Cliff Varnell Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) 58 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: Sandy, Can't you see that Kennedy's coat is hiked up on his back in this Croft photo below? Can't you see the normal amount of shirt collar at the side? Shouldn't this help to explain why the holes in the clothing are lower than they are in comparison to the hole in Kennedy's skin? In an unguarded moment David Von Pein admitted that the visible shirt collar proves that the jacket collar was in a normal position just above the base of JFK's neck. How could multiple inches of clothing bunch up entirely above the SBT inshoot without pushing up on the jacket collar? The burden of proof is on Von Pein. Replicate the Croft photo with many inches of bunched up shirt and jacket, David. Put up or shut up. Quote .. Edited February 11, 2017 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 " And, just for the record, I certainly do not believe that Humes performed any surgery --i.e., pre-autopsy surgery--on the president's head." David,I find this quote very interesting.After all ...it was Robinson who is quoted as saying "that`s what the "Dr`s" did." By process of elimination...that leaves Boswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) Cliff Varnell said: Show us how you replicate the Croft photo. I've never attempted to "replicate" the Croft photo. I've merely pointed out (as many other LNers have as well) that the Robert Croft photograph depicts SOME BUNCHING UP of President Kennedy's suit coat. That fact is obvious to me. That's all I have ever maintained. Nothing more. Nothing less. Okay? Edited February 11, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 1 minute ago, David Von Pein said: I don't "replicate" the Croft photo. I never have and never will. I've merely pointed out (as many other LNers have as well) that the Robert Croft photograph depicts SOME BUNCHING UP of President Kennedy's suit coat. That's all I have ever maintained. Nothing more. Nothing less. Okay? No, it's not "okay." The bullet hole in JFK's jacket is 1/8 of an inch lower than the bullet hole in the shirt -- it is a simple observation that the jacket was bunched up a fraction of an inch. The SBT requires multiple inches of both shirt and jacket to bunch up entirely above the SBT inshoot without pushing up on the jacket collar. Impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 On 2/10/2017 at 4:15 AM, Alistair Briggs said: Paul, are you saying that the HSCA conclusion that JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy helps back up your theory on what happened? Alistair, Yes, of course I am. The fact that the acoustic evidence strongly suggests at least one shot from the Grassy Knoll -- and that countless WC eye-witnesses heard shots from the Grassy Knoll -- strongly backs up my theory of what happened in the JFK assassination. Behind the Grassy Knoll was a parking lot for the Dallas County Jail, including many Sheriff Deputies. There was only one way in, and one way out of that lot -- through a gate on the southeast side of the lot, and it was locked by a padlock, and only people with paid reservations had the key to that padlock. Now, many Sheriff Deputies had many pals who were also DPD cops. So, DPD cops were commonly seen behind the picket fence of that Grassy Knoll. That is why it is no surprise that "Badgeman" could be seen in a photograph of the Grassy Knoll during the JFK assassination -- and other people with DPD badges surrounding him. That is why, also, it is no surprise that when people rushed up to the Grassy Knoll, all they saw were DPD cops. It was 1963, so very few people suspected that the DPD cops were the shooters. IMHO, that's precisely who they were. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 2 hours ago, David Von Pein said: For God sake, Cliff! Have at least a LITTLE pity on my poor weak bladder! DVP, You say this in response to Cliff Varnelli saying that the photo of the shot in JFK's back may not be JFK. However -- I also doubt that may not be JFK for a different reason. The WC said that JFK was shot in the back of the head -- and the photo showing the hole in JFK's back shows no damage at all to the back of JFK's head. What am I missing? Please remain factual and don't resort to mockery -- my question is sincere. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) Quote 'And while we're on the subject of heroes, it's one thing to drag a murdered president through the mud like the mainstream media has done through the years. Your hero Vince was no saint. He lived with a mistress for 20 years while lying to his wife all along. And he became a professional author, taking his marching orders to write agenda-driven works of (non)-fiction. Just like Plagar-Posner and all the other hacks'. - Michael Walton This might not be the best time to drop this important quote from Michael Walton in this thread, but I feel it needs to be considered. Perhaps it can be commented on as the thread progresses or picked up in another thread. I can feel Michael's pain in his words: after all, these devious people that are accused of tampering with the JFK evidence, from blacked out film & photo images, altered film frames, faked, fabricated ballistics & medical evidence (being at the top of the list of unlawful shenanigans) opposes those who proudly (and passionately) argue that the evidence that LHO is solely guilty of the murders of President Kennedy & DPD officer Tippit stares them in the face like a knockout punch, were, for the most part, our elders. Most of those people were elders to Michael & me. People we looked up to for honesty. As youngsters, they were role models for us; people we hoped to be able to replace someday. Some were highly paid professionals or elected officials entrusted with high offices that governed our country at the time. We expected these people to have integrity, honesty, morals & scruples. The allegations of their wrongdoing in their involvement in the JFK case leaves many wondering 'is there anybody with any integrity left in this country? How many of those people trying to sell 'LHO did it' are credible today when viewed with the 'dirt' researchers have dug up on them? Skipping David Von Pein here (he is a EF member & deserves soft gloves out of membership respect), Vincent Bugliosi is the modern version of John Lennon's 'We're bigger than Jesus' remark from 1966. Like Lennon & his fellow Beatles were on top of the world during Beatlemania, Bugliosi was on a roll with his 'LHO did it' TV debates, documentary appearances & his massive book. For a while, one couldn't turn a TV channel on without seeing Vincent tearing into another CT victim. Then...like Lennon....all by himself .... .....Bugliosi shot himself in the foot by writing a book arguing against the existence of a Supreme Being. For many in the religious belief world, such blatant blasphemy canceled out the good Vince tried to do (if one can call it that). Many believe Vincent Bugliosi was spreading the work of the Devil in one or more of his books. How can someone find him credible after what he's authored? Isn't using Bugliosi's words also spreading Satanic work? Another person many people globally reject as credible is Fidel Castro. How can one read his two post-ambush of JFK speeches & believe his line of reasoning, when remembering that not only was Castro a mass murdering dictator, but he also allowed the Soviet Union to park enough nukes aimed at the USA on Cuban soil to blow that portion of rock completely off the earth? Some still believe he was behind LHO & his handing out the 'Hands Off Cuba' hand outs in New Orleans. David Von Pein has a tremendous uphill battle in arguing for evidence that the majority of people believe is garbage assembled to frame an innocent man. I can't help but admire his patience & fortitude, while at the same time reading words here at EF that more & more researchers are finding him less & less credible because of his refusal to see the other side of the coin(s) & using people of bad judgement/integrity as credible crutches to make his debate points. To me, David is old school: the old 'blind faith' in institutions, evidence collected by those in those institutions, don't question authority, you can't fight City Hall, that the USA used to be. Iraq's Sadam Hussein (another mass murdering dictator) redefined this country years ago as 'The Great Satan'. Our new President reminds us constantly that he believes he lost votes in his election because of fraud, indicating cherished national elections are no longer immune from attack. Everything is questioned today, particularly an unsolved cold case from over 53 years ago. David Von Pein's LHO beliefs may be a cross too big for most people to be willing to drag behind them these days. For students looking at career choice options, I would hesitate at choosing defending the evidence the WC & HSCA used to determine LHO was guilty of double murder 53 years ago as a good career choice, simply because more people don't believe it than do, regardless of the newest messenger delivering it. Respectfully & Sincerely, Brad Milch Edited February 12, 2017 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) On 2/11/2017 at 3:12 AM, David Von Pein said: Well, Jim, Time Magazine seemed to think that "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" was a pretty decent simulated trial...."The trial in London took place on July 23, 24, and 25, 1986. After the jury was out deliberating for six hours, they returned, on July 26, with a verdict of guilty, convicting Oswald of the murder of John F Kennedy. Obviously, were it not for my participation in this docu-trial of Oswald, which Time magazine said was "as close to a real trial as the accused killer of John F. Kennedy will probably ever get," this book would never have been written." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xxiv of "Reclaiming History"* DVP, I bought that video in 2010, and have watched it several times over the years. It is a pitiful excuse for a trial. First, VIncent Bugliosi is a world famous prosecutor, while the attorney for the defense of LHO was an ambulance chasing hack who was woefully unprepared, and utterly ignorant of the nuances of the facts in the LHO case. It seems to me that Bugliosi selected the defense attorney, and the Network paid this hack a lot of money to accept the job, knowing he was unevenly matched. This hack attorney did bring an adviser to make up for his ignorance, but this adviser seemed to be convinced of a CIA-did-it CT, and so that was the nonsense that led the defense. There were several horrible omissions in that tape series, including: 1. Ex-General Edwin Walker was not called to testify. 2. Robert Alan Surrey, publisher of the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK ad, was not called to testify. 3. Robert Klause, printer of the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK ad, was not called to testify. 4. Bernard Weissman, publisher of the WELCOME TO DALLAS MR. KENNEDY as, was not called to testify. 5. Ruth Paine was raked over the coals by the defense. 6. The DPD was treated with kid gloves by the defense. 7. The JFK autopsy scenario was treated like a Halloween story -- completely non-sequitur. It was pitiful. Everybody knows that Mark Lane should have been hired as the attorney for the defense of LHO. Mark Lane would have kicked Vincent Bugliosi all over that courtroom. It would have been a great moment for the BBC. But they let us down. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited February 13, 2017 by Paul Trejo typose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: The WC said that JFK was shot in the back of the head -- and the photo showing the hole in JFK's back shows no damage at all to the back of JFK's head. What am I missing? I wouldn't expect to see the small wound of entrance in the cowlick of JFK's head in the "back wound" photo. It was taken expressly to highlight the BACK wound, not the head wound. The area where the head entry wound is located is dark and in shadow here. Therefore, the entry hole can't be seen.... Edited February 11, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 24 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: ... Thanks for the response Paul. If I start a new thread for that topic can you copy your response and reply to the new thread with it? saves further distracting this thread. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted February 11, 2017 Author Share Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, David Von Pein said: I wouldn't expect to see the small wound of entrance in the cowlick of JFK's head in the "back wound" photo. It was taken expressly to highlight the BACK wound, not the head wound. The area where the head entry wound is located is dark and in shadow here. Therefore, the entry hole can't be seen.... How on earth could you say in good faith that the entry wound was at the cowlick? Nothing has to be faked for that to be true. If you don't think the EOP wound is apparent on existing photographs, photographer John Stringer suggested that it could just be hiding under a bit of hair in the existing BOH images. I think Dr. Humes also recalled a close-up photograph of the EOP wound (which does not currently exist). Edited February 11, 2017 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted February 11, 2017 Author Share Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) Although some may question Parkland nurse Diana Bowron's contact with Livingstone because her WC testimony doesn't indicate that she saw the back wound, there is this bit in the book Killing The Truth: Edited February 11, 2017 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, David Von Pein said: I wouldn't expect to see the small wound of entrance in the cowlick of JFK's head in the "back wound" photo. It was taken expressly to highlight the BACK wound, not the head wound. The area where the head entry wound is located is dark and in shadow here. Therefore, the entry hole can't be seen.... DVP, Yet in this other photo from the JFK gallery, the back of the head seems to be obliterated. In the photo you showed, showing the back wound, the back of "JFK's" head was neatly groomed. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited February 11, 2017 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 2 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said: Thanks for the response Paul. If I start a new thread for that topic can you copy your response and reply to the new thread with it? saves further distracting this thread. Cheers Sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted February 11, 2017 Author Share Posted February 11, 2017 22 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: DVP, Yet in this other photo from the JFK gallery, the back of the head seems to be obliterated. In the photo you showed, showing the back wound, the back of "JFK's" head was neatly groomed. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, If that's the back of the head, then what's the top of the head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now