David Von Pein

Prior to reading this 1964 article today, I had never heard about any of this "William Bobo" secrecy surrounding Lee Oswald's grave and burial....

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Unless you believe the mortician about the difficulty of getting the ink off his hands. 

Maybe that was ink leftover from when LHO was fingerprinted extensively on Friday, 11/22. Why is that not a possible scenario?

Also See:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Was Oswald Fingerprinted After He Died?

10 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

The rifle palm print Lt. Day lifted off of Oswald's cold dead corpse.

And where's the proof that such a thing ever occurred?

You have no such proof, of course. But you'll state it as a fact nonetheless.

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What Pat said was a demonstrable falsehood. He's been warned several times that it's a falsehood and he continues to state it as fact.

You just don't seem to understand Pat Speer's basic point.

I think Pat is most definitely incorrect regarding his evaluation of the "McClelland / Left temple" matter. Pat is overstating the importance of this brief hospital admission note.

Plus, after reading over that admission note again just now, it's fairly clear that Dr. McClelland does tell us, on Page 1 of the two-page admission note, that he did, indeed, see a large wound in President Kennedy's head when he says that JFK had suffered "a massive gunshot wound of the head". McClelland just didn't give the specific details concerning the exact location of where that "massive wound" was situated on the President's head.

And I don't think that McClelland's reference to a "left temple" wound on Page 2 of his admission note is referring to the "massive gunshot wound of the head" that he mentions on Page 1. I think the (erroneous) "left temple" reference is meant to indicate the place on JFK's head where Dr. McClelland at that time (at 4:45 PM on 11/22/63) thought the bullet had entered the President's head.

But at least I understand the basic point that Pat Speer is trying to get across (even though Pat is wrong, IMO). You, Sandy, apparently cannot grasp that point at all.

7 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

I'm going to leave the honors to you, Mr. Von Pein. Which is it, A, B, or C, or is it, as I believe, all three?

What in the world are you babbling about now? I didn't "lie" in any of those statements that you quoted. They are all correct statements and, moreover, they are perfectly consistent with each another.

So what is your point?

[--Awaiting six-mile-long explanation from K.H., which undoubtedly will feature no "point" at all.--]

35 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The difference is that Pat lied and I didn't.

And, of course, it is YOU (and you alone) who now gets to decide who has "lied" and who hasn't, is that it?

And a member now gets punished for expressing his OPINION about a particular subject, eh?

Pat seems to really believe that McClelland (in his initial report) was talking about a large wound in the left temple. I think Pat is dead wrong on this McClelland/Left Temple subject. McClelland's "left temple" reference, as you and others have correctly pointed out earlier, was referring to the alleged ENTRY wound that McClelland said was being pointed out by Dr. Jenkins. This was, of course, all just one big misunderstanding on McClelland's part. But Pat Speer evaluates this situation differently. And Pat's certainly entitled to his opinion....as am I and all other EF members.

So what it boils down to is ---- You, Sandy, are penalizing Pat for having a different opinion than yours.

Do you think that's fair?

.....

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Such trickery is the law of the land for Mr. Speer, and others like him, such as David Von Pein, who has the following meme of deceptive screenshots on his website:

To debunk Mr. Von Pein -- as we just debunked Mr. Speer -- I wrote the following:

Here's the problem: You've presented this meme of Dr. McClelland in the 1988 PBS Nova program "Who Shot President Kennedy" in support of the notion that he was communicating that the large avulsive back of the head wound that he reported to the Warren Commission was actually on the side of JFK's head in the parietal area over the ear.

I was, of course, doing no such thing. I have never communicated the idea that I have ever thought that Dr. McClelland ever placed the large head wound anywhere except the far-right-rear portion of JFK's head.

I have no idea how or why you have latched on to the goofy notion that I was trying to say that McClelland was placing the wound "over the ear" in the above screen captures from the 1988 NOVA program. I never said any such thing. You just decided to make that up (for some reason).

Here's the way I set Keven straight when this same subject first surfaced here in January of this year:

"I have no idea why Keven Hofeling is blasting me on the McClelland "hands-on demonstrations" topic. McClelland's "demonstrations" have ALWAYS placed the large "blow out" wound at the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head (with very little variation). So where's the disagreement there, Keven? The disagreement comes, of course, when I point out the fact that Dr. McClelland was 100% wrong, as proven for all time by the HSCA-authenticated autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the Z-Film, which also proves that ALL of the witnesses who said there was a huge blow-out wound at the rear of Kennedy's head were dead wrong. But CTers like Keven Hofeling will, evidently, continue to pretend that the autopsy photos AND the X-rays AND the Zapruder Film AND the autopsy report AND the testimony of all 3 autopsy surgeons are ALL (in perfect tandem) fake/phony/altered/manufactured." -- DVP; January 24, 2024

On 5/6/2024 at 8:59 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

No, that is one of your persistent lies.

On 5/6/2024 at 9:04 PM, Pat Speer said:

No, this is one of your lies, Sandy.

It's kind of fun watching two conspiracy theorists calling each other liars on a daily basis now. I'm enjoying it. Even though such accusations are, of course, in direct violation of one of the most fundamental rules of this forum. But I guess if you're a moderator (or two), you can get away with such infractions. And maybe that's why we can now write out the word LIAR at this forum without it being X'ed out. Perhaps the mods removed that restriction so they themselves can utilize that word more often and more freely (on each other). Nice. 

"No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of lying."  -- Education Forum Rules and Membership Behaviour *

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

EDIT --- The "lying" rule has now been changed to this (as of May 7, 2024 AM):

"No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of posting a falsehood without definitive proof of it being so."

On 5/5/2024 at 7:34 PM, Pat Speer said:

So let's narrow it down. 

1. Your man Lattimer claimed the bullet entering two inches below Kennedy's shoulder line entered at the level of Kennedy's chin, and that this was because Kennedy's shoulder was elevated up to a location ABOVE the base of JFK's head, due to his being a hunchback, due to his steroid use. Do you think this was nonsense? Or do you think he was onto something?

2. Your man Guinn wrote papers claiming you needed a match on three key elements before you could declare two bullet specimens a match. And yet he only had one match: antimony. Even though the wrist fragment matched roughly half the other fragments tested for silver, it barely matched the magic bullet, and only then when one stretched out the confidence levels further than any of the other confidence levels were stretched. He then subsequently changed the numbers to make it look like a match. Now, copper wasn't even close to a match, which Guinn blamed on contamination. In his papers, however, he claimed one should use arsenic as a third element if one of the other three is contaminated. And yet he never offered ANY numbers for arsenic. So the facts are clear that Guinn misrepresented the evidence to the committee, and almost certainly perjured himself when testifying for Bugliosi in the mock trial. Do you stand by his testimony? And, if so, are you aware of any experts in the field who stand by his testimony? 

Well, Pat, let's assume just for the sake of this discussion that Dr. Guinn was, indeed, a big fat liar (as you apparently believe). I'd still like to know what you think the odds are of a multi-gun conspiracy taking place in Dallas, with bullets from more than just a single rifle striking the two limo victims, and yet, after the bullets stopped flying, NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-Oswald gun turned out to be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Oswald's rifle as the source for ALL of the bullets and fragments that hit any of the victims on Elm Street?

I think that's an important "What are the odds?" question to ask, because that's precisely what did occur in this JFK murder case. No bullets or fragments exist in this case that were definitely determined to be from some OTHER non-Oswald gun.

With or without any Neutron Activation Analysis entering into the discussion, what I just said above is a proven fact. And it's a proven fact that conspiracy believers should be a little concerned about. Wouldn't you agree?

And the traditional CTer responses of "Nothing in this case can be trusted" and/or "Everything's been faked" are worn-out and unprovable responses that reek of conspiracy theorist desperation. Would you not agree, Pat?

11 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, thanks, David. You have reminded me that I am a CT, LOL. Because, to me, the single-bullet theory is not obviously true, but an obvious hoax. 

Let's be specific.

1. Do you believe the back wound was moved up from the back to the base of the neck on the Rydberg drawings...on purpose? Or was this just a coincidence? (I don't think it was a coincidence.)

2. Arlen Specter claimed in the WR and for the rest of his life that the bruised strap muscles proved the bullet creating the back wound had transited the body from back to front. Only this was a misrepresentation of the location of the strap muscles which were in the front...only. So...do you think this was an honest mistake? Or a deliberate misrepresentation? Or, by golly, do you think he was correct? And that the strap muscles are on the back? (I think it was a dishonest mistake--a mistake he made while trying to convince himself and the world of something he should have known to be untrue.)

3. Through political maneuvering, Dr. John Lattimer was the first civilian medical expert allowed to view the autopsy materials. Now, he came out and told the public, and essentially the world, that the single-bullet theory was obviously true, as the x-rays prove that whatever exited from the throat had transcended down the neck. Was this correct? And do you agree? And, if so, can you show us the trail down the neck on the x-rays? 

4. The HSCA's star witness, and later, in a mock trial, Vincent Bugliosi's star witness, was Dr. Vincent J. Guinn, who testified that the elements within the stretcher bullet matched the elements within the Connally wrist fragment, and that the single-bullet theory was supported. Do you stand by his testimony, and, if so, can you provide us with any scientific support for his claims? 

5. The HSCA photographic panel, including one of Vincent Bugliosi's witnesses in the mock trial, was Cecil Kirk, claimed Kennedy reacted to a shot before heading behind the sign in the Zapruder film. And yet, today, most all your brethren claim they were mistaken, and that Kennedy showed no signs of distress before coming out from behind the sign in the film. So who's correct? And is the inability of your chosen experts to agree on the timing of the shots, and thus the trajectory of the shots, a problem for your position the shots lined up perfectly? Because that is your position, right? 

1. The Rydberg drawings are, of course, a total mess. Both of the entry wounds are in the wrong place. Those drawings are completely worthless and useless. But I think the Warren Commission was doing the best they could with what they had....i.e., the memory of Dr. Humes and the total lack of relying on the best evidence for the wound locations---the autopsy photos.

The silliness of the WC's decision to not rely on or thoroughly review the autopsy photos still boggles the mind. A crazy, nutty decision to be sure. So, the LNers and CTers are therefore left to fight about the awful Rydberg drawings.

2. Re: the strap muscles and Arlen Specter's placement of those muscles. It's not that important in the long run, in my view, because the totality of the evidence indicates that the bullet which struck JFK in the upper back most certainly did make its way thru Kennedy's upper body without hitting any bone and without doing any severe damage to any internal structures in the body. And this is true regardless of the precise location of the strap muscles.

Key Fact Reminder --- No bullets were found in JFK's body. That's a fact, and it's a fact that most certainly supports the idea that one bullet traversed the President's upper body from back to front. (And I don't think it's a very good idea to utilize Paul Landis' recent 2023 anti-SBT story. Here's why.)

3. Dr. John Lattimer's work on the JFK case was quite solid and factual (IMO). CTers, of course, totally disagree. Like Lattimer, I believe the bullet (CE399) did, indeed, traverse JFK's upper back and neck and emerge from the throat intact to go on and hit John Connally. No other alternative, IMO, comes even close to matching the known facts (and wounds) in this case.

4. Re: Dr. Vincent P. Guinn and his NAA studies --- Let's all ponder the "What Are The Odds?" question after probing Dr. Guinn's findings HERE.

5. Yes, in my opinion, the HSCA was most certainly incorrect in its assessment that JFK was showing signs of being struck by a bullet as early as Zapruder frame 190. And I think the proof that the HSCA was dead wrong about that timing issue can be found later in that same Zapruder Film, in frames 224 thru 226. Because if Kennedy was hit as early as Z190, then there's no way we'd be seeing JFK doing what he's doing with the hands as late as Z226. That jerking upward of his hands would certainly have occurred well prior to Z226 if he had been hit as early as Z190.
 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I would be tempted except I'm pretty sure it's some ancient discussion between myself and DVP which he believes he won, in which I really embarrassed him. 

Nah. It was Jim Gordon who was thoroughly embarrassed in our 2015 SBT discussion (plus a few others).

24 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:

DVP doesn't admit anything.

Nor do CTers.....especially when it comes to the obviousness of the SBT. That became crystal clear right here at the EF almost ten years ago. 

35 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

But I think you would have to admit that there is a similar element within the Oswald-did-it community, an element that claims as a matter of (near) religion that the single-bullet theory is a "fact" and that the shots performed were easy shots. 

Well, Pat, given the wholly-untenable alternative(s) that would have no choice but to be true in order for the Single-Bullet Theory to not be true, I do indeed believe that the SBT can be categorized as more of a "fact" versus merely a "theory".

After weighing all of the possible options and alternatives, it couldn't be clearer to me that the single-bullet conclusion is by far the best solution. And it's rather incredible to me that so many people have such a hard time seeing the obvious truth that resides within those three controversial letters—S.B.T.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

And yet, we now have a moderator who can't help himself and who feels it's perfectly proper to suggest someone more knowledgeable than himself-who dares to disagree with his whimsical and fantastical conclusions regarding a supposedly serious matter--is a dis-informationist. And deserving of contempt. And should, by extension, be banished from the research community. 

I have frequently experienced that exact type of attitude being aimed at me by conspiracy theorists during the last 20+ years---at this forum and also at every other Internet forum I've joined since 2003---without exception.

Most CTers I've encountered just simply cannot stand having their unprovable and untenable theories torn to shreds by anyone---be it an LNer or a fellow CTer like Patrick J. Speer. Such conspiracists prefer fantasy over reality (and facts).

Sad indeed. But that's the way it is. At least that's been my experience since plugging in my first computer in September of 2000.

All Playlists:

Refresh....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/08/narrative-prepared-by-marina-oswald.html

.....

On 4/8/2024 at 4:52 PM, David Von Pein said:

Like millions of others in the United States, I experienced the incredible total solar eclipse today (Monday, April 8th, 2024). Total darkness descended upon my front yard in central Indiana at 3:06 PM (EDT) and lasted for almost four minutes. It was an amazing sight to be sure.

And in Dallas, Texas, at the site of President Kennedy's assassination, many people gathered to watch the eclipse in Dealey Plaza. I captured the three images below via the Sixth Floor Museum's Dealey Plaza Cam. Click to enlarge:

 

 

 

FYI / Addendum / Eclipse Follow-Up....

A Mr. Brian Roselle took some spectacular still pictures of the April 8th eclipse from Lake Santee, Indiana (which is about 70 miles southeast of my location here in the Hoosier State). Brian today sent me this link to his incredible eclipse photographs:

Addendum #2....

My brother took this video from my front yard during the eclipse:

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2024/04/total-solar-eclipse-april-8-2024.html

1 minute ago, Cory Santos said:

Oh David…

Oh Cory...

59 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

You are not walking this back DVP unless you are saying there are forged government documents.  Are you suggesting that?  She knew the address before.   
“The first I realized that there was a building on Elm was when I heard on the television on the morning of the 22nd of November that a shot had been fired from such a building."

Of course the 11/4/63 FBI Airtel isn't forged. But Ruth's explanation is entirely reasonable and is not inconsistent in the slightest way with the Nov. 4 Airtel.

What part of this sentence uttered by Ruth Paine don't you understand, Cory? .....

"I was not aware, hadn't taken in the idea of there being two buildings and that there was one on Elm, though I copied the address from the telephone book, and could well have made that notation in my mind but I didn't."

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

Well, here is the proof showing the “Ruth didn’t know” defense is garbage.  She knew WEEKS BEFORE the assassination where he [LHO] worked.  

Yes, of course Ruth Paine knew, weeks prior to the assassination, that Lee Oswald worked at the TSBD. She was made aware of that fact  on the very same day he was hired there (October 15th):

ALBERT JENNER -- "Did you hear from him [Lee Oswald] then either on the 14th or 15th [of October] in respect to his effort to obtaining employment at the Texas School Depository?"
RUTH PAINE -- "He called immediately on Tuesday, the 15th, after he had been accepted and said he would start work the next day."

But until Nov. 22, Ruth was not fully aware that there were two different TSBD buildings in downtown Dallas. And the explanation she gave to the Warren Commission concerning this matter (seen below) is a perfectly logical and reasonable and (IMO) believable explanation. But many conspiracy theorists who have a burning desire to drag Mrs. Paine through the mud and into an assassination plot of some kind obviously don't think this testimony given by Ruth is the slightest bit believable or credible at all:

ALBERT JENNER -- "I heard you mention the Texas School Depository warehouse. Did you think the warehouse was at 411 Elm?"

RUTH PAINE -- "No. I had seen a sign on a building as I went along one of the limited access highways that leads into Dallas, saying "Texas School Book Depository Warehouse" and there was the only building that had registered on my consciousness as being Texas School Book Depository. I was not aware, hadn't taken in the idea of there being two buildings and that there was one on Elm, though, I copied the address from the telephone book, and could well have made that notation in my mind but I didn't. The first I realized that there was a building on Elm was when I heard on the television on the morning of the 22nd of November that a shot had been fired from such a building."

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

Repeating something I wrote on July 25, 2022:

I think it's important to keep in mind that the Depository warehouse building on Houston Street that Ruth saw while driving on Stemmons was located very near Elm Street. It was only---what?---two blocks north on Houston. So the two TSBD buildings were, indeed, very close to one another.

Given that fact, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for someone casually driving on Stemmons to think that the "warehouse" building on Houston was located on Elm (or vice versa). Was Ruth supposed to keep track of all Dallas streets at all times and where things were located on those streets? Why would she have cared what street that warehouse she saw was on? And why would she have needed to commit such knowledge to memory? It didn't make any difference to her what street that TSBD warehouse was located on.

The conspiracy theorists who think that Ruth Paine was involved in a scheme to plant Lee Oswald in the TSBD on Elm Street must think otherwise, of course. But I'm not wired with "Conspiracy" circuitry. So it's my view that the "Elm Street" address that Ruth did, indeed, write down in her address book (and see in the phone book) meant very little to her at all. And therefore there was no reason for her to concentrate on that address at all after jotting it down in her address book or seeing it in print in the telephone book. And, in fact, she pretty much told us that very thing in the above testimony.

Lots More: