David Von Pein

But if we're to believe many of the conspiracy theorists, Oswald had a nice big wad of $6500 in his hands in early October of '63. So he'd probably have at least a few bucks left on Nov. 21-22 to get some curtains and/or rods. (Or was it supposedly an "Oswald Imposter" who got the $6500 from the red-haired Cuban in Mex. City? I can never keep all of the make-believe "Oswalds" straight in this case.)

To see film footage of the wall that Oswald's bullet penetrated at Walker's house, GO HERE.

Is "Parkdale" anything like the fictional nation "Qumar" in the NBC-TV series The West Wing ? ( 😉 )

That's just what Gerry Down said 3 hours ago, Ben. (Look up....before posting.) 😁

Below is a very interesting video that I found recently at the KFMB-TV San Diego YouTube channel. It features many "man in the street" interviews with the people of San Diego, California, over the course of three days (November 22, 23, and 24, 1963). Also included in this video is a fairly extensive 11/23/63 interview with a Mr. Larry Hollis, who was a witness just 24 hours earlier to Lee Harvey Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater (that interview begins at 15:22).... ------------------------------------ Related Videos:

Far and away the #1 best "Dealey Plaza witness" was the Bell & Howell movie camera being held by Abraham Zapruder. That camera isn't lying to us or misrepresenting President Kennedy's head wound. That Bell & Howell camera is clearly telling us that the President's large "blow-out" head wound was most definitely NOT anywhere in the BACK of the head: Also See:

Enlarge with a click.....

That's good. At least you're not endorsing the insane pre-arranged multi-gun/one-patsy theories put forth by Oliver Stone and Rob Reiner and so many others.

A theory which has multiple gunmen firing at JFK from different directions while attempting to frame a lone "patsy" in the TSBD (and therefore necessitating the need for a massive amount of photo alteration) is NOT a "far-fetched" theory in your opinion, Sandy? I beg to differ (and vehemently so).

I'm glad you got straightened out before your head exploded.

Good Lord! Why would you EVER think that I believe in something so provably false?!

But, IMO, the "Blood Pooling At The Right-Rear Of The Head" explanation, coupled with the known fact that Jackie Kennedy was busy in the limo "Trying to hold his head on" (which probably means she closed up the large flap on the right side of the head, which essentially masked all or most of the huge hole that Oswald's bullet created in the right-front of JFK's skull), are still much better explanations than the rather far-fetched and incredibly hard-to-believe "All Of The Doctors (In Unison) Couldn't Tell The SIDE Of JFK's Head From The BACK Of His Head Simply Because The President Was Lying Flat On His Back" explanation that author Jim Moore endorses in his 1990 book.

Oh come now. The woman's voice in the background (which I too have heard) is indeed there on the tape, and it might indeed be Markham speaking. But she's certainly not in the car speaking right into the radio microphone. She's merely being overheard in the background while Bowley controls the mike. So why, under those conditions, would Markham assume "They heard ME" ? That's ridiculous. She wasn't using the radio, Bowley was.

Incredibly, "Conspiracy Of One" author Jim Moore actually believed such a nonsensical thing. Quoting from my review of Moore's otherwise good pro-LN book: ------------------ "The second thing in this book that I cannot accept at all is Mr. Moore's explanation of why almost all of the witnesses at Parkland Hospital said they saw a large wound in the back of President Kennedy's head on November 22nd. To quote from page 180 of his book: "...The explanation for this [head wound] discrepancy is so simple few will subscribe to it. The Parkland doctors all saw President Kennedy in only one position--face up. An exit wound across his forehead might have been labeled 'at the front of the skull', but a wound on the right side? Doctors would have seen the missing area 'at the rear of the skull', of course." -- Jim Moore The above explanation is pure nonsense (even though I am an "LNer" myself). Moore is telling his readers, in essence, that ALL of the many Parkland doctors and nurses actually did see the President's head wound on the "right side" of his head, but EACH ONE OF THEM was apparently stupid enough to somehow label the wound's location as being at the BACK part of the head. (And each of these Parkland persons would later demonstrate with their own hands where they thought the wound was located; with each person placing their hand on a REAR portion of their own head.) It's just silly to think that ALL of these Parkland witnesses would somehow be disoriented enough to NOT know the "side" of the head from the "rear" of the head. And all just because JFK was lying flat on his back the whole time. It seems to me that such a strange explanation would be akin to becoming confused about the location of a person's ear, just due to the fact the person is lying down. For example, why would anyone suddenly think an ear was located at the BACK of a person's head, rather than the "side" of the head?"

FYI / FWIW..... Linked below is my copy of Helen Markham's 1964 interview with CBS News. It's a little longer than the other version posted in this thread. What I find interesting in this video is the part where Markham actually claims that she herself used the radio in Tippit's patrol car. There's a snippet in the interview (right after the DPD radio call excerpt is played) when Markham says "And they heard me". Which implies, of course, that she herself had called in the shooting on Tippit's car radio. There is, of course, nothing in the Dallas Police transcripts or the DPD audio recordings that would indicate that Mrs. Markham ever talked to the DPD over the police radio. (Unless we're to believe that Markham had the same trouble Domingo Benavides had when attempting to operate Tippit's car radio, and that she just simply could not get through to the dispatcher, but she thought she had.)

But it's quite possible, Sandy, that none of the Parkland personnel actually saw the huge gaping opening in the right side of JFK's head....as I alluded to in my earlier post when I said this.... ------------------ "Due to Jackie's handiwork of "trying to hold his head on" during the ride to Parkland, most of the witnesses probably didn't get to see the full WIDE-OPEN extent of the large head wound at the right-front of JFK's head. They, instead, saw all the gore/blood/brains that was pooling at the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head on the gurney. This led those witnesses to believe there was a large "wound" at the right-rear, when, in fact, no such "wound" was there at all (as proven by the autopsy pictures AND X-rays). That's not exactly a perfectly satisfying explanation---even for me. And I'm sure all conspiracy believers think such an explanation is totally laughable, preposterous, and idiotic. But it's the best I can do. (And it's Dr. Michael Baden's best explanation as well -- Click Here.)" ------------------- Sandy, What does it do to your "odds" probabilities if the gaping hole in JFK's head had, in fact, been almost completely masked (or closed up) due to Mrs. Kennedy's handling of the President's head in the limo?

Yes. On Page 116 and in Lyndal Shaneyfelt's testimony (at 15 H 700) [Note---There's a printing error on Page 700 of WC Vol. 15, with some of Shaneyfelt's testimony being mistakenly repeated a second time, beginning with "The absence of copper precludes..." ].... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Due to Jackie's handiwork of "trying to hold his head on" during the ride to Parkland, most of the witnesses probably didn't get to see the full WIDE-OPEN extent of the large head wound at the right-front of the head. They, instead, saw all the gore/blood/brains that was pooling at the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head on the gurney. This led those witnesses to believe there was a large "wound" at the right-rear, when, in fact, no such "wound" was there at all (as proven by the autopsy pictures AND X-rays). That's not exactly a perfectly satisfying explanation--even for me. And I'm sure all CTers think such an explanation is totally laughable, preposterous, and idiotic. But it's the best I can do. (And it's Dr. Michael Baden's best explanation as well -- Click Here.)

All of those things have, indeed, been explained in non-conspiratorial ways over the last 60 years. Most of those items (if not all) were covered in a pretty decent amount of depth, of course, in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 tome. And many other Lone Assassin advocates, including myself, have tackled most of those things as well. A very reasonable possibility for Tague's injury, as a matter of fact, is provided right there in the Warren Report itself (on my all-time favorite WCR page, which nearly every CTer continues to ignore on a daily basis --- Page 117). So the Warren Commission itself had, in effect, started debunking some of the pro-conspiracy nonsense before their final report ever went to press.

Yes, they can all be wrong. And they are....as these autopsy materials pictured below prove for all time. Because, as we all can see, there is positively no huge hole anywhere in the BACK of JFK's head. And every bit of BONE at the right-rear of his head is STILL THERE. None of the REAR head bone is blown out at all.... Interestingly, it would seem as though the very few Dealey Plaza witnesses who were in a position to view the head wound close-up at the time of the shooting are some of the very few witnesses who got the location of the wound correct when asked later. Those witnesses being Bill Newman, Abe Zapruder, and Gayle Newman:

Of course I'm going to call it that....because that's exactly what it was --- a Mistaken Observation made by several different individuals.

Why you think "mistake" and "hallucination" are the same thing is a mystery to me. ~shrug~