Part 1382 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of November 1—30, 2024. To read the entire forum discussion from which my own comments have been extracted, click on the "Full Discussion" logo at the bottom of each individual segment.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Linked below is a "Mini-Marathon" video I recently put together, which includes interviews with more than 20 people who were associated in some way with the events surrounding President Kennedy's assassination.
Witnesses included in the video:
Bill Newman, Gayle Newman, Abraham Zapruder, Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, Earlene Roberts, Jean Hill, Mary Moorman, Aubrey Rike, Dennis McGuire, Helen Markham, Ted Callaway, Pierce Allman, Paul Bentley, M.N. McDonald, Mal Couch, David Johnston, H. Louis Nichols, Gladys Johnson, Henry Wade, James Leavelle, and Ruth Paine.
(Thumbnail).jpg)
David Von Pein
November 1, 2024
================================
FRED LITWIN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Here are three excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History"....
Topic --- Clay Shaw and the CIA:
Topic --- Sylvia Odio:
Topic --- Richard Case Nagell:
David Von Pein
November 9-11, 2024
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I just added this collection of more than 30 Fort Worth Star-Telegram pages to my newspaper archive:
On November 13, 2024, I came across this 11/29/63 Fort Worth front page. Until then, I hadn't realized that frames from the Zapruder Film had been published in U.S. newspapers as early as November 29th. Click to enlarge:
%20(Frames%20From%20Zapruder%20Film%20Show%20Assassination%20Of%20JFK).jpg)
Here are the same six Zapruder Film frames as they appeared in my hometown newspaper the following day (November 30, 1963). This page also includes an interesting "Deployment Of U.S. Troops" chart in the upper-right corner. Click for a bigger view:
And, for good measure, here's one more 11/30/63 paper—the Chicago Tribune—which published five of the Zapruder frames:
David Von Pein
November 13-14, 2024
================================
SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS AND THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Definitive evidence that a conspiracy existed on November 22, 1963, only exists in the minds of conspiracy theorists who seem to think that "LNers have been proven wrong" (to use Sandy Larsen's own words), even though no CTer has come close to "proving" any such thing.
An important very basic (but true) fact that most conspiracy believers wish to ignore or sidestep is this one....
The evidence that exists in the JFK assassination (including the evidence connected with the murders of J.D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald) can very easily exist (and does exist, in my opinion) without any kind of "conspiracy" entering into the picture at any point when evaluating all three of those crimes.
In other words, no conspiracy whatsoever is required in order to reasonably explain the evidence that's on the table in the John Kennedy murder case. (And I'm including Lee Oswald's very important guilty-like actions and movements on both November 21st and 22nd when referring to "the evidence" in the Kennedy and Tippit murders.)
Also....
Sandy,
Let's say you believe very strongly in the existence of God, and you decide to start up your own forum promoting that belief. Would you feel compelled to prohibit all atheists from joining your forum?
SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Thanks, Sandy, for confirming what I thought would be your heavy-handed answer.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh please, Pat. The exact opposite is true (of course). Via the technological advances that have been made, the case for Oswald's lone guilt has grown stronger and stronger since 1963-1964.
W. NIEDERHUT SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In reality, of course, the Lone Assassin scenario has not been "debunked" by anyone. Not even close. Many conspiracy theorists just want to BELIEVE it's been debunked.
And those CTers want to also believe that the things they like to call Lone Nut-debunking "facts" are truly "facts". But there are millions of people who would disagree with those so-called "facts". (For example: Mr. Niederhut's continued assertion that JFK had a "blow-out occipital skull exit wound", which has been proven to be 100% wrong via a variety of means.)
But W. Niederhut seems to have no interest in "reality". We therefore must tolerate his inaccurate ramblings. Just as he must tolerate the things posted by the "WCR/Lone Nut" members of The Education Forum. (Unless he chooses the most obvious recourse that's available to him---that handy "Ignore" button. But since he's a Moderator at that forum, I suppose "ignoring" members of any stripe would not be an option he could properly choose.)
David Von Pein
November 15, 2024
================================
CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Cliff Varnell, for some crazy reason, likes to think he has actually proven that "the bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to associate with his throat wound".
But all reasonable and sensible people know, of course, that he hasn't come close to "proving" any such thing regarding the holes in John Kennedy's clothes.
And, for some additional crazy reason all his own, Cliff seems to think he actually has enough information from the Dealey Plaza photos to declare that the Single-Bullet Theory is wrong.
As I said ..... crazy.
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID THIS.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The SBT merely requires that JFK's shirt and jacket be "bunched up" to the same degree and to the same location which lines up with where the one and only bullet hole in the skin of his upper back was located (which is 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process).
For some reason, many CTers think that it would have been totally impossible for JFK's shirt and suit jacket to have been bunched-up to the same degree (i.e., in unison and in tandem with one another). But that is obviously what MUST have occurred. Otherwise we wouldn't have exactly THREE bullet holes in THREE different things on the back side of John K. Kennedy:
1. ONE bullet hole in the back of the shirt.
2. ONE bullet hole in the back of the jacket.
3. ONE bullet hole in the upper back of JFK's body.
I'm still wondering, after all these years, why more conspiracy theorists can't seem to figure out that the SBT is really the ONLY possible (logical) way that the double-man wounding of JFK and Governor Connally could have occurred (based on the sum total of all the evidence in the case---including the fact that NO BULLETS at all were found in JFK's upper back or neck at his autopsy).
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Correct. I am strongly disagreeing with the HSCA on this wound location topic. Which I've admitted in the past too. But what else can I do when confronted with such an obviously incorrect conclusion as was reached by the HSCA in 1978?
And I rely (at least a little) on the Clark Panel's conclusion too, right?
So it's a simple case of: Somebody's right and somebody else definitely has it wrong.
And since I have the ability to place the autopsy pictures side-by-side and compare the wound levels myself, why on Earth would I support the HSCA in this matter when I can certainly see for myself they were incorrect on this "higher/lower" topic?
----------------------
"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat appears in one of [the autopsy] photos taken of the left side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a metal headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that the wound to the back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 424 of "Reclaiming History" *
----------------------
* Yes, I know that Bugliosi was all over the map regarding this higher/lower thing (as I discuss HERE), but the above observation by Vince is still in his book, and it seems to be his final word on the subject.
CORY SANTOS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I think the key is comparing the NECK CRIMPS. Even with JFK's head tilted back some in the right-hand photo, the creases in the neck aren't going to suddenly change (in a "north/south" direction). The crimps are fixed at the base of his neck.
So, do you think the wound in the back could possibly be located near the BOTTOM of the pic on the left, which is where it needs to be (or close to it) in order for the wound to be LOWER than the throat wound? No way (IMO), even when accounting for some photo distortion or angle discrepancy that might enter into the equation. There can't possibly be that much distortion.
BTW / FYI / FWIW -- I am not the one who drew in the angled line in the photo on the left. Somebody else did that. I merely downloaded the picture years ago in order to create the montage seen above. The angle of that line does seem about right for the SBT shot, however.
KEVEN HOFELING SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The exact opposite, of course, is true. The Single-Bullet Conclusion is easily supported by way of properly evaluating what we're seeing in Mr. Zapruder's film. The anti-SBT CTers just refuse to believe their own eyes....as vividly demonstrated HERE.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
What kind of weapon was being used by the (presumably) professional assassins that caused such a virtually non-existent wound in JFK's upper back? A slingshot perhaps? Or was the assassin merely blowing the bullet through a plastic drinking straw?
KEVEN HOFELING SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Which must mean that you actually think Governor Connally wasn't struck by a bullet until after the head shot to JFK (or thereabouts), because after turning to stare at the President, Connally hasn't turned back around to his left to face forward again until well after Z300 or so.
Not even John Connally thought he was shot that late. After viewing the Zapruder film for himself, Connally thought he was hit between frames 231 and 234, which was well before he ever even started his sharp right turn to look into the back seat.
So Mr. Connally obviously was of the opinion that he did, indeed, turn around in his seat after he was struck by a rifle bullet.
In short, Keven Hofeling's timeline for when Connally was hit is preposterous.
David Von Pein
November 17-20, 2024
================================
W. NIEDERHUT SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I think Mr. Niederhut has been watching too many Western movies on TV. He actually doesn't know that it's been proven that the force of a bullet (by itself) will NOT cause a human being to be thrown around in any direction. That's a myth created by Hollywood filmmakers and television producers.
But most conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy a good myth (as illustrated at the links below):
The "5.6 Seconds" Myth
The "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle" Myth
The Conspiracy Myths Continue
David Von Pein
November 19, 2024
================================
W. NIEDERHUT SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The truth is (of course) that neither of those things exists at all.
There was certainly NOT any entry wound in President Kennedy's "forehead". And there was certainly NOT any kind of an exit wound located anywhere in the "occipital" portions of JFK's cranium.
What I just said is proven via the authenticated autopsy X-rays and photos, plus the autopsy report itself, plus the testimony and statements made since 1963 by the three Bethesda autopsy doctors.
In short, W. Niederhut doesn't know what he's talking about.
BENJAMIN COLE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It surely doesn't surprise you that pieces of JFK's skull were missing on the X-rays, does it Ben?
The key is where on the head were they missing? And the X-ray which can be seen above (and also here) provides the vivid answer. The pieces that were "missing" didn't come from anywhere on the BACK of JFK's head. They came from the RIGHT-FRONT-TOP part of the head (mostly the right-frontal parietal region).
The number of people who have decided to just ignore the X-rays and the photos is staggering. (Or those people have decided, without having a bit of proof, that all of the autopsy pictures and X-rays are fake.)
BENJAMIN COLE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It doesn't surprise me at all that some of JFK's blown-out skull was never recovered. Just as it's not really surprising that more than 50% of the Carcano bullet that caused the head wound was never recovered either.
I would think such unrecovered evidence in a case like this would be quite normal.
David Von Pein
November 21, 2024
================================
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Pat Speer says that people have "forgotten the weakness of the basic case". I would counter that claim by suggesting that people have forgotten (or just simply ignored or misrepresented) the out-of-the-ordinary and highly incriminating things that Lee Harvey Oswald did on both November 21st and 22nd, 1963. Things such as:
1. Going out to Irving on Thursday night (instead of his usual Friday).
2. Telling what amounted to a provable lie to Buell Frazier about the contents of the package he (Oswald) took into the Book Depository on the morning of the assassination.*
* And we can be reasonably certain that Oswald's "curtain rods" story that he told Frazier was, indeed, a lie, because if Oswald really did take curtain rods to work in his package on 11/22/63, he most certainly would have been eager and anxious to admit that fact when he was specifically asked about the "curtain rods" by Captain Will Fritz of the Dallas Police after his arrest. Instead, Lee denied saying anything at all about curtain rods to Frazier.
This false "curtain rod" tale, therefore, would become a huge part of any prosecutor's case against Lee Oswald at his trial (had there been one), with the prosecuting attorney forcefully emphasizing the following very incriminating point to the jury (which is something that Oswald's defense team would not have been able to overcome, in my opinion):
If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't carry his own rifle to work with him on 11/22/63, and if that package he had in his possession that morning had really contained nothing more than an innocuous item like curtain rods, then what possible reason could Oswald have had for denying the existence of any such curtain rods when he was specifically asked about them by the Dallas Police? And why were no curtain rods found inside the Depository after the assassination? It's quite obvious, therefore, that Oswald simply invented his "curtain rods" tale so that he wouldn't have to tell Buell Wesley Frazier what really occupied space in that brown paper bag he took to work on Nov. 22.
3. Shortly before noon on 11/22, Oswald asks a fellow worker to send an elevator back up to him on the sixth floor of the Depository. (This request by LHO can certainly be considered odd and incriminating, in light of the fact that Oswald's own rifle, plus bullet shells from Oswald's own rifle, plus a brown paper bag with Oswald's own prints on it were found after the shooting on the sixth floor of the building.)
4. Oswald leaves the TSBD within about three minutes of the assassination of JFK.
5. LHO takes a bus and then a cab to the area of his roominghouse in Oak Cliff, telling the cab driver to drop him off three blocks past his roominghouse on Beckley. And why in the world would he want to do such a strange thing, do you think?
6. Lee then rushes into his room and grabs his Smith & Wesson revolver and many extra bullets. If he's innocent of the crime that had just occurred in Dealey Plaza, why does he feel the need to arm himself with a gun right after the President had been shot?
7. A few minutes after Lee Harvey Oswald leaves his roominghouse, Police Officer J.D. Tippit is murdered with Lee Harvey Oswald's very own revolver.
8. A short time after Tippit is killed, Oswald is seen lurking near the front entrance of Johnny Brewer's shoe store on Jefferson Boulevard. Brewer noticed Oswald standing with his back to the street as police cars, with sirens blaring, drove down Jefferson. Brewer thought Oswald was acting "funny" and "scared".
9. Oswald then enters the Texas Theater without paying for the cheap ticket. (A darkened theater would be a good place for somebody to hide from the police for a little while, wouldn't it? I certainly think so.)
10. Lee is then apprehended by the police inside the theater. According to the arresting officers, Oswald said "This is it" and/or "It's all over now" at the time of his arrest, which (IMO) are things that most certainly would not have been uttered by an innocent person who had not just recently committed some kind of a criminal act. In other words, "This is it" and "It's all over now" reek of a guilty state of mind.
In short, Lee Harvey Oswald's very own actions on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 are telling the whole world who murdered President John F. Kennedy.
Plus, let's not forget that there's not a single person on this Earth who has ever proven that any of the evidence connected to the JFK and Tippit murders has been faked or forged or manufactured in order to frame Lee Oswald.
So, with the above facts in mind, I would argue that the "basic case" doesn't really show very much "weakness" at all. To the contrary, I think the "basic case" still displays, to this very day, a tremendous amount of strength and durability.
Conspiracy theorists will vehemently disagree with me (of course). And so, the debate continues....and no doubt always shall.
GIL JESUS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh for Pete sake! You can't be serious, Gil!
The people who were warning JFK not to visit Dallas had no advanced knowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald (specifically) was going to shoot at Kennedy. Those people were merely concerned due to the angry political climate that seemed to exist among many people in Dallas at the time when the President was scheduled to make his trip to Texas, which was just a few weeks after the Adlai Stevenson incident on October 24.
You, Gil, have added an extra layer of assumed knowledge about "Oswald" that, of course, doesn't exist and never did.
CORY SANTOS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes. That's correct. Oswald did leave his wedding ring behind at Ruth Paine's house when he left for work on November 22nd. That's a good additional point that could be added to my previous "out of the ordinary" list.
And here's another one for that list:
LHO didn't take any lunch with him to work on Nov. 22. And, according to Buell Wesley Frazier's Warren Commission testimony (below), 11/22/63 was the one and only time that Oswald didn't bring his lunch with him during the five-week period when Oswald rode with Frazier from Irving to the Depository:
-----------------------
JOSEPH BALL -- "Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend, did he pack his lunch?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; he did."
MR. BALL -- "He did?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22; he didn't bring his lunch that day."
MR. BALL -- "But every other day he brought a lunch?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Right, when he rode with me."
[2 H 220]
-----------------------
In his more recent interviews, however, Buell Frazier seems to have completely forgotten about his 1964 testimony in which he said that Oswald "always brought lunch". Buell's memory concerning that subject (along with some other topics as well) now seems to be quite different than it was back in '64.
CLICK HERE for a cued-up 2002 audio clip with Frazier talking about Oswald's Depository lunch habits.
David Von Pein
November 23-25, 2024
================================
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Of course Bill Brown was the winner of his debate regarding the Tippit murder. And definitively so, based on the overwhelming evidence that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Officer J.D. Tippit.
Anyone who argues otherwise is either merely ignoring all the evidence that indicates Oswald's guilt in the Tippit slaying....or they want to pretend that the evidence in the Tippit case was tainted/planted and that all of the various witnesses who identified LHO at or near the murder scene were either mistaken or were liars. And those are most certainly not reasonable (or sensible) positions to take.
David Von Pein
November 29, 2024
