JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1400)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Part 1400 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of May 1—31, 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.


================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The Kennedy family never wanted the grisly [autopsy] pictures seen by the public; nor should they really be available to us right to this very day.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

As I said before, your position is to cover up the evidence. That's how the WC [Warren Commission] got away with its lies for so many years.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In Tony Marsh's oft-used parlance -- Nonsense.

I'm not advocating that anything should have been "covered up". My comment -- "nor should they [JFK's autopsy photos] really be available to us right to this very day" -- was only referring to the fact that the Kennedy family didn't want those photographs released for public scrutiny (ever). The comment wasn't meant to imply or to mean anything more than that.

And I've said in the past that it's my opinion that the single silliest/dumbest/most ignorant decision made during the whole Warren Commission investigation was the decision to not have the autopsy photos made available to the very Commission assigned to look into President Kennedy's murder. That was absolutely idiotic!

There's no reason whatsoever that those pictures couldn't have been used and examined by the Commission and its staff during the 10-month Warren Commission probe.

An agreement with the Kennedy family could have easily be arranged (I would surmise) that would have given the Commission access to the photographs, but at the same time would have prohibited the photos from being published anywhere in the Warren Report or its supporting volumes.

In addition to such a proposed stipulation, a simple one-paragraph passage could have been added to the final Warren Commission Report, fully explaining the reason(s) why the autopsy photographs have not been printed in the Warren Report or within the 26 supporting volumes, with that same paragraph also noting that THE COMMISSION HAS, HOWEVER, BEEN ABLE TO EVALUATE ALL OF THESE MATERIALS AT ITS LEISURE TO DETERMINE THE FACTS IN THE CASE, BUT THE PHOTOS CANNOT BE PUBLISHED DUE TO THE WISHES OF THE KENNEDY FAMILY.

I ask: What in the world would have been wrong with the above stipulation? Why would the Kennedy family have possibly objected to such an arrangement concerning the autopsy pictures of John F. Kennedy?

The fact that Arlen Specter had to BEG for (and still not receive) permission to see the autopsy photos (and X-rays also, which is even more preposterous; what's so grisly about an X-ray??) is something that I still cannot understand to this very day. It's utterly ridiculous, in my opinion.

Earl Warren, who apparently might have seen some of the photos briefly if I understand things correctly, should have demanded full access to those critical materials during the Commission's investigation. And he should have never given up until those important autopsy photos were made available to the Warren Commission and its staff.

David Von Pein
May 11, 2007
Re-posted May 5, 2026





================================


BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:

Why do you believe that a wound to the rear of the head means a shot had to come from the front?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

By strict definition, you're correct. A large "BOH" [Back Of Head] wound would not necessarily HAVE to equal a shot from the front.

But in THIS (JFK) CASE specifically, we can be pretty sure there was no large-sized BOH wound...because if there were such a wound on the President's body, it would have been reported by the three autopsy surgeons.

IOW -- There was absolutely no good enough reason for those autopsists to want to hide any of JFK's wounds.

Why?

Because even if there had been a large BOH hole in JFK's head, and even if the doctors were worried about World War 3 (or whatever other imagined catastrophe that might befall the country in the wake of the assassination of the President), the doctors would still have had the IRONCLAD PROOF, via the two irrevocable small bullet wounds of ENTRY in JFK's upper back and in the back of his head, that Kennedy was hit by bullets that came only from BEHIND him (from the direction of Lee Harvey Oswald's gun).*

* This, of course, also assumes that the doctors would have had all of this detailed knowledge about the trajectories and about what LHO could or could not have accomplished with his one rifle from his TSBD POV at 12:30, which is very unlikely of course...esp. since we KNOW that none of those autopsy physicians was even aware of the widely-seen press conference given by Clark and Perry in Dallas, since not a person in that autopsy room had any idea that there was a bullet hole in JFK's throat.

It's absolutely incredible, IMO, that not a single person at Bethesda knew of this widely-known "throat wound" fact as of 8:00 PM. Why on Earth didn't somebody tell somebody at Bethesda?

And, more incredible still, is the fact that Dr. Perry never bothered to tell ANYONE in the Kennedy party, or the Secret Service or the Dallas Police, that he totally obliterated a bullet hole that he had to know would never be seen at the autopsy that night due to the trach incision....which is an autopsy that Perry HAD to know was going to be taking place after the President left Perry's care.

Dr. Malcolm Perry, in my opinion, was very foolish for not saying to SOMEBODY in authority: "Hey, by the way, I made a trach cut right through what looked to me like a bullet hole."


BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:

And, you are aware, right, that virtually the entire right side of JFK's skull was destroyed?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Doesn't really look that way to me. There's a good deal of "right side" damage, yes. But it doesn't look like "virtually the entire right side of JFK's skull was destroyed" to me. At least not from this photo:



However, I know that the autopsy doctors did, indeed, say that there was a good deal of skull missing in the right hemisphere of the head.

The whole "BOH" argument is pretty much a moot one anyway (i.e., an argument that pretty much "goes nowhere")....because there's undeniable proof that JFK was shot in the head just ONE time, with that bullet positively coming from behind and entering the back of President Kennedy's head, producing the characteristic "bevelling in" effect, which proves beyond all doubt that that wound was a wound of entrance....just as Dr. James Humes told the CBS-TV viewing audience in June of 1967 (in his first interview since his Warren Commission testimony). Here are Humes' exact words from that 1967 CBS-TV "Warren Report" documentary:

========================

DAN RATHER (CBS NEWS) -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"

DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes, sir."

DAN RATHER -- "And that was where?"

DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the right of the mid-line posteriorly."

DAN RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head."

DAN RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from behind and passed forward through the President's skull."

DAN RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific evidence. Is it conclusive scientific evidence?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."

DAN RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the President's head was the entry wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."

========================

I'll now turn things over to Vincent T. Bugliosi to complete this post:

"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large exit wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly provide better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively, and beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 and frame 328 clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the RIGHT FRONT of the president's head. THE BACK OF HIS HEAD SHOWS NO SUCH LARGE WOUND AND CLEARLY IS COMPLETELY INTACT." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 410 of "Reclaiming History"


BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you for the above-linked post, Barb. Very nicely stated.

But we're still left with this statement from Dr. Humes in 1967:

"And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes

Footnote -- I suppose it's quite possible indeed that Humes merely wanted to talk about only the MOST RELEVANT portions of the large, gaping wound to JFK's head in his interview on CBS-TV -- i.e., the place on Kennedy's head where he KNEW FOR A FACT THE BULLET EXITED (the "right front" of the head).

Therefore, Humes doesn't mention to the CBS audience anything about the fragmentation of the President's skull that might have existed in the BOH after the scalp was reflected, which would be considered (in Humes' mind) secondary (or extended) skull fractures.

It's something to ponder, for sure. I.E.: The idea that the doctors, who were dealing with a more massive head wound than most people believe, only felt the need to discuss and/or document the location on JFK's head where the autopsists knew the bullet EXITED the head, which was "chiefly parietal" (right side, top, and toward the front of the skull).

Allow me to interject another Vince Bugliosi quote which goes directly to the subject being discussed. The following text is taken directly from my review of Vince's book, "Reclaiming History"....

=======================

DVP: In the endnotes located on the CD-ROM included at the back of the book, Bugliosi goes into additional detail with respect to the precise location of the exit wound in JFK's head:

"On the issue of the locus of the head exit wound, perhaps the most overlooked piece of medical and scientific evidence in books on the assassination that proves the exit wound was in the right front of the president's head is the fact that of the three fragments of the skull found inside the presidential limousine, the HSCA forensic pathology panel said that autopsy X-rays show that the largest one, triangular in shape, contained "a portion of the right coronal suture." [i.e.:]...The juncture between the parietal (side and top) and frontal bone.

Although the bullet fragmented upon striking bone in the president's head, the HSCA concluded that the main part of the bullet literally exited along the coronal suture line to the right front of the president's head.

Dr. Michael Baden [of the HSCA's pathology panel] told me, "The autopsy photographs clearly show that the semicircular defect was half of a bullet wound with an exit beveling, and this caused most of the damage to Kennedy's parietal and frontal bones" (Telephone interview of Dr. Michael Baden by [Vincent Bugliosi] on January 8, 2000). ....

The fact that the largest fragment found of the president's skull was along the coronal suture, that this triangular fragment was one of three that, in the aggregate, lined up, on reconstruction, with the large defect to the right front of the president's skull, and that this large fragment of bone was beveled on its outer surface, rather than its inner surface, provide conclusive evidence of an exiting bullet to the right front of the president's head." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 235-236 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

=======================

David Von Pein
July 15-17, 2007
Re-posted May 5, 2026





================================


A CONSPIRACY THEORIST NAMED BILL SAID:

I was merely trying to expose the sheer emptiness of your suggestion that Oswald was looking for police cars surrounding his rooming house.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's not an empty suggestion at all (IMO). In fact, it's the only really logical conclusion to reach for why Oswald would have wanted to SLOW HIMSELF DOWN BY ABOUT 5 MINUTES (5 min., 45 sec., in fact, per the Warren Commission's re-creation of the trek from Beckley & Neely to 1026 Beckley) by telling cab driver William Whaley to go three blocks beyond his actual destination after just having committed a Presidential murder.


BILL SAID:

To suggest that Hosty -- if he'd had Oswald's phone number, which he did not -- would have arranged such a scenario in an effort to apprehend Oswald when he came home after killing the president of the United States assigns a level of stupidity to Hosty and the Dallas Police previously not imagined even in the most farfetched conspiracy theories.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why on Earth does James Hosty necessarily have to enter into this "Looking For Police Cars" equation at all (from Lee Oswald's own point-of-view, that is)? Obviously, Hosty doesn't have to enter into it whatsoever.

Oswald had just shot the President 2.5 miles from 1026 Beckley. He knows it's been about a half-hour since he did so. He can't possibly know how many people might have seen him shooting as he sticks his rifle out the Depository window. And he can't be sure the cops aren't already aware of his home address as of 1:00 PM on Nov. 22nd either.

All of these things are "unknowables" to murderer Oswald at 1:00 PM. Why wouldn't he possibly suspect some cops were on his tail almost immediately?

I can think of no better reason than the "I Better Check The Area For Police Before I Depart This Cab" reason for Oswald wanting to intentionally slow down his getaway by five or more minutes by having the cab driver take him three blocks beyond 1026 Beckley. Did he want to just get a little extra exercise that day by walking the extra 3 blocks?


BILL SAID:

Because Hosty would have been the only possible means by which anyone in authority could have possibly determined Oswald's rooming house address....IF Ruth Paine had given the phone number to him, which she did not.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Meaningless argument....because we're talking about what Oswald would have been thinking at the time. He can't possibly know all the potential forces that might be surrounding him a half-hour after he shot the President. Hosty doesn't need to enter into it at all.

Paranoia on LHO's part is probably going to start sinking in (I would think anyway). He just shot JFK....therefore everybody in the world is going to be looking for the person who just shot the President. And who WAS that person? Lee Harvey Oswald. (And that's a really good reason to start getting paranoid about the cops if you ask me.)


BILL SAID:

You've offered no plausible reason for Oswald to care if Whaley had learned his rooming house address.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Tony Marsh did it for me in an earlier post -- i.e., cops wanting to know where taxi drivers dropped their passengers.

All of this Monday-morning quarterbacking is merely a parlor game anyway. The bottom line facts are: Oswald killed Kennedy and Oswald did tell Whaley to drive 3 blocks beyond his home.

The "Why?" portion of the scenario can never be answered to everybody's satisfaction. Nor does it need to be, of course, to decide whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer.

David Von Pein
March 25, 2008
Re-posted May 5, 2026





================================

THE BACK OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD (PART 4)

BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:

>>> "None of what you've posted [i.e., quotes from Vincent Bugliosi] has ANYthing to do with that [BOH wound] issue at all." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sure it does. You just THINK it doesn't (for some reason).

It has relevance to this subject at hand, of course, because Vince is
saying in those several passages I quoted (quite obviously) that he
(VB) is of the belief that THERE WAS NO LARGE 'BOH' WOUND ON THE
PRESIDENT'S HEAD--PERIOD! None. It wasn't there. It never existed. And
the Parkland witnesses ALL (somehow) managed to mislocate and/or
misrepresent the true location of WHERE THE HOLE IN HIS HEAD WAS.

I hate LNer Jim Moore's crazy interpretation, however, which is an
interpretation that Bugliosi actually gives PARTIAL credence to in
VB's "RH" book (but, in the final analysis, Vince defers mainly to
Michael Baden's "pooling blood/gore" explanation).

And I was certainly pleased to see VB give more weight to Baden's
scenario than he did Moore's seemingly-crazy theory. Moore, in his
book, claims that ALL of the Parkland people, incredibly, actually
somehow mis-identified the physical portion of JFK's head where Moore
says the witnesses really DID think they saw the wound (even though
several of those witnesses later were photographed placing their hands
over their own FAR-RIGHT-REAR, and even CENTER-REAR, portions of their
heads to demonstrate where they still thought the wound was that they
saw), with no mention (oddly) of anyone seeing the large FRONT-RIGHT-
TOP wound that we KNOW was there, with every Parkland and Bethesda
witness, instead, claiming there was just ONE large wound (somewhere)
in JFK's head.

And that "Only One Large Wound" fact could be a key to this enduring
and never-ending mystery. Because, does anyone know of anybody at PH
or Bethesda who said this: "There was a big hole in the back of JFK's
head AND another pretty good-sized hole on the right-front portion of
his head too"?

I sure know of no such witness.

Anyway, those "Hands On Their Heads" pictures of the "BOH" witnesses
probably came out well after Mr. Moore's 1990 book was published; so
he probably was unaware of those "hands-on" demonstrations when he was
writing his very thin and non-detailed JFK book, which is a book that
is laughably subtitled "The Definitive Book On The Kennedy
Assassination".

For clarification regarding Moore's posture on this (and I'm quite certain I
understand it correctly via his book "Conspiracy Of One").....Moore
isn't saying the same thing that Baden and Bugliosi are saying is the
best explanation for the BOH wound witnesses.

That is, Mr. Moore doesn't say anything in his book about the
witnesses being confused by the "pooling" of blood and gore and brains
(etc.) which gravity was naturally forcing toward the BACK of John
Kennedy's head as he was lying in a prone position on his stretcher.

Moore, instead, is saying (and to my astonishment actually, and I
cannot believe Bugliosi could even say ONE kind word about this
nonsense in his own book) that the Parkland Hospital witnesses
really saw the large hole in JFK's head at the RIGHT-FRONTAL
area (where we know it was, per authenticated autopsy photos
and the never-wavering testimony of all three autopsy doctors;
and, IMO, Dr. Boswell's ARRB Deposition doesn't discount or erase
his and the other doctors' overall testimony, because I still claim
Boswell's ARRB comments on the matter are quite a bit ambiguous
and non-exacting in nature; ~~reaches for smelling salts to revive
John Canal, because he can't believe I just wrote the last sentence,
because he thinks I'm 100% wrong about my last remarks~~).....

....but those PH witnesses, incredibly, ALL were somehow disoriented
about JFK's head anatomy simply because he was LYING DOWN....and
therefore all the witnesses, per Jim Moore, mis-labelled the true
location of the RIGHT-FRONT wound that they REALLY were seeing,
stating that it was, instead, at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of the head.

Here's exactly what Mr. Moore said in this regard (in case anybody
cares):

"The explanation for this discrepancy is so simple few will subscribe
to it. The Parkland doctors all saw President Kennedy in only one
position--face up. An exit wound across his forehead might have
been labeled 'at the front of the skull', but a wound on the right
side? Doctors would have seen the missing area 'at the rear of
the skull', of course." -- Jim Moore; Page 180 of "Conspiracy Of
One" (c.1990)

I'm sorry Jim....but that's just crazy. I think I'll stick with the
"blood/gore pooling to the right-rear" theory.

Anyhow.....Vince Bugliosi (who studied the assassination evidence for
over 20 years before publishing his book) is obviously saying, via the
quotes I previously provided, that he is of the opinion (after studying
all of this evidence for many years) that there was NO LARGE, GAPING
WOUND AT ALL IN THE BACK OF JOHN KENNEDY'S HEAD.

And the following VB quote positively indicates that Vince is of the
very firm opinion that there was no large BOH wound at all:

"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large exit
wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly provide
better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively, and
beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 and
frame 328 clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the
RIGHT FRONT of the president's head. THE BACK OF HIS HEAD SHOWS NO
SUCH LARGE WOUND AND CLEARLY IS COMPLETELY INTACT." [Bugliosi's
emphasis.] -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 410 of "Reclaiming History:
The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)

Z328:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z328.jpg

~~~~~~

Yes, I'm a huge VB fan, and yes, I think he has written the new "JFK
Bible" in "Reclaiming History". But I don't always agree with
everything Vince says about the case (there are SBT timeline
differences and "first-shot" disagreements and some others)....but in
this "BOH" matter, I do have a hard time disagreeing with Vince,
especially after he has so obviously studied this whole assassination
case in great depth in order to publish his "Book For The Ages".

Vince wanted (quite obviously) as few mistakes as humanly possible in
such an important publication; and I know he wanted to cover as many
of the never-ending controversies as possible too. And I think he did
that. Although, as far as I can recall, VB does not get into Boswell's
ARRB testimony in his book. That could, indeed, be considered an
oversight on Vincent's part.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm

But it's also possible that VB did read all of Boswell's comments to
the ARRB and was still not convinced that any type of large "BOH"
wound existed on the President's head.

But, again, I find it hard to argue with Mr. Bugliosi's final "No BOH
Hole" analysis....especially when it mirrors precisely my own thoughts
regarding this issue (which are thoughts and opinions that I have
possessed for years prior to even laying eyes on VB's book for the
first time on May 21, 2007).

I will say that Vincent's comments about the direction of any "scalp-
pulling" that some people say was done at Parkland has me a tad bit
perplexed (as it does Barb Junkkarinen too, I believe).

But...whether Vince is, himself, confused about the direction the
scalp was supposedly being pulled from (i.e., from the front vs. from
the rear), it's obvious from his comments regarding that scalp issue
that it really is a moot point altogether in VB's mind....because he
was merely describing for his readers an event that Vince believes
NEVER OCCURRED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Also......

I think another important Vince-like argument could probably be
utilized in connection with this always-controversial "Back-of-the-
Head" subject.....

Mr. Bugliosi, on page #953 of his massive tome, "Reclaiming History",
said the following:

"With respect to the Kennedy assassination, once you establish and
know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also
necessarily know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known
or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged
discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists
have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- VB

Now, it has occurred to me that the above wholly-reasonable argument
being made by Vincent Bugliosi (a seasoned and highly-successful
former Deputy District Attorney) could almost certainly be re-worded
and could also easily apply to this sticky-wicket known as the "BOH
Wound Witnesses" snafu.

Allow me to demonstrate (with changes made to Bugliosi's original
quote appearing in all capital letters):

"With respect to the BACK-OF-THE-HEAD WOUND WITNESSES, once you
establish and know that PRESIDENT KENNEDY WAS HIT IN THE HEAD BY ONLY
ONE SINGLE BULLET AND THAT ONE BULLET POSITIVELY CAME FROM BEHIND THE
PRESIDENT, as has been done, then you also necessarily know that there
is an answer (whether the answer is known or not) compatible with this
conclusion for the endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and
questions the conspiracy theorists (AND OTHERS, INCLUDING THE PARKLAND
AND BETHESDA WITNESSES) have raised through the years about THE HEAD
WOUNDS OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY.

"IN MORE SIMPLE TERMS, ONCE IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND ALL
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT PRESIDENT KENNEDY WAS HIT IN THE HEAD BY ONE
BULLET FROM BEHIND (VIA THE INCONVERTIBLE PRESENCE OF THE *ONE* SINGLE
BULLET WOUND OF ENTRY ON THE *BACK* OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD), WHAT
DIFFERENCE DOES IT REALLY MAKE EXACTLY *WHERE* THE OTHER (LARGER)
WOUNDS WERE LOCATED ON JFK'S HEAD?"

David Von Pein
September 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (SEPTEMBER 16, 2007)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 368)

BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:

>>> "And he [Howard Brennan] had the advantage of seeing Oswald on TV before any attempts, at that." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Do you think Brennan had seen LHO on TV before telling the cops that
the gunman was a slender white male, 5-foot-10, about 30, weighing
about 165 pounds?

And if Brennan didn't give that description to Sawyer prior to 12:45
PM on 11/22, then it means that yet another (unidentified) person saw
the gunman and described him just exactly as Brennan would later
describe him. And Marrion Baker said Oswald looked about 30 years old.
And even most CTers admit that Baker saw the real LHO on Nov. 22nd.


>>> "I know of very few CTs who promote an Oswald double. Perhaps you can name some who do for me." <<<

Hilarious. A huge percentage of conspiracy theorists have said they think
there was at least ONE instance of an "Oz Double" during the calendar year
of 1963. Virtually all of the CTers that populate any online forum on
the Internet believe in some kind of "Oswald Imposter" theory. And
bigger CT names like Armstrong, Garrison, Stone, and DiEugenio (to
name just a very small number) believe(d) in some kind of "Fake
Oswald" theory as well.

Plus: Those that believe in the "Oswald Double/Imposter" theories
would include every CTer who thinks Lee Oswald didn't travel to Mexico
City in September 1963 (which I'd guess is pretty close to, roughly,
90%-95% of all conspiracy theorists).

I've encountered very few CTers who actually think that LHO went to
Mexico in '63, despite the volumes of evidence to prove that Oswald
did go there.


>>> "Well, this little exchange shows two things ... you paint with a very wide brush, and with quite an attitude; and your standard for positive identification is just like every other LN." <<<

I sure hope so. Because based on the evidence in this case, I know
that Brennan POSITIVELY SAW Lee Oswald shooting at JFK.

Next dance please.....


>>> "Anyone in the world who had been near a TV that afternoon could have picked O out of that lineup." <<<

And you think that people doing the identifying would have been so
easily swayed that they would be willing to positively identify a man
whom they did NOT see at the scene of the various 11/22 murders (both
JFK's and Tippit's)?

Nice of you to paint (at least potentially, via your comments above)
all of the witnesses with such a wide "I THINK I'LL I.D. OSWALD, EVEN
THOUGH I KNOW IT WASN'T HIM" brush.


>>> "Funny how LNs poo-poo witnesses from within the TSBD who say that they saw O at other places within the TSBD just minutes before the shooting. They were lying, or mistaken or confused. And they KNEW the man." <<<

Based on that pesky TOTALITY of evidence again, those other witnesses
are almost certainly wrong.

I guess Barb wants to just sweep that LHO-Did-It totality under the
rug forever. Huh, Barbara?


>>> "You said it. He is dragged out because out of all the people who saw a man in the window with a rifle, none were able to ID O. So latch onto Brennan...despite his less than stellar performance." <<<

Who should we latch onto then--a "fake" witness who never saw a thing?

Brennan is it (as far as positive IDing of the gunman goes). Period. I
know that. I don't deny it. But why should he be tossed into the
garbage heap either?


>>> "You don't dance the sidestep very well. Not nearly subtle enough to pull it off." <<<

You seem to have two left feet yourself. Maybe Arthur Murray can help.


>>> "I find it almost impossible to not comment on when I see an LN claim Oswald was positively [IDed] as the shooter in the window. Of course, they never include WHO they are talking about in their initial posit." <<<

When just a small amount of common sense is applied to this situation,
it becomes plainly obvious that the following is true:

Based on the totality of evidence that exists in the JFK case (a
totality that's not going anyplace; it's here forever), the chances
that Howard L. Brennan saw someone OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald
shooting a gun at John Kennedy on 11/22/63 are so remote they can be
considered practically non-existent (if you're a reasonable person
looking at this "totality", that is).

CTers, naturally, must pull away from and deny the obvious evidence-
based truth and logic that exists in the above paragraph.
Conspiracists have to deny it. Because if they faced that truth and
faced the real evidence in the case, then their beloved patsy is
guilty. And no true-blue lifelong CTer could stand for that.

Care to dance some more, Barb?


>>>> "Have a cookie, you'll feel better." <<<

Make it a Hydrox this time, okay?

David Von Pein
November 6, 2008

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 430)

ON JANUARY 22, 2009, JOHN SIMKIN SAID:

A researcher has asked for information on David Von Pein.


PAM BROWN SAID:

Why doesn't the researcher go to alt.assassination.jfk and ask him directly?


DAVID HEALY SAID:

Every chance Lone Nut-Wing Nut Von Pein gets to promote Vinnie Bugliosi's tome Reclaiming History, Von Pein blathers on.

His foolishness, and his minions, can be found on alt.conspiracy.jfk too! DVP never announced at any public function that he is indeed David Von Pein. Never participated in a public JFK assassination forum, seminar, symposium, anniversary and/or function as David Von Pein.

Some speculate David Von Pein and David Reitzes are one in the same, as was recently discussed on Black Op Radio with Jim DeEugenio [sic].

Frankly I'm surprised anyone cares who the hell he is, or what he does.

[...]

Von Pein is nothing more than a glorified copy & paste artist with zilch to offer.

[...]

No one that I know of has met or even seen a David Von Pein at any public JFK assassination function, with ANY of the big names within the research community.


BILL MILLER SAID:

I am not a fan of Von Pein at all. I believe him to be a troll. But in his defense, a big name to you (David [Healy]) is one that has more than three letters in it, so what was your point?


PAM BROWN SAID:

Has anyone met DVP? Has anyone met Reitzes? Is the question of whether he is an actual person or a persona the reason the question is being asked here?


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

I'm curious to find out who Von Pein actually is (I'm assuming it's a nom de plume), and I don't need another thread to ignore because of the juvenile squabbling.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

Yea, even though he's a nitwit, there's no need to be insulting him by implying he's one and the same as David Reitzes, as I can attest they are two different nitwits who don't have the gonads to sign on here and talk honestly about the assassination of President Kennedy.

And indeed, instead of rising above mere debunkers and generating new and useful knowledge and research, they decided they liked being nitwit schmucks and distractions. They could have been contenders though...if they only had the gonads.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

Indeed. In my experience, the Peinster [that'd be me--DVP 😁] always puts up a fight no matter how lame and fact-free it is. [Varnell is nuts, of course.]

Dave Reitzes always curls into a ball and never engages the discussion. "That's my opinion, Cliff" -- is as far as he ever got in rebuttal with me.

Two different clowns. Same circus.


PAT SPEER SAID:

I am also curious about Von Pein's identity, and suspect he's somebody else. Most LN's are more than happy to tell you their qualifications. Not so Von Pein, who won't even post a picture of himself.

That said, I don't consider him a total troll. He's posted a lot of early news footage on his Youtube channel; these are definitely worth looking at. He's also posted links to interviews with his hero, Bugliosi, which prove that Bugliosi was working pretty much from a script, repeating the same lines from city to city, much as a stand-up comedian. Call VB the anti-Bill Hicks.


BILL MILLER SAID:

I would also like to know who the guy is because he is one of the most biased people I have ever seen post and no one, not even Oswald, was always right or wrong. Pein [sic] seemed bent on propaganda.


KATHY BECKET SAID:

I do not know David von Pein [sic], but I have emailed Dave Reitzes a few times, and always found him to be a very polite and sincere person. While I do not agree with alot of what he says, the level of discussion is always done with great respect.

I have read that he is not interested in joining this forum, because he believes all that will occur from his posting will be alot of namecalling, and to tell you the truth, he is probably right.

Shame.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

There is a point when David von Pein [sic] and Dave Reitzes reached where they could have become legitimate independent researchers and knowing the basic background of the case, forged new information, unearthed new documents, find a fresh witness, and expanded our knowledge of the assassination. Instead they decided to become debunkers and one of Prof. Rahn's coincidentalists.


J. WILLIAM KING SAID:

The one place I've found Mr. von Pein [sic] 24/7 is the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) on the Oliver Stone movie "JFK". He and his cronies are on there all day, all night blasting anyone who even asks the most innocent question.

Some on there say he and about 6 others are all the same person. The all agree with each other that anyone who questions the official version is obviously nuts. He posts there under "DVP-1" and probably other names as well, such as "NickSlickReturns".

I know the JFK movie discussion board on the IMDB isn't for serious researchers, but I worry about younger people who's [sic] first exposure to the assassination discussion is that board, and they end up falling right into his (and others) lone nutter grasp.

[DVP INTERJECTION --- Oh, those poor, poor youngsters who are unfortunate enough to fall into my evil "lone nutter grasp".]




PAM BROWN SAID:

"DVP" is just chock full of excuses for not providing any information that can be verified. There seems to be an agenda. Unfortunate, as he appears to have a bit of a following who might appreciate more concrete interactions with him, such as talking by phone or even actually meeting in person. However, this is not likely to happen as he is too busy trying to stay on the tightrope he has created.


GIL JESUS SAID:

This guy is never seen publicly.

He won't post a picture of himself or any bio info.

Sounds like an alias for someone we would all recognize.


ANTTI HYNONEN SAID:

David R. Vonpein [sic]

Mooresville, IN


PETER FOKES SAID:

Hi Antti,

Yes. It was a simple matter to find this name on the White Pages. I asked DVP last night on alt.assassination.jfk (before your post) whether he had ever been to Mooresville. :-)

But DVP hasn't been hiding that location. It is included in many of his Amazon reviews. Just do a search.


DAVE REITZES SAID:

Pam [Brown] & friends gossip about me & DVP:

http://EducationForum.com


J.G. LEYDEN SAID:

Well, they spelled your name right, Dave [Reitzes]. What more can you ask for? Of course, they also suggest you're David Von Pein, which can't be good news because it would double your work load. Gotta love these people. I'll bet they check under their beds every night and are disappointed when they don't find a CIA or FBI agent there.


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

What a bunch of wackos!


PAM BROWN SAID:

Typical McAdams. Ignore the context and make a blanket accusation.

The question about whether DVP was Reitzes was raised because it was discussed on Black Op Radio. It was asked as a question. Nobody has met DVP. So far, his identity is unverified.

Since McAdams is so big on documentation lately, why not provide some documentation for who this person actually is, and give us info on what contact McAdams has had with him? Where does DVP live? Who has actually met him? That would have some value; knee-jerk sputterings do not.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You stole my whole response, John ["What a bunch of wackos!"]. Now I don't need to post it. :)

BTW, I'm also supposed to be an LNer named Steve Keating (per one of those "wackos").

Three...three...three mints (er...LNers) in one! (Remember that commercial?)


WHISKY JOE SAID:

There are three levels of Conspiracy Theory researchers.

The highest level tries to tie the assassination to the CIA or Mafia or the KGB.

The second level tries to tie in the Judyth Baker story.

And the third level tries to prove that Dave Reitzes and David Von Pein are really the same person with ties to the CIA.

To be fair, Von Pein does sound like the name of someone who used to work for the East German Security and Intelligence Service.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, it's the name I was born with on Wednesday, 12/27/61 (while JFK was serving as President, btw). So, I guess I'm stuck with it--German Intel Service jokes and all. ;)

I considered changing my name to "Vincent Moore Posnerelli", but I figured that such a moniker would be too "obvious".


PETER FOKES SAID:

So Dick Van Dyke was already on TV when you were born?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep. That CBS-TV program was, indeed, on the air at that time. It debuted 2+ months before I was hatched. :)

BTW -- For trivia buffs, the premiere episode of "The Dick Van Dyke Show" was filmed on the same day JFK was inaugurated (1/20/61).

http://Dick-Van-Dyke-Show.blogspot.com


WHISKY JOE SAID:

I predict that in the coming year some good progress will be made in the "Grand Unification Theory" that proves that Reitzes, Von Pein, Myers and McAdams are really the same person.

Note, to be fair, Pam [Brown] does not seem to buy into the theory that Reitzes and Von Pein are the same person.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

The fourth level [of Conspiracy Theory researchers] tries to prove that Whisky Joe is the new alias of Brandy Alexander. Notice how the WC defenders love to use aliases? They are to embarrassed to use their real names.


DAVE REITZES SAID:

Bob Harris thinks I'm at least two people. Someone at the Nuthouse [aka alt.conspiracy.jfk] once asked him if I and a certain LNer who used to post here were the same person. He responded, "I don't know if [name deleted] is posting through that account or not, but I have no doubt whatsoever that people of widely varying writing skills are. The long-winded stuff is definitely coming from a pro. If that is the David Reitzes we all know and love, then I would expect that he is published somewhere. But the guy who writes most of the day-to-day stuff is nowhere near that level."

He's accused me of some other interesting things (including a novel claim about how three well known JFK researchers and I spend the holiday season), but I don't want to tax the moderators' patience too much. \:^)


PAM BROWN AND DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

JFK Assassination Arguments (Part 429)


PAM BROWN SAID:

Are you refusing to acknowledge that there are some people who are wondering if you are an actual person or a persona?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh?

Of COURSE I "acknowledge" the fact that some people (all CTers, naturally) think that I'm posing as several different individuals on the Internet. It's fairly obvious that some CTers have jumped to that wholly unwarranted conclusion.

But do I need to officially "acknowledge" those suspicions from atop an orange crate in the middle of Town Square or something?


PAM BROWN SAID:

Don't you want to clear that up fast?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Actually, no. I love watching conspiracy theorists make fools out of themselves on a daily basis. And this issue of "DVP aliases" has been extremely entertaining from my end of the computer. I hope it continues. I enjoy it immensely. It's especially enjoyable since I know every one of those conspiracy theorists is 100% wrong.

So, no, I have no real desire to "clear that up" anytime soon. If the silly CTers who think I'm really several other people want to think that....let them. Heck, a CTer or two in the past actually alleged that I was Vincent Bugliosi in disguise. And what's not to like about that?!

There's probably nothing I could do to make those people stop believing that fantasy anyway. After all, most of those same CTers actually think that a THREE-BULLET substitute for the Single-Bullet Theory is a MORE REASONABLE and accurate explanation for the wounding of JFK and John Connally than is the SBT.

So, as you can see, that's the type of conspiratorial mentality I'm up against here. And who can fight imagination? It almost always trumps reality in a conspiracist's world.


PAM BROWN SAID:

You have managed to continue to be evasive.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:



Yeah, I've been "evasive" by forthrightly answering every single question that was asked of me.

See what I mean? I can't win even when I answer everything that's put to me. I love it!


PAM BROWN SAID:

So far, you have not presented any documentation to the fact that you are not an alias.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Another one of these needs to go here (for sure) --->

And just exactly what kind of "documentation" do you (or anyone) possess to show that the "He's Using Multiple Aliases" and "DVP Is Reitzes" rumors are correct? Anything at all?

IOW -- Is the burden of proof on ME here? Or should it be on the ill-informed people who make the accusations?

I guess nothing short of a birth certificate will suffice here, huh?

Oops. No, that won't be good enough either. Because somebody could say that all I did was swipe this guy's birth certificate.




DAVE REITZES SAID:

There are now TWO threads about DVP at the Simkin forum [The Education Forum].

Not bad for someone who doesn't even exist.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That other Education Forum thread was started by Tom "I Can't Say It Here At AAJ Because The Post Will Certainly Be Rejected If I Call Him This Name" Purvis back in September '08.


BRENDAN SLATTERY SAID:

Crackpot Simkin and his flying monkeys really do give Nixon a run for his money in the paranoia department. During my brief stay there, the locals were *obsessed* with my listed occupation, demanding to know more about my work. More than a few suggested that I might be a government "plant."

Thank God I didn't submit my real photo (they had no right to that anyway; that goes double for my real name). The vast majority of them are unhinged, Bush-hating leftists who bewailed things like FISA and the Patriot Act to no end, yet didn't think twice about compromising MY privacy. A pox on all of them.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's a little something that indicates that certain people at The Education Forum can't even follow the progression of a simple forum thread, and are unable to identify the people who are making the posts. (It's either that explanation, or Bill Kelly just simply cannot read....or he thinks that Mr. Slattery [aka "slats"] is another one of the many fake names I'm supposed to be using on the Internet, per the conspiracists.)

William Kelly of The Education Forum said this in the post linked below:

"Apparently Von Pein is not his real name and he's so afraid of the truth he won't post a picture of himself, so he's disqualified on two points. He's concerned about his "privacy"? He calls Simkin a crackpot and me a flying monkey but doesn't have the balls to join the debate?" -- William Kelly; February 1, 2009

Kelly (as well as Pat Speer) seem to think that I wrote this post.

Somebody should teach William Kelly how to read forum posts. Because it's quite obvious that the post which Kelly/Speer credit as being mine was written by "slats", who used to post common-sense stuff at The Edu. Forum, which is why the kooks hated his guts there too.

Another interesting (and deceptive) thing that Kelly did in the above Education Forum post was to add in the web address to my JFK Blog at the bottom of that message. Kelly added that weblink HIMSELF. Because that link does not appear in either my original post to which "slats" was responding or in the post "slats" made.

Seems to me as though Mr. Kelly is trying to pull the wool over somebody's eyes there at the Edu. Forum by ADDING IN something that never appeared in the aaj posts he was quoting from, making it look as if I (DVP), myself, had "signed" that post with my blog address. That's pretty darn deceptive, IMO.

Anyway, maybe I should thank Mr. Kelly for the free advertising, since I have no way of posting a link to my JFK Blog on that Edu. Forum myself. [As of early 2009, that is. But since that time, I have rejoined The Education Forum as an active member.]

BTW/FYI:

I did not refuse to post a picture of myself during my short-lived stay at The Education Forum in July of 2006. I told Mr. Simkin that I did not have any picture to post (which was the absolute truth; I had none at all available). [I did, however, find a very tiny picture to use as my Profile photo when I rejoined that forum in August of 2010.]

I was in the process of trying to work out some kind of a compromise regarding my adhering to the Forum rule about all members putting a picture in their profiles (even though, as I pointed out to Mr. Simkin at that time in 2006, there were several long-time members in mid-'06 who were not fulfilling that requirement as well), when Mr. Simkin decided to cut off my membership after only four days of posting. Therefore, no such "photo compromise" could be worked out.


PAM BROWN SAID:

More excuses from "DVP" to attempt to justify his not posting on the Ed Forum and instead complaining about it here. Guess this is the kind of mishmash one can expect from a died-in-the-wool WC apologist.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Or -- it's the kind of raw truth you can expect from a person who posted for four days at a forum that detests the likes of lone-assassin believers.

Your choice.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

If I remember correctly, the Education Forum requires registration and that you use your REAL name.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes. Correct. Which I did.

So what's your point?


PAM BROWN SAID:

I feel sure John Simkin would find a way for "DVP" to post if he were to pony up bio info and photo; especially since it was John who initiated this thread.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have no problem with revealing "bio" type info (e.g., location, age, e-mail address). In fact, I almost always "pony up" such info on websites where a "Profile" is made available to the world [such as here].

And I don't really have a problem with providing a photo either. It's just that (in 2006) I did not have a photo available.

I have discovered, however, a very small picture that I could use as a profile image (although it will probably show up way too blurry and indistinct if it's blown up much at all).

But I'm certainly willing to sign up again as an active member at The Education Forum (if John Simkin hasn't banned me completely after my dismissal three years ago). Does he allow people to re-join after they've been previously kicked off? I have no idea about that. ~shrug~

Anyway, I'm game.....if John S. is.


BUD SAID:

It's always interesting to read Pam's interpretation of what someone says. The way she reads what is written explains the conclusions she draws. How could she not be a CT?


PAM BROWN SAID:

You have to use your real name "DVP"...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I did. (Your disbelief notwithstanding, of course.)


PAM BROWN SAID:

...and you have to provide bio information connected to it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Does such mandatory info stop at "locale, age, race, sex, favorite cereal, and shoe size"? Or do I have to provide my blood type and last 12 employers as well in order to satisfy Mr. Simkin's hunger for useless data?


PAM BROWN SAID:

Plus, you have to post a photo, which you refused to do.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Incorrect. (As usual.)


PAM BROWN SAID:

Get real.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have.

Maybe you, though, should learn to read (and comprehend correctly), Pam. That'd help greatly.

Plus, it would probably help if you would refrain from hanging a label of suspicion on people when you have so little reason to do so.

But, hey, maybe I'm just being totally unreasonable to expect such restraint from a conspiracy believer.


BUD SAID:

If you [Pam] really wanted to "get real" you'd acknowledge that the only reason they started enforcing the photograph requirement was to contrive a reason to kick DVP out. If it wasn't for him posting there, it would have never been an issue, as it wasn't strictly enforced prior to his participation in that forum (and as far as I can tell, there are still members who haven't provided a photo, but these mostly lurk without posting).

The "real" reason they wanted him gone is that he keeps bringing up that pesky evidence that gets in the way of the silly things they want to believe.


PAM BROWN SAID:

You also have to have a photo as your avatar [at The Education Forum] and a bio that provides some information about you. Hard for a persona to do that.


BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:

Why? Anyone who can create a "persona" can come up with a pic and create a bio to go with it.

You seem obsessed with ragging on DVP as being a "persona" ... yet you created several fake ID [e-mail] addreses a few months ago to attack me and a couple others. Not knowing what an IP address is, you got outed immediately.

But isn't it more than a tad hypocritical for you to make it such a pursuit to rag on someone else who you accuse of creating a persona ... when you don't have any proof it's true in the first place ... and when you have done the same thing yourself?


PAM BROWN SAID:

Simkin started the thread to find out if "DVP" is an actual person. You figure it out.


BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:

When you get right down to it, what difference does it make? What any of us have to deal with are the words others put out....regardless of who, or what, they are.

[...]

You, Pam, do little else but distract from discussion of actual research on evidence and issues with nonsense like this on DVP and others ... particularly those who don't buy Judyth [Baker's] story.

Is that your goal?


DAVE REITZES SAID:

Three Von Pein threads at the Simkin forum . . . and counting.


BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:

He must be seen as an effective threat on something to garner so much interest and attention??


DAVE REITZES SAID:

One Nuthouse psycho [at the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup] is even calling upon people to bomb DVP's home residence.

It's a swell class of people over there.


REPRISE....
JOHN SIMKIN SAID:

A researcher has asked for information on David Von Pein.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:







Also See:
DVP Vs. Various Individual Conspiracy Theorists


David Von Pein
January 24—February 4, 2009
August 6, 2018

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 724)

BUD SAID:

How many times did he [Wesley Frazier] say he didn't pay attention to the bag?


BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:

Have you read anything on these two [Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle] besides Posner? Doesn't seem like it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bud doesn't need to read anything about Buell Wesley Frazier (other than Frazier's WC testimony) in order to know that the question Bud asked in his last post is a very good and valid inquiry.

The fact is, when we read Wesley Frazier's 1964 Warren Commission testimony, Frazier tells the Commission TEN SEPARATE TIMES that he wasn't paying very close attention to Oswald's paper bag or the way that LHO was carrying that bag on the morning of 11/22/63.

Let's take a look (these are all quotes from the mouth of Buell Wesley Frazier, via his Warren Commission session on March 11, 1964 [emphasis added by DVP]):

"I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?""

"I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word."

"Like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all."

"I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it."

"Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that."

"Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--"

"I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here, like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that and, say, like walking from the back if you had a big arm jacket there you wouldn't tell much from a package back there."

[End Frazier Quotes.]

And then there's also Wes Frazier's testimony at the 1986 TV docu-trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" [see the video below]), which includes this exchange between witness Frazier and prosecutor Vince Bugliosi:

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."





RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM "RECLAIMING HISTORY":

"[Buell Wesley] Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald's armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable from his Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his part based on his limited view.

Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down" along the inside of Oswald's arm.

[...]

Since he could only see this small portion of the package under Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your armpit."

Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it.

[...]

In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front of his body, which Frazier could not see.

[...]

The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather [in 1967], who rhetorically told his audience, "You can decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

David Von Pein
October 2, 2009

DAVID VON PEIN VS. VARIOUS CONSPIRACY THEORISTS

DVP vs. DAVID LIFTON

DVP vs. JAMES DiEUGENIO

DVP vs. VINCE PALAMARA

DVP vs. DOUG HORNE

DVP vs. JAMES FETZER

DVP vs. JUDYTH VARY BAKER

DVP vs. PAT SPEER

DVP vs. ROBERT HARRIS

DVP vs. ANTHONY MARSH

DVP vs. GREG PARKER

DVP vs. GARY AGUILAR

DVP vs. JAMES R. GORDON

DVP vs. WILLIAM KELLY

DVP vs. JOSEPH McBRIDE

DVP vs. GIL JESUS

DVP vs. BARB JUNKKARINEN

DVP vs. LEE FARLEY

DVP vs. PAMELA BROWN

DVP vs. ORLANDO MARTIN

DVP vs. DON JEFFRIES

DVP vs. RAY MITCHAM

DVP vs. CLIFF VARNELL

DVP vs. COLIN CROW

DVP vs. WILLY WHITTEN

DVP vs. JIM HARGROVE

DVP vs. MARTIN HAY

DVP vs. BEN HOLMES

DVP vs. DAVID JOSEPHS

DVP vs. RAMON F. HERRERA

DVP vs. BART KAMP

DVP vs. HERBERT BLENNER

DVP vs. RON ECKER

DVP vs. GARRY PUFFER

DVP vs. SANDY LARSEN

DVP vs. THOMAS H. PURVIS

DVP vs. JON G. TIDD

DVP vs. DONALD WILLIS

DVP vs. STEVE THOMAS

DVP vs. GLENN NALL

DVP vs. TOM SCULLY

DVP vs. RICH DELLAROSA

DVP vs. SEAN MURPHY

DVP vs. MARTIN WEIDMANN

DVP vs. WALT CAKEBREAD

DVP vs. TOM ROSSLEY

DVP vs. CORY SANTOS

DVP vs. ALAN FORD

DVP vs. BOB PRUDHOMME

DVP vs. TONY FRATINI

DVP vs. DENNY ZARTMAN

DVP vs. JOHN IACOLETTI

DVP vs. KENNETH DREW

DVP vs. PAUL JOLLIFFE

DVP vs. RICH POPE

DVP vs. RON BULMAN

DVP vs. GREG DOUDNA

DVP vs. ROBERT CAPRIO

DVP vs. DAVID HEALY

DVP vs. MICHAEL CLARK

DVP vs. JOHN BARBOUR

DVP vs. RALPH CINQUE

DVP vs. EDUCATION FORUM


===============================


ALSO SEE:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 85)

JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> "She [Barb Junkkarinen] has forgotten more about the medical evidence than you pretend to know." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, prob'ly so.


>>> "Therefore, you've got gal [sic] to question her on this issue,
IMHO." <<<

Yeah, prob'ly so. But I've got the sum total of the evidence to always
fall back on. Plus the common-sense factor of knowing that it would
have been totally silly for the Bethesda doctors to want to cover up
the truth about the death of JFK, which the doctors knew had been
caused by only two bullets which both entered JFK's body FROM BEHIND.


>>> "You've also got a lot of gal [sic] saying that all those witnesses "who saw the body" and a BOH [Back Of Head] wound were wrong...BASED ON: 1) A photo taken near the end of the autopsy when the next major step was to turn the body over to the morticians..." <<<

I don't give a damn WHEN the photo was taken. The fact is there is NO
REAR SCALP MISSING on the head of the dead President. None! Zilch! Not
even a mark on the scalp. Nothing.

It's virtually impossible for the rear scalp of JFK to be in this condition
(shown below) if the Parkland witnesses are correct about there having
been a very large BOH wound in this SAME HEAD of President Kennedy:



Was JFK's scalp supposedly peeled COMPLETELY BACK off of his head at
Parkland, thereby exposing a massive hole underneath the TOTALLY INTACT
scalp (per the above photo) at the far-right-rear of the head?

If so, why didn't any Parkland witnesses say anything about the scalp
being massively peeled back off of the President's head?

Of course, I'll grant you, none of the Parkland people seemed to notice
the large exit wound in the front-right part of JFK's head either, so I
guess maybe they just all missed seeing this massive "Scalp Peeling"
that must have been occurring at Parkland as well (if Mr. Canal's theory
concerning JFK's head wounds is a correct one, that is).

~~shrugs shoulders twice in bewilderment~~


>>> "Look at the damn x-rays and BOH photo. The autopsists even said the large wound extended somewhat into the temporal and occipital....even if they understated how far back the wound went, the aforementioned photo and x-rays show no hint of a wound where they said there was one...nada, zilcho, zero, nothing...DO YOU GET IT? Why don't you ask yourself why that is, if that's not too much of a hurdle to jump before you accuse so many credible witnesses of being liars or hallucinators?" <<<

See my last remarks.

And, btw, I've never once accused any Parkland witness of being a "liar".
Never once.

(John Canal sure is irritable today.)


>>> "Do you actually think the autopsy docs didn't know where the temporal and occipital bones were? Don't bother to answer that...OF COURSE YOU THINK THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THOSE BONES WERE." <<<

Go ask Tony Marsh. He thinks the Bethesda docs (all 3 of 'em!) were
total and utter incompetents, and they couldn't even tell a little
piece of loose brain tissue from a hole in the back of JFK's head.

I guess Tony must think JFK wasn't shot in the head AT ALL, seeing as
how he thinks there was NO HOLE at all in the back of the head.

Go figure that. ~shrug~

(I wandered off on a Marsh tangent; sorry.)


>>> "The Greer-Did-It theory makes more sense than what you're sputtering out." <<<

My, my. John C. sure is testy today.


>>> "I've come to know former FBI agent Francis O'Neill pretty good. Do you want to talk to him up front and personal like and ask him if he was smoking that funny stuff when he viewed and felt the back of JFK's skull with his finger...and saw a large BOH wound? I'm almost positive I can arrange that...if you have the balls to. How about it?" <<<

No, thanks.

(My goodness, John's on edge today.)

David Von Pein
December 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 12, 2007)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 367)

BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:

>>> "General description that was not all that accurate for recognizing LHO -- generally, and also general to probably a huge percentage of males in Dallas." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Prob'ly. But it fit Sweet Lee Harvey too. And it was Lee Harvey's gun
found up there on that same floor where "Howie" saw this "slender
white male".

And Ozzie's prints just happen to be on the gun too; and Ozzie's
prints also just happen to be all over the location on the 6th Floor
(the Sniper's Nest) where Howie sees the "slender white male".

Shouldn't all of this stuff make a person pause and at least consider
the POSSIBILITY of the person Howie saw being Sweet Lee? Or is Lee
Harvey Oswald eliminated as a suspect entirely here?


>>> "Howie didn't say "that's him"..." <<<

Sure he did. He positively IDed the 6th-Floor sniper as Lee Harvey
Oswald. Not on November 22, 1963, true. But Brennan did positively
I.D. LHO as the gunman in the TSBD. You just don't want to believe
him. (What a shocker there! A CTer who doesn't want to believe
Howard Leslie Brennan; aka "Howie"! Imagine that.)


>>> "An O double is your creation, not mine." <<<

It certainly isn't MY creation, for pity sake. I'm merely repeating
what most hardline CTers think (i.e., that there were "Oswald Doubles"
running all over Texas in late 1963). If you're not one of those
people...here, have a cookie. Then you got one right.


>>> "Personally, I think Oswald most likely shot Tippit." <<<

Gee, I wonder how you could have ever arrived at that difficult
conclusion? LOL.

REPRISE:

>>> "Personally, I think Oswald most likely shot Tippit." <<<

This is too hilarious to waste on just a single response, so an
instant replay is required. And another "LOL" as well.

The "most likely" part is a real treat.

You CTers can't even admit (full-force) that Oswald was Tippit's
murderer.

Hilarious.


>>> "This Howie Brennan thing has been danced many times." <<<

And I'm sure that the late Mr. Brennan would appreciate being called
"Howie", too. It gives him a youthful air.


>>> "It just cracks me up every time someone claims Oswald was identified as the man with a rifle in the window..." <<<

Oswald was identified as the man with a rifle in the window.

Why fight this obvious fact?


>>> "...you just know they are going to drag out Howie [aka Howard L. Brennan]." <<<

Yeah...well...seeing as how "Howie" is the only witness who can be
utilized in such a "Positive Identification Of Oz In The Window"
fashion...then...well...yeah, Howie's gonna get dragged out -- each
and every time this topic surfaces.

Should we LNers pull a CT-Kook's trick and just PRETEND that we have a
dozen witnesses who positively IDed Lee Oswald as Kennedy's killer?

(I think it's time for a "Duh!" here. Don't you?)


>>> "Not even the DPD thought they had a positive ID worth squat. As Chief Jesse Curry wrote in his book, "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand." " <<<

Yeah, and that's a shame too. Because I always liked Chief Curry. Too
bad that the invisible and crazy "CT stranglehold" took control of him
and his good sense (much the same way the dreaded CT Disease took
ahold of Marina Oswald in later years as well, after she had said for
decades that she thought her husband had killed the President).

Jesse Curry wanted to write a book in the late '60s, and "LNism"
wasn't selling very well back then (what with rabid CT-Kooks like Mark
Lane and Jim Garrison dishing up assorted conspiracy fantasies to the
book-buying masses).

So -- Voila! -- Chief Curry suddenly declares that there was a
conspiracy and that Oswald couldn't be placed in the window. It's
ridiculous. Sad--but ridiculous.


>>> "All the HSCA wanted from Brennan was for him to sign off on his WC testimony.....they would have brought it to his house. He wouldn't do it." <<<

Howard Brennan, of course, isn't really needed at all to arrive at the
truth in this murder case. Because even if there were zero witnesses
to the shooting itself, Lee Oswald's guilt has still been proven 85
ways to Sunday (or Friday)....via the popcorn trail of evidence he
left in his wake, and the many lies he told after his arrest.

Does an innocent man need to tell lie after lie--as Lee Harvey did
after his arrest?

He even lied about where he purchased the gun he had ON HIM when he
was taken into custody.

Oswald was obviously attempting to distance himself from BOTH murders
he committed on 11/22/63 (and distance himself from both murder
weapons).

He didn't tell the truth ONE time (that I can think of) when it came
to any substantive issue connected with the murders of Kennedy and
Tippit, particularly with respect to his C2766 Carcano rifle and his
Smith & Wesson revolver.

Lee Oswald was a Lying Machine when it came to those weapons.

As Vince Bugliosi said to the London jury in 1986:

"When he was interrogated, Oswald, from his own lips, he TOLD us he was guilty....he told us he was guilty....almost the same as if he had said 'I murdered President Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us? Well, the lies he told, one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE consciousness of guilt. If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary to do that if he's innocent? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to do with President Kennedy's assassination and was framed, this otherwise independent and defiant would-be
revolutionary, who disliked taking orders from anyone, turned out to be the most willing and cooperative frame-ee in the history of mankind!! Because the evidence of his guilt is so monumental, that he could have just as well gone around with a large sign on his back declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered President John F. Kennedy'!!! Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent, would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow speaking the Spanish language!" -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (c.1986)


NOTE --- The above portions of Vince Bugliosi's Final Summation to the jury
cannot be found on the MPI Home Video DVD edition of "ON TRIAL: LEE
HARVEY OSWALD" (released to the public on October 28, 2008), but Vince
said them to the jury just the same. Those VB comments aired in 1988,
when an alternate and slightly re-edited version of the "trial" was
shown on cable TV, commemorating the 25th anniversary of the
assassination.

David Von Pein
November 6, 2008