Jesse Ventura's JFK "Conspiracy Theory" program

[Michael Hogan]

According to TV by the Numbers, the Nielsen ratings showed that the JFK episode of Conspiracy Theory had 1.345 million viewers. Less than half as many as shows like SpongeBob, Disney's Hannah Montana, and WWE Wrestling.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/11/22/friday-cable-ratings-icarly-celtics-thunder-sanctuary-friday-night-smackdown-drop-back-big-time-rush-more/73059

The 15th highest rated cable show for the week had more than twice as many viewers.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/entertainment/breakingnews/list-of-top-15-cable-programs-in-the-nielsen-ratings-for-nov-15-21-110402914.html

I think I read where the most recent episode of Dancing With the Stars had 24 million viewers.

Many of Ventura's viewers were probably predisposed to things conspiratorial and had at least some familiarity with the topic.

Most of them had probably seen Oliver Stone's movie JFK at one point or another. I doubt Ventura's show changed many minds

or opened many eyes. I could be wrong.

[Ian Kingsbury]

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/jesse-ventura.html

A few thoughts about Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" JFK program:

Many of the same old myths, long ago debunked, were dragged out by Ventura for his "TruTV" program (embedded at the bottom of the webpage linked above), such as the nonsense about Lee Harvey Oswald not being able to pull off the shooting of JFK in the time that was allotted him.

Ventura, however, for some reason didn't stick to the oft-used myth of LHO having only 5.6 seconds to get off his three shots with his Mannlicher-Carcano. Instead, Jesse pulled a different figure out of thin air: 6.3 seconds.

So, I will give Ventura credit for adding seven-tenths of a second to the timing myth, although I have no idea where he came up with his "6.3 seconds" figure.

The Warren Commission, of course, was never boxing itself in to accepting a shooting timeline of only 5.6 seconds (or even 6.3), and Page #117 of the Warren Report easily disproves the often-repeated "5.6 seconds" myth, with the Commission stating, plain as day, that if either the FIRST or the THIRD shot was the shot that missed President Kennedy (which the Commission certainly did not rule out), then the time for the entire shooting would therefore increase accordingly, up to a possible 7.9 seconds, per the Warren Commission's investigation:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

Ventura himself made three attempts (on camera) to duplicate Oswald's shooting performance (which Jesse said was 6.3 seconds). On his first attempt, Jesse did everything he could to make firing his Carcano seem like it was more difficult than building the Pyramids, and as a result of this obvious stretched-out fakery, Jesse's first time was a ridiculous 11.17 seconds.

He then did get better on his second and third attempts, scoring times of 8.84 seconds and 8.79 seconds for three shots (while, as he admitted, achieving multiple "hits" on the target below him, including a "head shot" too).

Now, when we examine the truth regarding the actual amount of time that Lee Harvey Oswald had on 11/22/63 to get off his three shots at the President from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, which was very likely a total time of approximately 8.4 seconds, and then compare that figure with the last two attempts made by ex-Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, we can see that Jesse came very close to Oswald's time -- missing LHO's 8.4-second time by only about 0.4 seconds.

And Jesse said that his three attempts at duplicating Oswald's feat were "nowhere near" Oswald's time. Ventura also said: "This is xxxxing impossible".

Bullxxxx, Jesse. And you (unintentionally) proved that Oswald's feat was not impossible when you got off three shots (with some hits) in only 8.84 and 8.79 seconds. And that even INCLUDES Jesse's sluggishness with the Carcano bolt-action rifle he was using.

And it doesn't really matter whether Jesse was merely pretending to have trouble with the gun, or whether he was, in fact, legitimately having a difficult time working the bolt, the results are still the same -- Ventura fired three REAL, LIVE bullets with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in just about exactly the same amount of time that Lee Oswald did on November 22, 1963.

This old "it's impossible" trick reminds me of a similar goof in Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", which contains a scene that has Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) and one of his assistants making the claim that Oswald could not have done the shooting in under 6 seconds. But when actor Jay Sanders actually performed his shooting test with the camera rolling, what happened? He dry-fired three shots with a Carcano in 5.5 seconds! Ya gotta love it.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oliver-stone-blunder.html

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/five-point-six-seconds-myth.html

Ventura also resurrects the "Three Tramps" myth, pretending that the tramps were somehow involved in Kennedy's murder in some way, all the while ignoring the fact that the arrest records for the three tramps were discovered years ago, with the tramps turning out to be just that -- tramps.

And then there's the crap about George H.W. Bush possibly being photographed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

And we're also treated to a guest appearance by conspiracy quack Jim Marrs, who wants Ventura's audience to swallow the notion that Lee Oswald went to the Texas Theater to meet a "contact" on November 22nd, and then the rug was pulled out from under "patsy" Oswald in the theater as some unnamed co-plotter called the cops and had Oswald picked up.

Naturally, Marrs and Ventura will completely ignore the truth regarding Oswald's arrest. With the truth being: ordinary civilian witnesses Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal were the people who were directly responsible for Oswald being arrested in the Texas Theater, with Postal being the one who called the police shortly after Oswald sneaked into the theater without paying.

I think it's time to call "Mythbusters" after watching this Ventura propaganda piece.

Still More Crap:

Ventura decides to ignore the multiple witnesses who positively identified Oswald as the killer of Officer J.D. Tippit, with Jesse wondering why Oswald would have thrown down the shell casings at the Tippit murder scene. It was just "too pat", "too easy", and "too perfect", according to crack investigator Ventura, even though witnesses at the scene saw Oswald, HIMSELF, dumping the shells from his own gun as he fled the scene.

But it's best to ignore the best evidence if you're a conspiracy theorist like Jesse Ventura. And, as usual, Ventura does just that. He ignores all of the best evidence, in favor of rumor, speculation, and the conspiracy theories of people like Jim Marrs and James Fetzer. (God help Ventura's audience.)

And, of course, the proverbial "back and to the left" stuff is dragged out of the closet again too, with Ventura totally ignoring the fact that JFK's head initially moved FORWARD at the moment of the bullet's impact. Naturally, though, his audience is never told that fact.

In summary, Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" episode on the JFK assassination is one great-big steaming pile of recycled and rehashed conspiracy-flavored garbage.

David Von Pein

November 25, 2010

Was this based on the S.S. re-enactment or FBI timing of the shooting because theres a big difference between the two including a shot after the head shot?.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

More Von Peinian crapola.

Four people in 47 years have done what LHO was supposed to do. And they really did not since:

1. They were crack marksmen which LHO was not

2. It took them more than one pass

3. Oswald's rifle was even worse to work than the average MC

Suffice it to say: if the finest sniper in modern US history says he could not do it, so ends the story. Carlos Hathcock said he tried it several times. He could not do it. Dead and buried. (Pleased read this to see how great Hathcock was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock). Get over it you whiner. You lost. Stop misleading all those innocent people. Because, as I said, your reputation as a disinfo artist is fast catching up to you. Isn't this Thanksgiving? Go sell some chicken to those who can't afford turkey.

I think Jesse, and on this we surely disagree, was implying that Oswald actually shot Tippit.

Lee Farley, that blessed young man from across the pond, was in Dallas for Lancer. He actually started at Oswald's rooming house and went to 10th and Patton.

On the first pass, walking quickly, he did something like 12:30 seconds.

On the second pass, walking very fast, he did something like 11:25 seconds.

On the third pass, jogging all the way, ending up in a heavy sweat, he did something like 9: 16 seconds.

Recall, Larry Harris was the best Tippit researcher ever. His best bet for the actual time of the murder was 1:08 or 1:09. So Oswald could not have been there.

I really wish Jesse had done that experiment. (But see DVP would have complained that he should have done it with the current world record holder in the mile run. LOL.)

I wish Jesse would not have worked with the whole tramps concept at all. I tend to believe the La Fontaines on this. And needless to say, if you read Seamus Coogan on Alex Jones, St. John Hunt is a dubious character. And Seamus will have more to say on him later in his review of this show at CTKA.

Who the heck was the guy in the wheelchair? I first thought it was Kangas. But the build was wrong. Jim Fetzer, was that you making your acting debut? If so, you are good.

I really appreciated the effort to connect Watergate with JFK since Lisa and I did it in Probe back in 1995. We put a chart together showing the similar characters and their roles. But again, Jesse is not a detail guy. At least not without Russell. Operation Forty was in reality the guys who were supposed to do away with the Kennedy Cubans if the Bay of Pigs succeeded.

No one has ever seen this Top Secret report commissioned by Helms. Save one individual outside the Agency; Andrew St. George. And we only know that through the Dan Hardway declassified files of the HSCA. But the fact that the report was written by Halpern tells you how Top Secret it was. Because Halpern was the guy who buried all the dirty stuff for Dulles and Helms. The operation did exist according to Trumbull Higgins and John Newman. I asked John about this while he was working on his book Kennedy and Cuba. He said yes it did exist.

See, if you are going to connect Watergate with JFK the guy to start with, I believe, is James McCord. Because he works right under the guy who was in the middle of both cover ups: Helms.

But there was a lot to like about the show. And Mike, 1.4 million viewers for an off cable network like Tru Tv is not bad at all. Remember this is not MSNBC or CNN or Fox.

Absolutely, there was a lot to like in Jesse Ventura's show. A huge chunk of my Facebook friends are fans of his and he has a big youth audience. I think the reverberations of just that one show will have more impact for truth in the JFK Assassination than the whole book tour of those deluded Secret Service agents still trying to push the Big Lie out of their ignorance and denial.

The more I think about, based on the timings that Jim demonstrated above, is the Lee Harvey Oswald did NOT shoot Officer Tippit. I don't think Oswald had time to get there. Which is too bad because Dallas newspapers today insist on calling Oswald the murderer of Tippit, while at the same time IGNORING THE UGLY REALITY OF THE COUP OF 1963.

[David Von Pein]

More DiEugenio crappola, I see. He even mentions an 11-minute run-through for the trek from Beckley to 10th & Patton, and somehow that time is supposed to prove that Oswald couldn't have been there in time. Hilarious. 11 minutes is perfect, and probably just about exactly the amount of time it took Oswald to get from 1026 North Beckley Avenue to Tenth & Patton on 11/22/63 --

Left Roominghouse -- Approx. 1:03 PM (probably even earlier, since there's no way he was in his small room for any 3 or 4 minutes).

Killed Tippit -- Approx. 1:14:30 PM (per Dale Myers' extensive and detailed analysis of the event).

Time Elapsed -- 11:30.

And yet--somehow--DiEugenio thinks an 11-minute re-enactment is providing proof of Oswald's innocence. Crazy.

Only in a CTer's strange world.

Naturally, of course, DiEugenio has to pretend that Tippit was killed between 1:06 and 1:10, which means that Domingo Benavides stood around on Tenth Street picking lint out of his belly button for SIX TO TEN MINUTES before deciding to get into Tippit's police car and report the shooting.

He failed at this, so T.F. Bowley had to take the mike from Domingo, but we know that the "pumping" sounds on the DPD tapes indicate that Benavides didn't get on the radio until after 1:16:00 PM CST, which would mean, as I said, that he would have waited about 10 minutes to use the radio if Tippit had been shot at 1:06, which is totally ridiculous.

Edited November 26, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

....

Edited November 26, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robert seems to me to be making the most sensible points, von Pein the least. Jesse qualified as "expert", but Lee only

initially (in 1957) as "sharpshooter" and then (in 1959) as "marksman"--and just barely! So he dropped 21 points in two

years. Marksmanship is a highly practice-dependent activity and we have no reason to believe he was practicing thereafter.

I supervised recruit training as a series commander at the same recruit depot (San Diego) and the same rifle range (Edson

Range) where Oswald took his training. He was taught to fire an M-1, which is a semi-automatic (automatically reloading

after each shot), but not to fired down from a tall building, to use a telescopic sight, or to fire at a moving target.

The Mannlicher-Carcano is a very cheap weapon, which was so unreliable in combat during World War II that it was known as

"the humanitarian rifle" for never actually hurting anyone one purpose. The bolt action is so difficult to manage that

it pulls the shooter off the target each time it is worked, which means that the shooter has to sight in all over again.

So Jesse is a better shot, the weapon he as using was in very good repair and the targets he was firing at were stationary.

He fired four salvos of three shots apiece, where during the first three, he was trying to equal or better a speed around

6 seconds. Van Pein's complain is silly, since he could not crack 8 secs, much less 6, and only had one hit out of twelve.

He also implied that Lee did NOT shoot Tippit, not that he had. He began by observing that Lee had "supposedly" taken a

route far out of his way to the Texas Theater and pointed out the oddity of stopping to remove cartridges from a revolver.

In fact four casings ejected from automatics were found at the scene and were initialed by the first arriving officer.

There were two of one make and two of another. Acquilla Clemons, who was sitting on her porch across the street, said that

two men had shot Tippit and neither of them looked like Oswald. Subsequently, revolver casings were substituted for those

found at the scene, only now there were three of one make and only on of the other, none of which had the officer's initials.

Likewise, with regard to the third tramp, he did not say it was E. Howard Hunt but only that many students of the case think

it was Hunt. I don't believe it was Hunt, but Jack White and I have differed about this for years, where he is convinced--

and he is not alone--that it was Hunt. So what Jesse reported was completely accurate regarding both Tippit and the tramp

Von Pein suggests there was nothing new here, which is what the CIA advisory on handling critics of THE WARREN COMMISSION,

which I published as an appendix to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, recommends (along with other smears, such as suggesting that

the critics are financially motivated). So von Pein is simply recycling the kind of criticisms that have been used in the past.

This program carries public understanding several giant steps forward in relation to what it has been told in the past:

(1) that the official shot sequence is a fantasy;

(2) that crucial witnesses in close proximity were never called;

(3) that his own wife believes he didn't do it but is in fear of her life for talking about it;

(4) that one of the actual participants, E. Howard, has broken his silence about "The Big Event";

(5) that George H.W. Bush can't remember when he was when he learned that JFK had been wacked,

yet there is a photograph that looks like Bush--with the same height and weight, face and hair, style

of dress and mannerisms, including tilt of head--standing in front of the Depository that day;

(6) that a leading apologist for the official account, Vince Bugliosi, can't seem to appreciate that the

reasons he has given for why Lee might not have made a reliable assassin were also ones that would

have made him an ideal choice for the patsy--a confrontation from which I doubt he can recover; and

(6) that there are multiple indications that a series of presidents--LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Bush--

who would never have attained that office but for the death of their predecessor and who were

either involved in the assassination or the cover-up (for which there is much supporting proof).

This was new and presented in a clear, forceful, and compelling fashion. Those who have nothing

new to say are critics like von Pein. In my opinion, this program is the single best one-hour that has

ever been broadcast on television and is justifiably making an impact on the public's understanding.

More Von Peinian crapola.

Four people in 47 years have done what LHO was supposed to do. And they really did not since:

1. They were crack marksmen which LHO was not

2. It took them more than one pass

3. Oswald's rifle was even worse to work than the average MC

Suffice it to say: if the finest sniper in modern US history says he could not do it, so ends the story. Carlos Hathcock said he tried it several times. He could not do it. Dead and buried. (Pleased read this to see how great Hathcock was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock). Get over it you whiner. You lost. Stop misleading all those innocent people. Because, as I said, your reputation as a disinfo artist is fast catching up to you. Isn't this Thanksgiving? Go sell some chicken to those who can't afford turkey.

I think Jesse, and on this we surely disagree, was implying that Oswald actually shot Tippit.

Lee Farley, that blessed young man from across the pond, was in Dallas for Lancer. He actually started at Oswald's rooming house and went to 10th and Patton.

On the first pass, walking quickly, he did something like 12:30 seconds.

On the second pass, walking very fast, he did something like 11:25 seconds.

On the third pass, jogging all the way, ending up in a heavy sweat, he did something like 9: 16 seconds.

Recall, Larry Harris was the best Tippit researcher ever. His best bet for the actual time of the murder was 1:08 or 1:09. So Oswald could not have been there.

I really wish Jesse had done that experiment. (But see DVP would have complained that he should have done it with the current world record holder in the mile run. LOL.)

I wish Jesse would not have worked with the whole tramps concept at all. I tend to believe the La Fontaines on this. And needless to say, if you read Seamus Coogan on Alex Jones, St. John Hunt is a dubious character. And Seamus will have more to say on him later in his review of this show at CTKA.

Who the heck was the guy in the wheelchair? I first thought it was Kangas. But the build was wrong. Jim Fetzer, was that you making your acting debut? If so, you are good.

I really appreciated the effort to connect Watergate with JFK since Lisa and I did it in Probe back in 1995. We put a chart together showing the similar characters and their roles. But again, Jesse is not a detail guy. At least not without Russell. Operation Forty was in reality the guys who were supposed to do away with the Kennedy Cubans if the Bay of Pigs succeeded.

No one has ever seen this Top Secret report commissioned by Helms. Save one individual outside the Agency; Andrew St. George. And we only know that through the Dan Hardway declassified files of the HSCA. But the fact that the report was written by Halpern tells you how Top Secret it was. Because Halpern was the guy who buried all the dirty stuff for Dulles and Helms. The operation did exist according to Trumbull Higgins and John Newman. I asked John about this while he was working on his book Kennedy and Cuba. He said yes it did exist.

See, if you are going to connect Watergate with JFK the guy to start with, I believe, is James McCord. Because he works right under the guy who was in the middle of both cover ups: Helms.

But there was a lot to like about the show. And Mike, 1.4 million viewers for an off cable network like Tru Tv is not bad at all. Remember this is not MSNBC or CNN or Fox.

Absolutely, there was a lot to like in Jesse Ventura's show. A huge chunk of my Facebook friends are fans of his and he has a big youth audience. I think the reverberations of just that one show will have more impact for truth in the JFK Assassination than the whole book tour of those deluded Secret Service agents still trying to push the Big Lie out of their ignorance and denial.

The more I think about, based on the timings that Jim demonstrated above, is the Lee Harvey Oswald did NOT shoot Officer Tippit. I don't think Oswald had time to get there. Which is too bad because Dallas newspapers today insist on calling Oswald the murderer of Tippit, while at the same time IGNORING THE UGLY REALITY OF THE COUP OF 1963.

Edited November 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[David Von Pein]

Professor Fetzer:

Do you endorse what Jesse Ventura did when he was talking about the Tippit murder on Tenth Street when Ventura tried to leave doubts in his viewers' minds concerning whether or not Lee Oswald dumped any bullet shells on the ground at the Tippit murder scene?

Jesse's words in that Tippit segment were nothing but outright BS, because he KNEW (or he should know anyway) that multiple witnesses (Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, and Domingo Benavides) all saw the gunman physically dumping shells out of his gun as he fled the scene.

And you don't need to physically remove spent shells from an automatic weapon. Therefore, this PROVES that the gunman was in possession of a REVOLVER and not an AUTOMATIC pistol.

Edited November 26, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

That David Von Pein wants to sell us a bill of goods about the Tippit shooting, when I have already explained why he is wrong:

He also implied that Lee did NOT shoot Tippit, not that he had. He began by observing that Lee had "supposedly" taken a

route far out of his way to the Texas Theater and pointed out the oddity of stopping to remove cartridges from a revolver.

In fact four casings ejected from automatics were found at the scene and were initialed by the first arriving officer.

There were two of one make and two of another. Acquilla Clemons, who was sitting on her porch across the street, said that

two men had shot Tippit and neither of them looked like Oswald. Subsequently, revolver casings were substituted for those

found at the scene, only now there were three of one make and only on of the other, none of which had the officer's initials.

where Robert Groden, THE SEARCH FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD, provides an excellent account, which has now been supplemented

by DiEugenio's time-line, does not bother me nearly as much as that he and Robert Morrow both believe the Zapruder film is authentic,

when we know that witnesses in Dealey Plaza, such as Beverly Oliver, saw his brains blown out to the left-rear, that others, such as

Audrey Rike, felt the massive defect when he was lifting the body into the ceremonial bronze coffin, and that virtually all of the

physicians at Parkland, who were experienced with gunshot wounds, confirmed that both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was seen

extruding from the wound--a wound that is NOT seen in frames 313-316, for example, but IS visible in later frames like 374!

Now in "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", which you can google, I have presented the data virtually side-by-side

for ease of access, including the McClelland and Crenshaw diagrams, multiple quotes from physicians at Parkland, and frame 374.

What is there left to argue about? DiEugeio thinks Rollie Zavada is SINCERE and THEREFORE the film has not been faked? When

a group of Hollywood film restoration experts has found that the blow-out in those early frames was painted over in black--and

it was done very crudely!--what is there left to argue about? The blow-out existed in fact (which we know from the multitude

of witnesses, including the physicians) and it is visible in frame 374, but it is missing from frames 313-316! Case closed!

And have they never read the article Jim Marrs and I published some time ago, "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco", in which we

explain the multiple indications that the backyard photos were faked, which include (1) that the chin is not Oswald's chin, (2)

that there is an insert line between the chin and the lower lip, (3) that the finger-tips of his right hand holding the two newspapers

are cut off, and (4) that by using the newspapers he is holding, whose dimensions are known, Jack White has been able to

demonstrate that either the man in the photo is too short to be Lee Oswald or else the newspapers were introduced too large?!

These are only a few of the ways we know that the backyard photos are faked, which is what Lee said when he was shown one of

them. Moreover, there are at least four photos in the set, where the tilt and expression of the face is the same in each of the four!

Now it does not surprise me that David von Pein is going to come onto this forum and try to convince us of things that are not

true and have been proven to be false. But that DiEugenio or Morrow should continued to hold beliefs in the authenticity of the

film or that the backyard photos are genuine simply nauseates me. They are both seasoned students of the assassination, both

of whom should know better. Yet their attitudes here are simply inexcusable. No serious student of the death of JFK should

have to be spoon-fed how we know that the Zapruder is a fake, when I have published books with dozens of proofs and John P.

Costella has presented a visual tutorial, not to mention the many articles I have written about it, including "Zapruder JFK Film

impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", and "The JFK 'Head Shot'

Paradox". If you haven't read them and don't know what I am talking about, then that simply proves my point all the more.

In the year 2010, no one on this forum who is both competent and honest should be in the position to deny that the backyard

photos are faked. Jesse may believe what Marina has told him, but she cannot have taken these photographs, because no one

took them: they were faked! And once Jack White had testified before the HSCA about the multiple indications of fakery, no

serious student should have had any excuse to linger in doubt. Jim Marrs and I included Jack's findings in our article about this,

which means that, if you two needed a refresher course, we have already provided one. Kindly cease presenting indefensible

positions about either the Zapruder film or the backyard photographs! It is incredibly embarrassing for the two of you, whom

in other respects I admire, to place yourself on the same plane as David von Pein by upholding positions that are not only false

but have been proven to be false repeatedly in the past, lest we be forced to conclude that you are not both competent and honest.

Let me ask Professor Fetzer this:

Do you endorse what Jesse Ventura did when he was talking about the Tippit murder on Tenth Street when Ventura tried to leave doubts in his viewers' minds concerning whether or not Lee Oswald dumped any bullet shells on the ground at the Tippit murder scene?

Jesse's words in that Tippit segment were nothing but plain BS, because he KNEW (or he should know anyway) that multiple witnesses (Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, and Domingo Benavides) all saw the gunman physically dumping shells out of his gun as he fled the scene.

And you don't need to dump shells from an automatic weapon; therefore, this PROVES that the gunman was in possession of a REVOLVER and not an AUTOMATIC pistol.

Edited November 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

That David Von Pein wants to sell us a bill of goods about the Tippit shooting, when I have already explained why he is wrong:

He also implied that Lee did NOT shoot Tippit, not that he had. He began by observing that Lee had "supposedly" taken a

route far out of his way to the Texas Theater and pointed out the oddity of stopping to remove cartridges from a revolver.

In fact four casings ejected from automatics were found at the scene and were initialed by the first arriving officer.

There were two of one make and two of another. Acquilla Clemons, who was sitting on her porch across the street, said that

two men had shot Tippit and neither of them looked like Oswald. Subsequently, revolver casings were substituted for those

found at the scene, only now there were three of one make and only on of the other, none of which had the officer's initials.

where Robert Groden, THE SEARCH FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD, provides an excellent account, which has now been supplemented

by DiEugenio's time-line, does not bother me nearly as much as that he and Robert Morrow both believe the Zapruder film is authentic,

when we know that witnesses in Dealey Plaza, such as Beverly Oliver, saw his brains blown out to the left-rear, that others, such as

Audrey Rike, felt the massive defect when he was lifting the body into the ceremonial bronze coffin, and that virtually all of the

physicians at Parkland, who were experienced with gunshot wounds, confirmed that both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was seen

extruding from the wound--a wound that is NOT seen in frames 313-316, for example, but IS visible in later frames like 374!

Now in "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", which you can google, I have presented the data virtually side-by-side

for ease of access, including the McClelland and Crenshaw diagrams, multiple quotes from physicians at Parkland, and frame 374.

What is there left to argue about? DiEugeio thinks Rollie Zavada is SINCERE and THEREFORE the film has not been faked? When

a group of Hollywood film restoration experts has found that the blow-out in those early frames was painted over in black--and

it was done very crudely!--what is there left to argue about? The blow-out existed in fact (which we know from the multitude

of witnesses, including the physicians) and it is visible in frame 374, but it is missing from frames 313-316! Case closed!

And have they never read the article Jim Marrs and I published some time ago, "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco", in which we

explain the multiple indications that the backyard photos were faked, which include (1) that the chin is not Oswald's chin, (2)

that there is an insert line between the chin and the lower lip, (3) that the finger-tips of his right hand holding the two newspapers

are cut off, and (4) that by using the newspapers he is holding, whose dimensions are known, Jack White has been able to

demonstrate that either the man in the photo is too short to be Lee Oswald or else the newspapers were introduced too large?!

These are only a few of the ways we know that the backyard photos are faked, which is what Lee said when he was shown one of

them. Moreover, there are at least four photos in the set, where the tilt and expression of the face is the same in each of the four!

Now it does not surprise me that David von Pein is going to come onto this forum and try to convince us of things that are not

true and have been proven to be false. But that DiEugenio or Morrow should continued to hold beliefs in the authenticity of the

film or that the backyard photos are genuine simply nauseates me. They are both seasoned students of the assassination, both

of whom should know better. Yet their attitudes here are simply inexcusable. No serious student of the death of JFK should

have to be spoon-fed how we know that the Zapruder is a fake, when I have published books with dozens of proofs and John P.

Costella has presented a visual tutorial, not to mention the many articles I have written about it, including "Zapruder JFK Film

impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", and "The JFK 'Head Shot'

Paradox". If you haven't read them and don't know what I am talking about, then that simply proves my point all the more.

In the year 2010, no one on this forum who is both competent and honest should be in the position to deny that the backyard

photos are faked. Jesse may believe what Marina has told him, but she cannot have taken these photographs, because no one

took them: they were faked! And once Jack White had testified before the HSCA about the multiple indications of fakery, no

serious student should have had any excuse to linger in doubt. Jim Marrs and I included Jack's findings in our article about this,

which means that, if you two needed a refresher course, we have already provided one. Kindly cease presenting indefensible

positions about either the Zapruder film or the backyard photographs! It is incredibly embarrassing for the two of you, whom

in other respects I admire, to place yourself on the same plane as David von Pein by upholding positions that are not only false

but have been proven to be false repeatedly in the past, lest we be forced to conclude that you are not both competent and honest.

Let me ask Professor Fetzer this:

Do you endorse what Jesse Ventura did when he was talking about the Tippit murder on Tenth Street when Ventura tried to leave doubts in his viewers' minds concerning whether or not Lee Oswald dumped any bullet shells on the ground at the Tippit murder scene?

Jesse's words in that Tippit segment were nothing but plain BS, because he KNEW (or he should know anyway) that multiple witnesses (Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, and Domingo Benavides) all saw the gunman physically dumping shells out of his gun as he fled the scene.

And you don't need to dump shells from an automatic weapon; therefore, this PROVES that the gunman was in possession of a REVOLVER and not an AUTOMATIC pistol.

[David Von Pein]

David Von Pein wants to sell us a bill of goods about the Tippit shooting, when I have already explained why he is wrong...

And James H. Fetzer surely knows WAY more than the WC and the HSCA, right?

Those two Govt. entities declared Oswald GUILTY of murdering JD Tippit. But Jim Fetzer doesn't give a damn about that--after all, it's merely the corrupt "Government". Right, James?

BTW, Jim, your explanations re the Tippit murder are pathetic. J.M. Poe didn't initial FOUR shells. He only handled the two Benavides shells, not four. And Poe himself told the WC that he wasn't sure whether he marked them or not.

But even if we were to toss the two Poe shells out the window, Oswald's guilt (ballistically) is still proven via the two OTHER (Davis) shells, which have a clear and distinct chain of custody -- from the Davis girls to two different police officers: Doughty and Dhority.

Addendum:

Today I wrote a brief article regarding Bill & Gayle Newman and their 11/22/63 interviews on WFAA-TV in Dallas.

I'm wondering what a Z-Film Alterationist like Mr. Fetzer thinks about when he watches that 11/22 footage showing the Newmans talking about a big hole in the RIGHT-FRONT portion of President Kennedy's head (vs. the big hole being at the BACK of the President's head, which, of course, is where Fetzer thinks the wound was located, with no big hole AT ALL located in the place where Bill & Gayle Newman said they saw one -- and the Newmans said that they saw it there within MINUTES of the shooting too).

Jim, did some of the plotters somehow coerce both Bill and Gayle to say on live TV that there was blood "gushing out" of the right side of JFK's head?

More:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html

Every conspiracy theorist should watch (and listen to) the live TV and radio coverage that aired on November 22, 1963. And after doing that, they should ask themselves these questions:

Does the radio and TV footage I just watched and heard REALLY support the kind of multi-gun assassination plot that many conspiracists have endorsed since 1963? Or does that footage actually support the conclusions of the Warren Commission?

Any reasonable person, after watching the live 11/22 coverage (in which nearly every single report indicates that only THREE shots were fired from ONE single gun and by ONE single gunman in the Texas School Book Depository), has no choice but to conclude that the silly Oliver Stone-like "3-gunmen, 6-shots" assassination scenario, and all multi-gun theories similar to Stone's, should be discarded for all time as being totally unreasonable and flat-out ludicrous, given the live TV footage they have just witnessed.

You should try it, Jim. It'll do you good:

Edited November 26, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Von Pein would have you accept political decisions over scientific truths, which is hardly surprising. If the government has

perpetrated one fraud after another upon the American people regarding the assassination, are we obligated to believe them,

even when we can prove that they are false? The alteration of the X-rays, after all, and the substitution of another brain were

not proven until David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., had studied them in the National Archives and Robert B. Livingston, M.D., had

reviewed the reports from multiple physicians at Parkland Hospital. They presented their findings already in November 1993,

during the 30th observance, and I published them in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). No one thereafter should have been in

any doubt. Yet there are active members of this forum who have never studied their work and continue to harbor doubts, even

as we approach the 50th. But, for anyone who has studied the Parkland physicians' reports, there should be no room for doubt.

DiEugenio and Morrow are competent regarding other aspects of the case, but not all. Jack White's testimony to the HSCA was

sufficient to establish that the backyard photographs had been faked for those who understood him. Doubts today are simply

inexcusable, as Jim Marrs and I have explained. The same for the faking of the Zapruder film. At least since the publication

of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), there has been no good reason for serious students not to know better. If they

don't, that is a function of some lack of awareness and understanding of the relationship between evidence and conclusions. These

are not matters of subjective belief but of logical relations. If the chin is not Oswald's chin, the backyard photographs cannot be

genuine. If wounds that are present in some frames of the Zapruder, such as 374, are missing from others, such as 313-316, the

film has to have been altered and cannot be authentic. Once anyone understands the relationship between the witness testimony,

including the Parkland reports, and the features of the film, which are themselves inconsistent, the fakery should be obvious.

Similarly, if the holes in the jacket and the shirt align with the locations of the wounds in the autopsy and FBI diagrams, with

the death certificate of the president's personal physician and with the reenactment photographs about 5.5 inches below the

collar, which is confirmed by the mortician's summary of the wounds, then when we discover that Gerald Ford (D-MI), a member of

the commission, had the description of the wound changed from "his uppermost back" to the "base of the back of his neck", which

turns out to be anatomically impossible, we KNOW that the "magic bullet" theory cannot possibly be true and that there had to

have been at least six shots from three directions, as I have explained in "Reasoning about Assassinations". There is no longer

any reason to doubt whether a bullet could have passed through JFK's neck and exited his throat to cause the wounds in Connally.

And that should have been apparent when Malcolm Perry, M.D., described the throat wound as a wound of entry three times that day!

If anyone wants to go back and watch "As It Happened" from NBC, they can watch as Chet Huntley and others relay the reports from

Dallas that the president's death was a simple matter of a bullet through the head and that it entered the right temple, which

they attribute to Admiral George Burkley, the president's personal physician. They also report the wound to the throat, as the

only wounds broadcast on radio and television that day, both of which were fired from in front. So when the news comes in that

the assassin (alleged or otherwise) was supposed to have been "above and behind" his target, Frank McGee, who was able to add

"2" and "2", stated on the air that, "This is incongruous. How can the man have been shot from in front from behind?" The official

account would eventually resolve this by reversing the trajectories. Initially it had assumed three shots and three hits--one to the

president's back, one to Connally's back, and one to the back of the president's head--until the shot that hit Tague turned up,

which meant that the commission only had two shots to account for all those wounds and the "magic bullet" hypothesis was born.

The outcomes of formal hearings, like those of the Warren Commission and of the HSCA, are alltoo often subject to careful

construction, where witnesses are withheld, others intimidated, and evidence is subject to manipulation. Von Pein's appeal

to their outcomes might qualify as legitimate were we unaware that this is the case. Bill Newman, for example, is only one

of the ten closest witnesses to the limousine, none of whom were ever called to testify before the commission. In the case

of the Tippit shooting, moreover, four automatic shell casings of two different makes suggests that two men shot him, just

as Acquilla Celmons said. And that substitutions are later made where we now have revolver casings instead, three of one

make and one of the other, is a nice example of how these things are done. There is no merit in von Pein's appeals to finished

products or to witnesses who tailor their story to accommodate the official account when other evidence contradicts them.

THE WARREN REPORT and the HSCA FINAL REPORT depend upon the "magic bullet" and are defeated by its refutation.

None of this is rocket science, but it requires applied intelligence and serious study to work though the "smoke and mirrors"

that those like Arlen Specter and Dave Von Pein have been trading in for all of these years. What disturbs me is not that they

are willing to place politics before truth but that so many students of JFK continue to be willing to contemplate the possibility

of a "magic bullet" or that the backyard photographs are genuine or that the Zapruder film is authentic--even to this very day!

While convergence with regard to conclusions in scientific inquiries presumes that those engaged are considering the same body

of evidence and the same alternative hypotheses using the same rules of reasoning--conditions that are not often satisfied in a

case of this kind, where so much fake evidence has been fabricated and so much genuine evidence has been altered or withheld--

we should have reached a point by now where these there remains no serious grounds to debate "magic bulleta", backyard photos,

or the authenticity of the Zapruder film. At this point in time, given what we know, these issues should no longer remain in doubt.

David Von Pein wants to sell us a bill of goods about the Tippit shooting, when I have already explained why he is wrong...

And James H. Fetzer surely knows WAY more than the WC and the HSCA, right?

Those two Govt. entities declared Oswald GUILTY of murdering JD Tippit. But Jim Fetzer doesn't give a damn about that--after all, it's merely the corrupt "Government". Right, James?

BTW, Jim, your explanations re the Tippit murder are pathetic. J.M. Poe didn't initial FOUR shells. He only handled the two Benavides shells, not four. And Poe himself told the WC that he wasn't sure whether he marked them or not.

But even if we were to toss the two Poe shells out the window, Oswald's guilt (ballistically) is still proven via the two OTHER (Davis) shells, which have a clear and distinct chain of custody -- from the Davis girls to two different police officers: Doughty and Dhority.

Addendum:

Today I wrote a brief article regarding Bill & Gayle Newman and their 11/22/63 interviews on WFAA-TV in Dallas.

I'm wondering what a Z-Film Alterationist like Mr. Fetzer thinks about when he watches that 11/22 footage showing the Newmans talking about a big hole in the RIGHT-FRONT portion of President Kennedy's head (vs. the big hole being at the BACK of the President's head, which, of course, is where Fetzer thinks the wound was located, with no big hole AT ALL located in the place where Bill & Gayle Newman said they saw one -- and the Newmans said that they saw it there within MINUTES of the shooting too).

Jim, did some of the plotters somehow coerce both Bill and Gayle to say on live TV that there was blood "gushing out" of the right side of JFK's head?

More:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html

Every conspiracy theorist should watch (and listen to) the live TV and radio coverage that aired on November 22, 1963. And after doing that, they should ask themselves these questions:

Does the radio and TV footage I just watched and heard REALLY support the kind of multi-gun assassination plot that many conspiracists have endorsed since 1963? Or does that footage actually support the conclusions of the Warren Commission?

Any reasonable person, after watching the live 11/22 coverage (in which nearly every single report indicates that only THREE shots were fired from ONE single gun and by ONE single gunman in the Texas School Book Depository), has no choice but to conclude that the silly Oliver Stone-like "3-gunmen, 6-shots" assassination scenario, and all multi-gun theories similar to Stone's, should be discarded for all time as being totally unreasonable and flat-out ludicrous, given the live TV footage they have just witnessed.

You should try it, Jim. It'll do you good:

Edited November 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[David Von Pein]

What part of JFK's head did Gayle Newman say blood was "gushing" from, Mr. Fetzer?

Here's a visual hint:

Here's another hint:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/02/interviews-with-bill-and-gayle-newman.html

And here's third hint (via the film that Prof. Fetzer thinks has been "altered", with a red "blob" being added to the film, which just happens to perfectly coincide with the exact place on JFK's head where Gayle Newman, within ONE HOUR of the assassination, said she saw blood "gushing" from; yes, I know that Gayle also said that it looked to her as if JFK had "grabbed his ear", which he never did; but her observation about WHERE on JFK's head she saw the gushing blood is the key point here, which is in perfect harmony with what we see in the Zapruder Film, a film that Mr. Fetzer thinks has been "wholly fabricated"):

http://www.box.net/shared/7n9bertqjo

Edited November 26, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

One of von Pein's favorite fallacies is that of special pleading, which entails presenting only the evidence that is favorable to your side and ignoring the rest. JFK did have a skull flap that blew open but remained attached to his skull at the time he was hit by the frangible (or "exploding") bullet, when his brains were blown out the back of his head to the left-rear. In "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html I explicitly discuss the testimony of Bill and Gayle Newman, who appear to have been traumatized when they saw the skull-flap blown open just as his brains were being blown out to the left-rear. The vast majority of witnesses said the massive blow-out was at the back of his head, where the Parkland physicians identified cerebral as well as cerebellar tissue extruding therefrom. Since the cerebellum is a compact part of the brain at the base just above the spinal column, if their testimony were a complete account of JFK's injuries, it is extremely difficult to imagine how cerebellar tissue could have been involved.

I have laid out the medical issues very clearly, including diagrams that show the location of the cerebellum and photographs of many additional witnesses as to the location of the wound. If Gayle Newman were right, moreover, it is difficult to imagine why his brains would have been blown out to the left-rear with such force that Officer Hargis thought that he himself had been shot when he was hit with the debris. A triangular chuck of JFK's skull, known as "the Harper fragment", was also found in the grass to the left of the limo's location the next day, which was identified as occipital-parietal bone by physicians who examined it. David Mantik has discussed this in detail in his chapter about the medical evidence in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), where Gary Aguilar has demonstrated the consistency of the Parkland physicians' reports of the blow-out to the back of the head. His essay, "How Five Investigations into JFK's Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got it Wrong" (2003), http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm might also help von Pein to understand the evidence.

Since I provide a discussion of all this (with supporting reports and diagrams) in "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf especially on pages 357 through 361, I am puzzled that von Pein cannot muster a better attack. Notice that on page 360 quotes about extruding cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue are found from Drs. Crenshaw, Jenkins, Carrico, Perry, McClelland, Baxter, and Clark, who was the director of neurology. They were all competent physicians with extensive experience dealing with gunshot victims. Whatever Gayle Newman may have thought she saw, apart from the blown-open flap, the massive wound was at the back of his head, not the side. Since that was the case and yet the autopsy X-rays do not show it, while the brain shown in diagrams and photographs at the National Archives has an intact cerebellum, it cannot be the case that the X-rays are unaltered or that those diagrams and photographs are of JFK's brain. They also provide proof that the Zapruder film has been faked, since frames 313-316 also do not show it, even though--as I have repeatedly explained, it is visible in frame 374. Had von Pein studied ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, or my articles, he might have known better than to try to pull such a sophomoric stunt.

What part of JFK's head did Gayle Newman say blood was "gushing" from, Mr. Fetzer?

Here's a visual hint:

Here's another hint:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/02/interviews-with-bill-and-gayle-newman.html

And here's third hint (via the film that Prof. Fetzer thinks has been "altered", with a red "blob" being added to the film, which just happens to perfectly coincide with the exact place on JFK's head where Gayle Newman, within ONE HOUR of the assassination, said she saw blood "gushing" from; yes, I know that Gayle also said that it looked to her as if JFK had "grabbed his ear", which he never did; but her observation about WHERE on JFK's head she saw the gushing blood is the key point here, which is in perfect harmony with what we see in the Zapruder Film, a film that Mr. Fetzer thinks has been "wholly fabricated"):

http://www.box.net/shared/7n9bertqjo

Edited November 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[David Von Pein]

A "left rear" blow-out?? LOL. You're all alone on that one, Jim. Even amongst your CT friends.

So, this picture's another fake, I guess. Not a hint of damage at the "left rear" of the head:

Edited November 26, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

His brains were blown out to the left-rear. The defect was at the back of his head, slightly to the right. The photo you cite appears to be a

fake, which looks very much like the Groden color-photos, which I have presumed are well-known to be fakes. I find it fascinating that you have to distort my meaning and appeal to fake photos to have any case. You are grasping after straws. This is another excellent example of your use of special pleading, where you cannot respond to the points I have made and, in desperation, have to fabricate one.

A "left rear" blow-out?? LOL. You're all alone on that one, Jim. Even amongst your CT friends.

So, this picture's another fake, I guess. Not a hint of damage at the "left rear" of the head:

Edited November 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer