JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 936)

RAY MITCHAM SAID:

I just wonder how a document can be filed the day before it was written. If that leads one to believe it could be faked then so be it.

Perhaps you can explain. Oh no, guess you can't.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, I can't. But I certainly wouldn't conclude that the various dates that show up on certain documents indicate any kind of fakery. Because it makes no sense for someone faking a document to put into the record a copy of that fake document which includes dates on it that would make that fake document look like an obvious fake document. Therefore, the answer likely resides outside the realm of "fakery".

But, maybe the plotters working for Hoover's FBI weren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. :)


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

I agree with your last comment. The evidence manufacturers weren't the brightest.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But you have no doubt that the evidence was, indeed, "manufactured", versus it being real and legitimate evidence that was merely being collected and handled by a bunch of idiot country cops who didn't know what they were doing. Right, Ray?

It's remarkable that your "evidence manufacturers", who certainly "weren't the brightest" people in the world, were able to pull off the alleged frame-up of Oswald---what with them being idiots and all. How did they manage it, Ray?

~shrug~


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

They didn't. That was brought about by the Warren Commission believing everything the FBI and the CIA told them.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The Warren Commission didn't "collect" any of the evidence. Nor did the FBI or CIA. The DPD did.

Too many CTers wrongfully claim that it was "the Warren Commission's evidence". Total nonsense. The WC didn't collect or test the evidence. The WC merely evaluated it.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

I notice no reply from you about about the shoulder wound.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The wound IS where it is, as anyone can see via the autopsy photograph. The wound is in the UPPER BACK. Not the NECK. Perfectly consistent with what we see in CE903 (within the "margin of error" leeway that MUST be afforded the WC regarding that exhibit, as I discuss HERE).







PAT SPEER SAID:

The FBI took a number of pictures of the re-enactment.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, they did -----> THE SBT PERFECTION OF CE903


PAT SPEER SAID:

Wait, are you really trying to say that the opposite angle photos taken by the FBI do not depict the SBT trajectory? Like they were just taking random photos with the rod at random angles?

Shaneyfelt TESTIFIED under oath about the trajectory's proximity to the back wound. It was an essential part of their re-enactment. Are you really trying to pretend that those photos were not taken to depict the trajectory in relation to the back wound? And that it's just a coincidence these photos were not introduced into evidence?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Pat, this one below sure as hell wasn't taken with the intent to depict where the bullet entered or exited President Kennedy. It's not even close. And I don't think Specter ever thought the bullet entered this high on JFK or exited under his chin....




FWIW / IMO / BTW,

It looks like the string on the wall, as well as Arlen Specter's pointer/rod, are always being kept at the same angle (17.72 degrees) in the various "opposite angle" photos and in CE903. But the key is the positioning of the victims---particularly the JFK stand-in.

In the "opposite angle" photo below (the second picture), the JFK stand-in is quite clearly NOT in the exact same posture that the real JFK was in on 11/22/63. The stand-in is leaning back hard on the car seat (his suit coat is even visibly overlapping onto the back seat). That doesn't match JFK's posture in the Croft picture at all.

So it would be my guess that Specter (for some reason) was just trying out different postures using the stand-ins and then having pictures taken of those INCORRECT postures.

But as we can see in the "Croft/CE903" comparison below, the posture of the stand-in for President Kennedy as depicted in CE903 looks very close to the actual posture of JFK in the Croft photo on Elm Street on November 22nd.










The opposite-angle pic below shows the stand-in's posture to be closer to the real JFK's position at the time of the shooting. But Specter's rod still isn't SPOT ON perfect over the chalk mark. But it's awfully close. And, as I mentioned in one of my CE903 articles here, some amount of slack and margin-of-error needs to be applied here. (Or can any CTer find it in them to cut the Warren Commission ANY slack at all. Not even one inch or so, which is what we're talking about here? Or is utter 100% perfection in the re-enactments the only thing that will be tolerated by conspiracy believers?)




PAT SPEER SAID:

What? They lined up the chalk mark on Connally's jacket with the exit wound on "Kennedy's" throat--and found that it was consistent with the trajectory from the sniper's nest (the string in the background). They also found, however, that when they did this the trajectory passed INCHES away from the location of Kennedy's back wound.

Specter, one can only assume, then decided that this should not be told [to] the public. He made sure that the photos showing the chalk mark were not entered into evidence. And instead presented the public with CE 903, which FAILED to show the location of the back wound.


PAT SPEER LATER SAID:

I mean, this is a man [Arlen Specter] who continued to claim the back wound was a wound on the back of the neck in his autobiography, published in 2000.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Which is nothing but semantics....and provably so, because of what we see in Commission Exhibit 903, which places the entry in the BACK, not the neck. So the fact that Specter continued to incorrectly use the word "neck" is meaningless and is debunked by the very exhibit with Specter in the picture -- CE903.


PAT SPEER SAID:

No, it's not semantics. It's lying. As demonstrated on my website and in my presentations, Specter ALWAYS called it a back wound until he saw the autopsy photo proving it was both a back wound and that the Rydberg drawing had been inaccurate. He then and only then began calling it a neck wound, and continued calling it a neck wound for the rest of his life.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't care WHAT Specter called it, Pat. The more important point is, IMO, where did he place the wound in the re-enactment demonstration we find in CE903?

And the answer is --- IN THE UPPER BACK.

Do you really think Specter is placing the wound in the NECK of the JFK stand-in here, Pat? ....




ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

How did the bullet get through JFK without hitting any of his vertebrae?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, come on, Bob. You know the pat answer to that one....it was a "magic" projectile.

(What else?)

Now, a question for you, Bob...

How did TWO bullets---which are the TWO separate missiles that you and many other conspiracy theorists quite obviously believe went into JFK's body but never exited---manage to make their way into the President's body without EITHER of those bullets striking the President's vertebrae?

Were slingshots being used by the assassins, Bob? Is that why neither of those two bullets exited the other side of JFK's body? And BOTH bullets somehow put on the brakes before reaching the vertebrae of President Kennedy? (Yeah, right.)

Looks like you've got double the problems. You've got TWO "magic" bullets. And they're also "vanishing" bullets too. So that just adds to your miseries, doesn't it?

But I'm not allowed to ever ask the "WHERE DID THE BULLETS GO?" question, am I Bob? And, of course, no CTer will ever be able to reasonably answer that important question anyway. So why bother asking it, right?


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

[Secret Service] Special Agent Bennett said he saw the bullet hit the President four inches down from the shoulder.

Was he lying, as well, David?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Ray. Like Bennett SAW THE BULLET IN FLIGHT as it entered the President's back.

You must be kidding.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Yet another bona fide witness who was lying then. Strange how the ones who don't support the Warren Commission were all lying or mistaken.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I never said Bennett was lying. I merely pointed out the obvious --- SS Agent Glen Bennett could not possibly have seen the bullet entering JFK's upper back, and therefore, Glen Bennett could not possibly have known for certain how far down on JFK's back the bullet entered.

Isn't this fact even obvious to you, Ray Mitcham?


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Once again Von Pain [sic], you use the trick of quoting something which hasn't been written. Where did anybody say [that] "Bennett saw the bullet in flight". You seem to have the gift of misquoting other posters' entries.

It is not just sloppy posting, but deliberate misquoting by you. Typical.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Re: Glen Bennett....

Once again.....

I was merely stating an obvious fact --- i.e., the only way that Glen Bennett could KNOW for certain that a bullet hit the President "about four inches down from the right shoulder" would be to either see the bullet in flight (which, of course, is humanly impossible) or to see the bullet hole in Kennedy's body or clothing or to see the blood oozing from a wound in the President's back. Other than these methods, tell me HOW a witness could state for certain exactly where on JFK's back the bullet entered?

Main point being --- Bennett GUESSED. And his GUESS wasn't too far afield, I will say that. And he also GUESSED about the head entry wound too, which, interestingly enough, is a guess that is completely at odds with the LOW head entry found in the autopsy report, but is consistent with the autopsy photos....

"A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head." -- Glen A. Bennett; 11/23/63

And as a side note here .... you can bet your last greenback that you'll never ever hear a conspiracy theorist quoting the above Bennett quote concerning the head shot that Bennett said came FROM BEHIND. But the CTers sure love Glen Bennett when it comes to his amazing ability to pinpoint the location of President Kennedy's back wound.

So, Bennett's guesswork was fairly accurate as things turned out. But there's no way he could have known with any certainty precisely how many inches below the shoulder JFK was struck.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Once again, I reiterate, no amount of your rubbishy explanations will alter the facts.

He saw the bullet hole in JFK's back. Is that really too hard for you to understand?

"He guessed". How the hell do you know he guessed? Did you ask him? Or is it just your assumption? Or he had to have guessed because it doesn't suit your theory?

As I previously said, no matter what rubbish you keep coming up with, your position is untenable.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're getting more hilarious by the minute, Ray. Do you think Glen Bennett whipped out a ruler and dashed up to JFK's car and started measuring distances?

OF COURSE Bennett's "four inches" statement was a guess. How could it possibly be anything else BUT a "guess"?

Also....

If Bennett saw the bullet hole in "JFK's back", he would have been looking at this wound (with the President's bunched-up jacket over the top of it, of course), and this wound isn't four inches below the shoulder. And no amount of rubbish spouted by Ray Mitcham (or Glen Bennett) will alter the truth that resides within this photograph....




RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Even you could estimate the position of a hole in somebody's jacket if you saw it. (Come to think of it, maybe from your past utterances, you couldn't.)

Tell me why Bennett would say that the shot hit four inches below the shoulder if he didn't see it?

Oh, I forgot, Special Agent Bennett spouted rubbish. This from DVP!!

Regarding the head wound, he saw a huge wound at the back of the President's head. He was quite right. But he didn't say it was an entrance wound.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bennett said the fatal bullet "HIT THE RIGHT REAR HIGH" of JFK's head. Does that sound like he thinks the shot entered from the front? Of course not.

But Bennett's "four inches" guess was just that--an estimate/guess.

So we have a choice here---

We can believe the BEST evidence for JFK's back wound (which is the above autopsy photo).

Or:

We can believe Glen Bennett's guesswork as he witnessed the shooting from the Queen Mary SS car.

Gee, that's a tough choice, isn't it?

(But guess what choice Ray Mitcham is going to make?)


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

What you got, David?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've got the best evidence of all, which is evidence that forever trumps any and all witnesses --- this photograph that you apparently want to ignore....




RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Really. What caused the complete blackout at the lower part of the back of the head, just above the ruler, David? Photoshop? :)

Photos can't be faked in your world, can they?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ray,

In 2009, researcher John Fiorentino sent me a digital copy of a very high-quality version of one of the autopsy photos showing the back of JFK's head. It's the B&W equivalent to the "red spot" color picture seen below. And that photo which was sent to me by Fiorentino clearly shows each and every hair on the back of President Kennedy's head.

There is a version of that B&W photo on the Internet right now, but the version John sent me appears to be a better one, displaying higher resolution and greater detail.

So, Ray, do you want to suggest that somebody PAINTED IN the individual hairs on JFK's head in that black-and-white picture that I currently have on my computer's hard drive?

BTW, I would post that photo right here on this forum, but I promised John Fiorentino that I would not post it anywhere on the Internet. I cannot remember if John told me how he obtained a copy of that autopsy picture. But the slightly lower-quality version of that B&W pic also seems to show some of the individual hairs on JFK's head in the occipital area too. And for that matter, the red-spot picture below also seems to depict some of JFK's individual hairs in the occipital as well.




RAY MITCHAM SAID:

That's a different photo, David.

Mind discussing what colored the back of the head [in this photo]?

Photos can't be altered, can they, David?

They can't be faked, can they, David?

They can't be substituted, can they, David?

I prefer evidence from people who were there and physical evidence which can't be denied.

Seems you are desperate to support the Warren Commission. Best of luck.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just a minute here, Ray....

I just talked about seeing a high-quality "back of the head" autopsy photo which positively depicts EACH HAIR on the President's head.

So are you now suggesting that some photo-fakers "blacked out" just ONE photo, but left the other photos alone?

Or, as I asked previously, do you think the evil plotters and cover-uppers decided to DRAW IN the hairs that I can see on the back of JFK's head in that HQ pic I talked about before?

Which is it? Or would you rather not talk about such silliness? (I couldn't blame you. Because what you seem to be suggesting is awfully silly.)


PAT SPEER SAID:

Why don't you post the photo, David? It seems to me that your going on about the "other photo" is even more bizarre than when people who go on and on about the "other film". There's nothing secret about any photo Fiorentino sent you, is there?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not that I know of, Pat. But in my conversation with John Fiorentino back in May 2009 when he sent me the photo (and I got that date from the timestamp placed on the photo by my computer when I downloaded it to my hard drive; the e-mail message from John is long since gone, since I've never found a way to transfer my old "filing cabinet" e-mails to a new computer), John requested that I not spread the picture all over the Internet. I can't remember the reason for that request, but he made such a request of me nonetheless. And I have always honored it.

But as I mentioned before, there are lower-quality versions of that very same black-and-white autopsy photo on the Internet right now. In fact, after having just now looked through my computer folder marked "JFK Autopsy Photos", I noticed that I have saved a copy of the lower-resolution version of the picture. And since this isn't the copy given to me by John Fiorentino, I'll share it below. And as you can easily see, there are discernible hairs on the back of JFK's head visible even in this smaller version of the photo. The version John gave me is quite a bit bigger (656 x 850 pixels). The one below is only 348 x 450.

BTW, Pat, I think you're probably correct about David Belin himself supplying John with the high-quality version of the photo, because I noticed the message "For you -- Publish it -- DB" in the corner of the picture. But, quite obviously, Fiorentino did NOT want ME to "publish it", and I never have.




PAT SPEER SAID:

FWIW, David, there was a hi-res scan of the BOH photo on Lancer for a number of years. I think it was a scan of the photo as published by Groden, however. What I'm mostly concerned about is that the photos were taken in pairs. Are you sure the photo you have is exactly the same as the photo you've just posted? Or is it the other one of the pair?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I just checked, Pat. The photo John F. gave me in 2009 is the exact same picture as the one I posted previously.


PAT SPEER SAID:

Because if it's the other one, you should be able to match it up with the one you've posted in a GIF, and create a 3-d image showing that the back of the head in the photos was not painted in. As you know, I think the photos are legit. If you have evidence that will help prove this point, well, then, I think you should go ahead and do it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A researcher named John Mytton has created just the kind of 3D GIF you are talking about, using the "red spot" color photo and the B&W photo seen above. They merge together perfectly....




ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Does no one else notice a distinct horizontal boundary in the BOH photo? About level with the top of his right ear, we see wet one-inch-long hair above this boundary, and what appears to be some kind of weird fuzz below it.

This photo is as fake as the back yard photos.

P.S.

John "the researcher" Mytton's comical "3D" display only makes the fakery easier to see.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But we must keep in mind this all-important point ----

Internet CTers will ALWAYS find some kind of "fakery" in EVERYTHING connected with the JFK murder case. It's as inevitable as a windy day at Wrigley Field.

"When you are desperate enough, and you scour the evidence thinking real hard how each thing could be fishy or suspicious, you will come to the conclusion that everything you look at is fishy and suspicious. It's inevitable." -- Bud (at the acj/aaj newsgroups); June 21, 2010


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

One question about the BOH photo:

Where did JFK's long hair go?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Those idiotic plotters are at it again, aren't they Bob? They decided to give JFK a haircut when they "faked" all of the autopsy pictures. Oops!

And they left the Mauser on the sixth floor (even though they were trying to frame their patsy with a Carcano). Oops again!

And then they screwed up the paper trail for Oswald's rifle purchase, making it look like he bought a 36-inch gun instead of the 40-incher that the plotters used to frame their one and only patsy with. Another oops!

"They" can't get anything right, can they? Remind me to never hire those boobs the next time I want to cover up a Presidential assassination.

As JFK himself said in the 7/25/63 phone call below (referring to the "silly bastard" in the accompanying picture)....

"I wouldn't have him running a cathouse!"

I feel the same way about the stumblebums who the conspiracy theorists assure me were responsible for engineering and/or covering up your death, Mr. President.







DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

The biggest mystery in this discussion is:

Why does Bob Prudhomme seem to think John F. Kennedy had "long hair" on 11/22/63? His hair is anything but long here (especially in the back of his head), perfectly matching what we see in the autopsy photographs....










David Von Pein
May 1-8, 2015

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 962)

RAY MITCHAM SAID:

So you believe he [Buell Wesley Frazier] was right when he said the bag was too short to carry a broken-down Carcano.

No?

You just believe the parts you want to believe?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And you think you AREN'T doing that exact same thing, Ray?

You BELIEVE Frazier was 100% right about the "short bag".

But you DISBELIEVE Frazier (and call him an outright liar) when he said that Oswald had "no lunch" with him on 11/22/63.

I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "liar" even once. I don't think he LIED when he said the paper bag was only around 24 to 27 inches long. I merely think he was WRONG. He miscalculated the length of the bag. Nothing more than that. (And, yes, so did Linnie Mae Randle in some of her bag estimates.) But I don't think either of them were liars.

But you MUST think Frazier WAS a liar regarding the "No Lunch Bag" topic. Right?

And yet you don't seem to realize the hyprocritical nature of this remark you just now aimed at me:

"You just believe the parts you want to believe?" -- R. Mitcham

Pot meets up with Kettle yet again.

There's also another thing regarding Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony that you and other CTers never seem to have thought of. And that is....

IF Buell Frazier had actually just INVENTED the large paper bag to put into Lee Oswald's hands on 11/22/63, then WHY on Earth would Frazier have made his make-believe bag too short to hold the item that was supposed to be in that bag?

If it's an invented bag (and the police "forced" Frazier to tell that lie, per James DiEugenio's theory), then it stands to reason that any such bag invented from whole cloth would have been big enough to house that Carcano that Lee Oswald owned. Right?

But if we're to believe CTers like Ian Griggs and Jim DiEugenio, Frazier's MAKE-BELIEVE bag and, ergo, MAKE-BELIEVE measurements for that bag do not go together at all. So the alleged liar has just destroyed his own lie by making a non-existent bag way too small.

Brilliant, huh?


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

The bag was an invention, David. Frazier covered his ass. Apart from Frazier and his sister, nobody else saw Oswald with a large paper bag.

If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size.

Which is it -- "No bag" or "too short bag"?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Are you serious, Ray? (Or did you type before you were fully awake this morning?)

I most certainly do not "have to believe" that Buell Frazier perfectly nailed the size of Oswald's paper bag. In fact, that's crazy.

Frazier saw a bag, yes. He was simply wrong when he was later asked to try and nail down the precise length of that bag.

Now, why can't those two things go together, Ray? Of course they can go together. You just don't WANT them to co-exist, so you just made up a brand-new rule that is quite laughable indeed:

"If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size."

Hilarious.


INSTANT REPLAY....

RAY MITCHAM SAID:

The bag was an invention, David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So you really do believe what I suggested previously --- i.e., you think Frazier's bag was an "invention", but then he decided to say the "invention" (which must have been invented to frame Oswald with the Carcano rifle, right?) was too short of an invention to allow Lee Oswald's rifle to fit inside of it.

So, Ray, was Buell Frazier just really shitty at math, or was he the dumbest patsy framer ever put on this Earth? Which is it? Because it's got to be one of those options.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

What part of "The bag was an invention, David. Frazier covered his ass. Apart from Frazier and his sister, nobody else saw Oswald with a large paper bag" do you not understand?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And what part of this logic do you not understand, Ray? ---

If the bag was merely an "invention", then Frazier (or the police) would have invented a bag LONG ENOUGH to hold the rifle owned by the person you think Frazier (or the police) was framing.

Believing that Frazier INVENTED a bag AND believing that Frazier would ever say the bag was only "2 feet" long are two beliefs that do not go together at all.

The fact that Frazier always has maintained the bag was too short to hold Oswald's rifle is virtual proof, all by itself, that Frazier really did see Lee Harvey Oswald carrying a paper bag on 11/22/63.

Unless, as I said before, Mr. Frazier was one really stupid liar and patsy framer.

And then Frazier decided to voluntarily tell his alleged "paper bag" lie yet again, in front of millions of potential movie-goers, in David Wolper's 1964 feature film. Spunky little liar, that Buell Frazier, wasn't he?


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

How would he [B.W. Frazier] know what size bag the rifle would fit into?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Beats me. It's your fantasy theory. You figure it out.

But, then too, if the whole idea of a fake bag was to frame Oswald with it and to put Oswald's rifle inside that fake bag (and what possible other reason could there have been for anybody to want to fake such a piece of evidence like the paper bag?), then wouldn't it have been useful for Frazier to at least have a good idea of how long to make his pretend bag so the frame-up of Mr. Oswald could have a chance of succeeding?


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

He [B.W. Frazier] made the bag theory up.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why would he do that? What the hell for? To frame the man he said he liked?

And if you think as Jim DiEugenio does that it was the Dallas Police Department who really put the "Fake Bag" idea into the head of Wes Frazier, then how come the DPD didn't feed Frazier the proper dimensions for the invented bag (so the fake bag could hold the patsy's rifle)? More boobs at the DPD, I guess.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Once he and his sister had decided on the size, they couldn't retract.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why not? People change their minds all the time.

David Von Pein
June 23, 2015


LOTS MORE "PAPER BAG" TALK:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 657)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think THIS POST by Pat Speer makes a lot of sense -- except for this comment made by Pat:

"Wait, Is this news? You [David Lifton] used to state that the body was altered before it reached Bethesda. Has Horne won you over?"

Huh?

Pat, the remarks made by David Lifton [repeated below] that you are replying to in the above quote are not inconsistent in the slightest way with Mr. Lifton's longstanding beliefs put forth in his book. Lifton is saying here what he's always said (and it's still as far-fetched and unrealistic here in 2014 as it was back in 1966 when DSL's strange odyssey first began). He's saying the body of JFK was altered between Parkland and Bethesda. But the statement below does not imply that Lifton has embraced the additional Humes Altered The Wounds nonsense put forth by Doug Horne.

Emphasis added by DVP here:

"I have to wonder when the day is going to be reached (if ever) when Pat Speer, who has spent a lot of time studying this case, and who--as I said--should know better--is going to stop making these absurd statements that there was no difference in the wounds between Dallas and Bethesda, and face the very clear fact that the wounds were altered between the time Dr. Clark saw the body--at Parkland Hospital--and the time the official autopsy commenced in the morgue of the U.S. Navy Medical School at Bethesda at 8 p.m EST." -- David S. Lifton


Also....

I agree with Pat Speer up to a point about some of the "BOH" witnesses. But the composite chart made by Mr. Speer [pictured below] is probably a tad bit misleading (IMO), because the three witnesses pictured here ARE still indicating that there was SOME kind of wound or defect extending all the way into the VERY BACK part of JFK's head. Right, Pat? Otherwise, what do you think Peters and Custer and O'Connor are doing when they have their own hands placed over the REAR portions of their heads in the photos on the right side of your montage below? Are they just scratching their heads here, and a picture was taken to mislead people? Or what?....



Repeating an observation I made a few years ago....

"Of course, the CTers [Conspiracy Theorists] who think that Kennedy was shot in the head from the front can always go down "THE PHOTOS ARE ALL FAKES" path...even though the HSCA said that ALL of the autopsy pictures are "unaltered" in any way whatsoever. .... To stress my main point again (via the opinion that the [autopsy] pictures are GENUINE and are NOT FAKES, which, of course, IS the truth of the matter):

How would it be even remotely possible for a bullet to leave a huge hole in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of President Kennedy's head and yet have the REAR SCALP of that same President Kennedy look like this (in the autopsy picture below) after such a shooting event? Was Kennedy's scalp made of bullet-proof cast iron or some other impossible-to-penetrate material? Lacking that type of crazy explanation, I cannot see how it would be possible for a bullet that caused the amount of damage to the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's skull that most CTers think it DID cause, to NOT have penetrated the RIGHT-REAR scalp of Kennedy's head and caused at least SOME visible damage to the outer scalp of the President. In a word -- impossible." -- DVP; April 2008




PAT SPEER SAID:

Response to DVP....

1. My observation about Lifton's comment "the wounds were altered between the time Dr. Clark saw the body--at Parkland Hospital--and the time the official autopsy commenced in the morgue of the U.S. Navy Medical School at Bethesda at 8 p.m EST" is accurate, IMO. My understanding is that Horne believes the body was altered at Bethesda BEFORE 8 p.m. It appears, then, that Lifton is now conceding that Horne might be on to something. I apologize to David Lifton if I'm misunderstanding his words.

2. Context is everything. The Case for Conspiracy slide to which you refer is Groden-specific. The images at right are what Groden publishes in his book The Killing of a President. These images are posted all over the internet.

The clear implication is that these men are "back of the head" witnesses, and believed there was a blow out wound on the back of the head. The images at left come from Groden's video The Case for Conspiracy, and proves the deceptiveness of the images at right.

The reality is that these three men were not "back of the head" witnesses, at least not as claimed by Groden. Peters pointed out a wound at the top of the back of the head, well above the ears. Custer and O'Connor said they saw a large wound encompassing the whole right side of the head, from front to back, and were clearly describing the condition of the skull after the scalp had been reflected and the brain removed.

P.S. In a previous discussion of this slide, a well-known teacher of critical thinking got all upset and claimed I was trying to make people think the Bethesda witnesses saw the same wound as the Parkland witnesses. I then pointed out to him that 1) the slide actually argues the opposite, and that Custer and O'Connor's recollections were not supportive of the recollections of the Parkland witnesses, and 2) that the most coherent argument that the wounds observed in Parkland and Bethesda were the same was published in a book HE'D compiled and edited.


THOMAS GRAVES SAID:

Pat,

What exactly do you think that Peters, Custer, and O'Connor, on the right side of the montage, are pointing to (or indicating with their fingers) on the back side of their head?

Since Peters' head is turned away from the camera more so than O'Connors', perhaps he's the best one to talk about here because his finger placement can be made out a little better.


PAT SPEER SAID:

I'm not sure about Peters. Perhaps he was telling Groden where the cerebellum was, or where others thought they saw a wound. Or maybe even he was showing Groden where he thought the wound was. But the fact remains that in Groden's own video (and other videos posted online) Peters points out the location at left.

As far as Custer and O'Connor, in Groden's own video they said they saw a wound from front to back. At left they are pointing out the forward-most part of this wound. At right they are pointing out the rearward-most part of this wound. The snapshots at right come from Groden's video. The Custer shot at left comes from this video as well. I'm not sure where the O'Connor shot at right came from.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you, Pat, for your last reply. But this comment you made still makes no sense to me:

"...My understanding is that Horne believes the body was altered at Bethesda BEFORE 8 p.m. It appears, then, that Lifton is now conceding that Horne might be on to something."

Well, Pat, since we all know the autopsy started at about 8:00 PM, it's fairly obvious that David Lifton DOES indeed believe the wounds were altered BEFORE 8:00. Right? So how is Lifton's previous remark out of sync with his theory that the body was altered by somebody at Walter Reed (or wherever) prior to the time Dr. Humes started the autopsy? What am I missing here? You surely don't think Lifton is of the opinion the alleged alterations to the President's body were performed AFTER the Bethesda autopsy commenced at 8 PM. Right?

Re: Groden....

I don't know if Robert Groden was being deliberately deceptive in his 1993 book or not, but this picture which I captured of Dr. Paul Peters (taken from the 1988 NOVA/PBS program) comes pretty close to matching Groden's photo of Peters, although it appears as if Peters' hand is a little lower on the back of his head in the montage posted earlier than it is in this 1988 hands-on demonstration:




PAT SPEER SAID:

Look again. The image at left on my slide comes from Groden's video and demonstrates where Peters thought he saw a wound. This location is on the top back part of the head, well above the ears, and is very close to the location you posted. Now look at the photo of Peters in Groden's book, at right on my slide. There he is pointing to a location at and slightly above the level of the ears. It's about 3 inches away.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Either way, Dr. Peters is still wrong, because there was no humongous hole in President Kennedy's head in either one of those "BOH" locations, as these photos clearly prove for all time:




For a more accurate "hand on the head" demonstration of where the large wound in JFK's head was really located, we need to go to the witnesses who saw the assassination as it was occurring in Dealey Plaza. And the best possible witnesses among that group are Abraham Zapruder and William Newman:







And there's also Gayle Newman too, who provided a hands-on account of the location on JFK's head where she saw "blood gushing out". And it sure isn't in the occipital (or rear) portion of the head:




RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Another good video. Confirms their [Bill & Gayle Newman's] earlier views.

In it, he says that the shots came more from the fence area behind him more to his right than from the TSBD to his left.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh?

Bill Newman said no such thing in that 2003 video. In fact, he specifically says that he refuses to "define" the exact location of the gunshots. He said: "So I say 'behind' and I leave it at that."

He said he can't say whether the shots he heard came more to the left or more to the right of his location:

"If I thought it came from the sixth floor, I'd most definitely tell you so. If I thought it came from the picket fence, I'd certainly tell you so. The reality of it is--I don't know." -- William E. Newman; July 10, 2003




RAY MITCHAM SAID:

I can see why the Warren Commission didn't want them [the Newmans] to be interviewed.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, right Ray. They avoided the Newmans, but had no problem publishing the testimony of Sam Holland, Mark Lane, Jean Hill, Jack Dougherty, Victoria Adams, Clint Hill, Marguerite Oswald, and several other "conspiracy" type witnesses. But they were just scared to death of Bill and Gayle Newman, huh?

You're funny.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Zapruder also said he thought the shots came from over his right shoulder.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's not what he told Eddie Barker in Dealey Plaza in 1967:

"I'm not a ballistic expert, but I believe if there were shots that were coming by my right ear, I would hear a different sound. I heard shots coming from--I wouldn't know which direction to say--but it was proven from the Texas Book Depository. And they all sounded alike; there was no different sound at all."
-- Abraham Zapruder; June 1967 (emphasis added by DVP)


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

[9 minutes and 50 seconds into this video, Bill Newman said:]

“...but if you want [me] to define it a little closer, that would be a little closer to the picket fence rather as opposed to the School Depository.”


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, you are absolutely right, Ray. Bill Newman did utter the above words in his 2003 interview at the Sixth Floor Museum. I stand corrected.

However, even in that excerpt at 9:50 of the video, Newman is saying that the shots came from what he calls the "in-between area", very near where Abraham Zapruder was standing -- between the Depository and the picket fence.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

I'm not interested in what he [Abe Zapruder] told Eddie Barker, this is from his Warren Commission testimony:

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, I also thought it came from back of me.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And just how on Earth does Zapruder's "from back of me" remark help out the conspiracy theorists who want to place a gunman behind a fence on the Grassy Knoll, which is a fence that was certainly NOT in "back" of Abe Zapruder's pedestal at the time of the head shot. That fence was to the RIGHT of Zapruder....and actually, to be technical, the area of that fence where most of the conspiracy buffs like to put a gunman was also a little bit in FRONT of Zapruder's position as well (i.e., a little SOUTH of the Zapruder pedestal) -- as the photograph below indicates:



But I suppose all the conspiracy theorists can argue that the picket fence area was, indeed, IN BACK of Zapruder's position when at least ONE of the shots was fired, because Zapruder's body would have been turned more toward the corner of Elm & Houston at that time.

So you can argue that "angle" difference if you want, but it's still not going to garner you a victory in this particular argument, and that's because of the following portion of Mr. Zapruder's Warren Commission testimony that Ray decided to leave out of his last post:

Mr. LIEBELER - All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - From the direction behind you?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment, where they came from--after the impact of the tragedy was really what I saw and I started and I said--yelling, "They've killed him"--I assumed that they came from there, because as the police started running back of me, it looked like it came from the back of me.

Mr. LIEBELER - But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what direction the shots did come from actually?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - No.


So it's pretty clear to me that Zapruder's WC testimony is in perfect harmony with what he told CBS-TV in 1967. In other words--he just couldn't tell exactly where the shots were coming from.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

The subject is not about the picket fence. It is about where the head wound was, Newman said in his earliest interview that “As the car got directly in front of us, uh, a gunshot, apparently from behind us hit the President in the side of the temple.”

Now if you can show how a gunshot to the side of the temple can equate to a bullet in the back of the head, I'd be very interested in your explanation.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, Ray, you think Bill Newman had the superhuman ability to actually SEE the bullet in flight, eh? Otherwise, how could he possibly know precisely where the bullet ENTERED President Kennedy's head?

As any child could figure out, Newman saw the big hole and all the blood on the RIGHT SIDE ("temple" area) of JFK's head after Oswald's bullet had gone through the President's cranium....and Newman's immediate impression, due to the location of all that blood, was that the bullet hit JFK in the side of the temple.

Newman says over and over again in his various interviews in 1963 and 2003 that he saw the "SIDE" of the President's head come off. That sure doesn't sound like he's describing the ENTRY point for a bullet, does it? He's describing where the EXIT wound was located, of course.

And Newman repeated that comment again during his 2013 interview at the Sixth Floor Museum ---> "The side of his head blew off." -- Bill Newman; 11/9/13

There is also a similar statement made by Gayle Newman in her official affidavit, which she prepared on the day of the assassination itself ---> "I saw blood all over the side of his head." -- Gayle Newman; 11/22/63


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

No, I don't think he had superhuman abilities. Neither have you, although it seems that you think you do. You appear to know more about what he [Bill Newman] saw than he did.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You think it takes superhuman ability to assess and reasonably evaluate the statements made by William Newman concerning his observations relating to JFK's head wound?

A second-grader could figure this out. I wonder why so many conspiracy theorists can't do it?

It's probably because those conspiracy believers just simply don't WANT to properly evaluate statements made by witnesses like Bill and Gayle Newman. The CTers are too enamoured with their long-held belief that William E. Newman is a terrific "conspiracy" type witness. But in reality, he's no such thing.

Newman even marked the location of where he thought the shots were coming from on a map during his appearance at the 1986 mock Oswald trial in England. And just look at where he put the gunman--in a location that's not even close to the famous "picket fence" area:



In fact, Newman's marked location on that map is much closer to the Book Depository Building than it is to the fence atop the Grassy Knoll.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Perhaps if you think that what he saw was the exit of the bullet rather than the entrance, you could tell us where the bullet that supposedly did what you say ended up.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think you already know the answer to that question, Ray. But, I'll bite anyway....

The largest portion of Oswald's Carcano bullet, after going through JFK's head, was never recovered by anybody. But two fairly large chunks of that head-shot bullet (CE567 and CE569) were recovered in the front seat area of JFK's limousine, with those two fragments of bullet being stopped by the car's windshield and chrome molding (which were cracked and dented, respectively).

More of my thoughts about CE567/569 HERE and HERE.

Now, to reciprocate, maybe Ray Mitcham can answer a similar question for me (and for everyone else in the world too) --- Since you obviously think that what Bill Newman saw on the SIDE of President Kennedy's head was the ENTRY location of a bullet, would you please tell me what happened to that bullet that entered the right "temple" of John F. Kennedy? Where did that bullet end up? And why didn't it cause some kind of wound to the LEFT side of JFK's head?


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Nice photo, David [of Bill Newman marking the map], but very naughty. Pity it was taken from an angle which compresses the sketch of Dealey Plaza. It looks a bit different when you see it like this:



The grey curved line equates to the one drawn on by Newman and his position is circled lower on the drawing. It shows that he thought the shot came from nowhere near the TSBD.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And Newman's 1986 map also indicates he didn't think the shots came from anywhere near the famous "Grassy Knoll/Picket Fence" area of Dealey Plaza either. (That was kind of my main point, in case you missed it.)

But, then too, we already knew that fact when Newman clearly stated in his 11/22/63 affidavit that the shots came from "directly behind me", which does not equate to the famous "Grassy Knoll" area where the fence is.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Regarding where do I think the bullet went that entered from the front? Easy -- it stayed inside JFK's skull as it exploded.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, I see. That must be why only TWO very small metal fragments were plucked from inside President Kennedy's head by the autopsy surgeons at Bethesda, huh? [See CE843.]

And I wonder why there is very little in the way of bullet (metal) fragments visible in the X-rays taken of JFK's head? A faked X-ray, Ray? ....



And it's also good to know that you, Ray Mitcham, are a person who actually DOES think that the great-big wound in JFK's head serves as the ENTRY point for a bullet. Most people can easily figure out the ENTRIES from the EXITS when it comes to assessing bullet wounds, with the largest wound almost always indicating the BLOW-OUT (or EXIT) point for the missile.

But, as with everything in this JFK case, the conspiracists have a habit of turning night into day---and exits into entries.

A humorous example of this type of topsy-turvy mindset exhibited by some conspiracy theorists came up on one of the other JFK forums, when a certain unnamed kook insisted that Governor Connally's chest wound was actually a wound of ENTRY, while Connally's upper-back wound was a wound of exit.

Such is the upside-down world of JFK conspiracists.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

I notice you said nothing about your sneaky angled photo of the Dealey Plaza sketch.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I wasn't sneaky at all regarding the "angled" Newman map photo. I know it's taken from an angle that somewhat skews everything. But I used it to merely illustrate what even a SKEWED version of that map clearly indicates--i.e., Bill Newman thought the shots were coming from a location where virtually NOBODY in the "JFK World" thinks shots were REALLY coming from.

So, tell me, Ray -- Do you REALLY think shots were coming from an area BETWEEN the Depository and the fence/"Badge Man" area on the Knoll?

If you answer Yes to that question, you'll be the first person on the planet (AFAIK) who thinks shots came from that "in-between" area in Dealey Plaza.

BTW, Ray, your version of Newman's map is almost identical to the "skewed" version I posted. Very little difference at all. Your "unskewed" version still has Newman's mark at the FAR EAST EDGE of the pergola/shelter.

Looks like another "Mountain From A Molehill" argument being made by a conspiracy fan. (What a surprise.)

Besides, how in the heck can I know for certain you've got that gray line in the exact correct spot to equate to Newman's 1986 marking of the sketch/map? Maybe I should call in Dale Myers to check it out. An expert on photogrammetry couldn't hurt here, right? :)


PAT SPEER SAID:

The 'entrance is the smaller' argument only applies when the bullet trajectories are tracked.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, bull, Pat. In THIS (JFK) case, there can be no doubt whatsoever which of Kennedy's head wounds was the entry wound--with or without "tracking" of the bullet wounds. Am I supposed to think THIS wound in the photo below is an EXIT wound and that huge hole in the right/front/top portion of the President's head is an ENTRY wound? (Talk about topsy-turvy. This takes the cake.)




PAT SPEER SAID:

So, get off your high horse, will ya? You would like the readers to believe you've got all the facts on your side, and science on your side, when your whole 'Oswald did it all by his lonesome' argument rests on your unfounded BELIEF that either
1) the autopsy doctors were incredibly inept and that the bullet actually entered 4 inches higher than they claimed in a location nobody noticed, or 2) the autopsy doctors were correct and all the subsequent panels claiming the bullet trajectory they'd proposed makes no sense were inept. In either case, you've gotta go against experts.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not denying that there is controversy among the "experts" and the autopsy surgeons regarding JFK's head wounds. I've never denied or ducked that controversy. I've merely attempted to explain it in what I feel is a reasonable and sensible way (based mainly on what I consider to be the best evidence associated with the President's wounds--the autopsy pictures and X-rays).

But most of the conspiracy theorists disagree quite strongly with EVERY single expert who has ever officially investigated John F. Kennedy's murder and looked at the original autopsy photographs and X-rays. A CTer who is absolutely positive that JFK was shot from the front and had a massive hole in the BACK of his head has no choice but to totally disregard every single item listed below (which is just plain ridiculous):

1.) The autopsy report.
2.) The autopsy photographs.
3.) The autopsy X-rays.
4.) The testimony and subsequent statements of all three autopsy physicians.
5.) The conclusion of the Warren Commission in 1964.
6.) The conclusion of the Clark Panel in 1968.
7.) The conclusion of the Rockefeller Commission in 1975.
8.) The conclusion of the HSCA in 1978.
9.) The Zapruder Film.

See how silly it gets once you get beyond a HALF-DOZEN different things/committees that the conspiracy theorists believe are totally wrong or phony? But the CTers don't care that they have to spit on ALL NINE of the above things. They'll do it anyway. But please don't ask me to disregard the above batch of evidence. Because in order to do that, I'd have to park my common sense at the front door. And I'll never do that.

So, you see Pat, the horse I'm riding isn't perched so high. But CTers don't
even have a horse to ride in this race, as far as I can see. They ride a different animal -- BULL.


PAT SPEER SAID:

I acknowledged that when there are two CONNECTED wounds, the larger one is usually the exit. But in this case, NO ONE ever connected the wounds. In the "official" story, there was a small wound low on the back of the head and a large wound high on the head. That's it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Given the fact that there was this HUGE hole in the right/top/front part of the President's head....and this small "entry"-like hole in the back of his head, how difficult is the math here? Should we consult Einstein to get this figured out? Or should a cat by the name of Felix be able to solve this puzzle? (I vote for the latter.)

(Can this get any sillier? Answer--Yes, it can. See Pat Speer's next comment for proof....)


PAT SPEER SAID:

In defiance of EVERY written and unwritten guideline for conducting a forensic autopsy, the wounds were never connected. It's even worse than that. Supposedly they weren't even probed. No, even worse than that. The ONLY witnesses claiming the small entrance wound on the back of the head was probed (Lipsey, Robinson) claimed the probe exited--get this--the throat wound. Now, ain't that a humdinger?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A humdinger of a dumb and preposterous theory, yes.


PAT SPEER SAID:

There's also this. While I am not an alterationist, I nevertheless believe your list above is nonsense. If the autopsy photos had been faked, then the conclusions of the Clark, Rockefeller, and HSCA Panels are meaningless.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, you think the ONLY thing the HSCA relied on were the photos & X-rays, eh? That's interesting (and very wrong). There's also the testimony of the autopsists. Or is their 1978 testimony "meaningless" too (as it relates to their ability to answer the fundamental question of: "WAS JFK STRUCK BY ANY BULLETS COMING FROM THE FRONT?")?

Anyway, the autopsy photos cannot possibly be fake, unless there's a way to fake pictures in stereo pairs (which every expert has said is impossible).

So, you're cooked again, Mr. Speer. Sorry. :-)

David Von Pein
February/March 2014

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