David Von Pein

Members
  • Content count

    4,248
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About David Von Pein

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday 12/27/1961

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Indiana, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

19,467 profile views
  1. I wasn't the one who first brought up the topic of "JFK's NECKTIE". Sandy Larsen did -- in this post. I merely responded to Sandy's post. But I do apologize for playing a part in taking a thread "off topic" (again). It seems almost inevitable that JFK Forum threads will go off topic at some time or another. It always seems to happen. Sorry. (Should I commit hari-kari now?)
  2. That's not correct, James. It's very clear from the testimony and statements made by Dr. Finck and Robert Frazier (the ones I previously posted) that the "nick" in the tie was positively on the LEFT SIDE of the knot in the tie, from the perspective of the person wearing the tie. So my blue circle is in the perfect position, based on the testimony of Finck and Frazier (repeated below, with emphasis added by me). And also don't forget about the slight (but important) RIGHT-to-LEFT trajectory of Oswald's bullet, which he fired into Kennedy's body from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building: DR. PIERRE A. FINCK -- "...a tear of the cloth to the left side of the knot and corresponding to the two anterior holes in the shirt...indicates a tangential path of the left side in relation to the knot." ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "The only damage to the tie other than the fact that it had been cut, was a crease or nick in the left side of the tie when you consider the tie as being worn on a body. As you view the front of the tie, it would be on the right side."
  3. I have a feeling that the mystery could be cleared up quickly if we could (somehow) see the configuration of the tie damage while the tie was still in a knot, rather than only being able to examine the tie in an unknotted condition, like in this NARA photograph. The picture of the tie in Commission Exhibit No. 395, however, isn't very clear and doesn't really help to clear up this "mystery" very much. In a quote I presented earlier, Dr. Pierre Finck said that the tie was only "GLANCED by the bullet", and that a "tangential path" was taken by the bullet in order to cause that kind of damage, rather than going straight through the fabric of the necktie. I think that Dr. Finck's explanation makes sense when we view this composite photo I created today (an alternate version is seen below, with the pic of the tie turned 90 degrees for better orientation), which helps us to envision such a "nick" (or maybe "grazing" would be an even better word to use) on the far left side of the knot in President Kennedy's tie while JFK is wearing that tie (blue circle). When the tie is in a tied and knotted configuration, I can now easily envision the type of non-penetrating "nick" (or "grazing") damage being done to the tie that the FBI's Robert Frazier testified about. Note --- When looking at the area within the blue circle in the picture below, I don't want anyone to jump to the conclusion that I am saying that I know for certain that the tie damage was located in that exact area of the tie knot. I cannot possibly know that for sure. But I do think that the area I have circled is very close to the damaged area we can see in the NARA color photo on the right side of this composite photograph: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YMUTss087d8/WP3j6pAg0wI/AAAAAAABLts/G6D2_4H_C-oNRflzA5Q4_RMRDm4urLbIgCLcB/s1600/JFK-And-His-Necktie.jpg
  4. Here's what I said to Sandy yesterday on that.... "Well, Sandy, my memory isn't as good as it once was (I'll admit that), so maybe I have encountered a few CTers over the years who are willing to put on the table their theory(ies) about where the two bullets went. But I normally just get the usual CT runaround and dodging of the question. I have heard of the theories Paul Trejo mentioned earlier, but the CTers I have argued with in the past usually prefer to scold me for even asking the question, rather than be embarrassed by placing their absurd "ice bullet" or "low-powered bullet" theories on the table for consideration." John Connally was the Governor, not a Senator. Anyway, Gov. Connally, in 1967, said the SBT was "possible". He still had great doubts about the validity of the SBT, but he said it was "possible" nonetheless: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOWi1leGJ3WkFKX3c/view In addition, Connally was really the WORST possible witness in Dealey Plaza as far as being able to determine when KENNEDY was hit---because Connally never saw JFK during the critical "SBT" period.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-did-john-connally-see.html Come up with something MORE REASONABLE and MORE SENSIBLE than the SBT. That'd be a good place for conspiracists to start, don't you think? Oh, my gosh! You aren't still promoting the crazy "75 years" myth, are you Paul? https://app.box.com/s/3if3887c39w7dg4d6iri Also see Pages 129-130 of Endnotes in Vince Bugliosi's book. He totally destroys the "Not In Our Lifetime" myth dredged up by CTers.
  5. Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis to me, Sandy. Thank you. Also keep in mind that Oswald's SBT bullet was moving in a slightly right-to-left direction as it sliced through President Kennedy's upper back and neck. Thusly, it makes sense to me that the bullet could have conceivably "nicked" only the LEFT portion of the tie knot as it made its exit through JFK's throat. And it was, indeed, the left side of the tie knot that was damaged (or "nicked") during the shooting (from the tie wearer's POV). BTW, I was just now looking through some of the very good NARA color photos of JFK's clothing at the Mary Ferrell website (including Kennedy's necktie), and I noticed this close-up picture of the tie (also shown below). And after I asked myself: Isn't that a HOLE in the tie?, I then did a little more refreshing of my memory by looking up this topic in Vincent Bugliosi's book, and I had my complete answer -- it's only a "tear" in the cloth, not a thru-and-thru "hole" (see the excerpt from "Reclaiming History" underneath the photo): “Dr. Finck reported that the tie worn by Kennedy showed "a tear of the cloth to the left side of the knot and corresponding to the two anterior holes in the shirt. The tie knot was not perforated but GLANCED by the bullet, which is indicated by the fact that the white padding of the tie is visible and . . . the blue cloth on the internal aspect of the knot is intact, which indicates a tangential path of the left side in relation to the knot." (AFIP Record 205-10001-10002, Memorandum, Finck to Blumberg, p.7; also ARRB MD 28) The tear to the tie was described by the FBI laboratory as a "small elongated nick" on the "left side of the knot of the tie" (CD 205, p.154; 5 H 62, WCT Robert A. Frazier; 7 HSCA 89). An FBI examination found no metallic residue on this nick in the tie, and unlike the shirt, the FBI could not find any characteristic disturbance in the fabric around the tie hole "that would permit any conclusion" as to the direction of the missile (5 H 62, WCT Robert A. Frazier; 7 HSCA 89–90; FBI Record 124-10024-10173; Gallagher Exhibit No. 1, 20 H 2).” -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 401 of "Reclaiming History" (footnote)
  6. REPRISE.... SANDY LARSEN SAID: I haven't yet encountered an LNer who gives a damn about the question, "HOW DID THE MAGIC BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?" DAVID VON PEIN SAID: But don't you have the exact same problem if the bullet ENTERED the throat (versus it EXITING the throat)? Don't the CTers who think JFK's throat wound was an ENTRANCE wound still have to ask themselves the very same question you just asked me? I.E., "HOW DID THE BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?" How does the belief that the throat wound was a wound of entry make the above question go away for the conspiracy theorists? Do they think if the bullet entered the Adam's Apple area of JFK's throat, it somehow was able to miss the tie knot area entirely? But if it exited there, it had no choice but go through the tie knot and create a hole? Is that it? ~shrug~ And "for the record".... Although Sandy is correct when he says there was no "hole" in President Kennedy's necktie, there was, in fact, some damage done to that tie by the passage of Lee Harvey Oswald's "SBT" bullet #CE399. That damage was in the form of a "nick" on the left side of the President's tie, which the FBI's Robert Frazier said was caused by some kind of a "projectile". (See the passages below from Page 92 of the Warren Report and Robert Frazier's testimony [at 5 H 62].) "When the President's clothing was removed at Parkland Hospital, his tie was cut off by severing the loop immediately to the wearer's left of the knot, leaving the knot in its original condition. The tie had a nick on the left side of the knot. The nick was elongated horizontally, indicating that the tear was made by some object moving horizontally, but the fibers were not affected in a manner which would shed light on the direction or the nature of the missile." -- Warren Report; Page 92 ------------------------ ARLEN SPECTER -- What did you note, if anything, with respect to the tie, Mr. Frazier? ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- When the tie was examined by me in the laboratory, I noted that the neck portion had been cut from one side of the knot. However, the knot remained in apparently its original condition. The only damage to the tie other than the fact that it had been cut, was a crease or nick in the left side of the tie when you consider the tie as being worn on a body. As you view the front of the tie, it would be on the right side. This nick would be located in a corresponding area to the area in the shirt collar just below the button. [...] MR. SPECTER -- Does the nick in the tie provide any indication of the direction of the missile? MR. FRAZIER -- The nick is elongated horizontally, indicating a possible horizontal direction, but it does not indicate that the projectile which caused it was exiting or entering at that point. The fibers were not disturbed in a characteristic manner which would permit any conclusion in that connection. MR. SPECTER -- Is the nick consistent with an exiting path? MR. FRAZIER -- Oh, yes. MR. SPECTER -- Is there any indication from the nature of the nick as to the nature of the projectile itself? MR. FRAZIER -- No, sir. MR. SPECTER -- Is the nick consistent with a 6.5 millimeter bullet having caused the nick? MR. FRAZIER -- Yes. Any projectile could have caused the nick. In this connection, there was no metallic residue found on the tie, and for that matter there was no metallic residue found on the shirt at the holes in the front. However, there was in the back.
  7. Sure. But then we'd have to believe that that bullet just GOT LOST somehow, plus yet ANOTHER bullet GETS LOST too, don't forget. What are the odds? A billion to one against? Isn't it time for conspiracy advocates to just accept the obvious truth? I.E., one bullet went clear through the man named John F. Kennedy and then went on to hit the man who was sitting in front of him (who was a man who also just happened to be wounded in the UPPER BACK by a bullet during the shooting that day). And then there's the Z-Film evidence of the two victims reacting at precisely the same instant in time. When all these factors are added together and assessed reasonably, what other logical conclusion can a sensible person come to other than: The SBT Is Correct? I, for one, can't think of a single other "logical conclusion". Can you? http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
  8. Well, Sandy, my memory isn't as good as it once was (I'll admit that), so maybe I have encountered a few CTers over the years who are willing to put on the table their theory(ies) about where the two bullets went. But I normally just get the usual CT runaround and dodging of the question. I have heard of the theories Paul Trejo mentioned earlier, but the CTers I have argued with in the past usually prefer to scold me for even asking the question, rather than be embarrassed by placing their absurd "ice bullet" or "low-powered bullet" theories on the table for consideration. "The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-deep wounds? Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble him to death by ducks?" -- Bud; April 1, 2006
  9. And every one of them is too silly to consider for more than two seconds.
  10. I haven't encountered a CTer yet who gives a damn about the question of "WHERE DID THOSE TWO BULLETS GO?" They just don't care, and I usually get raked over hot coals for even having the gall to ASK such an obviously pertinent question. What I usually get from the clueless CTers is: Well, Davey, what happened to the third bullet that you say missed the whole limousine? -- as if that's even remotely similar to asking about TWO separate bullets that the silly CTers insist went into JFK's body but never exited and yet were never to be seen again. The "Two Bullets Never Exited And Yet They BOTH Disappeared Off The Face Of The Earth" fantasy is reason enough--all by itself!--to accept the SBT. But no conspiracist on the planet (that I have encountered) will even entertain the idea of the SBT, despite the implausibilities that reside within their own "Two Bullets Never Exited" hogwash. (Go figure.)
  11. David L., It's clear from Buddy Walthers' Warren Commission testimony that Walthers was NOT talking about the great big type of "filing cabinets" that you'd find in offices. He specifically used the word "LITTLE" before he used the words "FILE CABINETS". And he then goes on to describe in more detail the size of those "cabinets" [see 7 H 548].... "...and then we found some little metal file cabinets—I don't know what kind you would call them—they would carry an 8 by 10 folder, all right, but with a single handle on top of it and the handle moves." -- Buddy Walthers; July 23, 1964 Also see: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87/File-Cabinets DVP 4/22/2017; 3:48 a.m. EDT Mooresville, Indiana USA
  12. Also see: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1194.html
  13. I already did provide the (nearly) complete article (in my post yesterday [4/17] at 2:19 AM EDT), but I guess you never clicked on it. So here it is again.... https://app.box.com/s/n0hkvccua7iczh71h5bp The article was written by Jeanne Morgan and it appeared in the March 1, 1968, edition of the L.A. Free Press. The first part of the article is not included above, however. But I do have Page 1 of the article -- here it is....
  14. So you think the LA Free Press just MADE UP the quote they attribute to "RC" (Roger Craig)?? Get outta here!
  15. Now I'm even more confused than before, Micah. Maybe it would help things if I were to write "WTF???" twenty times in a row. Ya think?