Martin Hay's review of David Von Pein's book

[Tom Neal]

Thanks Pat,

And again, I don't think Frazier is hiding anything that he did wrong, or could be held accountable for. I'm

thinking Lee told him something, or Frazier was told, or overheard something said by the DPD... That sort of

thing.

I hope he does write a book. You never what minor detail he reveals might turn out be something important.

Tom

[David Lifton]

Lifton comes out of his igloo to back Paul Baker's year old post, about a book written by Ayton and Von Pein?

BTW, here is a link to Martin's fine review http://www.ctka.net/2015/Ayton%20Review.html

Pat, and you are correct, I agree with the first hit on JFK being at about 190. And I should add, not only did the HSCA photo panel agree with this, so did Ray Marcus in his analysis for Jim Garrison back in 1968, and so did CBS in their 1967 special. With the excised frames included in the film, and with the film projected on a large auditorium screen in slow motion, its very hard to deny this.

Jim,

I'd never heard of these frames being excised from the Z film. When were they removed? Is there evidence of their removal?

I take it you saw the film before those frames were removed.

Pat Speer says on his website that the hit at Z190 is clear, but I can see nothing despite trying for 20 minutes, looking at various films and frame-by-frame. JFK gets blurry right at Z190 and stays blurry for a few frames. (I'm not saying there's nothing to see there... I'm saying only that I don't see it.) I do see his waving hand move to his forehead before he goes behind the sign.

FWIW: Ray Marcus--back in 1964/65, and working with the poor reproductions of the Z frames in Volume 18--blew them up, studied them carefully, and one of his conclusions was that JFK's hand starts the swoop towards his throat at about Z-189. that's what I remember him believing, and demonstrating to me, on several occasions. He called this the "early hit" hypothesis. (FYI: Ray always believed the throat wound was an entrance); and I agree with that. See Chapter 3 of B.E., where all the evidence for hat is laid out in detail). I believe the throat was an entrnace, and that slug was removed at Bethesda prior to the 8 p.m. start of the "official autopsy." Curiously, in recent years, a number of people have come to believe that the throat wound was an exit--these include Dr. Cyril Wecht, and the late Roger Feinman. DSL

[David Lifton]

Later that morning [11/22/63], Lee Oswald was observed on the elevator, going upstairs, and passed a witness (and her supervisor) and they both saw him carrying a long package. "What'cha got there?" he was asked. And Lee responded that it was a "fishing pole."

[...]

The witnesses who saw Oswald with the longer package (that he explained as "fishing rods") did not make their statements to the FBI, but certainly did talk about it years later. It was first published in 1988 in American History Illustrated. I communicated with the author--Ed Oxford--and found his research and interviews to be quite credible. (But that's a whole other story.)

I've never heard that fairy tale before in my life. Who is the female witness, David? And who's the "supervisor"?

I'd love it if that story could somehow be proven to be true, though, because such a "fishing pole" lie being uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald would be just that much more of a solid indication that the package he was carrying on November 22nd contained his Carcano rifle.

Such a "fishing pole" tale, if true, would mean that Oswald told different lies to different people throughout the day on 11/22/63 -- with Lee telling Buell Wesley Frazier that the package contained "curtain rods", while (allegedly) telling someone else later in the day that the (presumably) very same package had a "fishing pole" in it.

You'd then have to ask yourself this question:

Why didn't Oswald just stick with the same story about curtain rods that he started the day with when he drove to work with Frazier? Because the more nonexistent things he tries to cram into that brown paper package, the more obvious (and provable) his lies become.

But I doubt any such "fishing pole" or "fishing rods" encounter ever happened in the first place, much the same way Robert Groden's bombshell "I Was Giving LHO Change At The Time Of The Assassination When We Heard The Shots" witness, Mrs. Reid, was a hoax too, with that wholly unbelievable story being invented many years later.

Because if that story allegedly told by Mrs. Reid had even a grain of truth in it, we would have heard it coming from the mouth of Lee Oswald himself after his arrest --- "Hey, why am I being accused of shooting the President?! I was in the office on the second floor at that time, getting change for the Coke machine! Just ask Mrs. Reid. She was right there with me!" (Oswald, of course, never said anything of the kind to the police after he was arrested.)

jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Oswald's Many Lies (Part 1)

DVP:

I'm not going to go further at this point in time. But the witness(es) exist and --from your post--you clearly understand the implications.

You make a serious error when you refer to it as "that fairy tale" and I find it telling that you were unaware of the witness.

Saying "I've never heard that fairy tale before in my life" is revealing.

Surely you do understand that just because you are unaware of something does not mean it is non-existent.

Proving something like that to be true is important for the very reasons you stated: if true--i.e., if Oswald provided two separate (and different) explanations for the package would imply that Oswald was involved in deception; and of course, the ultimate implication was that what was in the package was neither curtain rods nor fishing rods.

I'll pursue this matter further in the future.

With regard to Buell Frazier. . I go way back to the original work done by the late George O'Toole, who emphasized how totally frightened Frazier was that weekend. Really "freaked out" (to use the more current vernacular).

FWIW: I spent time with Michael Paine in 1995--at his home in Boxboro, Mass.--and he revealed how frightened he was; and actually started crying during my taped interview.

I completely disagree with DiEugenio's oversimplified notion that these people (the Paines, Marina, etc.) are all crooked, etc. My impression, from watching several filmed interviews of Ruth Paine (particularly the ones you have archived on your thread #87) are very enlightening. FYI: I also spent hours with Arthur Young, back around 1995, and Ruth Paine (Michael's mother). Rest assured I approached the situation with skepticism, and asked the tough questions. DiEugenio doesn't do any of that. He just draws incorrect inferences, talks glibly, postulates false hypothese (particularly about Ruth Paine), and then mounts his high horse and engages in slander.

To close again with your own quote: "Such a "fishing pole" tale, if true, would mean that Oswald told different lies to different people throughout the day on 11/22/63 -- with Lee telling Buell Wesley Frazier that the package contained "curtain rods", while (allegedly) telling someone else later in the morning that the (presumably) very same package had a "fishing pole" in it." Agreed. That is exactly the case; only I would not say "throughout the day." That an inaccurate characterization of the situation. There are only two points on the time line. Two separate times when he spoke to the issue of what was in the package.

Regarding the question you posed, its a reasonable one. And I don't have a great answer. But one possibility does occur to me: that when Frazier saw him with the package (early in the morning of 11/22) the rifle was "disassembled", whereas when the "elevator" witness saw him with it, it had been completely assembled and was "thinner" and somewhat longer; consequently, "curtain rods" would not be an adequate explanation for the second observer (or observers). To recap (and this is just speculation): "curtain rods" would be a reasonable explanation for the way he described the package to BWF (early on Friday morning) but not the way it appeared when seen on the elevator sometime later. Just a thought. Without a time machine, or modern day security cameras, perhaps we'll never know.

Re your final comment: "But I doubt any such "fishing pole" or "fishing rods" encounter ever happened in the first place" is quite incorrect; and there is no comparison between the situation to which I'm referring and the sort of nonsense promulgated by Robert Groden re Mrs. Reid. Mrs Reid-as you well know--was interviewed by the FBI and Secret Service, and then testified to the WC. From the standpoint of valid historiography, she cannot "amend" her account a half century later, and be credible. Assuming her late arriving account is the truth, I can only say this: If she indeed had "made change" for Oswald, then she would have to have stated that from the beginning. That's not something that can be added to a story a half century later.. Once she doesn't say it when originally interviewed, then she cannot expect that account to be believed.

DSL

4/6/16 - 5:50 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited April 6, 2016 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

In 1993, at the Harvard Conference, Groden showed his slowed down, stabilized version of the film with the excised frames inserted.

Jim,

I'm a little rusty on the Z-film. (IOW my brain is getting rusty.) Who excised frames from the film, who found them and inserted them, and how if at all was the excision explained in the first place?

If frames are known to have been excised (and then restored), I don't know how anyone can say that the Z-film wasn't altered.

Michael explained this above.

There were about four frames that Hoover said were missing because of a "printing error". These are about at the point where Kennedy disappears behind the sign.

Groden got these frames from another copy of the film. So the one he showed at Harvard was the most complete version extant.

When he showed it on an auditorium sized screen, it seemed to me to be obvious as to why there was a "printing error".

When you see the entire sequence of Kennedy disappearing behind the sign, his body freezes, his hand stops waving, his head buckles forward. I believe Hoover deliberately got rid of those frames from his copy that he released for the WC.

Kennedy was hit at about 190. Before he disappears behind the sign. The FBI and WC concealed this to make the interim between the shots shorter.

Jim DiEugenio:

I was the one who wrote the 1965 letter to J Edgar Hoover about the reversal of Zapruder frames 314 and 315 in Volume 18 of the Warren Commission. Having a security clearance at North American Aviation at the time, and having no experience in any of that--the letter was written in the name of a friend, Judith Schmidt. FBI DIrector Hoover's answer --on an FBI letterhead--came back rather quickly: that this was a "printing error," he said.

Your statement that this this concerned "four frames" that were "missing" and that this occurred when President Kennedy was about to disappear behind the sign is completely false.

Try paying attention to detail, Jim DiEugenio, before glibly making statements and disseminating false information.

DSL

4/6/16 - 5:40 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

[Cliff Varnell]

Lifton comes out of his igloo to back Paul Baker's year old post, about a book written by Ayton and Von Pein?

BTW, here is a link to Martin's fine review http://www.ctka.net/2015/Ayton%20Review.html

Pat, and you are correct, I agree with the first hit on JFK being at about 190. And I should add, not only did the HSCA photo panel agree with this, so did Ray Marcus in his analysis for Jim Garrison back in 1968, and so did CBS in their 1967 special. With the excised frames included in the film, and with the film projected on a large auditorium screen in slow motion, its very hard to deny this.

Jim,

I'd never heard of these frames being excised from the Z film. When were they removed? Is there evidence of their removal?

I take it you saw the film before those frames were removed.

Pat Speer says on his website that the hit at Z190 is clear, but I can see nothing despite trying for 20 minutes, looking at various films and frame-by-frame. JFK gets blurry right at Z190 and stays blurry for a few frames. (I'm not saying there's nothing to see there... I'm saying only that I don't see it.) I do see his waving hand move to his forehead before he goes behind the sign.

FWIW: Ray Marcus--back in 1964/65, and working with the poor reproductions of the Z frames in Volume 18--blew them up, studied them carefully, and one of his conclusions was that JFK's hand starts the swoop towards his throat at about Z-189. that's what I remember him believing, and demonstrating to me, on several occasions. He called this the "early hit" hypothesis. (FYI: Ray always believed the throat wound was an entrance); and I agree with that. See Chapter 3 of B.E., where all the evidence for hat is laid out in detail). I believe the throat was an entrnace, and that slug was removed at Bethesda prior to the 8 p.m. start of the "official autopsy." Curiously, in recent years, a number of people have come to believe that the throat wound was an exit--these include Dr. Cyril Wecht, and the late Roger Feinman. DSL

Even more curious is the insistence among many such as Jim DiEugenio that JFK was first struck in the back, not the throat.

Wecht, DiEugenio & Co: when they bang their knees do their hands reflexively touch their elbows?

According to our Esteermed Pet Theorists JFK was shot in the back first -- and his hands immediately went to his throat (!!??)

The incompetence of this analysis is mind-boggling.

[James DiEugenio]

We don't know where JFK's hands "immediately" went.

Because as he was hit, he then disappeared behind the Stemmons freeway sign.

As per Ray Marcus, I became acquainted with him after, in the nineties, he thought it was a hit at about 190 and prepared a monograph on the subject.

LIfton is correct on the "printing error" occurring later. If he really thinks it was a printing error.

As per the Paines etc., anyone who wants to ignore the backgrounds of these two people, their membership among the upper classes, how Ruth could not recall where her sister worked at in 1963, or where she lived--not even the state-and then swallows the "oh we were so scared" 1995 version, as Ruthie is producing all the faux evidence that nails Oswald in both cases. Well, what can one say?

I also have no doubt that LIfton is going to say Oswald ordered the rifle. That is what his generation of researchers bought into. And he abides by it. Along with the fishing rod story.

Edited April 6, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

One of the most pernicious aspects of the first-hit/back-shot Pet Theory is the implied witness bashing of Secret Service SA Glenn Bennett, who wrote on the flight back to DC the afternoon of 11/22/63:

<quote on>

...The Presidents auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse.

At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded of a firecracker. Immediately

upon hearing the so called firecracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I

saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second

shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head.

<quote off>

The next day Bennett filed an official report with more detail:

<quote on>

...About thirty minutes after leaving Love Field about 12:25 P.M., the Motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few; the motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head. I immediately hollered "he's hit" and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw S/A Hickey had the AR15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shots. The President's car immediately kicked into high gear and the follow-up car followed.

<quote off>

Bennett's account is corroborated by the Willis 5 photo (Z202):

Bennett is the agent seated at the far right, facing to the right.

In his statement he said he was looking to the right when he heard a firecracker noise -- same time as the first shot.

He stated he looked to the front to see "the Boss."

Here he is in Altgens 6 (Z255) with blurred features, consistent with his statement that he was turning to the front after the firecracker noise.

In both of his statements Bennett put the back wound about 4 inches below the shoulder.

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

Bennett's account of the second-hit/back-shot is well corroborated.

The Esteemed Pet Theory of first-hit/back-shot is pure equine offal.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

We don't know where JFK's hands "immediately" went.

Sure we do.

Close proximity witnesses Nellie Connally and Linda Willis testified his hands went up to his throat.

<quote on>

Mr. Liebler: Did you hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots, as the motorcade came past you there?

Miss Willis: Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went.

*

Mrs. Connally:...I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was

a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right. I turned over my right shoulder

and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. Specter: And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over

gripping your own neck?

Mrs. Connally: Yes; and sit seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry.

I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and

he just sort of slumped down.

<quote off>

JFK emerges behind the Stemmons sign with his hands up in the vicinity of his throat.

Look closely at the left forefinger work the tie!

JFK appears to be responding to throat trauma; he was described as reacting to throat trauma; there is a well-corroborated account of a later back shot...none of this will sway the Pet Theorists among us.

Because as he was hit, he then disappeared behind the Stemmons freeway sign.

For one second. So?

As per Ray Marcus, I became acquainted with him after, in the nineties, he thought it was a hit at about 190 and prepared a monograph on the subject.

LIfton is correct on the "printing error" occurring later. If he really thinks it was a printing error.

As per the Paines etc., anyone who wants to ignore the backgrounds of these two people, their membership among the upper classes, how Ruth could not recall where her sister worked at in 1963, or where she lived--not even the state-and then swallows the "oh we were so scared" 1995 version, as Ruthie is producing all the faux evidence that nails Oswald in both cases. Well, what can one say?

I also have no doubt that LIfton is going to say Oswald ordered the rifle. That is what his generation of researchers bought into. And he abides by it. Along with the fishing rod story.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

DVP:

I'm not going to go further at this point in time. But the witness(es) exist and--from your post--you clearly understand the implications.

Well, then, what are the names of those two TSBD witnesses, David? I asked, but you failed to answer me. Or didn't Ed Oxford mention their names in his 1988 American History Illustrated article concerning the alleged "fishing pole/rods" statement?

You make a serious error when you refer to it as "that fairy tale" and I find it telling that you were unaware of the witness.

Saying "I've never heard that fairy tale before in my life" is revealing.

Surely you do understand that just because you are unaware of something does not mean it is non-existent.

Well, I'm certainly not alone, David. In fact, I'm in very good company when it comes to my ignorance on that topic. Because the late Vincent Bugliosi had apparently never heard the "fishing pole" tale either. No such information, at any rate, can be found on any of the 2800+ pages of "Reclaiming History", because I looked it up (via a word search in the PDF version of Bugliosi's book) and there are zero references to "fishing pole" or "fishing rods" relating to any kind of a story told by any Book Depository witnesses. So, like me, I guess Vince was in the dark about that particular story too.

Proving something like that to be true is important for the very reasons you stated: if true--i.e., if Oswald provided two separate (and different) explanations for the package would imply that Oswald was involved in deception; and of course, the ultimate implication was that what was in the package was neither curtain rods nor fishing rods.

I'll pursue this matter further in the future.

With regard to Buell Frazier .... I go way back to the original work done by the late George O'Toole, who emphasized how totally frightened Frazier was that weekend. Really "freaked out" (to use the more current vernacular).

FWIW: I spent time with Michael Paine in 1995--at his home in Boxboro, Mass.--and he revealed how frightened he was; and actually started crying during my taped interview.

I completely disagree with DiEugenio's oversimplified notion that these people (the Paines, Marina, etc.) are all crooked, etc. My impression, from watching several filmed interviews of Ruth Paine (particularly the ones you have archived on your thread #87) are very enlightening.

[...]

DiEugenio...just draws incorrect inferences, talks glibly, postulates false hypotheses (particularly about Ruth Paine), and then mounts his high horse and engages in slander.

To close again with your own quote: "Such a "fishing pole" tale, if true, would mean that Oswald told different lies to different people throughout the day on 11/22/63 -- with Lee telling Buell Wesley Frazier that the package contained "curtain rods", while (allegedly) telling someone else later in the morning that the (presumably) very same package had a "fishing pole" in it." Agreed. That is exactly the case; only I would not say "throughout the day." That [is] an inaccurate characterization of the situation. There are only two points on the time line. Two separate times when he spoke to the issue of what was in the package.

Regarding the question you posed: it's a reasonable one. And I don't have a great answer. But one possibility does occur to me: that when Frazier saw him with the package (early in the morning of 11/22) the rifle was "disassembled", whereas when the "elevator" witness saw him with it, it had been completely assembled and was "thinner" and somewhat longer; consequently, "curtain rods" would not be an adequate explanation for the second observer (or observers).

But via the scenario that you just outlined, David, the completely assembled 40.2-inch rifle would have been too long for the 38-inch brown paper bag Oswald was carrying it in [CE142], and, hence, part of the gun would likely have been sticking out of the top (or bottom) of the bag when the two TSBD witnesses (allegedly) saw Oswald carrying it in the elevator on 11/22/63. Unless the gun could have been placed into the bag at a slight angle, which might have made it possible for a 40-inch object to be completely hidden within a 38-inch paper bag. But I've never done any experiments on this before, so I'm not sure if the 2.2-inch differential in the lengths could be completely compensated for by putting the rifle into the bag at an angle.

Now, I suppose any of the above speculative scenarios are possible, I don't deny that. But allowing part of the weapon to protrude out of the bag (if, in fact, the gun could not be put into the bag in a way to conceal the entire length of the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano carbine) would have been a risky thing for Oswald to do.

But, I guess under such a circumstance, Lee wouldn't have had too many choices either. He probably wouldn't want to construct a whole new bag from Troy West's TSBD wrapping table just for the purpose of transporting the rifle up to the sixth floor from a lower floor. So, as an alternative, he could possibly have placed his hand over the end of the bag (where the rifle was protruding), in order to temporarily hide the gun from any prying eyes that might want to gaze upon it as Lee ascended to the sixth floor. Such a "fly by the seat of your pants" plan would certainly be possible and doable, IMO.

I still have great doubts about the "fishing pole" / "fishing rods" story, however. But I will readily admit that I could be wrong when it comes to my deep skepticism on this matter. In fact, as I said earlier....

"I'd love it if that story could somehow be proven to be true...because such a "fishing pole" lie being uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald would be just that much more of a solid indication that the package he was carrying on November 22nd contained his Carcano rifle."

To recap (and this is just speculation): "curtain rods" would be a reasonable explanation for the way he described the package to BWF (early on Friday morning) but not the way it appeared when seen on the elevator sometime later. Just a thought. Without a time machine, or modern day security cameras, perhaps we'll never know.

Re your final comment: "But I doubt any such "fishing pole" or "fishing rods" encounter ever happened in the first place" is quite incorrect; and there is no comparison between the situation to which I'm referring and the sort of nonsense promulgated by Robert Groden re Mrs. Reid. Mrs Reid--as you well know--was interviewed by the FBI and Secret Service, and then testified to the WC. From the standpoint of valid historiography, she cannot "amend" her account a half century later, and be credible. Assuming her late arriving account is the truth, I can only say this: If she indeed had "made change" for Oswald, then she would have to have stated that from the beginning. That's not something that can be added to a story a half century later. Once she doesn't say it when originally interviewed, then she cannot expect that account to be believed.

DSL

4/6/16 - 5:50 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Thank you, David Lifton, for your detailed reply of Wednesday morning, April 6th, 2016 AD, written from the great western city of Los Angeles, California, home of the Los Angeles Dodgers, long-time rivals of my favorite baseball team, the Cincinnati Reds, Riverfront Stadium, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Milky Way.

DVP

4/6/16 - 6:59 p.m. EDT

Mooresville, Indiana

Edited April 6, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

Don - I concur. I'm sympathetic to David Larsen, who appreciates the diversity of opinions and free debate here. But I wish the major writers and researchers would find and express the common grounds between them while they engage in their well considered disagreements.

Paul, sad to say the major writers and researchers have torched the "common ground" upon which they could justifiably stand.

They have screwed the pooch and the "waters of uncertainty" cloud every aspect of the case.

In 1966 Vincent Salandria and Gaeton Fonzi weaponized the fact of conspiracy: they bagged Arlen Specter with the clothing evidence.

Fonzi wrote about it in an article, "The Warren Commission, the Truth,and Arlen Specter"

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WCTandAS.pdf

<quote on>

The shirt worn by the President also contained a hole in the back about 5¾ inches below the top of the collar and 1-1/8 inches to the right of the middle. It, too, had the characteristics of a bullet entrance hole.

Both these holes are in locations that seem obviously inconsistent with the wound described in the Commission’s autopsy report — placed below the back of the right ear — and illustrated in exhibit 385, which Dr. Humes had prepared.

“Well,” said Specter, when asked about this in his City Hall office last month, “that difference is accounted for because the President was waving his arm.” He got up from his desk and attempted to have his explanation demonstrated. “Wave your arm a few times,” he said, “wave at the crowd. Well, see if the bullet goes in here, the jacket gets hunched up. If you take this point right here and then you strip the coat down, it comes out at a lower point. Well, not too much lower on your example, but the jacket rides up.”

If the jacket were “hunched up,” wouldn’t there have been two holes as a result of the doubling over of the cloth?

“No, not necessarily. It . . . it wouldn’t be doubled over. When you sit in the car it could be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities are that . . . aaah . . . that it gets . . . that . . . aaah . . . this . . . this is about the way a jacket rides up. You sit back . . . sit back now . . . all right now . . . if . . . usually, as your jacket lies there, the doubling up is right here, but if . . . but if you have a bullet hit you right about here, which is where I had it, where your jacket sits . . . it’s not . . . it’s not . . . it ordinarily doesn’t crease that far back.”

What about the shirt?

“Same thing.”

So there is no real inconsistency between the Commission’s location of the wound and the holes in the clothing?

“No, not at all. That gave us a lot of concern. First time we lined up the shirt . . . after all, we lined up the shirt . . . and the hole in the shirt is right about, right about the knot of the tie, came right about here in a slit in the front . . .”

But where did it go in the back?

“Well, the back hole, when the shirt is laid down, comes . . . aaah . . . well, I forget exactly where it came, but it certainly wasn’t higher, enough higher to . . . aaah . . . understand the . . . aah . . . the angle of decline which . . .”

Was it lower? Was it lower than the slit in the front?

“Well, I think that . . . that if you took the shirt without allowing for it’s being pulled up, that it would either have been in line or somewhat lower.”

Somewhat lower?

“Perhaps. I . . . I don’t want to say because I don’t really remember. I got to take a look at that shirt.”

It is difficult to believe that Arlen Specter didn’t take a very close look at that shirt — and that jacket — at the time of the investigation and that these factors didn’t indelibly stick in his mind: Kennedy was one of the best-tailored presidents ever to occupy the White House, and if it is possible — but not probable — that he was wearing a suit jacket baggy enough to ride up five or six inches in the back when he waved his arm, it is inconceivable that a tightly-buttoned shirt could have done the same thing.

And the Zapruder films show he wasn’t waving his hand higher than the level of his forehead before he was shot.

<quote off>

The Single Bullet Theory was officially debunked in Arlen Specter's office in the summer of 1966.

The next year Josiah Thompson published Six Seconds in Dallas where he concluded grandly -- "The exact location of the [back] wound cannot now be conclusively determined." (SSID, pg 49).

This utter nonsense has been the foundation of Pet Theorism for nearly 5 decades.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Alistair Briggs]

On 07/04/2016 at 0:08 AM, David Von Pein said:

Well, then, what are the names of those two TSBD witnesses, David? I asked, but you failed to answer me. Or didn't Ed Oxford mention their names in his 1988 American History Illustrated article concerning the alleged "fishing pole/rods" statement?

Any update on the 'fishing pole' thingymjig?

[James DiEugenio]

I hope not.

[Alistair Briggs]

10 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I hope not.

lol dare I ask why you hope not?

[Micah Mileto]

On 4/17/2015 at 3:40 AM, David Von Pein said:

RONALD WIECK SAID (AT FACEBOOK):

I just received a copy of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". Having read the first fifty pages, I can state that book promises to become the One-Stop Shop for everyone tired of the incessant yammering of agenda-driven conspiracy peddlers.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you, Ronald, very much.


TRACY RIDDLE ["TLR"] SAID:

A detailed critique of the book by Martin Hay:

http://www.ctka.net/2015/Ayton%20Review.html


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What a surprise --- a conspiracy theorist (Martin Hay) disagrees with LNers.

~yawn~

And it's no surprise to see Martin Hay doing what all Internet CTers do every day---trying to explain away all the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald.

Martin believes all the evidence is fake and phony. If he didn't believe that, then Oswald's guilty. And Martin doesn't like that idea at all. So, the evidence is ALL fraudulent---from the rifle to the paper bag to Howard Brennan and everything in-between.

And I'm wondering why Mr. Hay is telling this false tale in his BRD book review at CTKA?.....

"Although the precise location of the back wound was not recorded by Kennedy's pathologists..." -- Martin Hay

Hay is dead wrong about that statement. The autopsy Face Sheet records the exact location of the upper-back wound. It's the precise location of the throat wound which wasn't recorded by Humes, Boswell, and Finck. Maybe Hay meant to say "throat wound" instead of "back wound" above. ~shrug~

But, in any event, Martin knows full well that no bullets were found inside JFK's body, and there was very little damage inside Kennedy's upper back and neck that could have stopped a rifle bullet, let alone stopping TWO such bullets, which is the number of missiles (two) that Hay needs to disappear into thin air if he thinks the bullet that struck JFK's back did not transit the President's body.

But common sense was never a strong suit of JFK conspiracy theorists. Their constant refusal to accept the truth of the Single-Bullet Theory has been proving that fact for fifty years.


TRACY RIDDLE SAID:

That's it, David? You found a typo error? You can't refute anything else he wrote? No, all we get is more bold assertions and hyperbole.

Howard Brennan? Most LNers on the internet gave up using Brennan a long time ago.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Tracy,

I've seen all of the silly excuses for ignoring all of the Oswald-Did-It evidence before. Nothing Martin Hay had to say in his review surprised me. I expected it. Hay's review is merely the most recent excuse for conspiracists like him to raise their Internet voices so they can (once again) pretend that Oswald never ordered the rifle and never took the rifle into the TSBD and never shot at General Walker, etc., etc. to absurdity.

If you want to see each foolish claim made by CTers debunked, I've got pages on my websites that accomplish that task fairly well (IMO). But I'm not going to type out 5,000 words on these [Amazon.com] forums to refute Hay's fairy tale beliefs. That's why I've archived everything at my own sites, so I don't have to type it all out again every time these things come up (which they constantly do).

Regarding Howard Brennan....

Do you think LNers like myself (and Mel Ayton) should just completely IGNORE Mr. Brennan, is that it? We should just toss Howard under the wheels of SS-100-X and pretend he never told the Warren Commission that the man he saw shoot JFK was, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald? Is that it?

And do you think the whole case against Oswald rests on the shoulders of only Howard Brennan? Why would anyone think that? Even without Brennan, Oswald is still guilty as ever. And the evidence proves it. Brennan's testimony merely corroborates and buttresses what all reasonable people can already figure out for themselves based on the physical evidence and Oswald's own actions---i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy.

MARTIN HAY SAID:

Nowhere in my review do I state or even suggest that "all the evidence is fake and phony". .... I never suggested that there was anything "fraudulent" about the rifle.
 

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good. Then Oswald is guilty. He has to be guilty if the evidence is not "fake" or "phony" or "fraudulent". Right? Because how could he possibly be innocent if the evidence is truly legitimate?

So, it's good to have that cleared up. You've just admitted that Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 is not "fraudulent". And you've admitted that you DON'T think "all the evidence is fake and phony". Which I assume would indicate that you think at least SOME of the evidence is real and legitimate and worthy of being utilized to try and solve the JFK murder case. Correct?

At this rate, you'll be an LNer before you know it, Martin. Because there are very few Internet conspiracists who are willing to stipulate that ANY of the evidence against Oswald is legit.

Lots more here....
jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-918.html

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

I know this is an old post, but I hate Ronald Wieck. Some moments with him on Hardfire are funny, but that's about it. On a 9/11 Forum, he described a long phone call he had with demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who famously insisted that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition from the day he saw the footage and afterwards until he died in a car accident. Wieck mentioned telling him about all of the firefighter's testimonies saying how big the fires were on the floors of WTC 7 and how long they lasted. Of course, that's all probably meaningless because the steel columns of WTC 7 had functional fireproofing material on them, something that even NIST admitted. That's why an unusual, rare event like some situations with low-heat thermal expansion is the favorite hypothesis among mainstream engineering material on the collapses. Wieck mentions telling Jowenko of the firefighters expecting WTC 7 to collapse because it was perceived at the time that it was a heavily damaged lost cause. However, we now know that the foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse originated from a mysterious unidentified "engineer", who told the fire chiefs at about 11:30 AM that the building would collapse "in about five or six hours". What a eerily accurate premonition for only about an hour after the North Tower collapsed! Wieck concluded his rant by calling Jowenko an idiot. Even if Jowenko is ultimately wrong, he has more expertise than Ronald quoting out-of-context firefighter statements. Why would anybody care about what he thinks of this?

Edited February 18, 2017 by Micah Mileto