6 of Page 3 of the autopsy report (WCR, page 540) is not an entirely accurate paragraph. The word "occipital" is inaccurate in that paragraph. It should probably say "Frontal" instead of "Occipital" in that particular paragraph.
Again --- "IMHO".
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
One more (important) thought on this "Occipital vs. Frontal" subject....
After viewing several of the photos and X-rays of President Kennedy's head, it's hard for me to believe that the autopsists would have failed to come to the conclusion that the large "absence of scalp and bone" on the right side of JFK's head extended into the FRONTAL BONE of the head. It sure looks to me like some "frontal bone" is blown out, just as much as it's clear that there is no OCCIPITAL bone or scalp missing from the President's cranium:
And yet, in the controversial paragraph on Page 3 of the autopsy report, there is no mention whatsoever of the "Frontal Bone" or "Frontal Region" of the head. Instead, we find this:
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
And yet, when we check out some of the later testimony given by the autopsy doctors, including the ARRB testimony repeated below by Dr. Boswell, we can see that the "Frontal" region is an area of the President's head that was most definitely void of some skull:
DR. BOSWELL -- "That looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here."
PAT SPEER SAID:
God forbid I should coach a LN how to effectively fend off a common CT argument. But here goes....
The measurements for the head wound in the autopsy protocol were obtained after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. It's as simple as that. There was no hole on the back of the head in the back-of-the-head photos. But there was shattered skull beneath the scalp. The scalp was then peeled back, and skull fell to the table. There was now a large wound extending into the occipital area.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Pat,
Your explanation could possibly explain the "absence of BONE" verbiage that we find in Paragraph 6 of Page 3 of the autopsy report. But your explanation most certainly does not explain the "absence of SCALP" portion of that paragraph. Because even the "peeled back" scalp does NOT have anything MISSING from it in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's scalp.
Plus, there's also still that one word which is, IMO, curiously missing from the description of the large exit wound -- "FRONTAL".
The more I look at the pictures and X-rays (and the ARRB comments made by both Dr. Boswell and Dr. Humes), the more conspicuous the absence of the word "Frontal" becomes.
HERBERT BLENNER SAID:
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 - Page 214....
Question -- "Was the frontal bone present on -- was the frontal bone still intact on the President?"
Answer -- "It was intact, yes. I can't even make it out here, really."
Question -- "You can't see it there, but it was present?"
Answer -- "No. It was present, yes, sir."
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But, then too, Humes also told the ARRB that there was no missing bone in the OCCIPITAL either, except for the small "puncture hole" of entry, which, of course, is a mistake, because we can easily see that the entry hole is really much higher than the "occipital" area. The entry is in parietal bone.
[ARRB Testimony:]
QUESTION -- "Can you describe generally where there was any missing bone from the posterior portion, to the best of your recollection?"
DR. HUMES -- "There basically wasn't any. It was just a hole. Not a significant missing bone."
QUESTION -- "So a puncture hole--"
DR. HUMES -- "Puncture hole."
QUESTION -- "And no bone missing--"
DR. HUMES -- "No."
QUESTION -- "Anywhere in the occipital?"
DR. HUMES -- "No, no. Unless maybe--you know, these drawings are always strange. Unless the part of this wound extended that far back. I don't think it did, really. Most of it was parietal temporal."
[End Quotes.]
-------------------
It is frustrating indeed, because Dr. Humes was conflicted in his HSCA and ARRB testimony. I would imagine he was asking himself the following questions during both his HSCA and ARRB testimony sessions:
Should I rely on my autopsy report? Or should I rely on these autopsy photos and X-rays, which do not perfectly align with what I wrote in the autopsy report?
It must have been quite a quandary for James Humes indeed.
But we always have this statement made by Dr. Humes in 1992:
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
I am still looking for an LNer explanation as to how one can determine a piece of evidence is real or planted to frame someone. Clearly you guys have some kind of technique because you are quite sure that certain disputed items are real evidence. I have offered my criteria, but all I have from the LN side is:
1) Common sense.
and...
2) Any item of evidence can be challenged.
Neither of these answers explains anything. 1) is simply stupid and 2) totally avoids the question.
So please tell us, LNers, how does one determine that evidence is genuine?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In my opinion, a big thing that indicates NONE of the evidence is fake is the fact that there are multiple pieces of evidence collected by MULTIPLE organizations and in MULTIPLE locations (TSBD, Parkland Hospital, the limousine, 10th & Patton, the parking lot behind the Texaco station, the Texas Theater, Ruth Paine's garage, and Bethesda Naval Hospital).
If all that is fake evidence, it was a heck of a coordinated effort.
Plus, it would appear as if the various alleged evidence-fakers got the person they were framing to cooperate with them as well, because Mr. Oswald acted like anything BUT an "innocent patsy" immediately after the assassination.
My question for conspiracy theorists would be --- Why would you think any of the Oswald-incriminating evidence is fake when Lee Harvey Oswald himself was acting so much like a guilty person on November 22, 1963?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
And *ALL* of it went through just two places... the FBI, or the Secret Service.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The DPD doesn't count at all, eh? They only collected all of the TSBD evidence.
Most of the evidence also ended up being handled by the FBI, that's true enough. (Probably all of it, in fact.) But the Dallas Police Department did a lot of work with the evidence BEFORE the FBI ever got involved with it. Take the Oswald palmprint on the rifle, for example. And the trigger guard prints on the rifle. And the paraffin tests administered to Oswald.
And then there are the two "non-Poe" bullet shells at the Tippit murder scene (the ones that were initially found by witnesses Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis), which have the shortest chain of custody possible --- from Davis to Dhority for one of them; and from Davis to Doughty for the other....with each officer marking their respective shell. So HOW are THOSE chains NOT complete and bona fide?
The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is another piece of evidence that has the shortest (or smallest) possible chain --- from Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department ... to .... NOBODY ELSE. Day is essentially THE entire chain. (The entire chain that really matters, I mean.)
I.E., Lieutenant Day took possession of the rifle in the TSBD; he did not hand it off to anybody else before he marked it; Day etched his name into the butt of the gun [see photo below]; and Day retained possession of that rifle all throughout Day 1 until the FBI took it at 11:45 PM CST on November 22nd.
So, REGARDLESS of who handled the C2766 rifle at the FBI, the gun is still going to trace back to the FIRST PERSON who handled it---Lt. J.C. Day of the DPD. So I can't really see why CTers think the Carcano rifle has a poor chain of custody either....because it clearly does not have a poor chain, because Lieutenant Day marked the gun on November 22 before he ever turned it over to anybody else. Ergo, no matter who else handled the rifle after J.C. Day, the C2766 rifle will forever still PROVABLY be the rifle Lieutenant Day picked up off the floor of the TSBD's sixth floor on 11/22/63.
And I'm quite certain that the same kind of "one-man chain" can apply to other pieces of evidence connected to the JFK case, too.
As Vincent Bugliosi told me in a letter in 2009 when we were discussing the courtroom admissibility of Bullet CE399:
"The whole purpose behind the chain of possession requirement is to insure that the item being offered into evidence by the prosecution or defense is what they claim it to be." -- Vince Bugliosi; Letter to DVP; 8/22/09
"NICKNAME" SAID:
And what is "acting guilty?"
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You don't think pulling a gun and trying to shoot a cop inside a movie theater constitutes "acting guilty"?
You think such activity is more in line with "acting innocent"?
"NICKNAME" SAID:
There is no testimony to support a gun was drawn and no evidence that is was.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Nonsense!
Johnny Brewer verifies it. [See video below.]
Conspiracy theorists will do and say anything to keep Oswald blameless.
"NICKNAME" SAID:
I've never considered Oswald blameless. You should read my posts once in a while.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You just don't think LHO shot anybody, right Nick?
And what makes you disbelieve M.N. McDonald's account of the theater scuffle?....
Don't CTers realize how utterly desperate they look when they keep pulling this same "Fake Evidence / Lying Cops" trick out of their empty bag of evidence?
At some point, don't you have to eventually TRUST SOMEBODY?
"NICKNAME" SAID:
Trust has to be earned, David. I don't trust a police department that takes over two weeks to secure Brewer's affadavit, seeing as he's such an important witness to the cause. Were they at all concerned with the IBM employees in the store, or did they have all the information they needed?
Brewer also verifies an officer shouting "Kill the president, will you?" when the police were allegedly there to arrest him for Tippit...or for failing to pay for his movie ticket, whichever story you believe. Let's say it's the former, because the latter wouldn't explain why two dozen police showed up. So you have this cop killer brandishing a gun at more cops in a public place, and no one gets shot? Not even a Mexican standoff? A miracle, isn't it David? Try pointing a gun at 30 cops sometime and see what happens, especially if they think you're a cop killer already.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Okay....so you don't trust Johnny Brewer to tell the truth about Oswald pulling a gun in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63.
You don't trust the DPD.
You don't trust the FBI.
You don't trust the Warren Commission.
You don't trust the HSCA.
You don't trust the Rockefeller Commission.
You don't trust the Clark Panel.
You don't trust the Secret Service (who first collected CE399 and the two front-seat limo fragments).
You don't trust Vince Bugliosi.
And you certainly don't trust me either.
Does anybody make the "trust" cut in your world, Nick? How about your mom and dad?
PATRICK COLLINS SAID:
Bugliosi presents many of the counter arguments for the lone gunman and challenges them. [Mark] Lane does nothing of the sort. Am I going to present that here for you Nick? No way. I don't have the time.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Here's a decent start right here....
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Please, David, Mrs. Bledsoe? Do you seriously believe the Mrs. Bledsoe story?
Oh, my.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Garry,
Mary Bledsoe is one of the VERY BEST "I Saw Oswald" witnesses there is.
Why?
Because she knew Oswald on sight from having rented him a room just a few weeks earlier.
Plus, there's virtually no way possible that the person on the bus that Bledsoe said was Oswald was really somebody other than Oswald, because there's corroborating physical evidence in the form of the bus ticket found in LHO's pocket after his arrest. And it has Cecil McWatters' punch mark on it. So Oswald WAS on that bus. Which makes Mary Bledsoe's testimony all the more believable because it's backed up by physical evidence that was found in Lee Oswald's shirt pocket that very same day of November 22.
Do CTers really think the DPD wanted (or NEEDED) to "coerce" Mary E. Bledsoe to testify that Oswald was on McWatters' bus? The cops already had even BETTER proof of Oswald's short 11/22 bus excursion---this bus transfer:
So why would the police need to bend Mrs. Bledsoe's arm like a pretzel to say it was Oswald?
CTers, as usual, always isolate everything. They never put the pieces back together again. Why is that? (I guess we'll never know.)
David Von Pein
October 2015
Re-posted February 9, 2026
================================
WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
[In Commission Exhibit No. 903, Arlen Specter] is depicting the bullet as if it struck several inches higher than the hole in JFK's shirt and jacket.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Which only goes to show that Mr. Specter wasn't stupid. He was basing the back wound (entry) location on the SKIN entry hole ("14cm. below the mastoid..."), instead of utilizing the movable clothing of President Kennedy as the sole reference point, as conspiracy theorists so often want to do.
And just look at how nicely things "line up" when comparing CE903 with JFK's autopsy photo....
WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
Why was an old Cadillac used for the demonstration, rather than a Lincoln Continental convertible?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Because the X-100 (Lincoln) limo was unavailable for the re-enactment tests on May 24, 1964. That's why. And the Warren Report states this on Page 97....
"Any differences [between the two limos] were taken into account"
-- WCR; Pg. 97
WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
The spacing between "JFK" and "JBC" is much closer in the Cadillac than it would have been in the Lincoln. Do you really believe that is an accurate depiction of the event?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes. Absolutely it is. It's as accurate as humanly possible, at any rate.
The two stand-ins were seated in the same approximate positions as the real Kennedy and Connally. As can be seen in CE903, the Connally stand-in is seated lower than is "JFK". And the trajectory being plotted by Specter's pointer is a perfect match for the SBT, which, as I said previously, would be a virtual impossibility if two or three bullets caused all 7 wounds to both men on November 22nd.
Can't CTers see how unlikely a non-SBT shooting scenario is when taking one look at CE903?
Caption written by DVP....
Even if conspiracists want to argue that the exact angle is off, or that the entry holes are slightly off (and most CTers do want to argue these things, of course), the angle and wound locations are still mighty close to the Real McCoy, even via a CTer's eyes, are they not?
What are the odds that a team of multiple shooters could have peppered the two victims in such a nearly perfect "SBT"-like fashion (if not spot-on perfect) and have the wound pattern on the two victims align so that Arlen Specter would even be able to begin to propose this trajectory for a SINGLE-bullet conclusion?....
Plus: In any 3-Shot replacement theory, the CTers have to have ALL THREE BULLETS just vanish too! (Assuming the CTer proposing the theory believes that CE399 was a "planted" bullet and JFK's throat wound was a wound of entry instead of exit, which very nearly all conspiracists do believe was the case.)
The chances are probably zero of such a non-SBT scenario having occurred -- i.e., a non-SBT scenario which mirrored the Single-Bullet Theory in so many ways, right down to the number of bullets (1) being found that can be associated with the double-victim wounding, plus the LACK OF BODILY DAMAGE sustained by President Kennedy (so that the most-reasonable explanation is to conclude that just one bullet went all the way through the man).
The SBT fits.
To a tee.
Always has.
Always will.
David Von Pein
March 26, 2007
Re-posted February 13, 2026
