JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 418)

RIC LANDERS SAID:

At his last press conference, Ruby was probably saner than he'd ever been
in his life.

He [had] been in jail three or four years by then; his morale was soaring
because his murder conviction had just been overturned on appeal; he was
clean, shaved, in a new suit; and, most importantly, in the spotlight
again, which meant he was a force to be reckoned with again.

He picked his words as skillfully as anyone has ever picked their words
before. In fact, so careful was he that he paused to ask the news
reporter the correct pronouncation of his name before answering his
question.

After this, he delivered what was clearly a veiled threat to "the people
who put me in this position."

His message was crystal clear. The only question -- the names of the
people it was meant.

Babbling? Definitely not. Without question he was letting his people
know their time was up. He had done his part of the deal, now it was
time for them to do theirs ... or else.

But, here again, David, Bud, et. al., you can't have it both ways. You
can't use his words when they fit your agenda, then discard them when
they don't.

That's not how being unbiased works.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jack Ruby's ACTIONS on 11/24/63 positively show NO PREMEDITATION.
None.

Other things to consider with respect to Ruby and the murder of Lee
Harvey Oswald.....

What if another customer or two had been in line at Western Union?

Or -- What if Jack had left his apartment just TWO MINUTES later on
November 24th?

Either of the above occurrences would very likely have meant that Ruby
would have missed having the chance to kill Oswald.

Do conspiracy advocates really think the "timing" and the "Western
Union money order" were things that were part of a "ruse" of some
kind....designed to merely throw people off of the "pre-planned
conspiracy" track in the years to come?

Plus.....

What about Karen Carlin (the stripper/dancer who called Jack on the
morning of the 24th and asked for the $25 money order)?*

* = The money needed to be wired to Carlin, btw, because Ruby had
decided to close both of his nightclubs for two or more days in
deference to the assassinated President -- which was a decision Jack
made within hours of JFK's death on Friday.

Now, when examining Carlin's Warren Commission testimony, we can see
that Karen called Ruby on Saturday for a $5 advance, with Jack then
telling Carlin to call him on Sunday for any additional money she
required (which Carlin needed to pay her rent).

But Jack never told Carlin exactly WHAT TIME on Sunday to call him.
Nor did he confirm on Saturday exactly how much cash to wire her. He
didn't say to her, "call me before 10:00", for example. Nor did he ask
her on Saturday, "how much money do you need?"

So, for all Jack knew on Saturday night, Carlin might be calling him
at 12:00 noon or 2:00 PM on Sunday with the details about her additional
loan that she needed. If the call had occurred at either of those times
on Sunday, obviously Oswald would not have been shot, because Jack's
trip to Western Union would have occurred after Oswald had been
transferred to the County Jail.

Also, if Carlin hadn't called Ruby on Sunday morning AT ALL (which was
certainly possible for all Jack knew on SATURDAY), the "coincidence
chain" leading to Oswald's death would never have been started in the
first place.

Because if Carlin hadn't called Ruby to ask for that $25 money order,
then Jack would certainly not have had any reason to visit the Western
Union office in downtown Dallas, which was just a block from the City
Jail (where a crowd had formed, which attracted Jack's attention, even
though Ruby thought that Oswald had ALREADY BEEN MOVED by that time).

Now, it's true that Ruby did tell Carlin (on Sunday morning) that he
had intended to go "downtown" sometime on Sunday anyway. But without
Carlin's plea for a money order (necessitating Jack's trip to the Western Union
office), Ruby would almost certainly not have been exactly where he was
in the downtown area at 11:17 AM on Sunday, November 24th.

Do conspiracy theorists think that Karen Carlin was part of some kind of "plot"
or "ruse" too?

Plus.....

What if Jack had decided to send Carlin the money order from a different
Western Union office? (Surely there was more than just one such office
in the whole of Dallas, Texas....right? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing there
was probably more than just the one W.U. office in that large U.S. city.)

Or: What if Jack had decided to just loan Karen $25 out of his own
pocket, which could have also occurred. That scenario would have meant
no Western Union visit needed at all.

Plus.....

If Jack hadn't made the decision to close his nightclubs for a few days
that weekend (a decision he made, as I mentioned, two days before he
killed Oswald), then Karen Carlin would not have had a reason to have
cash "money ordered" to her (she could have picked it up at one of the
nightclubs instead, had they been open).

The "happenstance" and "mere coincidence" trail is significant here.
It's either "happenstance", or the most remarkable hunk of
"conspiratorial coordination" I've ever encountered (including little
"Sheba" being left in the car to make things look "spontaneous" in
nature).

This "coordination", if it was a pre-arranged plan, would have to go
all the way down to Karen Carlin's penniless state on Nov. 23 and 24,
which is CRITICAL to having Ruby being in the right place at the right
time at 11:21 AM on Sunday, the 24th.

Another interesting hunk of insight into Jack Ruby's bereaved state of
mind during that November '63 weekend can be found in the following
portion of Karen Carlin's Warren Commission testimony.....

KAREN CARLIN -- "I reached him [Ruby] at home [on Saturday night,
11/23]. He answered the telephone. And I asked Jack if we were going
to be open, and he got very angry and was very short with me. He said,
"Don't you have any respect for the President? Don't you know the
President is dead?" And I said, "Jack, I am sorry. Andrew said that
perhaps we would be open, and I don't have any money, and you know I
am supposed to get paid." And I wanted some money on my pay to get
back home. And he said, "I don't know when I will open. I don't know
if I will ever open back up." And he was very hateful. And he said he
had to come down to the club in about an hour, and for me to wait and
he would see me then. And I hung up and told my husband what had
happened; and we waited and waited, and he didn't show up."

David Von Pein
March 24, 2007

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 417)

SOME MORE "BOH" TALK:

Another problem John Canal will never be able to overcome is the
following question:

WHY WAS THERE *ANY* HOLE IN THE RIGHT-REAR *SCALP* OF PRESIDENT
KENNEDY?

It makes no sense whatsoever that there would be a large (or semi-
large) HOLE in the REAR SCALP of President Kennedy (via the scenario,
which John Canal subscribes to, which has only one bullet from Lee
Oswald's gun striking JFK in the back of the head, causing the to-be-
expected small wound of entrance from the bullet itself).

John wants a large (or semi-large or "quarter"-sized) hole to suddenly
appear in the RIGHT-REAR SCALP of JFK.

How?

Such a wound in such a location makes no sense whatsoever.

Ultimate logical conclusion:

No such large or semi-large hole in the rear scalp of JFK was there at
all. That fact couldn't be more obvious--via the Z-Film, the autopsy
photos, and (especially) the lateral autopsy X-ray, with that lateral
X-ray telling us that there is no hole whatsoever located at the right-
rear of Kennedy's head. Nor is there nearly enough fragmentation or
fracture lines in the right-rear area of JFK's head to accommodate Mr.
Canal's crazy theory.



And John Canal certainly NEEDS such a goodly-sized hole to be present
in President Kennedy's BOH for his theory to grow any legs at all. And
that BOH hole certainly needs to be much bigger than just a "quarter"-
sized hole too, in order to accommodate the majority of PH witnesses
who claimed to see a great-BIG hole in the far-right-rear of Kennedy's
head.

I'll ask John Canal for a third time (I don't recall getting an answer
previously) -- What Parkland witness ever said that the BOH hole in
the right-rear of Kennedy's head was merely "quarter"-sized?

David Von Pein
January 8, 2009

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 416)

AN ANONYMOUS LURKER SAID:

If one follows these discussions back for the last several years, what DVP does for the various medical evidence aspects is periodically parrot as a broken record his same debate lines, each time with the (feigned?) zeal of it being a first time 'gotcha' ace.

For example, I checked/confirmed that several times now in the past DVP has linked to a darkened version of the color BOH photo and challenged Canal "so Mr. Canal, just what is that red spot on the cowlick if you don't think it is the entry point?"

Each time, Canal has replied to DVP that DVP has wrongly quoted Canal, that actually Canal AGREES that the red spot is the entry point, and each time Canal reminds DVP that DVP already posed that question and Canal has already described to that Canal DOES AGREE. Yet, this week, DVP did it AGAIN ... he posed exactly the SAME 'gotcha' question to Canal AGAIN --- with no acknowledgement that he ever previously asked it and was previously corrected by Canal that Canal agrees with him that it is the entry point!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I sure don't see how John Canal can possibly think that the red spot on JFK's head (which is certainly located at the "cowlick" area) is the entry wound, when the same Mr. Canal has insisted that the entry wound was much lower on JFK's head...not HIGH on the head near the cowlick.

And I cannot really see how the LOOSENESS of JFK's scalp can be used as an explanation for a LOW wound to appear as a HIGH/COWLICK one in this autopsy photo:



Because even with some small amount of scalp displacement at the time when John Stringer took the above photograph, the COWLICK is still the COWLICK (right?) -- i.e., the red spot (the bullet hole) is STILL in the exact area of the COWLICK, even on a slightly DISPLACED scalp. Therefore, the entry hole IS at the "COWLICK" area of John Kennedy's head. Period.

For John Canal to look at the above autopsy photograph and come away with the following two conclusions (in tandem with one another) is simply something that I can't figure out for the life of me:

1.) The red spot in the autopsy photo does, indeed, represent the entry hole for the bullet that hit JFK in the head.

And:

2.) The entry hole in the back of JFK's head was located LOW on the head ("near the EOP"), and was not located where the HSCA determined the entry wound was actually located, which was at the cowlick area of the head.

"The replications of F8 by myself, Sturdivan, Hunt, and Seaton scientifically prove the entry was near the EOP. .... If the entry had been in the cowlick, when F8 was taken, the entire entry would have been on the table with the pieces of bone that fell out." -- John Canal; November 30, 2008

I guess only John Canal (and possibly a few others) can see how the above two conclusions can co-exist in perfect harmony when discussing the location of the entry wound in the back of John F. Kennedy's head.

~shrug~

David Von Pein
January 7, 2009



"Red Spot" Addendum:

John Canal,

If I've repeated myself numerous times (as your "anonymous lurker" suggests I have), I apologize for that. But I honestly cannot recall having discussed the "red spot" topic in the past in our forum exchanges. We normally are talking about the "Large BOH" matter.

In fact, I've searched through my own saved archived posts (which I link to my JFK Blog), and I could not find any post where we discussed the "red spot" at all. (Now, there might very well be some posts of this nature dating back a couple of years, but my search tonight revealed none that I have saved for placement on my blog.)

If you (or your e-mail "lurker") could point me to some of those pre-2009 "red spot" posts, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to see how those threads played themselves out -- because, honestly, I simply cannot recall them.

I guess my memory could be failing me. But, gee, I'm only 47! Heaven help me when I'm Mr. Canal's age! (Sorry, John. I couldn't resist. No offense.) ;)

David Von Pein
January 7, 2009

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 415)

HERBERT BLENNER SAID:

Only a diehard would deny that CE 903 has caught the FBI with its big thumb on their scale.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What a bunch of malarkey, Herbert.

CE903 completely destroys the oft-repeated conspiracy-favoring myth of:

GERALD FORD MOVED THE WOUND UP INTO THE NECK OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY TO MAKE THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY PLAUSIBLE.

CE903 proves that CTers are off their rockers when they prop up the above nonsense about Ford's mysterious "move". Because "moving" the wound from where it's always been (JFK's upper back) to the "neck" would totally wreck the SBT's trajectory and alignment.



Also.....

Anti-SBTers should also be asking themselves a very important question too....this question:

If the SBT is completely impossible (as so many CTers firmly believe), how in the world would the WC and the FBI even be able to FUDGE the "SBT" results as seen in CE903 and have those results come anywhere close to duplicating (at least fairly closely) the positioning of the victims in the car AND the wound locations on the TWO victims?

In other words, in any kind of a shooting scenario that a CTer could hypothesize to replace the SBT, wasn't it absolutely remarkable (and super lucky) to have those two or three different gunmen hit the TWO victims with their two or three or four bullets in almost exactly the locations on the two bodies so that on May 24, 1964, the Warren Commission and the FBI could connect those various bullet holes and FUDGE A PRETTY DAMN NICE-LOOKING SINGLE-BULLET EVENT?

Why don't any of the conspiracy-loving kooks EVER ask themselves that reasonable question?

David Von Pein
January 7, 2009

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 414)

All conspiracy theorists who reject the Single-Bullet Theory should take a good, long, hard look at CE903. And those CTers should KEEP staring at it until its SBT significance sinks in....because CE903 is an excellent illustration of how the SBT WORKS, while using a stretch limo similar to SS-100-X and using real-life human beings as stand-ins for JFK and John B. Connally, and with the JBC stand-in actually even wearing the exact same jacket that was being worn by Governor Connally on 11/22/63, with Arlen Specter's probe/rod being inserted right into the bullet hole in the back of Connally's coat.

And the angle of Specter's rod is 17+ degrees, exactly the same as the string on the wall in the background of CE903. And 17+ degrees was determined by surveyors and the WC/FBI to be the average angle (between Zapruder frames 210 and 225) from the southeast corner window on the TSBD's sixth floor to JFK's upper-back wound.

Quoting from the Warren Commission testimony of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt:

"The average angle, allowing for the [3.15] degree street grade results in an average angle between frame 210 and frame 225 of 17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds." -- Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt (WC Vol. 5; Page 162)

CE903 is an absolutely perfect "model" which displays the basic doability and workability of the Single-Bullet Theory. Over the years, CE903 is an official WC exhibit that has been largely ignored--especially by conspiracy theorists it would seem.

But I can't blame the CT-Kooks for wanting to completely ignore CE903. Because if they were to look at it for very long, they would easily be able to determine that the SBT does NOT (and CANNOT) require a bullet to enter John Kennedy's NECK in order for the SBT to work out just fine and exit JFK's "tie knot".

The SBT works.
The SBT is 100% correct.

Look again:




And again (photo caption written by DVP):



David Von Pein
January 6, 2009

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 413)

JOHN CANAL SAID:

When Humes said he saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated, do you think he was: A) lying, B) hallucinating, or C) misspeaking, i.e. he meant to say a severely lacerated ear, etc.?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'll pick C.

Since you love Dr. Boswell so much, I'll ask you a question -- was
Boswell lying when he said this to the ARRB in 1996?:

QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"

BOSWELL -- "Yes."

QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
noticed during the time of the autopsy?"

BOSWELL -- "No."

QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
were intact?"

BOSWELL -- "Yes."


JOHN CANAL SAID:

David, suggest you read RH2 when it comes out.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why on this EARTH would Vince want to come out with a "sequel"
volume called "Reclaiming History 2"?

Such a volume being released with the moniker "Reclaiming History 2"
is utterly stupid, IMO. It would be like advertising that it was VB's
feeling that the first massive 2,800-page book was a failure (at least
to a large degree), requiring a second "RH" to be written and marketed
to replace the first. Such a "sequel" would be totally ridiculous and
unnecessary.

If there is a "re-release" of "RH" (not a "sequel", just a re-print
version of the original 2007 book and CD-ROM), a few of the small
number of errors and typos and inconsistencies might be corrected. In
fact, I've volunteered my services to Vince (through his secretary,
Rosemary Newton) in helping to proofread the entire book and CD, in
order to eliminate the minor mistakes that do exist in "RH" in case
just such a re-release version of the book does come to pass in the
future.

And Vince should eliminate the horrid contradiction that appears on
pages 423 and 424 for starters. That's by far the biggest error/
mistake in the whole book (IMO).

But correcting such errors (mostly typos and incorrect dates, etc.)
wouldn't require slapping a whole new sequel-like title on the book.
I'm pretty sure that re-prints of books are accomplished all the time
in such a manner, where small errors are corrected, but the book title
remains exactly the same.

Did you have a second printing of your 2000 book, "Silencing The Lone
Assassin", John C.? If so, were you allowed to correct any minor errors
that might have slipped through the cracks in the First Edition?

Anyway, Vince B. certainly doesn't need to change a thing that he
wrote in "Reclaiming History" when it comes to the subject of JFK's
head wounds and the specific locations of those wounds. Vince has it
covered nicely in "RH", including ample discussion about the 4-inch
discrepancy that exists with respect to the precise location on the
back of JFK's head where Oswald's bullet entered.

That topic is thrashed out in a good deal of detail in "RH", with
Vince coming to the only reasonable and logical conclusion about the
true location of that entry wound -- i.e., the wound was located near
the cowlick area of President Kennedy's head.

Another question for John Canal: If the red spot near the cowlick
isn't the wound of entrance in this picture below, then why does
photographer John Stringer seemingly focus in on and CENTER his camera
on that red spot in the middle of this picture? If the red spot isn't
the thing being focused on the most by Stringer here, then WHAT WAS
Stringer focusing on the most in this photo? He surely wasn't focusing
on the white splotch near the BOTTOM of the picture, was he John?:



David Von Pein
January 5, 2009

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 412)

JOHN CANAL SAID:

If one PH [Parkland Hospital] witness said the BOH [Back Of Head] wound was the size of a quarter...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What Parkland witness ever said it was the size of a quarter?

And if there is such a "quarter"-sized witness, shouldn't that little
fact signal to you that there's a pretty good-sized discrepancy
between the people who were all in the same Parkland ER looking at the
same head of President Kennedy?

Let me guess----

You think it's okay to have a "size" discrepancy (and a huge "size"
discrepancy at that) amongst the Parkland witnesses who saw JFK's head
wound....but it's not okay to have a "location" discrepancy?

And, yes, even amongst the Parkland witnesses, there IS some discrepancy,
with not every witness placing the wound in the exact same location
(with Dulany, Peters, and Rike, in fact, placing the wound in a
virtually impossible location, seeing as how they could not possibly
have seen that portion of JFK's head in the ER on 11/22/63):




JOHN CANAL SAID:

...because our [Canal's & Bugliosi's] telephone exchanges began because of that misquote and are continuing (and are paying dividends).


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

~chuckle~

So, you're well on your way to convincing Vince Bugliosi of your silly
"BOH/LN" theory, eh John?

If so, then I guess you've also convinced Vince (somehow) to totally
ignore this X-ray too; right, John?:



And you've also convinced Vince (somehow) that the brightly-lit
autopsy photo shown below is totally misleading, with JFK's seemingly
totally undamaged scalp REALLY being quite damaged (per your theory).
And the reason we can't see any stitches or any visible scalp damage
at all is due to some fancy John Canal double-talk. Isn't that right,
John?

BTW, I forgot what your double-talk consisted of when referring to
this picture below, John. Please let me know what double-talk you
served up for Vince Bugliosi to explain away the TOTALLY UNDAMAGED
REAR SCALP of President Kennedy that is seen in this particular
photograph:



David Von Pein
January 5, 2009

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 411)

KOOK QUOTE OF THE DAY:

"Let me give you a little follow-up on this Dave Von Pein guy. .... His blogspot is linked to John McAdams and Dave Reitzes. So, you might be right about him. I think you [Len Osanic] said that it might be an alter ego for Reitzes. Well, he's linked to their sites. And I found out something else about him that I thought was really kind of bizarre..." -- James DiEugenio; October 30, 2008


To find out what Mr. DiEugenio thinks is "really kind of bizarre", listen to the program embedded below (it's "really kind of hilarious").





David Von Pein
January 1, 2009

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 410)

"YO HARVEY" SAID:

Thomas Purvis aka Brokedad is now copying and pasting comments from
this NG onto the Simkin Forum in a thread he created about DVP. Now,
here's the cool part. Even though the Simkin Forum is totally dedicated
to conspiracy, his thread has not provoked even one comment from other
posters on the UN-Educated Forum.

Apparently the CT's there have as little respect for Purvis's "keen
insights" as we do here.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're exactly right, YoHarvey.

And that's (mainly) because Purvis believes Oswald acted alone. Nobody
in the Simkin warehouse of kooks believes anything CLOSE to that
scenario. So it doesn't surprise me that nobody there jumps in to aid
Purvis. They simply don't care. They apparently don't even care enough
to toss in the occasional throwaway "Get lost, Purvis!" type of post.

Purvis has done this before, btw (i.e., he's copied posts from here
and stuck them on the Edu. Forum boards). This happened the last time
he got energetic, which was regarding the "Mannlicher-Carcano" topic,
with Purvis claiming that he's absolutely positive (beyond all doubt)
that there could be "up to 50" different MC rifles floating around
with the exact same serial number as Oswald's rifle ("C2766").

Of course, we've never, ever seen EVEN ONE such additional C2766
weapon come into the light of day...but Purvis KNOWS there are dozens
of them out there--somewhere--in some city--in some country.


YO HARVEY SAID:

Purvis's theory of JFK being hit twice in the head, despite NO evidence once
again shows us that after 45 years, it's the same old BS from the CT's.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If Purvis believed (as Cyril Wecht does) that JFK was hit in the head
by two bullets--one from the rear and one from the FRONT (and a good-
sized number of CTers do believe this)--then Purvis wouldn't be
alienating so many of his fellow kooks.

But Purvis, instead, believes in something that absolutely NOBODY who
has studied the assassination evidence believes -- he thinks that
Kennedy was hit in the head by TWO REAR HEAD SHOTS, both from Oswald's
rifle.

That is, indeed, a new one on me.

BTW, Purvis doesn't seem to care that there's an additional "timing"
type of problem with his crazy "2 Rear Head Shots" theory.....and
that's because he's got the first rear head shot coming from Oswald's
Carcano at Z313, with the second head shot from that same rifle
occurring at approx. Z353. That's a mere 40 frames apart, or 2.185
seconds.

Now, I don't deny that such a scenario is physically possible (given
the revised data brought forth by the HSCA in the '70s, which
indicates that LHO's rifle could be fired faster than the 2.3 seconds
between shots determined by the WC, with the HSCA saying that if the
iron sights were used, instead of the 4x scope, the time between shots
could be reduced to 1.66 seconds).

But you've got to wonder about the likelihood of Oswald being able to
get off two PERFECT head shots within 2.185 seconds of each other.

Plus, given the fact that Oswald effectively killed the President with
a bullet to his head at Z313....why would he even WANT to fire that
last shot (per Purvis' unique theory) at Z353 at all?

Couldn't Oswald tell that he'd hit JFK in the head 2.2 seconds earlier?
Why not use those precious seconds to start his escape from the
Floor Of Death....instead of trying to kill the President a SECOND time?

Of course, Purvis will disagree about all these points (naturally),
because he's got a unique theory to peddle. And NOTHING will stop him
from peddling it to as many people who will listen.

Not even the real evidence and real common sense will sway him. It's
always this way with kooks who put in a lot of time crafting a unique
theory all their own. Take the Internet kook named Walt Cakebread for
another prime example on these boards. Walt's put too many keystrokes
into his "JFK WAS HIT FROM THE FRONT AND THE CROFT PHOTO PROVES IT"
theory and his "BRENNAN DESCRIBED THE WEST-END WINDOW, NOT
THE EAST-END WINDOW" theory to stop peddling them now.

Nothing will ever make him believe the truth regarding Howard Brennan's
Warren Commission testimony, with that truth being, of course: Brennan
was only talking about the east-end window of the TSBD during his entire
WC session.

As YoHarvey is about to say (quoted below) -- "They never learn."


YO HARVEY SAID:

They never learn. Of course, that's what make them so entertaining.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Absolutely correct.

A day without kooks is...well...a day when Hell must have frozen over.

David Von Pein
December 31, 2008

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 409)

THOMAS H. PURVIS SAID:

People once knew for a "fact" that the earth was flat and that it was also the center of the universe.

Fortunately, those persons who are willing to accept new knowledge, left those behind who continued to repeat things as if fact, which could not be proven to be.

A factual analysis, based on all of the eyewitness testimonies as well as the physical evidence, certainly would seem to indicate that the shooter (who was most probably LHO, but can not be proven as absolute fact), shot three times.


DAVID R. VON PEIN SAID:

Mr. Purvis,

Do you believe the Single-Bullet Theory is true? (I forget whether you do or not.)

If you do believe it, you've got a big problem with respect to Governor Connally's testimony ("The first shot did not hit me").

And if you want to think that a fragment from one of your two head shots hit Connally (instead of CE399), then your problems are even bigger....because of the existence of a whole bullet called CE399 being found on Connally's stretcher at Parkland.

Notice, though, how a scenario which includes a "missed" shot from Oswald's gun fits in like a perfect-fitting glove when the totality of everything is assessed.

And such a "3 SHOTS, WITH 1 MISS" scenario not only fits perfectly with the medical evidence in the case, but it also fits beautifully with what we find on the Zapruder Film....and it fits perfectly with regards to the one and only whole bullet that is connected with this case (CE399)....and it fits perfectly with respect to John Connally's never-wavering testimony about how he heard the first shot, but was definitely not hit by it, then he was hit with Shot #2, and then he was covered with JFK's brains after Shot #3.

But Mr. Purvis has an even bigger problem than trying to shoehorn his crazy "2 Head Shots" theory into something called reality (and the true evidence in the case).....and that much-bigger problem is when it comes time to satisfactorily answering the following question (and it's a question that Purvis can never answer satisfactorily, because there IS no satisfactory or logical answer to it). That question is this one:

If Tom Purvis' scenario is correct, then WHY on this green Earth of ours would the autopsy doctors and the Warren Commission and (later) the House Select Committee have had ANY desire whatsoever to want to start covering up that true scenario?

In other words --- Why would the Government (et al) think it was important to have America believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK via a three-shot shooting scenario that included one MAKE-BELIEVE MISSED SHOT....vs. having America believe the REAL TRUTH (per Purvis), which still has Oswald doing the shooting all by himself, but with all three of his shots hitting somebody in the limousine?

Can't even Mr. Purvis see how totally idiotic it would have been for the U.S. Government (et al) to play such a silly game regarding the shooting of the President? Especially when EITHER option takes us right back to the very same bottom-line conclusion -- OSWALD DID IT ALL ALONE WITH THREE SHOTS FROM THE DEPOSITORY.

I'll repeat a comment I made earlier (I think it fits in here nicely too):

"There aren't two separate entry holes in the back of JFK's head, and even Purvis knows this. But he'll pretend he doesn't know it, because he wants to pull a Fuhrman and be "different", while at the same time remain an LNer.

People like Fuhrman and Purvis The Kook have me stumped -- i.e., they get to within shouting distance of accepting the obvious truth about the assassination, but they just can't quite cross that line in the sand marked "WC".

Instead, they'd rather "think outside the box" and start inventing theories that the hard evidence simply does not support and that nobody else on Earth believes (including the many, many people who were assigned the task of investigating the case for the WC and HSCA)." -- DVP; 12/29/08

David Von Pein
December 30, 2008

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 408)

THOMAS H. PURVIS SAID:

Mr. David Von Pein/aka David Von "Pinhead"...has just been awarded my "Bonehead of the Year" award.

As most here are no doubt aware, Mr. Von Pein/(Pinhead) loudly expouses [sic] the Warren Commission...as being the facts and truths in the assassination of JFK. That alone most certainly places one in the "Finals" for the Bonehead Award.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Like with all kooks who believe in stuff that never happened (and never could have possibly happened), it doesn't matter how many times a rational person responds to Tom Purvis' "2 Head Shots From Behind" idiocy, the kook will continue to believe what he wants to believe (as always).

Thomas H. Purvis thinks that Oswald was, indeed, the lone shooter...but, like Mark Fuhrman, he's put a nifty little twist on the evidence. Purvis thinks that there were TWO head shots, instead of just one.

And even though he believes Oswald WAS shooting with Rifle C2766, Purvis also is of the opinion that there could be "up to 50" Carcano rifles with that exact same serial number on them (even though not ONE other such rifle has surfaced in 45 years).

And Purvis' nonsense that he started yesterday [12/28/2008] on the Education Forum regarding the Secret Service film I posted at YouTube is a real howl, with Purvis actually thinking that the person in the film who is placing the "cones" (pylons) in the street to mark the locations where the SS thought the shots had occurred along Elm Street placed the "Shot #2" pylon/cone at a point which represents Z-Frame 313.

But as anyone who doesn't have a ridiculous theory to peddle can easily see, it's the "Shot #3" cone that is being placed very close to a "Z313" position in the street. Whereas the cone representing the second shot is placed much too far EAST along Elm St. to qualify as a "Z313" shot/cone. Skip to the 10:30 mark in this video:



Purvis, btw, thinks that there was a second "head shot" AFTER Z313. And he bases that idiotic theory on the testimony of Emmett Hudson and Jim Altgens, plus the Secret Service "plat maps", which Purvis loves to study in great detail.

Apparently the testimony of a couple of witnesses and the SS plat maps are supposed to suddenly make a SECOND entry hole appear in John Kennedy's head.

~shrug~

David Von Pein
December 29, 2008


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


MORE "DVP VS. PURVIS" FUN:


-- PART 1 --

-- PART 2 --

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

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 407)

WALTER CAKEBREAD SAID:

I'd wager the case [against Lee Oswald for shooting at General Edwin Walker] would have never got to court because there is no SUBSTANCE on which to prove INTENT.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, right. A rifle bullet goes whizzing past the head of a controversial political figure in Dallas (just barely missing Gen. Walker), and Walt thinks there was no "intent to kill" whatsoever on the part of the person who fired that rifle bullet into Walker's house.

LOL.

Ya gotta love these CT retards. Nobody's better at turning logic and Occam on their heads.

Also: I wonder why Oswald was sweaty and nervous when he arrived back home on 4/10/63? Per Walt The Kook, Oswald should have been FLAUNTING himself to the cops after shooting at Walker. Per Walt, Oswald WANTED to get caught for shooting at Walker.

So, what does Lee Oswald do after his "staged attempt" on Walker? He hides ("buries") the rifle, clams up about the incident (except to Marina), and does nothing at all to further along his plan to (per a kook named Walt) "gain access to Cuba as a fugitive seeking political assylum [sic] in Cuba", even though (per a kook named Walt) Oswald "kept that record so that after the staged attempt the police would find it and use it as proof that he had planned to kill General Walker".

Why didn't Oswald just confess, Walt?

How the hell are the police going to find the papers written by Oswald about the Walker shooting if Lee or Marina don't give them the papers? Did Lee think the cops were going to focus in on him via mental telepathy or something?

As can be seen, folks, Walt's just making up stories that make him happy.

It's also interesting to hear Walt call Oswald's "staged attempt" on General Walker "just a poorly planned publicity stunt". And yet it was so "poorly planned" that ONLY a kook named Walt has been able to figure out the truth about it.

Nobody else on this planet (that I know of) has ever thought of the Walker shooting as "just a poorly planned publicity stunt" -- until Walter Cakebread, Super Detective.

Ya gotta love kooks.

David Von Pein
December 27, 2008

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 406)

QUESTION:

What did Oswald bring to work in that package the morning of the fateful day, if not his rifle? If it was curtain rods, as he'd claimed, then how come no curtain rods were found at the site of the assassination?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Another related question to ask conspiracy theorists regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's "curtain rod" story is this (which is almost always overlooked by everyone):

If Lee Oswald, as Marina Oswald testified, was very anxious for Marina to move back in with him in Dallas (so anxious, in fact, that Marina testified that Lee, on 11/21/63, had offered to go look for an apartment in Dallas "tomorrow"), then why in the world would Lee have had any need or desire to install some new curtain rods in his tiny room on Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff?

In other words, since it's quite obvious that Lee Oswald was not planning on staying at the Beckley roominghouse for very much longer at all (we can be fairly confident of this fact, due to Lee telling Marina on 11/21/63 that he was willing to rent a different apartment "tomorrow"), why would he have wanted to supply his Beckley room with new curtain rods, when he probably had every intention of vacating that roominghouse as early as "tomorrow" (11/22/63)?

Food for "curtain rod" thought anyway. Isn't it?

[More "curtain rod" thoughts can be found HERE.]

David Von Pein
December 26, 2008

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 405)

DR. DAVID W. MANTIK SAID:

The final irony of this Discovery program ["JFK: Inside The Target Car"] is the reliance placed on eyewitnesses—there are just two, and it is, after all, 45 years later. Of course, the program had no choice: because the Secret Service bucket brigade had done its job so well at Parkland Hospital, the program could present no objective evidence of blood spatter from the actual crime scene. .... However, lone gunman theorists repeatedly remind us that eyewitnesses cannot be trusted and that their comments should simply be ignored. Now that the shoe has shifted, will anyone notice?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Totally untrue, of course.

Witnesses like Brennan, Markham, Davis, Davis, Scoggins, Benavides, and Callaway certainly haven't been "ignored" by lone-assassin believers.

And that's simply because those particular witnesses said something (such as IDing Lee Oswald with a gun in his hands) that is fully corroborated by OTHER STUFF (like ballistics evidence, fingerprints, and Oswald's own actions and lies). Ignoring those witnesses would be just plain silly.

Can anyone name one "conspiracy" type witness in Dealey Plaza or on 10th Street or at Parkland Hospital whose observations can be backed up with ballistics evidence (or any other hard, physical evidence of some kind)?

Alas, no such "conspiracy" witness exists, of course, because no shot was fired from the Grassy Knoll. Therefore, it's perfectly proper to dismiss such witnesses in favor of better evidence (such as the autopsy photos and X-rays, which prove ALL of the Parkland witnesses to be wrong, as amazing as that may sound).

Also....

Mantik's above comment -- "the final irony of this Discovery program is the reliance placed on eyewitnesses" -- is a rather weak argument when the "Inside The Target Car" documentary is weighed in full.

Dr. Mantik is referring to only two "blood spatter" witnesses in that above quote -- and, ironically, one of the two is motorcycle policeman Bobby Hargis, who is almost always used by the conspiracy theorists (not by LNers) when discussing the head "spray" and debris that struck Hargis after the fatal shot hit JFK in the head.

The only other witness referred to in the Mantik quote is a young man who happened to be in the Parkland parking lot and looked inside the bloody back seat of JFK's car before the crowd was shoved further back by police.

IMO, these two witnesses could have easily been cut out of the Discovery Channel program altogether, because they don't have much to offer anyway.

The "Target Car" program was mainly about re-creating the fatal head shot, and observing the differences in a surrogate head when that head is hit by a bullet being fired from both the rear and the front.

And that type of SCIENTIFIC reconstruction (and an evaluation of the holes in the mock heads after they've been struck with bullets from various locations) doesn't need any "witnesses" at all. The surrogate heads were simply shot from different locations, and the results were then filmed and examined. No Dallas witnesses required at all.

So when Mantik props up the Discovery Channel's "reliance" on those two completely unneeded eyewitnesses (who are peripheral, at best, to the program's main content), it sounds to me as if Dr. Mantik is digging deeper than usual for some "CT chaff". And that's probably because no conspiracy-favoring wheat was available for him to prop up in this instance.

David Von Pein
December 24, 2008

THE HISTORY OF THE SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM AT DEALEY PLAZA

"SUDDENLY" (1954 FRANK SINATRA FILM)

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


ALSO SEE:

JUDYTH VARY BAKER (PART 2)

Oswald-Not-Guilty.blogspot.com/IF THEY SAY LEE OSWALD KILLED KENNEDY--SHOW THEM THIS!

I just came across the above blog post from one of Judyth Baker's websites, in which Judyth attempts (once again) to exonerate her alleged "lover", Lee Harvey Oswald. And in that blog post from June 8, 2013, she tries to exonerate him by responding to things I have written about Lee Oswald's guilt in my blog (linked below).





Naturally, in my opinion, Baker fails miserably in her attempts to debunk anything I wrote concerning Oswald's guilt. And she just ignores or bypasses most of the points that I made on my blog, and the items she did address in her own blog post amount to pretty much the same old worn-out tripe that we've seen time and again from desperate conspiracy theorists, as Judyth turns a blind eye to the huge stack of evidence that proves her so-called "lover" was a double-murderer. Baker even tries to deny that Lee ever owned a rifle in 1963:


"I KNEW LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND HIS TASTE IN GUNS. .... I NEVER SAW A RIFLE BELONGING TO LEE OSWALD. .... LEE OSWALD WOULD NEVER HAVE PURCHASED A TRACEABLE, CLUMSY, INFERIOR RIFLE BY MONEY ORDER." -- Judyth Vary Baker; 6/8/2013


Naturally, then, Judyth has no choice but to believe that all of the paperwork associated with Lee's 1963 Carcano rifle purchase has been faked or forged or falsely manufactured in some manner, including this internal piece of paperwork generated by Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago (Waldman Exhibit No. 7):





JUDYTH BAKER SAID:

Calling faked information 'evidence' does not make it so. When one piece of faked evidence is piled atop another, and another, and another... we must question the veracity and honesty of the person who dares pretend such evidence is solid, real and irrefutable.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Earth to Judyth!! --- Claiming that every last scrap of evidence relating to the assassination of President Kennedy is "faked evidence" does not make it so. In fact, such an all-inclusive blanket claim is a fool's belief and just makes the person claiming it look downright silly. Yes, Judy, you look very silly when you say "...when one piece of faked evidence is piled atop another, and another, and another...".


JUDYTH BAKER SAID:

THE POST OFFICE HAD NO RECORD OF ITS DELIVERY, OR OF THE HANDGUN THAT SUPPOSEDLY CAME THE SAME DAY (CAN'T HAVE TWO ''LOST' RECEIPTS, CAN WE? SO THEY WERE ANNOUNCED TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED ON THE SAME DAY -- EVEN THOUGH THE TWO ITEMS WERE ORDERED WEEKS APART FROM EACH OTHER.).


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Judyth is expecting way too much in the record-keeping department from the United States Post Office. There was no particular reason for the post office in Dallas to have a "record" of every single item or package ever delivered to a P.O. Box, and that includes the rifle package that Klein's Sporting Goods shipped to Lee Oswald (aka: "A. Hidell") in late March of 1963.

But on the SHIPPER'S end (Klein's in Chicago and Seaport Traders in L.A.), we have plenty of paperwork to prove that Oswald (Hidell) ordered, paid for, and was shipped an Italian rifle by Klein's and a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver by Seaport Traders in March of '63. The Klein's and Seaport paperwork is several layers deep--and with Oswald's own writing on most of it! All of that was faked, Judyth? Think again.







And as for Oswald's rifle and revolver being "ordered weeks apart from each other", there is no proof that Oswald actually mailed the coupon for the handgun on January 27th (even though Oswald did write that date on the mail-order coupon for the Smith & Wesson revolver he ended up receiving in late March).

Given the internal paperwork generated by both Klein's in Chicago (for the rifle) and Seaport Traders in Los Angeles (for the revolver), it's my belief that it's very likely that Lee Oswald put BOTH of those mail-order coupons in the mailbox on the same day -- March 12th, 1963 (the same day we know he purchased and mailed a money order for $21.45 to pay for the rifle he ordered from Klein's).





JUDYTH BAKER SAID:

MIRACULOUSLY, THE RIFLE ORDER REACHED CHICAGO, AND THE MONEY ORDER WITH IT WAS PROCESSED--AND RIFLE PACKED--ONE DAY LATER, THOUGH THE MAIL ORDER WAS SUPPOSEDLY SENT ALL THE WAY FROM DALLAS TO CHICAGO BY REGULAR MAIL, USING A POSTBOX DROP MILES FROM WHERE OSWALD, WHO HAD NO CAR, WORKED AT THE TIME.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The above paragraph authored by Ms. Baker is filled with errors and conspiracy-tinged myths.

1.) The rifle was very likely not "packed" for delivery on the same day that Klein's received Oswald's mail-order coupon for the weapon (March 13, 1963). That was the date that Klein's generated their internal order form, yes. But the rifle was not shipped for another seven days--on March 20th. And both of those dates can be confirmed by looking at one of my favorite documents associated with the JFK murder investigation -- William Waldman Exhibit Number Seven.

Waldman No. 7 is one of my favorite documents because it's an item that proves--for all time--that Lee Harvey Oswald (aka Mr. Hidell) positively ordered a rifle from the Chicago, Illinois, mail-order company known as Klein's Sporting Goods.

That one document--all by itself and with nothing else needed--proves that the conspiracy theorists like Judyth Vary Baker who think that Lee Harvey Oswald never ordered a gun at all in 1963 are complete idiots when it comes to the topic of Oswald and his rifle purchase. And it's always comforting to know that just a single document (like Waldman #7) can perform that satisfying chore so easily and irrevocably.


2.) Oswald's order form for the rifle was not sent via "regular mail". Oswald mailed it "Air Mail", and the envelope which is part of the evidence in this case (Commission Exhibit No. 773) proves it:





And if Judyth doesn't think a letter sent by Air Mail can travel from Dallas to Chicago in just a single day (or even less), she'd better think again. And she should probably listen to this interesting audio clip too (which comes from an unlikely source when it comes to "JFK research", but it's valid nonetheless).


3.) Judyth implied above that Oswald mailed his order form and money order for the rifle at a mailbox that was "miles from where Oswald worked at the time".
In 2012, I came across some intriguing information that very likely destroys the theory that Oswald walked "miles" out of his way to mail his letter to Klein's on March 12, 1963 (which, in actuality, is a really silly theory to begin with--even without this new information that is contained in the lengthy blog post linked below).


The Postmark On Commission Exhibit 773


In summary....

Judyth Vary Baker and Alek James Hidell have a lot in common. They're both phonies.

David Von Pein
July 15, 2013


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


JUDYTH VARY BAKER
(PART 1)

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


EXCERPTS FROM VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S
BOOK "RECLAIMING HISTORY"
(click to enlarge):




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

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 404)

Upon re-reading a portion of Part 4 of James DiEugenio's "Reclaiming History" book review, I found one more thing that Jim gets totally wrong. Jim D. says this in his book review:

"In describing the images on the Zapruder film, he ["Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi] focuses on two crucial pieces of evidence. First, in referring to the stunning backward movement of Kennedy's body that bounces him off the back seat, he writes, "the APPARENT backward snap of the president's head at the moment of the head shot" (Bugliosi, p. 451, [emphasis] in original).

Second, in referring to the time lag between a) Kennedy's reaction to a projectile and b) Connally's discernible later reaction, he writes, "the ALLEGED delayed reaction between Kennedy and Connally around the time the Warren Commission claimed they were hit by a single bullet" (Ibid, [emphasis] in original).

He then concludes that neither of these "allegations" -- the rapid rearward movement of Kennedy and the "delayed reaction" -- is actually true. (p. 452)." -- JAMES DiEUGENIO

[End DiEugenio quote.]

Regarding JFK's head snap to the rear, DiEugenio above tries to imply that Vincent Bugliosi is telling the readers of "Reclaiming History" that the rear head snap never occurred at all.

But that is not what Bugliosi is saying at all. Not even close! Because the key words in the VB quote on page 451 that DiEugenio cites above are: "at the moment of the head shot."

DiEugenio evidently missed the significance of those important words, "at the moment of the head shot".

For emphasis, Bugliosi put the word "apparent" in italics on page 451 of his book. And the reason for emphasizing that word in that particular sentence is because of the continued misconception that people still have to this very day about the movements of JFK's head as seen in the Zapruder Film (at frames 312 and 313).

I.E., most people still think that the ONLY discernible movement of President Kennedy's head is a BACK AND TO THE LEFT movement right after the bullet strikes him. But, of course, this is not true, as this super-slow-motion clip shows:



As can easily be seen in the above clip (and as was confirmed on CBS-TV via the tests done by the Itek Corporation in 1975 and 1976), JFK's head moves a few inches FORWARD at the critical moment-of-impact frame--Z313.

Therefore, when Bugliosi says "the APPARENT backward snap of the president's head at the moment of the head shot", he isn't DENYING the existence of the head snap to the rear (quite obviously, since Vince talks about that rear head movement openly and honestly in various other parts of his book, and Vince talked about the rear head snap a lot in many of his radio interviews in 2007).

Vince is merely saying that "AT THE MOMENT OF THE HEAD SHOT" (i.e., AT Z-FRAME 313), any perceived "backward snap" of Kennedy's head is a false perception on the part of casual viewers of the film. Because JFK's head FIRST moves forward after the bullet strikes him....and only after the discernible forward movement does his head begin to move toward the rear.

As for Mr. Bugliosi's use of the words "ALLEGED delayed reaction" when referring to the reactions seen by John Connally in the Zapruder Film---

Bugliosi uses the word "alleged" there for a pretty good reason, in my opinion -- and that's because it's the proper word to use when talking about any POSSIBLE (but not PROVEN) so-called "delayed reaction" on the part of Governor Connally.

And since Mr. Bugliosi is of the opinion (which I disagree with) that Connally was almost certainly hit by the "SBT" bullet (CE399) while Connally was behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, then we cannot possibly know FOR SURE if Governor Connally was "reacting" to the bullet hitting him during those Z-Film frames when JBC was hidden from Zapruder's view.

Therefore, Bugliosi recognizes the possibility that Connally could have been "reacting" in some way prior to Z222. But we can never know this for certain, because of that damn sign being in the way.

Here's a passage from an endnote in Bugliosi's book that touches on this very subject:

"The HSCA’s final report noted that the governor [John Connally] was completely hidden from view by the Stemmons Freeway sign for a 0.82-second interval from frame “207 to frame 221,” and therefore it could not be determined if Connally’s reaction began before he reemerged from behind the sign. The committee added that “Connally could conceivably have started his reaction at frames 200–206 (just before he disappears behind the Stemmons sign), but too little of his body is visible during these frames to permit such a finding” (HSCA Report, p.82 footnote 18), the inference being, of course, that Connally might not have experienced a delayed reaction at all." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGES 322-323 OF ENDNOTES IN "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)


David Von Pein
December 21, 2008

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 403)

TIM BRENNAN SAID:

It is amazing to hear [James] DiEugenio blathering on about the rifle being found being a Mauser, when a film cameraman was there, filming it when it was found and the photos of Carl Day carrying it out of the TSBD show it to be a Carcano. LOL, seems there is no end to the drivel coming from dear old Jim, a true Garrisonite.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep. It's the thing conspiracy-loving kooks do the best. They keep resurrecting already trashed theories, and then they apparently hope that nobody remembers that each of these stupid theories has already been thoroughly explained in non-conspiratorial ways.

As many CTers try to do, Jim DiEugenio also tries to maneuver and rework the Z-Film's head-shot sequence into a "CT Only" type of framework.

But what DiEugenio, specifically, does in his anti-Bugliosi review (and during his frequent appearances on "Black Op Radio") is pathetic and reprehensible, IMO.

It's actually kind of a triple-bill of absurdity and distortion on Jim's part, too. Here's the "triple-bill" I'm referring to:

1.) DiEugenio has the gall to imply that JFK's head is in the "exact position" in Z-Frame 313 as it was 1/18th of a second earlier in Z312....which is total rubbish, of course. And DiEugenio has got to know it's rubbish too, because we know he's seen the Z-Film IN MOTION many, many times in his life.

Therefore, since we know Jim's seen the film many times (and undoubtedly has viewed frames 312 and 313 in super slow-motion, like all of us have done many, many times) -- then we know that Jim doesn't have a leg to stand on when he said to the sparse "Black Op Radio" audience that JFK's head is in the "exact position" in Z313 as it was in Z312.*

* NOTE: When he said those words on BlackOp last month, he prefaced the remark by misrepresenting Vince Bugliosi's REASON for putting a picture in his book of the "high contrast" picture of Z313....with Jim, for some stupid reason, saying that Vince uses that high-contrast version of Z313 to show that the President's head is "leaning forward" at the moment of the head shot.

Of course, as anyone can easily see by reading page 486 of VB's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History" (which is, indeed, the exact page number cited by DiEugenio when Jim discusses this topic in Part 4 of his "RH" review on Jim's website), Bugliosi is certainly NOT talking about the "forward lean" or "tilt" of Kennedy's head when VB refers to the high-contrast photo of Z313.

Vince, instead, utilizes the high-contrast picture to emphasize the fact that all of the blood and brain tissue is seen to the FRONT of JFK's head, indicating (of course) the likelihood that the bullet that just caused that terrible spray of bodily fluid came from BEHIND the President.

For DiEugenio to totally misrepresent Mr. Bugliosi with regard to this important matter is, IMO, just about as disingenuous (and sneaky) as you can get.

And Jim's "exact position" remark is just flat-out dead wrong too, as we all know. And even if Jim wanted to come back with the argument that he was ONLY talking about the degree of "lean" or "tilt" of JFK's head in both Z312 and Z313, his argument wouldn't go very far either.

Because even THAT argument would be invalid, because when JFK's head moves forward between 312 and 313, the "forward lean" of his head DOES CHANGE SLIGHTLY (i.e., in Z313, Kennedy's head can certainly not be said to be in the "exact position" it was in in Z312...even from JUST a "leaning forward" standpoint).

But it was obvious to me that DiEugenio's distortions (and his misrepresentations of what Bugliosi meant by certain things relating to Z-frames 312 and 313) are part of a concerted effort on his part to try and REMOVE (or just DENY) as much of the verified Zapruder Film evidence that exists that tells a reasonable person that JFK was shot FROM BEHIND at the important moment when the bullet struck him at Z313. And numbers 2 and 3 below go toward meeting that desired goal of Jim's as well.

2.) DiEugenio's comment about how it looks like only "the front" part of JFK's head is "being impacted" at Z313 is a real "WTF?" moment.

Jim must think that an ENTRY hole for a bullet is the HUGE hole, vs. EXIT holes being the large and irregular-shaped ones.

Unbelievable.

And, again, as with Jim's distortions in #1, this #2 item is designed to rewrite the history of this murder, as James tries to impress upon people something that is just plain dumb -- i.e., that the great big hole at the right-front of JFK's head was the "impact" point for an incoming bullet fired from the front.

How stupid does Jim think his listeners are? Granted, a lot of conspiracy kooks are mighty stupid....but geez.

3.) With BlackOp host Len Osanic's help (it was Osanic who first mentioned this #3 item, with DiEugenio, right on cue it would seem, jumping in with both feet firmly in his mouth to completely agree with the incredibly wrong thing that Len just uttered), DiEugenio actually had the additional audacity to suggest that both of the Connallys (John & Nellie) WEREN'T splattered with debris from the fatal shot that struck JFK in the head.

Talk about misleading people. This one is a beaut in that regard.

Of course, as virtually all JFK researchers know (without even having to think about it and without even needing to look up any of Nellie's or JBC's testimony), both John and Nellie Connally were definitely "covered" with debris from the fatal gunshot that hit JFK's head. To quote John Connally himself:

"I could see blood and brain tissue all over the interior of the car and all over our clothes. We were both covered with brain tissue." -- JOHN B. CONNALLY; 1978 HSCA TESTIMONY

So, we can see from the above three points that James DiEugenio (like many other CTers) is practically DESPERATE to rewrite the history of this assassination.

And while he's attempting to rewrite history, Jim is obviously willing to just toss the testimony of both John Connally and Nellie Connally out the nearest window (and I don't believe for one second that DiEugenio could have possibly gone this long without hearing at least ONE of the many, many interviews [or WC/HSCA sessions] with the Connallys, where they each have stated many times that they were splattered and "covered" with JFK's brains and blood).

When I hear a CTer like Jim DiEugenio make blatantly incorrect remarks like he has done on multiple recent Black Op Radio shows, I have to ask the following question:

Since Jim is perfectly willing to totally misrepresent and mangle certain KNOWN FACTS regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, then why in the world would anyone take seriously anything else he might say about a "conspiracy" in the JFK case?

David Von Pein
December 21, 2008
February 16, 2009

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 402)

A "MR. SNOW" SAID:

The note he [Lee Harvey Oswald] left for Marina that morning [11/22/63], implying he was going to attempt a dangerous and momentous act.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just for the record, Mr. Snow, the above comment about the note is not correct. Oswald left no note on November 22, 1963.

You're probably thinking about LHO's detailed note of instructions for Marina after he went to shoot Walker in April '63.


MR. SNOW SAID:

Thanks for the correction, DVP--quite right. I still think the note he left is interesting in what it says about Oswald's general state of mind around this time... And the fact that he tried to assassinate Walker shows that he wasn't at all squeamish about trying to take someone's life.


"ROARK" SAID:

Didn't Oswald leave a note with the money saying "Buy some shoes for June"? A minor point, if a point at all. If DVP doesn't know, no one does!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't believe so, roark.

But I do think there's always been a little bit of confusion and ambiguity with respect to the conversation between Marina and Lee after he awoke on the morning of Friday, November 22nd.

I've heard and read different accounts of the conversation that supposedly occurred between the Oswalds early that morning, and some sources have Lee and Marina not talking to each other at all during the early morning hours of 11/22 before LHO left for work, with Marina apparently remaining asleep during this entire time.

One such source is the 1964 David Wolper movie "Four Days In November", which is the best film ever made about the JFK assassination, IMO, and includes very few errors of fact (at least I have spotted very few factual errors in that 2-hour documentary film; one of the few mistakes is when narrator Richard Basehart says that Lee Oswald was wearing a jacket when he entered his roominghouse at about 1:00 PM on Nov. 22; but the record is pretty clear that he left his blue jacket at the TSBD, and was not wearing any jacket when he was seen by housekeeper Earlene Roberts that day).

But with respect to what occurred just after LHO woke up on the 22nd, narrator Basehart specifically tells the movie audience that Lee left for work "without awakening anyone" (after Lee fixed himself his usual cup of instant coffee).

This leads us to think, via the movie's narration, that Lee never said a word to Marina that morning (at least it always leaves me with that impression whenever I watch the film, which is quite often). Basehart doesn't mention Lee's leaving behind the $170 or his wedding ring either.

But back to the specific "Did Lee Leave Behind A Note On Nov. 22?" topic.....

There's the following Warren Commission testimony from Marina Oswald herself:


MARINA OSWALD -- "One detail that I remember was that he had asked me whether I had bought some shoes for myself, and I said no, that I hadn't had any time. He asked me whether June needed anything and told me to buy everything that I needed for myself and for June and for the children. This was rather unusual for him, that he would mention that first."

[Then, a little later in Marina's testimony, there is this exchange:]

J. LEE RANKIN -- "Then did he [LHO] say anything to you that morning at all, or did he get up and go without speaking to you?"

MARINA OSWALD -- "He told me to take as much money as I needed and to buy everything, and said goodbye, and that is all."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm


So, per Marina's testimony above, it would appear as if Lee told Marina to do certain things via spoken words, vs. writing them out in written (note) form.

Vincent Bugliosi, in his book "Reclaiming History", also has the above conversation taking place on the morning of 11/22 (with no mention of Lee leaving behind any note at all).

David Von Pein
December 18, 2008





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


A PHOTO FROM
THE KENNEDY GALLERY: