JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 862)

CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

David,

Your analysis of the Dealey Plaza photos destroys the single bullet theory.

You conceded the clothing wasn't bunched up much at all in the Croft photo, remember?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Quote me saying that, Cliff. Because I sure as heck don't remember ever saying that.

Kennedy's jacket was, of course, "bunched up" in the Croft picture. Anyone with one (bad) eye can easily see that.



Did I say something years ago to you about the clothing not being bunched "much at all"? Is that the key phrase? Or are you misstating my quotes? (Just wondering.)


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

In this post you acknowledge that, in the past, you've admitted JFK's clothing wasn't bunched up significantly on Houston St.

In this post you acknowledge that JFK's jacket was bunched up "a bit" in the Croft photo.

"A bit" of bunched clothing is a fraction of an inch, David, not 3 inches.

In this post you refine your analysis that JFK's jacket was bunched up "a little bit" since his shirt collar is clearly visible in Croft.

"The jacket collar could be "hiked up" a little bit and still have some of JFK's white shirt visible." -- DVP

This photo destroys the SBT.

The shirt collar is visible. The jacket collar sat in a normal position at the base of his neck. Otherwise, the full band of white shirt collar wouldn't be visible, right?

Your SBT requires 3 inches of shirt bunch-up and a near-equal amount of jacket bunch-up.

How could multiple inches of shirt and jacket bunch up entirely above the SBT inshoot at the base of JFK's neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of his neck?

Only "a little bit" of jacket could be bunched up under those circumstances.

Your acknowledgement of this fact destroys your Zombie Pet Theory, David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, brother.

Cliff Varnell thinks those previous comments I made somehow mean I can no longer believe (or in any way support) the SBT.

Cliff's middle initial must be D (for "Desperation").


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

David, do you really believe that both the jacket and the shirt bunched up the same amount, just as the shot was fired? Really?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This stuff about the clothing is so incredibly silly, Ray.

There's only ONE bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only ONE hole in the jacket.

So, then, ONE bullet had no choice but to pass through both of those holes.

What's the alternative? Please enlighten me on that one.

Did one bullet pass through the shirt and then a different bullet went through the suit coat? Nobody could possibly argue such a nutty theory.

Or do you think the clothing was faked too?


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Now who is being the silly one, David?

I note you never answered my question.

Obviously one bullet caused both holes. Again I ask you, do you really believe that the jacket and shirt both bunched up the same amount? Really?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Of course they bunched up the same amount. Why not? You actually think such a thing is a total impossibility? (Geesh.)

The alternative is to believe that this autopsy photo below is a fake. And, in my opinion, that notion is absurd and preposterous (especially in light of what we find at 7 HSCA 41)....



President Kennedy's suit coat is unquestionably hiked up on his back in the Croft picture at circa Z161. That's not even debatable.

Now, given that undeniable FACT (unless someone wants to pretend that Robert Croft's picture has been faked too), it means the suit coat is going to have a hole in it that is lower than the wound in JFK's skin. Correct?

And since there's only one bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only one bullet hole in the upper back (skin) of John F. Kennedy's body too---well, it's pretty obvious to see where I'm going with this, right?

And, to reiterate -- Why on Earth do CTers think it would be an impossible feat to have somebody's shirt and jacket bunched up IN UNISON on a person's back?

But to hear CTers like Cliff Varnell tell it, that "double bunching" thing is more improbable than flying to the moon in a Cessna. ~big shrug~

It only goes to show--once again--the lengths that some conspiracy hounds will go to in order to inject suspicion and doubt and alleged "conspiracy" into every nook and cranny of the JFK murder case---even though there's no need to inject such things into this particular sub-topic regarding the President's clothing whatsoever.

And btw, a picture was produced by Jean Davison a few years ago (the one below) showing JFK wearing a shirt that is "bunched up" near his neck. But according to some CTers, I guess maybe this is merely an illusion I'm seeing here....



And Cliff Varnell and other Education Forum members know about the above picture, too. It was discussed right here in this thread.

Naturally, Cliff doesn't think it has any relevance at all. But I think Cliff is all wet, and I set him straight here.

FYI / BTW / FWIW....

Here's another photo, culled from Andre Leche's film (which was discovered in late 2013), showing a pretty significant bunching of JFK's jacket on Main Street....




ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Regarding the photo of JFK speaking to the young lad and showing his shirt bunched up, if he was shot at the collar line, at that moment, you would have three holes in the shirt, once it was laid flat. Just saying.

And the same would apply to the suit coat, if he were shot at the collar line and the coat was bunched up. The bullet would go through the fold, leaving one bullet hole on each side of the fold, and then through the collar of the coat, leaving another hole.

I count three holes, Dave.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Robert,

The simple answer to your posts above is that JFK's clothes on 11/22/63 were not "bunched" to an extreme degree where "folds" or overlapping of the fabric come into play in the precise locations in the shirt and coat where the bullet penetrated.

Because if such folding of the clothing had occurred at the exact spots where the bullet entered, then--like you suggested--we would have multiple holes in each item (the coat and the shirt). But we've got only ONE hole in each article of clothing. Ergo, no "folding" and no overlapping of fabric.

Also see....




ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Okay, smart guy, did the bullet go above the collar, or below the collar?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As far as the SKIN wound in JFK's body, the bullet went into his body just slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders. (At least it looks that way to me.) But it certainly didn't enter way up in the "NECK", and there was no need whatever for Gerald Ford, or any other person connected with the Warren Commission, to want to start "moving" the wound way up into the neck, because, as CE903 demonstrates, a wound way up there in the "neck" of JFK would ruin the SBT trajectory entirely.



As far as the bullet hole in the coat, that hole was located quite a bit down from the collar (due to the bunching of the jacket when the shooting occurred). So, quite obviously, the "collar" isn't involved when discussing the hole in the jacket either.




RAY MITCHAM SAID (REPRISE):

Obviously one bullet caused both holes [in JFK's shirt and suit coat].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then what's your point, Ray?

You readily acknowledge that ONE bullet must have passed through the two holes in the clothing. So aren't you therefore saying the exact same thing I am saying here -- i.e., that the two articles of clothing (the shirt and the jacket) WERE, indeed, elevated to the same level when the bullet struck John Kennedy in the back?

Otherwise, how could the one bullet have managed to travel through both of those clothing holes on November 22, 1963?

Please elaborate on how your position ("Obviously one bullet caused both holes") is any different from mine ("There's only ONE bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only ONE hole in the jacket. So, then, ONE bullet had no choice but to pass through both of those holes.").

We are BOTH stating the obvious--that one bullet went through both clothing holes. Therefore, in order for that basic fact to be true, the two items of clothing had no choice but to be "lined up" in such a manner on JFK's back to allow the one bullet to pass successfully through both of those garments. Correct?

And since everybody (including Mr. Ray Mitcham) can easily see that JFK's jacket WAS definitely "bunched up" when the shooting occurred (as confirmed by Robert Croft's photograph), then where can you possibly go with your argument that the shirt couldn't have been bunched up to the same level as the jacket?

What am I missing here? Please tell me. Because I truly don't think your position on this is any different from my own.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Are you sure you want to go with "just slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders", Dave?

Just making sure....


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That seems to be about right when looking at the autopsy photo.

But to be perfectly technical and spot-on accurate, I'd insist upon the precise language of the autopsy surgeons and the detailed measurements they made. Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck said....

"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process." -- Warren Report; Page 540


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

No, Dave, you stated the bullet was slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders. Is that your final answer? Do you want to call a friend?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, good. Bob has decided to be cute. (He thinks he's setting a cunning little trap for that stupid ol' LNer from the Hoosier State named Davey V.P., doesn't he? How clever that boy is.)


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims, David.

But you and all the other high back wound people have found it impossible.

It's way past time for you people to put up or shut up.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What's not to love about a conspiracy buff with a pet theory to push? Pure entertainment.

Cliff Varnell's dogged refrain, year after year after year, concerning the clothing of JFK is even better than Jack Benny for laughs.

The bottom line is ----

There is no reasonable alternative to the Single-Bullet Theory (Cliff's constant whining about the clothing notwithstanding) -- and even Cliff must surely realize that fact.

So, to use Cliff's own verbiage, maybe it's time for "you [CT] people to put up or shut up" when it comes to demonstrating just exactly how President Kennedy was shot via an anti-SBT theory.

Of course that won't happen---because it CAN'T happen. And that's because the Single-Bullet Theory is rooted in solid ground (and a real bullet too--CE399, which is something the anti-SBT CTers lack completely).


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Quote By DVP -- "There is no reasonable alternative to the Single Bullet Theory."

Only in your world, David.

It was "Theory" dreamt up to fit a scenario in which only three bullets were fired, one of which hit a bystander. Unfortunately you can't see that.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then what's your alternative theory that replaces the SBT, Ray?

And does your version really fit the evidence better than the SBT does?

Don't be shy. Let's hear it.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

No problem. Multi shooters.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Brilliant.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

My problem is proving where the shots came from.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, no kidding. It's difficult to prove something for which there's no evidence at all. Good luck.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

One shot was from the front hitting the President in the right temple...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not a lick of evidence to support that claim.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

My theory needs no magic bullet.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nor does mine.

But you didn't even come close to answering my previous question, which concerned only the SBT.

I'll try again....

"Then what's your alternative theory that replaces the SBT, Ray? And does your version really fit the evidence better than the SBT does? Don't be shy. Let's hear it."

[Ray never answered me. Gee, what a surprise.]


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

I have ONE question about DVP's book [Remember the book? I believe this thread was started to discuss the book]:

Is there any NEW information in the book, or is it a restatement of old information? Because I can get refried beans at just about any Mexican restaurant.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's some material in the book that I don't think has been published in "book" form in the past.

E.G.,

Stuff about the ridiculous "Secret Service Standdown" myth and the true identity of the "shrugging" SS agent at Love Field [pages 429-434 of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"]. (Don Lawton's identity WAS, indeed, revealed in the Gerald Blaine/Clint Hill book "The Kennedy Detail" in 2010, but I don't think the "standdown" topic was discussed in that book. But I'm not positive about that.)

And there's some "new" material (thanks to Gary Mack's e-mails to me) regarding Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's [pages 64-67].

Plus, the book's main author, Mel Ayton, has contacted some sources down in Florida regarding the "Castro/Cuba/Oswald" angle that I believe can be classified as "new" [Chapter 11, "The Castro Connection"; pages 313-343].

But as far as being "new" to people like Mark Knight or Pat Speer or John Simkin or Mark Lane, et al ... the answer to your question, Mark, would be, for the most part, no. Because I doubt that there's much of anything brand-new in the book that you guys haven't seen before. (Sorry, Mark, neither Mel nor I discovered another bullet or a new "bombshell witness". Instead, we have had to mostly rely on that same evidence collected by the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/63. Like it or not, that evidence IS the evidence in this case. And it all points in one irresistible direction.)

But for people who don't visit JFK online forums every day of their lives and who don't obsess about the JFK case the way I do or the way "Internet CTers" do, then I'd say, Yes, there are several "new" items of interest sprinkled throughout "Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Warren Report And Lee Harvey Oswald's Guilt And Motive 50 Years On".

And why in heck the "Add To Cart" button hasn't returned to the book's Amazon page is ticking me off greatly. It should be there by now, but it isn't (as of 1:00 AM EST on 12/15/2014). The ability to purchase it through the "Shopping Cart" at Amazon should definitely occur within the next few days. [It finally did occur on January 7, 2015.]




CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

Since there is a chapter on the Single Bullet Theory, how is that discussion off topic?


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

The reference to being "off topic" was to the fact that this was sliding more towards rekindling an old "grudge match," in which neither side was ever going to convince the other, than it was towards actually being a civil discussion. Personally, I am no fan of Mr. Von Pein...but I hope that we can keep the discussions here not only civil, but informative. Snide remarks by either party, or a continuous sniping match, does little to raise the level of discourse here.

By now, I think we all know what you believe, Mr. Varnell. And I'm pretty sure we all know what Mr. Von Pein believes. And from where I stand, obviously "never the twain shall meet." So unless there is new evidence on the subject, we return to rehashing old arguments that lead nowhere, as neither of you will ever convince the other, nor concede to the other. I think that, on a thread about a new book, perhaps having the courtesy to first read the book might bring other more enlightening questions to mind.

And besides...I think there's probably more than one old thread here about the bunching/non-bunching of the shirt/jacket that might be revived, if there is some point to it other than wanting to be the man to get in the last word on the subject.

And THAT is what the "back on topic" reference was about.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

DVP and I have come to characterize the clothing evidence the same way -- there was "a little bit" of jacket bunching in Dealey Plaza.

This is a significant admission from DVP.

Jim DiEugenio argued and argued with DVP over hundreds of topics and never once did Jim D get any sort of admission of fact from Von Pein.

That I have wrung said admission is a true accomplishment, if I do say so.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've never specified the EXACT amount of jacket bunching that can be seen in the photos. Why on Earth would anyone do something like that? It's an impossible thing to know. I can't tell precisely how much "bunching" there is in the Croft picture. And neither can you. We can only GUESS.

You, Cliff, are attempting to fine-tune the "bunching" to levels of exactitude that cannot be achieved.

But it is nice to see Cliff admit that at least SOME bunching of JFK's jacket is seen in the Dealey Plaza photographs. (With a shocking admission like that one, perhaps Cliff isn't too far away from becoming an LNer after all.)




CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

The point was to sharpen and underscore David Von Pein's startling, ground-breaking admission that there was no significant bunching of JFK's jacket in Dealey.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And who said a "significant" amount of bunching is needed in order to meet the requirements for the Single-Bullet Theory? Just because YOU say so? "Significant" is a relative term.

Once again, Cliff is pretending to KNOW with exact accuracy the degree of "bunching" that is occurring with respect to both JFK's jacket AND shirt via the photos we have to examine. (And the shirt can't even be seen at all, of course, since the jacket is covering his shirt.)

But such pinpoint precision concerning the bunching cannot be obtained by just looking at the photos. It can only be GUESSED at. But apparently Cliff thinks he can measure to the millimeter the amount of bunched-up fabric that is seen in the photos.

Such silliness the likes which Mr. Varnell is constantly engaging in regarding President Kennedy's clothing ought to be scoffed at by any and all reasonable people examining the JFK case.

Bottom Line --- Cliff Varnell is pretending to know things that are just simply unknowable.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID ALL THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The verifiable PROOF that Cliff Varnell is dead wrong regarding the bullet holes in JFK's clothing exists in the fact that we KNOW beyond all doubt that ONE single bullet had to have passed through all three bullet holes in question --- the hole in JFK's jacket, the hole in JFK's shirt, and the hole that existed in JFK's upper back (which is located 14 centimeters below his right mastoid process, just like the autopsy doctors said).

Cliff can talk all day long (and he will) about how it's impossible for John Kennedy's clothes to have bunched up to a certain level on JFK's body. But the absolute irrefutable PROOF that the clothing DID, indeed, bunch up to that level on JFK's back exists in this autopsy picture, which has been proven to be genuine (i.e., not faked) by many experts who examined the autopsy photos for the HSCA:



The bullet hole in the above picture is perfectly consistent with the Single-Bullet Theory and is also perfectly consistent with the autopsy report and with Commission Exhibit No. 903 as well.

And since we know where the bullet entered the BODY of President Kennedy, then the shirt and jacket HAD to have been elevated to the very same level where we find the body/skin wound in the upper back of the President.

The above fact couldn't be any more obvious, of course. But, for some reason, certain conspiracy theorists are still struggling to figure out this elementary math that any third-grader would have no trouble resolving.

If some conspiracy theorists want to continue to pretend that this photo of President Kennedy is a fake, or alternatively, that the wound seen in that picture is really much lower on JFK's back than it appears to be in the photo....they are free, of course, to speculate about such things I guess. But in my opinion, neither option is a reasonable one. Especially when we factor in these findings reached by the Photographic Panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations:

"From the reports of the experts' analyses of the autopsy photographs and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA Volume 7, page 41

David Von Pein
December 2014

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1328)

W. NIEDERHUT SAID:

After reading James DiEugenio's latest book, along with reviews of the new CHAOS book about Charles Manson, I'm wondering if the English language needs a new verb, in honor of Vincent Bugliosi -- to "bugliose." Here's my suggestion:

bugliose (booly-OSE) verb. : to bamboozle about historical events with lengthy discourses that completely misrepresent the facts.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh Brother (with a huge Capital B)! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!



This ridiculous thread authored by Mr. Niederhut just might take first prize in the "Pot/Kettle" category here in the year 2019. Because the only people who are doing any "bamboozling" and "misrepresenting the facts" regarding the murders of John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit are the conspiracy theorists, not people like the late Vincent T. Bugliosi, that's for sure. (Just think "Mark Lane" and "Jim Garrison" and "Jim Fetzer", for starters. Three of the greatest bamboozlers of all-time.)

And I find it humorous to see how the number of Bugliosi-haters has grown in just the last few years, with the VB-bashers now not content to verbally assault Vince for just his opinions on the JFK case....but now we're getting a whole new wave of 21st-century Vince bashers, who now suddenly have a desire to toss Vince under the bus for his work on the Charles Manson case as well—even though all rational people who have even a slight knowledge of the details surrounding that particular murder case know beyond any doubt that the "Helter Skelter" theory was rooted in fact (based on what Bugliosi was told by other members of Manson's "Family").* But those facts will naturally be totally ignored by the outer-fringe conspiracy theorists of the world. Pathetic.

* DVP EDIT (AUGUST 2022) --- For proof of this, see Page 245 of the 1994 edition of Vince Bugliosi's book "Helter Skelter: The True Story Of The Manson Murders". On just that page alone, three different people—Gregg Jakobson, Paul Watkins, and Brooks Poston—are quoted by Bugliosi regarding their knowledge of Charles Manson's proposed "black vs. white revolution"/"race war" (aka: "Helter Skelter"). But many conspiracy theorists now apparently want to believe that Vincent Bugliosi himself totally invented the "Helter Skelter" motive/theory out of nothing but whole cloth and his own imagination. Such an absurd notion, however, is merely Bugliosi-bashing crap of the first order, as the quotes found on Page 245 (and other pages) of the book "Helter Skelter" amply demonstrate.

If you want to read some of the best "Vince-isms" (as I like to call my favorite VB quotes), go here....

http://jfk-archives/Favorite Bugliosi Quotes

Samples....

"It is...remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi


"The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they have now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder film were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of what took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner of people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any bearing on the president's murder. .... The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their palate?" -- Vincent Bugliosi


"There is a simple fact of life that Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists either don't realize or fail to take into consideration, something I learned from my experience as a prosecutor; namely, that in the real world—you know, the world in which when I talk you can hear me, there will be a dawn tomorrow, et cetera—you cannot be innocent and yet still have a prodigious amount of highly incriminating evidence against you. That's just not what happens in life. .... But with Lee Harvey Oswald, everything, everything points towards his guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi


"In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vincent Bugliosi


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Addendum....

And, of course, practically every time an Internet conspiracy theorist opens his mouth, he proves the point that Vince made in this gem....

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xliii of “Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy”


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

LOL, ROTF. Man, is everyone as sick as I am of that pot/kettle diversion?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You might be sick to death of it, Jim, but it's oh so undeniably true.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

What does one make of a lawyer [Vincent Bugliosi] who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER IT'S THE WRONG RIFLE?!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim has apparently conveniently forgotten about this discussion we had on August 22, 2016....


JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey: Please show us where in VB's 2646-page opus [sic; Bugliosi's book is actually 2,824 pages long, including all endnotes and source notes] he tells the reader that the rifle the Dallas Police offered into evidence is not the same rifle that Oswald allegedly ordered?

DVP SAID:

Okay. Gladly. Here you go....

[Quote On:]

"The Warren Commission overlooked putting the American Rifleman advertisement in its volumes. But conspiracy theorist Sylvia Meagher points out that the advertisement was for a $12.88 Carcano ($19.95 with scope) that was 36 inches long, weighed 5 1⁄2 pounds, and had a catalog number of C20-T750, though we know the $19.95 Carcano that was sent to Oswald was 40 1⁄5 inches long and weighed 8 pounds, which was closer to the 40-inch Carcano weighing 7 pounds advertised in the November 1963 ad in a different magazine, Field and Stream. But Meagher fails to state the significance of this discrepancy.**

In other words, so what? We know Oswald was shipped his Carcano, serial number C2766 (whether or not it was the same weapon he had ordered, and whether or not he was even aware he received a Carcano a little over 4 inches longer and 3 1⁄2 pounds [sic] heavier than he had ordered), we know it was found in the sniper’s nest [sic], and we know it was the murder weapon."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 392-393 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" [Also pictured below]

** Sources used by Bugliosi for the above book excerpt:

Sylvia Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, p.48 footnote; fact that Oswald ordered his Carcano from a February 1963 Klein’s advertisement in the American Rifleman magazine: Waldman Exhibit No. 8, 21 H 704; CE 773, 17 H 635;
WR, p.119; 7 H 366, WCT William J. Waldman; advertisement reprinted in “In the Works: Tighter Laws on Gun Sales,” p.4; see also the August 27, 1965, edition of Life magazine [pages 62-65]; Field and Stream ad where yet a different catalog number, C20-750, is used for the Carcano: Holmes Exhibit No. 2, 20 H 174, viii; 7 H 294, WCT Harry D. Holmes; length and weight of Oswald’s Carcano: 3 H 395, WCT Robert A. Frazier.





JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Typical DVP. Which is why I swore him off.

Note where this is located: it's in the end notes. Now if the End Notes were in the book, that is one thing.

In RH, they are not in the book. They are on a CD that goes with the book. In other words, the reader has to take it out, insert it into the computer and then read another thousand or so pages of sources and further material.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, Jim, since I proved in 2016 (via the above Endnotes quotation) that Vincent Bugliosi positively did "tell the reader" about the "36-inch" vs. "40-inch" rifle discrepancy, can we at least agree that you chose your words poorly when you asked the following two questions in 2016 and 2019?....

"Please show us where in VB's 2646-page opus he tells the reader that the rifle the Dallas Police offered into evidence is not the same rifle that Oswald allegedly ordered?" -- Jim D.; August 2016

"What does one make of a lawyer who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER IT'S THE WRONG RIFLE?!" -- Jim D.; August 2019


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I would like to ask a question: How many people on this forum read all 1518 textual pages of RH?

Now, let me ask this: How many people read all of the CD?

(Sound of crickets in the night.)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, I have certainly read every page of the "Reclaiming History" endnotes. So your crickets in the night have just been forever silenced. 😉

And I continue to reference various parts of Vince Bugliosi's book on a regular basis (both the physical hardcover volume and the 1,000+ pages of CD-ROM endnotes). The book—including the very important endnotes—is an invaluable source of factual information concerning the events of November 22, 1963 (despite the conspiracy theorists' condemnation of it).


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

The obvious question is: why did VB not include this in the text?

I can tell you why since I analyzed the book. Vince did not want to include anything that he thought could give him a serious problem in the text of the book. So he put it on the CD. So he could more easily dismiss it. And this is what he usually did.

But he even got worse with things he knew he could not handle, on those issues he just left it out, e.g. the FBI rigging Ruby's polygraph. This is why it's a dishonest book. He says at the outset he will not do that. He did. And there is no denying that it was deliberate. Because the information was right there in his end notes sources, he just ignored it.

BTW, David Belin knew it was the wrong rifle also. The WR does not bring the issue up.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The Warren Commission undoubtedly didn't feel the need to bring up the 36-inch/40-inch rifle-length discrepancy because they knew beyond all doubt that Klein's had definitely shipped the Kennedy murder weapon to Lee Oswald in March of '63. Waldman Exhibit No. 7 proves that fact for all time. The key to knowing this fact, of course, is the rifle's serial number—C2766—which is a number that appears on both Waldman #7 and the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the National Archives today.

Plus, when we examine the Klein's Catalog Numbers on the two pertinent rifle-purchasing documents in this case—Waldman #7 and CE773—we can see that the catalog numbers are identical —— C20-T750.

And it's also important to take note of the fact that even after Klein's Sporting Goods changed their magazine ads from the 36-inch rifle to the 40-inch model, the internal Klein's catalog number remained the same for at least a few months after Oswald purchased his gun, with the two Klein's advertisements pictured below proving that fact. Both of these Klein's ads depict a catalog number of C20-T750 for the $19.95 Rifle + Scope package that Oswald ordered in March 1963. The top ad is from the February '63 American Rifleman magazine (which was the source for Oswald's purchase), while the bottom ad (which is advertising a 40-inch Italian carbine) comes from later in 1963....




JOSEPH McBRIDE SAID:

Putting contrary information in notes or appendices is a common tactic to downplay, dismiss, discredit, or simply to bury the information that undercuts a book's thesis. The WC did that with its 26 volumes. Dale Myers did it with his Tippit book.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But there was really no good reason for Vince Bugliosi to want to "bury" the rifle-length discrepancy. And that's because the solution to the "discrepancy" is a very obvious and non-conspiratorial one. Klein's simply ran out of 36-inch Italian rifles shortly before they received Oswald's order in the mail, and therefore they shipped him a 40-inch model instead. Simple as that.

And that is a very reasonable and logical explanation, especially when considering the fact that in the very next ad that Klein's ran in American Rifleman (on page 55 of the April '63 issue; there was no Klein's ad at all in the March issue), the length of the rifle had changed from 36 inches to 40.

More here....




W. NIEDERHUT SAID:

I've never been a fan of censorship, but a few of the bugliosers here probably need to be filtered.

A professor at my alma mater used to tell his students to, "Read the good stuff. Life is too short to waste reading crap."


LANCE PAYETTE SAID:

No cult welcomes heretics in its midst. The JFK conspiracy community is simply a cult, no different from any other. It is essentially a religion with its own little denominations and denominational squabbles but ultimately a brotherhood united by a one-point statement of faith: Oswald Didn't Act Alone. It's all way beyond "maintaining bias." It is "preserving dogma." Any critic is challenging who these folks are at their very core. You may as well try to proselytize a 32nd-degree Scientologist into Eastern Orthodoxy.

They are not searching for truth. They know the Truth - about the JFK assassination, the King assassination, 9/11, UFOs and every other subject in which conspiracy thinking predominates. If you dare to disagree, you don't know the Truth and are probably quite stupid as well or possibly even a disinformation agent planted by those Dark Forces who are trying to maintain the conspiracy.

Be my guest, evict the Lone Nut heretics from your midst! Let Jim [DiEugenio] and some of the others wear robes and funny hats and decide, like the college of cardinals, who is worthy! I used to post under the illusion that this forum actually had a substantial body of readers who might appreciate different perspectives. Now I know it's just a whacked-out cult with a tiny readership, and I post only to amuse myself when I am otherwise Really Bored.


LANCE PAYETTE LATER SAID:

I have figured out the respective roles of contributors such as DVP and myself. Those such as DVP are Professors of Evidence, who confront conspiracy theorists with the errors and gaps in their conspiracy scenarios. This is invaluable, but I would not have the patience or depth of knowledge to do it. Those such as myself are Professors of Logic, who examine conspiracy scenarios and theories and ask things like "Does that make any sense? How would that work in the real world? Why would the planners of a Presidential assassination have done that or taken all those unnecessary risks?" The roles overlap to some extent, of course.

The problem I had with JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy is that it seemed to me that McAdams was too willing to dive directly into the nuts and bolts of conspiracy theories, to confront the "evidence" directly. This is playing the game on the conspiracy theorists' turf, and a good conspiracy theorist will just keep moving the goal posts as we see on almost every thread here. Even if I had DVP's depth of knowledge, I wouldn't have the patience to do what he does. I believe the way to begin is always to ask "Even if what you suggest were true, would it make any sense at all?"

Here, Cliff's Irrefutable Solution presents a true evidentiary conundrum, a perfectly legitimate issue. The bullet hole evidence could indeed point to a conspiracy. If there was no conspiracy, a Lone Nutter must explain this evidence - simple as that. Cliff's mistake, which is why he appears to be a one-dimensional crank and is his own worst enemy, is in insisting that any explanation other than his is impossible, you must deal with the bullet hole evidence in a vacuum and are not allowed to consider it in the context of all the events in Dealey Plaza, and you are a fool if you are not willing to immediately throw in the towel and concede a massive conspiracy with gunmen at the front and rear with dissolving bullets and a complete absence of exit wounds.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

What sort of personality disorder is demonstrated by someone who professes not to care about a subject but goes on and on (and on) about it obsessively?


LANCE PAYETTE SAID:

Gosh, now Cliff is a psychiatrist too?

I happen to be in a period of Exceeding Boredom at the moment. While I care little to nothing about the JFK assassination anymore (barring a BOMBSHELL), I am fascinated, as I always have been, by the psychology of these internet communities and conspiracy thinking in general. As long as the Truther Psychiatrist keeps serving up softballs, I'll take a whack at them. If you'll join in, my fun will be doubled!

Wait a minute - Cliff Varnell is calling me obsessive??? Isn't that like the Black Hole of Obsessiveness calling the teapot black? Can we talk about SOMETHING else now - ANYTHING else, I beg you - other than the hole in JFK's shirt? Are you up to 5,000 posts on that subject yet?


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

Unlike incompetent lawyers, I grasp the significance of physical evidence found with the body in a murder case.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's interesting to take note of which pieces of physical evidence that most Internet conspiracy theorists consider to be not fake or manufactured to frame a guy named Oswald. Since the clothing holes in JFK's shirt and suit coat are situated lower than the actual bullet hole in the skin of President Kennedy's upper back, conspiracists like Cliff Varnell feel free to travel down the "Something Here Doesn't Look Right" road of conspiracy.

But if many of the CTers are right when they claim that virtually all other pieces of physical evidence in this case have been faked and falsely manufactured in order to frame a guy named Oswald, then I'm just wondering why those crackerjack Patsy Framers didn't fake JFK's shirt and suit jacket too. It would seem that nothing was beyond the capabilities of those ace evidence manipulators, e.g.: per most CTers, the unseen "they" were able to get into the TSBD and up to the sixth floor to rearrange all the ballistics evidence up there so it would perfectly fit the Oswald-Did-It narrative; they were able to break into Ruth Paine's garage and plant some backyard photos depicting the Patsy with the same rifle they managed to plant on the sixth floor; they managed to plant two identifiable bullet fragments in JFK's limousine that traced back to that same rifle they planted in the TSBD; and on and on.

But they forgot about faking the clothing evidence. ~~~slaps forehead~~~

But, then too, nobody's perfect all the time, right? Not even Presidential assassins and cover-uppers. So I guess Cliff is willing to cut the otherwise super-efficient evidence manipulators a little slack when it comes to the shirt and coat. Right, Cliff?

End result (per many conspiracy theorists): JFK's shirt and coat were just about the only pieces of physical evidence in this case that weren't tampered with in some way by the authorities. (Plus, there are the Oswald fingerprints on the boxes inside the Sniper's Nest. Most CTers don't think those prints were planted, but only because they feel comfortable utilizing the "He Worked There" cop-out of an excuse to explain why Lee Harvey Oswald's prints were the only ones found on those boxes, excluding the prints of policemen.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

The military brass at Bethesda refused to let Finck look at the clothing.

They refused to let Humes request a medical examiner from Baltimore to advise them since they were not accustomed to doing trauma type pathologies.

They would not allow a dissection of the back wound.

Something else I just found out. After Malcolm Perry's afternoon conference, either a Secret service guy or FBI guy told him never to repeat the info about an anterior neck wound again.

If you take a look at the time of that conference, this means someone knew within about 90 minutes what the story was going to be.

Need I add that every single video recording of that conference is gone? And the Secret Service lied about not having a transcript.

These are all facts. None of them need to be faked. They are damning in and of themselves.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's only damning in the mind of a rabid conspiracy theorist who will always look at everything with an eye toward a conceived conspiracy. (Know anybody who fits that bill around here?)

And this assertion below by Jim D. should convince him that he's not being at all reasonable or realistic about the topic of Malcolm Perry and the throat wound....

"...someone knew within about 90 minutes what the story was going to be..."

But Jim couldn't care less about a realistic approach to the evidence; he's too invested in promoting conspiracy, no matter how silly he sounds while doing it.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

That is incredible. Davey is saying that both Perry and McClelland were lying.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dead wrong. I've never once said that Dr. Perry or Dr. McClelland were lying. And I'm certainly not saying (or even implying) such a thing now.

Perry was simply wrong about the throat wound being a wound of entry. And McClelland was wrong about some things too. But I've never called either one of those doctors a liar.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

But that is how desperate these loons get. Notice he does not say any of it is wrong. Because it's not.

BTW, in Sylvia Meagher's classic destruction of the WR, where does she say that anything was faked?

Answer: nowhere. You don't need any of that to wreck something that is a mess to begin with.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, since we know that Ms. Meagher was, indeed, in the "Oswald Was Innocent" camp (which we can hear her admit in her own voice in the 1967 interview found here [fast forward to 17:07], where she says that "Oswald was entirely innocent" of not only killing President Kennedy, but she also says she thinks LHO was also innocent of J.D. Tippit's murder and the Walker shooting attempt as well), then by mere implication she pretty much had no choice but to believe that a large amount of the physical evidence against Oswald was faked, manufactured, or manipulated in some manner --- otherwise Oswald is guilty. Simple as that.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

Confirmation bias prevents Von Pein from seeing the normal amount of shirt collar above the top of the jacket collar in the Elm St. photos, which means the jacket collar wasn't elevated at all.

David, do you know any small children who could show you how clothing moves?

If so, they can stop you from promoting a fraud.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Don't ya love Cliff Varnell's amazing supernatural ability to be able to see right through JFK's jacket in the Croft picture?

How did you manage to do that, Cliff? Please tell us your secret for seeing through solid objects in order to promote a theory that you know you can never prove if your life hung in the balance.

I anxiously await Cliff's spectacularly inept reply.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

Von Pein has a supernatural inability to see that JFK's jacket collar was in its normal position in the Croft photo.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Who cares? We know (and can easily see) that another part of that same jacket WAS definitely "bunched up" on JFK's back.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

The lower margin of the jacket collar was just above the base of the neck where Von Pein claims multiple inches of shirt and jacket were all wadded up.

What do we call someone actively promoting an obvious fraud?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A JFK conspiracy theorist.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

The jacket was bunched up 1/8".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Don't ya love it when a JFK conspiracy fantasist just makes up things that he cannot possibly know with such "one-eighth of an inch" precision?


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

Don't ya love it when a nutter can't do the math -- 4 and 1/8 minus 4 equals 1/8.

Surely there must be some small children in your neighborhood who can explain this to you, David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Once again, we're treated to Cliff's extraordinary X-ray vision. He can SEE that JFK's shirt is not bunched-up at all. Not even a fraction of an inch.

The level of Varnell's arrogance is close to becoming legendary.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

You claim to "see" the shirt is wadded up multiple inches entirely above the base of the neck even though the jacket collar wasn't elevated at all.

Your hypocrisy is well-established, though I'd stop short of calling it legendary.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

ONE hole in the shirt.

ONE hole in the jacket.

ONE hole in JFK's upper back (which we know was located 14 centimeters below the tip of JFK's right mastoid process).

Surely there must be some small children in your neighborhood who can explain this easy math to you, Cliff.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

False. Those measurements were not taken at the time of the autopsy.

Why do you continue to push this fraud?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I haven't the slightest idea why the conspiracy fantasist named Varnell uttered the above crap. Dr. Humes testified as follows to the Warren Commission (emphasis is my own) [at 2 H 361]....

"We ascertained physical measurement at the time of autopsy that this wound was 14 cm. from the tip of the mastoid process and 14 cm. from the acromion."

But I guess Cliff must think the above statement made by Humes was nothing but a lie.

And I guess Cliff thinks Dr. Humes continued to peddle that same lie three years later in this 1967 CBS-TV interview....



In addition, the HSCA in the late 1970s examined the original autopsy photographs depicting President Kennedy's upper-back wound and concluded that the "midpoint" of the entry wound in JFK's back was located "13.5 centimeters below the right mastoid process" (7 HSCA 85), which is within one-half centimeter of Humes' 1963 measurement. (One possible explanation for that difference could be that the autopsy surgeons measured the distance to the bottom margin of the wound, vs. measuring it only to the wound's "midpoint".)


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

The notations were written on the autopsy face sheet in pen -- a violation of autopsy protocol.

Humes used a cranial landmark for a thoracic wound -- a violation of autopsy protocol.

Humes used 2 moveable landmarks -- a double violation of autopsy protocol.

The more protocol violations the better in Nutter Land.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

When do you plan on defending this bold and incorrect statement of yours?....

"Those measurements were not taken at the time of the autopsy."

Not a single thing you said above about "protocol" proves that the "14cm. from mastoid" measurement wasn't taken at the time of the autopsy.

Try again, Mr. Fantasist. Because your last effort was quite lame.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

Because at the time of the autopsy there was a pencil chained to the clip board upon which the autopsy face sheet was filled out by James C. Jenkins, under the direction of Thornton Boswell.

Pencil is proper autopsy protocol.

The notations in pen were added later.

When are you going to show us how you wad multiple inches of shirt and jacket entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar?

Did JFK's jacket collar and this big lump of clothing occupy the same physical space at the same time?

Show us Von Pein or at long last STFU.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let me try the simple approach yet again (maybe Cliff will suddenly have a "Eureka" moment)....

ONE hole in the shirt.

ONE hole in the jacket.

ONE hole in JFK's upper back (which we know was located 14 centimeters below the tip of JFK's right mastoid process).

--equals--

ONE bullet travelled through all 3 of the above holes.

What's your alternative solution, Cliff? I want to hear it?

If the SAME bullet didn't go through both clothing holes and the only skin wound in JFK's upper back, then what do YOU think happened?

I'm going to guess that you believe this photo below is a fake, right? And you think the "real" wound was located much lower on Kennedy's back, right? (You might have answered those inquiries previously in a discussion(s) that I have archived at my site, but I haven't memorized all of your fantasy-filled posts, so I can't currently remember.)




CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

Show us how a big shirt fold wrapped in a big jacket fold occupied the same physical space as the jacket collar.

All you can do is repeat the Big Lies over and over.

Show us or STFU.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I guess this means you're not going to answer my "What do you think happened?" question, huh?

(To be expected, of course.)


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

I don't know what happened.

All I know for a fact is that JFK was shot in the back at T3, the round didn't exit, and no round was found at the autopsy; JFK was hit in the throat from the front, the round didn't exit, and no round was found during the autopsy.

The autopsists speculated JFK was hit with a high tech round that wouldn't show up anywhere during the autopsy.

Maybe that's what happened.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And that batch of pure silliness, which involves two different gunmen firing low-velocity bullets into the man they are hoping to kill with those bullets, is somehow MORE believable and sensible to you than to believe that JFK's shirt was able to "bunch up" to approximately the same level as the jacket?

Incredible.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

The doctors at the autopsy didn't think the idea was silly; the FBI men at the autopsy didn't think it was silly; the US Army Special Operations Division -- which developed blood soluble paralytics and toxins for the CIA project MKNAOMI -- didn't think it was silly.

You say discrete objects can occupy the same space at the same time.

You're being the silly one, David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

At the time they were considering such cloak-and-dagger solutions, they hadn't yet confirmed the existence of the bullet wound in JFK's throat. Once that wound was confirmed by the autopsy doctors to be a bullet hole (via Dr. Perry), the solution was obvious to Humes, et al.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

Show us how you get the wad of clothing and the jacket collar to occupy the same physical space at the same time.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I guess you've never heard of the term "overlapping", eh?


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

Burden of proof is on you.

Demonstrate this or do the world a favor and STFU.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Spoken as if it is me who is constantly bringing up the topic of the clothing 24/7/365.

The irony is thick in here.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

The intellectual dishonesty is thick in here.

Von Pein touts the SBT 24/7/365.

Demonstrate your claims for the SBT or....wait for it...STFU.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh good! Varnell is now going to pretend that I've never once in the past "demonstrated my claims for the SBT". Even though he says "Von Pein touts the SBT 24/7/365". A curious contradiction in logic there.

Demonstrations (and Common Sense) Galore....



And don't forget about the best part (isolated separately at my webpage below because I love it so much)....

THE ULTIMATE IN "SINGLE-BULLET THEORY" DENIAL AMONG CONSPIRACY THEORISTS....




David Von Pein
August 1-15, 2019

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 789)

CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

On this very Forum, you have stipulated to the following facts:

1) The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars.

2) The Dealey Plaza photos show no appreciable "bunch up" of JFK's jacket.

That you have the power to deny the significance of these stipulations doesn't change the fact you've debunked the SBT with your own observations.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Regardless of what I may have said to you in our previous forum conversations regarding photos taken PRIOR to the turn onto Elm Street, this photo below is the KEY picture with respect to JFK's "bunched up" jacket. And it's a picture that was snapped just seconds before Lee Oswald's second shot went through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. And no reasonable person with even one functioning eyeball could possibly even begin to deny that there is most certainly some "bunching" of the jacket going on in this Robert Croft photograph:




CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

So when the limo turned onto Elm St., JFK's shirt and jacket spontaneously jumped several inches up his back? .... Your claim is idiotic on its face.

And anyone with a functioning eyeball can clearly see a normal amount JFK's shirt collar exposed -- which means the jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of JFK's neck.

You now want to claim that JFK's clothing was hiked up above the base of his neck -- without pushing up on the jacket collar!

Demonstrate that for us, David. How does 6+ inches of clothing get pushed up above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar?

Obviously impossible.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If you can't tell that Mr. Kennedy's jacket is hiked up a bit in the Croft photo, pity on you, Cliff. Because the "bunching" or "hiked up" nature of JFK's jacket in that particular picture couldn't be any more obvious.

Cliff, you'd probably be better off jumping on the "Photo is fake" bandwagon regarding the Croft picture, rather than sticking to this odd stance:

"...the jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of JFK's neck [in the Croft photo]." -- C. Varnell; 8/30/14


Related "Bunching" Note.....

Just a few minutes (maybe less) before JFK entered Dealey Plaza, a man named Andre Leche took a home movie of the President's car on Main Street (his film wasn't discovered until November 2013), and President Kennedy's "bunched up" jacket is clearly visible in his film too (and in George Jefferies' film as well).

Frame from Leche's film:




CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

That shirt collar couldn't be visible unless the jacket collar was in a normal position.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not true at all. The jacket collar could be "hiked up" a little bit and still have some of JFK's white shirt visible. Why you think such a thing is a complete impossibility only shows how desperate you are to trash the totally reasonable (and feasible) Single-Bullet Conclusion.

Plus: Why is it not possible in your world to have the collar portion of a person's jacket hiked up just SLIGHTLY and (at the same time) also have a different (lower) portion of that same person's jacket hiked up (or "bunched up") more than just SLIGHTLY?

In the world of Cliff "Everything In The Whole JFK Case Revolves Around Kennedy's Clothing" Varnell, the above scenario of having President Kennedy's COLLAR only raised (or "hiked") a little bit but a lower portion of his suit coat hiked up a bit MORE than "just slightly" is something that couldn't happen in a million years -- even though several photos taken of JFK in the Dallas motorcade PROVE beyond all doubt that that very thing I just described regarding JFK's jacket WAS occurring when Mr. Kennedy was riding in his limousine through the streets of Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

Your observations destroy the SBT, David!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You couldn't be any sillier if you tried, Clifford.

David Von Pein
August 30, 2014

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1403)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Part 1403 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of August 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.


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

CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why anyone would prefer to rely on the hand-drawn "dot" on the autopsy
Face Sheet instead of the exacting "14 cm..." measurements on that same
Face Sheet is something I fail to understand. ~shrug~




CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How can you tell that some of the Face Sheet markings were made with a pen and others with a pencil? All of the markings on the Face Sheet look pretty much the same to me (as far as being able to discern pen from pencil markings, that is).

I've heard other conspiracy theorists say the same thing about the "ink vs. pencil" thing, but I've always wondered --- How do they know for sure?


CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But you have no real proof that anything Dr. Boswell wrote on the Face Sheet was written in pen. It's just a guess on your part. Right?

But this "protocol" thing regarding the "pen vs. pencil" topic is nothing but a red herring anyway. Because even if the measurements were written in "pen", that fact wouldn't suddenly make the "14 centimeters" measurements a complete lie. And I think it's rather silly to believe it would.

Also....

I talked about the "Mastoid" topic at another forum in 2015. Here's an excerpt:

-----------------

"The truth is, of course, that ANY "body landmark" is going to be FIXED (i.e., immobile) during a post-mortem examination---because wounds are being located from landmarks while the body is in the anatomic ("autopsy") position---rigid and straight. And that's true for the mastoid process or any other body landmark.

Do you, Martin [Hay], think that President Kennedy's mastoid process was moving all over the place while it was being used as a measuring landmark while JFK was lying flat on a table in an anatomic position? (And I have no reason to believe that the autopsy doctors were so stupid that they chose to measure distances on JFK's body while his body was in some position OTHER than the standard "autopsy" position. If the doctors started measuring distances while Kennedy's body was in some contorted or "bent over" position, then those doctors would, of course, deserve all the criticism I could blast them with. But I have no reason to believe they were THAT idiotic. Do you, Martin?)

While most pathologists might very well have measured the wounds from different body landmarks than those utilized by Dr. Humes in November 1963, it makes very little difference, because we DO have a SPECIFIC and PRECISE measurement for the back wound as it relates to a known body landmark on John F. Kennedy's body. You know it. I know it. The HSCA knew it.

So, once again, a huge useless mountain is being made out of total nothingness by a conspiracy theorist. And Martin Hay is dead wrong when he said this:

"The autopsy doctors did not record the precise location of the back wound. That is, was, and always will be a FACT no matter what David Von Pein says."

The above statement is a blatant falsehood and always will be for as long as Hay continues to spout such tommyrot. The precise location of JFK's back wound was most certainly located."




CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, it looks like you've misquoted an autopsy doctor yet again, Cliff. First, it was Dr. Boswell. Now, it's Dr. Finck. The quote you attributed to Dr. Pierre A. Finck was never uttered at all during Finck's 1996 ARRB session. (Another mistake by an A.I. robot, I presume?)

However, Dr. Finck did say this in his ARRB testimony:

QUESTION -- "When one is attempting to determine the location of a wound, we'll say, in the thoracic cavity; would it be appropriate to use as a fixed body landmark a mastoid process?"

DR. FINCK -- "No, ...because it is part of the head, and the head is moving, could move."

-------------------

But during that very same ARRB questioning session, Dr. Finck also answered "Yes" to this question:

QUESTION -- "Were the measurements that were recorded during the autopsy of President Kennedy measurements that conformed to standard autopsy procedures in the 1960s?"

DR. FINCK -- "Yes."

http://jfk-assassination.net/ARRB Testimony/Dr. Finck

-------------------

Dr. Finck also evidently must have disagreed with Dr. Cyril Wecht about utilizing the head as a landmark while conducting an autopsy. Click to enlarge:




CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not really. And my interpretation of the two different landmarks mentioned by Dr. Wecht in my prior post indicates to me that he didn't think the "top of the head" was untenable as a north/south landmark either. And "the top of the head" is just as "movable" a landmark as the mastoid process.

I agree, though, that the Humes/Boswell team did use some odd landmarks that other doctors probably have never used -- e.g., the mastoid process and the acromion process and the EOP (when Wecht's preferred "top of the head" would seem like a much better and simpler choice).

But heck, I'm not a pathologist. So my opinion matters little. But I think my thoughts earlier regarding the "mastoid and the anatomical position" make sense.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have done no such thing. Why you think I have is the mystery. You need to re-read the last three paragraphs of this post, in which I was merely pointing out an absolute fact -- i.e., that both of those landmark options ("Mastoid Process" and "The Top Of The Head") are movable parts of the human body, which is the thing that conspiracy theorists are always complaining about.

And yet I've never heard anyone critcize the late Dr. Wecht when he suggested that the "top of the head" should be routinely utilized as one of the landmarks for pinpointing the location of wounds in human bodies.

And if Dr. Wecht had been the pathologist responsible for JFK's autopsy in 1963, and given the things I've quoted from Dr. Wecht in the post I linked above, I don't think there's much doubt about which two landmarks he would have chosen to use to document the bullet wound in President Kennedy's upper back. He would have used the two human landmarks I mentioned in that linked post -- "the mid-point of the body" (for the east-west measurement) and "from the top of the head" (for the north-south measurement).


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID THIS.


JAMES WILKINSON SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

James,

I think you're missing the very simple and basic fact that JFK and Governor Connally, in the Z-Film clips I provided earlier, are certainly reacting to an external stimulus (bullet wounds perhaps??) at the exact same moment in time.

Here's another clip, just for good measure:




CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, I don't deny the fact that Dr. George Burkley wrote the words "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra" on page 2 of the White House version of JFK's Death Certificate.

But another fact remains.....the fact that Dr. Burkley was only estimating where he thought the wound was on JFK's back. And that estimate doesn't align with the ACTUAL PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS that were done at the autopsy itself by the actual autopsy physicians.

And another key fact is the existence of this autopsy photo (authenticated as "not altered" by the House Select Committee at 7 HSCA 41), which certainly does not show the back wound as low as T3. So why would you deny what your eyes can see?

Let me guess --- You think this picture is a fake, despite Page 41 of HSCA Volume 7 staring you in the face every day. Right, Cliff? ....



David Von Pein
August 3-5, 2026





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


ALEX HARRIS SAID THIS.


GERRY DOWN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Along that same line of thought....

Linked below is the full list of the 552 people whose testimony was presented to the Warren Commission in some fashion. And there are many names on this list that I am unfamiliar with (probably numbering well into triple digits if I were to count them all up).

And I'd be willing to bet that I'm not alone when I admit such a thing. Just peruse this incredibly long list of witnesses and see for yourself. I'd wager the ol' homestead that there's not a person alive who has heard of all 552:

https://history-matters.com/WCR/Appendix V/List Of Witnesses

David Von Pein
August 5, 2026





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


BRIAN DOYLE SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Geesh, that's quite a fantasy you've manufactured there, Brian. Has anybody purchased the movie rights yet? After all, make-believe wild fantasies like the one you've spun in your above post are sometimes big box-office hits. Good luck.


BRIAN DOYLE SAID:

As you can see, although everything written there is traceable to the known evidence, Mr Von Pein is not able to offer any substantial refutation of any of the main facts.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

On my webpage linked below, I discuss some of the various errors and misconceptions that some people have concerning Oswald's movements on 11/22/63, including the theory that Oswald was stopped by a policeman in a "storage room on the first floor" (instead of the actual location of the encounter, which was, of course, the second-floor lunchroom).

There were even some newspapers reporting the erroneous "storage room" story, such as the Dallas Morning News on 11/23/63:







JOHN CORBETT SAID:

I've often wondered how so many erroneous stories originate. I know you have a lot of the early TV coverage on your website but I don't want to spend hours going through it all, but going from memory, I think at various times, Walter Cronkite reported the rifle was a Winchester, an Enfield, and a Japanese rifle before the rifle had been found. Also, a Secret Service agent had been killed, and a young couple had been arrested.

I only took one year of journalism studies in college, but they always stressed it was more important to get the story right than to get it out first. We were told, if your mother says she loves you, get confirmation.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, there were a number of errors made by the news media in the immediate hours following JFK's death (see the video below). But even though many mistakes and erroneous reports did make it to the national airwaves on Nov. 22, I still think that overall the radio and television networks did a very good job during the assassination weekend, which is why I placed the following comment at the very end of my video below:

"In creating the video, it was not my intention to cast a negative light on the people who reported the events associated with JFK's tragic murder. On the contrary, I believe the radio and TV reporters did an outstanding job of broadcasting the news coming out of Dallas during that weekend in 1963. And for the most part, they reported it very accurately. But some mistakes and erroneous initial reports were inevitable. And most of these early errors were even corrected on the air later in the weekend. On the whole, I salute and admire the high level of professional (and accurate) journalism that was exhibited by the many people who had the tough and very unexpected duty of reporting these terrible events to the world in November 1963." -- David V.P.



FOOTNOTE....

I also invite you to visit my "Media Errors" webpage HERE, which includes some discussion about many of the on-the-air mistakes made by the media right after JFK was shot (some of which are downright hilarious).

David Von Pein
August 6-8, 2026





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


GERRY DOWN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

On Page 3 of the HSCA's Final Report (and again on Page 41, which you, Gerry Down, already pointed out in your 2023 post to which I am replying), we can deduce by process of elimination that the HSCA is saying that the FIRST shot fired by Lee Oswald was the shot that missed (since the Report says that Oswald "fired three shots" and the "second and third shots fired struck the President").

I, too, can't seem to find any "discussion" about the missed shot in the HSCA materials. Perhaps such discussion is tucked away in the 12 supporting volumes someplace. ~shrug~




GERRY DOWN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, that's right. And I've always admired the Warren Commission's decision to not lock themselves into endorsing any particular theory regarding the missed shot. The Commission pretty much knew that one shot did miss the entire limousine, but they didn't have enough definitive evidence to say for certain just which of Oswald's three shots it was. Which led to the text we find on Page 117 of the WCR, which is pictured below. And Page #117, for a variety of conspiracy-debunking reasons, is my favorite page of the entire Warren Report:



But, given the overall evidence (which certainly indicates that three shots and only three shots were fired during the assassination, with all three of those shots coming from Oswald's Sniper's Nest in the TSBD and from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, with two of those three bullets striking the victims in the limousine), I think the best guess concerning the one missed shot is that Lee Oswald's first shot hit the oak tree (which is a tree that was located to the RIGHT of Oswald at the time he fired that shot at approx. Z160, which fits in pretty well with a misaligned scope that might very well have been aiming "HIGH AND TO THE RIGHT" during the shooting, although that's another thing we'll never know for sure; it's quite possible that the scope became misaligned when Oswald dropped the gun amongst the boxes after the assassination).

More "Missed Shot" Discussion HERE.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID THIS.


JOHNNY CAIRNS SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:



CE510 (above) is pretty good evidence of "Three Shots" being fired from the TSBD Sniper's Nest.

And, officially, all three of those shells were ejected out of Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.

And contrary to the popular CTer belief, Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas Police definitely did put his mark on all three of those bullet shells, including CE543.

In his June 1964 affidavit, Lt. Day told us he positively marked ALL THREE shells currently in evidence (CE543, 544, and 545). And the only reason that Day filled out that affidavit was to straighten out some of his Warren Commission testimony from April '64. In fact, the very first words in that affidavit confirm that fact:

"The following affidavit is made to clear up confusion regarding the three spent 6.5 hulls, commission numbers 543, 544, and 545, found by the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963."

Lt. Day then goes on to say this in the same affidavit:

"I can identify commission numbers 543, 544, and 545 from my name on them, as the three hulls found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963." -- Lt. J.C. Day; 06/23/64



David Von Pein
August 7-8, 2026





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


JASON WARD SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I contend that's it's logical to conclude (after reading Harry Holmes' testimony on the matter) that the only section of the multi-part post office application that needed to be retained (for 2 years) was the part which had the most pertinent info about the applicant on it (name, address, date, signature, etc.).

Why would they need to save a useless section of the application that told them who could receive mail---particularly since the box was now closed and they knew that nobody related to the applicant could ever get mail at that P.O. Box ever again anyway? Makes sense to me that Part 3 would, indeed, be discarded, because it was useless after a box had been closed.

Re: Commission Exhibit No. 2585....

"Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963." -- Via FBI Report of 6/3/64 [CE2585]

But we know from all the available (and unavailable) evidence associated with the topic of Lee Harvey Oswald's P.O. Box applications that the FBI did not actually see and examine Part 3 of the application Oswald filled out for Box #2915 in Dallas, because that portion of the application simply does not exist. So, how could the FBI, in November 1963 or June 1964, have seen something that was thrown away in May 1963?

Therefore, when the FBI came to the conclusion cited above on Page 4 of its report dated June 3, 1964, the FBI was relying on information OTHER than Part 3 of Oswald's application for P.O. Box 2915.

And I'm wondering if possibly the FBI made the same mistake that some other people I've talked to have definitely made: they mixed up the two P.O. Box applications for boxes 2915 and 6225. Part 3 of the 6225 box application was saved, but Part 3 of Box 2915 was not.

Maybe the FBI made the same error conspiracy theorists make when those CTers try and prop up Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 as proof that Oswald didn't list A. Hidell as a person entitled to receive mail at Box 2915.

In any event, even if it was an error on the part of the FBI, the error most certainly cannot be considered to be a sinister lie. Not even conspiracy theorists could consider such an error to be conspiratorial or sinister.

Why?

Because J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is almost always thought to be one of the major forces behind a "cover-up" in the JFK assassination investigation by conspiracy promoters. And this possible mistake about the P.O. Box application of Oswald's is a mistake that makes it appear LESS likely that Oswald could have received the assassination weapon through the mail.

So, if Hoover's boys were making up stories, then they would have lied in the OTHER direction and would have claimed that Oswald definitely HAD listed A. Hidell as a person who could receive mail at P.O. Box 2915. Instead, the FBI concluded that he definitely had NOT listed Hidell on the application.


JASON WARD SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, sure Jason. That must be why Harry Holmes said this in 1964 to the Warren Commission. (And yes, I know you and many other CTers enjoy tossing Mr. Holmes under the bus and accuse him of all kinds of conspiratorial acts, but please don't expect everybody--including me--to buy into your fantasy regarding Mr. Holmes and the JFK Assassination)....

HARRY D. HOLMES -- "They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been closed, and the date and they tear off [Part] 3 and throw it away. It has no more purpose. That is what happened on box 2915."

WESLEY J. LIEBELER -- "They have thrown part 3 away?"

MR. HOLMES -- "Yes. As it so happens, even though they closed the box in New Orleans, they still had part 3 and it showed that the mail for Marina Oswald and A.J. Hidell was good in the box. They hadn't complied with regulations. They still had it there."

MR. LIEBELER -- "It was a lucky thing."

MR. HOLMES -- "We wish they had here."

MR. LIEBELER -- "Now is this regulation that says section 3 should be torn off and thrown away, is that a general regulation of the Post Office Department?"

MR. HOLMES -- "It is in the Post Office Manual Instructions to employees; yes, sir."

MR. LIEBELER -- "So there is no way, as I understand it, to tell from the records maintained, as far as you know anyway, who was authorized to receive mail at Post Office Box 2915 that Oswald had while he was here in Dallas before he went to New Orleans in April of 1963; is that correct?"

MR. HOLMES -- "Other than Oswald himself and his name on the application."

[Source for the above Warren Commission testimony: 7 H 527.]

All lies....right Jason? 🙄


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The U.S. Postal Regulation in question [pictured below] doesn't specify whether PART THREE of the P.O. Box application should be specifically saved for two years. It states that the "Box rental applications and control cards showing payment" should be saved. And Oswald's "box rental application" (the portion with Oswald's name and signature) WAS saved. It is shown in CE791 and CE792. Click for a bigger view:



It looks to me like Ralph R. Rea, the man who wrote that 1966 letter to Stewart Galanor, has added some information about "Part Three" that doesn't necessarily have to apply to Postal Regulation 846.53h. Rea said this to Galanor on May 3, 1966:

"Section 846.53h, of the Postal Manual, provides that the third portion of box rental applications, identifying persons other than the applicant authorized to receive mail, must be retained for two years after the box is closed."

But as we can easily see above, nowhere in regulation 846.53h does it SPECIFY that the "third portion" of a P.O. Box application should be retained for two years.

It looks as if Rea was merely assuming that ALL PARTS of the application had
to be saved via that postal regulation. And I'm not so sure he's right about that at all. And we've got Harry D. Holmes' testimony too, wherein Holmes said that
Part 3 of P.O. Box applications are routinely thrown away after a box is closed.

Yes, the postal regulation states that "Box rental applications and control cards showing payment" were to be retained for two years, and I suppose it's not unreasonable to assume that such a regulation means that the ENTIRE three-part application should be retained*, but I still think it is very disingenuous and deceptive to place the words "Part 3 of the box rental application...must be retained for 2 years after the box is closed" in quotation marks when citing that regulation, which is exactly what we find in this 2012 Dealey Plaza Echo publication.

* But, after reading Harry Holmes' Warren Commission testimony concerning this matter, it becomes quite reasonable to assume that all three parts of a rental application were NOT required to be saved:

HARRY HOLMES -- "They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been closed, and the date and they tear off [Part] 3 and throw it away. It has no more purpose. That is what happened on box 2915."

Also See:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/post-office-applications

David Von Pein
August 9-10, 2026





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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Time for a Comedy Break....

Today I noticed that when I loaded my computer's home page (Google.com) there was a new "Create Images" A.I. option featured on the Google webpage that I had never noticed before (so I'm assuming it's fairly new), so I decided to play around with it a little bit by asking it to create some JFK-related images. And when I typed in "JFK Assassination In Dealey Plaza November 22, 1963", take a look at the hilarious photo that Google A.I. came up with (click to enlarge):



We've all heard of the "Two Oswalds" theory and even the "Two Marguerites" theory, but I've never heard of a theory that has two John F. Kennedys riding in the Presidential limousine in Dallas! But that's what Google A.I. came up with in their above photo. And they've even got one of the JFKs sitting right up front with the Secret Service driver! LOL!

A discussion of all the things that are wrong with that picture above would probably take the rest of the day, since virtually nothing in that A.I. image is accurate at all. I'm still trying to figure out who the man is sitting next to Jackie in the back seat. I guess it's supposed to be John Connally, but Google didn't do a very good job of making it look anything like him.

And when I asked for another A.I. image using slightly different search terms, Google came up with the picture below, which this time seems to feature two Jackie Kennedys in the limousine! 😁 (But perhaps we're to assume that the second "Jackie" is Nellie Connally???) Plus, there's a Secret Service agent climbing all over the front of the car, instead of the trunk. Also take note of the flag that's already at half-mast on top of the Book Depository, and the limo isn't even out of Dealey Plaza yet! Man, that's fast flag action from the TSBD personnel!

Click to enlarge:



P.S. -- I hope no one thinks I'm being disrespectful to President Kennedy or making light of the tragedy that occurred in Dallas. Because that was certainly not my intention.

David Von Pein
August 10, 2026





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


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Greg,

It's not quite true to say that your "November 11th" theory/theories "never get discussed or mentioned". I discussed portions of your theory with you in late 2023 [archived HERE].


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If Lee Oswald had not obtained permission from Michael Paine to use that car on Nov. 11th (and there's no evidence he did obtain such permission), I don't think your theory is believable. And I doubt Michael would have allowed Lee to drive around town without having a driver's license (which, of course, LHO did not have). And I think it's likely that Ruth Paine would have stopped Lee from using Michael's car too [if at all possible]. She certainly knew that Lee's talents behind the wheel weren't exactly stellar.

It sounds as if you're suggesting that Lee practically stole that car on Nov. 11th. Because there is certainly no evidence at all that anybody at the Paine residence said to Lee: "Sure Lee, you can use that car today, even though we know you have no driver's license."


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not 100% certain, Greg. You could, indeed, be correct about certain parts of your "November 11" theory. Maybe Lee did take his family to the Furniture Mart, and maybe Lee did "borrow" Michael Paine's Oldsmobile on 11/11/63, although, even after I have now read your entire "Furniture Mart" article in which you discuss this matter, I'm still wondering how Lee knew where the keys to that vehicle were located within Ruth Paine's house in Irving (and I assume you don't think Lee hotwired the car to get it started).

Did Lee just start opening all the drawers and cabinets in the house in order to find the keys? Or do you think Ruth and/or Michael said something within earshot of LHO prior to Nov. 11 that informed Lee that the keys were in a certain location? ~shrug~

But, Greg, even though I disagree with nearly all of your various theories that you've presented in the last few years, you certainly have earned an A+ for your research skills. A good example being the confirmation of precisely the time of day when Ruth Paine was away from her home on Nov. 11. I looked through Ruth's Warren Commission testimony myself and confirmed that Ruth did leave her house and did not return for several hours on November 11, 1963. Ruth told the WC this:

RUTH PAINE -- "There is an entry on November 11, Veterans Day. I have already referred to the fact that I was away from 9 or so in the morning until about 2 in the afternoon and this was a day that Lee was...at my home."

[Later....]

QUESTION -- "Is it your opinion, based on your recollection of all of the association of Lee Oswald with you and at your home, that it could not have been possible for him to have taken a weapon, such as the rifle involved here, to any range, shooting range, sportsdome, gun range, or otherwise, on any occasion when he was in Irving, Tex. residing or staying as a guest in your home?"

RUTH PAINE -- "The only time when he was there and I was away long enough for him to have gone somewhere and come back, and I now know that I can recall, was Monday, the 11th of November. I have described my presence at the home on the 9th and 10th. And to the best of my recollection, there was no long period of time that I was away from the home when he was there. I may also say that there is no way of getting from my home unless you walk or have someone drive you."

-------------------

FWIW....

In this affidavit, dated June 24, 1964, Ruth Paine made the following statements:

"At no time after Marina and I and our children arrived in Irving, Texas, on September 24, 1963, from New Orleans, Louisiana, did I ever take Lee Oswald or Marina Oswald to the Irving Sports Shop, which is located at 221 East Irving Boulevard, Irving, Texas. I was quite aware during all of this period of Marina's activities and where she was. I know of no occasion when either she or Lee Oswald visited either the Furniture Mart or the Irving Sports Shop."

[...]

"I was not present in my home for part of the day on November 11, 1963. As I testified, I made a trip that day, which was Armistice Day and a holiday, to Dallas, Texas. I was gone from approximately 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM. Not wishing to burden Lee and Marina with my children, I had them stay at my neighbors, the Craigs. Marina and Lee Oswald and their children were in my home when I left and were there when I returned. Based upon my conversation with Marina and Lee Oswald and my understanding of their plans for the day, it is my clear opinion that all of them remained in my home during my trip to and from Dallas." -- Ruth Hyde Paine; June 24th, 1964 [11 H 153-155]


TONY KROME SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's true, Tony. But the testimony spoken by Michael Paine that you just cited certainly implies that the "second key" to Michael's Oldmobile was very likely inside Ruth Paine's house, because Lee Oswald never visited Michael Paine at his other residence (where a second key might be located), correct?

So it seems to me that the way that testimony by Mr. Paine is worded (emphasis added by me) -- "I DON'T BELIEVE he knew where my second key was" -- indicates that a car key could very well have been located in a place that Oswald had access to in Ruth's house (where else?).

If Michael had kept the spare key to the Oldsmobile somewhere other than Ruth's house, I doubt that Michael would have used the words "I don't believe" in the above sentence, because Michael would then have been certain that Oswald couldn't have known where such a key was kept.

Plus, it also makes sense for a spare key to have been available at Ruth's house in case she ever needed to drive it. After all, that's where the car was evidently being parked each day.

But even if Lee did take the family into downtown Irving on Veterans Day 1963, that doesn't change any of the 11/22/63 evidence surrounding JFK's assassination. And that's because I don't believe for one second the portion of Greg's theory that has some other person taking possession of Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano rifle sometime after November 11th. Because, IMO, even if Greg Doudna's theory is correct and Lee Oswald took his rifle to the Irving Sports Shop for some kind of repairs prior to Nov. 22nd, my main reaction would be: So what?

Even if such a trip to the Sports Shop and the Furniture Mart was accomplished by LHO, my opinion would be that Oswald then took his repaired rifle with him back to Ruth Paine's house and returned it to the blanket in the garage where it had been stored since late September of '63.

Because the overall weight of the evidence in the JFK murder case is very strongly telling me that it was Lee Oswald himself who took Carcano Rifle No. C2766 into the Book Depository Building on November 22nd and it was also Lee Oswald himself who used that weapon to kill President Kennedy.

David Von Pein
August 13-19, 2026




AND....




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


PAT SPEER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There certainly was an accident at the intersection of 10th & Patton on the morning of 11/22/63. Here's an excerpt from Dale Myers' very detailed 2020 article concerning that topic:

-------------------------

"On the morning of November 22, 1963, at 8:15 a.m., Emory Austin, age 34, left the family home on Patton driving his 1953 Chevrolet four-door sedan, heading south. He apparently ran the stop sign at the intersection of Tenth and Patton and was struck on the right-rear quarter panel by a 1955 Chevrolet four-door heading east on Tenth at 30 MPH. The impact drove the Austin automobile into the stop sign on the southeast corner, flattening the sign. According to Virginia Ruth Davis, age 16, and Mrs. Acquilla E. Clemons, age about 30, the Austin automobile not only flattened the stop sign, but careened through the shrubs and struck the northwest corner of the front porch of the Davis home at 400 E. Tenth Street.

Upon impact, Mr. Austin’s head struck the windshield and he sustained severe head injuries. The crash also caused the passenger door of his vehicle to pop open and the family dog, a Chihuahua named ‘Tiki-Tico’, was flung from the car and killed. Emory’s car was totaled. The car that struck the Austin vehicle was driven by a 16-year-old local student, who was not injured. Both vehicles were later towed."

-------------------------

Full Article:

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/Emory Austin, His Daughter Mary, And The Tippit Murder


JOSEPH McBRIDE SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mrs. Acquilla Clemons' "testimony" (which was actually not "testimony" at all, it was all private interviews) has been severely misunderstood by almost all conspiracy theorists, as Dale Myers clearly proves in his 2017 blog article, which I've linked to and excerpted on my webpage HERE.

There probably isn't a single witness in the whole JFK/Tippit case that has had her (or his) statements mangled and twisted and misinterpreted more than Acquilla Clemons.

Here's what I said in 2017:

"Mrs. Acquilla Clemons, when her statements are not edited and trimmed and molded by conspiracy theorists such as the late Mark Lane, definitely was NOT the type of bombshell "conspiracy" witness that she has been portrayed to be by conspiracists for the last fifty-plus years." -- DVP; November 1st, 2017

David Von Pein
August 25, 2026





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


JONATHAN COHEN SAID THIS.


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The overall evidence and testimony seems to indicate that Lee Oswald only owned two jackets as of 11/22/63 -- a gray one and a blue one (CE162 and CE163). And Lee left the blue one behind in the Domino Room of the Book Depository on Nov. 22. So that leaves only the gray one for Lee to be wearing as he left his Beckley roominghouse that day.

Also....

The color of a light-colored gray-ish jacket could very well have looked different to different people, especially when viewing it outdoors in the sunshine. Couldn't the bright sun that was shining down on a "gray" jacket make that jacket appear to be more "white" in color? I would think that's certainly possible anyway.




More information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's jackets (click to enlarge)....



FYI --- Source used by author Vincent Bugliosi concerning fibers found inside the CE162 jacket:

89. FBI Record 124-10009-10499, FBI lab report from R.H. Jevons to Conrad, December 3, 1963, p.2.

David Von Pein
August 28, 2026





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