David Von Pein

Why would he? The WC's version of events is, of course, the correct one.

I totally agree with what Francois just said above. A nice segue to Francois' above comments would be to quote a few pertinent passages from the JFK Assassination Bible (which is, of course, Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"; what else? ).... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "With respect to the Kennedy assassination, once you establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also necessarily know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 953 of "Reclaiming History" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "A favorite theme of conspiracy theorists [is that] documents and photographs [have been] "buried" in the National Archives or in the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits. If we're to believe the theorists, it apparently never crossed the minds of the alleged conspirators who killed Kennedy to simply get rid of the evidence that could convict them. Unlike nearly all ordinary conspirators, Kennedy's killers intentionally and knowingly left evidence behind in the archives and the Warren Commission volumes that could expose them — evidence that only the conspiracists are smart and industrious enough to uncover." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 418 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the most complex murder case, by far, in world history. Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation. With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xxvi of "Reclaiming History" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "It is...remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 952 of "Reclaiming History" http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/favorite-quotes-from-reclaiming-history.html

ALBERT E. JENNER JR. -- Give me your impression of him [Lee Oswald] at that time--your first impression. GEORGE DeMOHRENSCHILDT -- The first impression and the last impression remain more or less the same. I could never get mad at this fellow. MR. JENNER -- Why? MR. DeMOHRENSCHILDT -- Sometimes he was obnoxious. I don't know. I had a liking for him. I always had a liking for him. There was something charming about him, there was some--I don't know. I just liked the guy--that is all. .... You know, he was very humble with me. He was very humble. If somebody expressed an interest in him, he blossomed--absolutely blossomed. If you asked him some questions about him, he was just out of this world. That was more or less the reason that I think he liked me very much.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/Was Ruth Paine A Conspirator? http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/03/George DeMohrenschildt's Suicide

Hi Vince, I disagree with nearly everything you say, but I certainly admire your spirit, energy, and "vigah" whenever you talk about the JFK case. 😄 (And there's one thing for sure --- nobody is ever going to accuse Vincent Michael Palamara of talking too slowly. ) http://box.com/mp3 audio/Interview With Vince Palamara (Dec. 6, 2018) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/A Discussion About JFK's Trip To San Diego In June 1963 http://www.amazon.com/Vincent Michael Palamara

Cliff, That Fuhrman quote you cited is what Fuhrman says he believed when he was "growing up". But he certainly didn't believe in a conspiracy when his book ("A Simple Act Of Murder") was published 12 years ago in 2006. (Click on the image below for a 2006 CBS interview with Fuhrman.) http://simple-act-of-murder.blogspot.com/

Fuhrman's book isn't pro-conspiracy. He's an LNer all the way.

Why are you cracking silly "LOL" jokes immediately after the death of one our ex-Presidents? Doesn't seem very appropriate to me. As for the crap that many CTers continue to gush forth about Mr. Bush being in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/why-would-they-do-this?

That's a disgusting and sickening thing to say. You should hide your head in shame after making such a series of vile, inappropriate, totally unprovable, and incredibly stupid comments concerning former President George H.W. Bush. Rest in peace, Mr. President. You no longer have to endure the nonsensical rantings of the JFK conspiracy theorists who have desperately tried (sans a single speck of evidence!) to involve you in the murder of the 35th U.S. President. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/01/politics/george-h-w-bush-dead/index.html

Does that post/(thread) talk about why any assassin would be aiming at the 2nd or 3rd floor of the Dal-Tex when his target was situated in a car in the middle of Elm Street? * * And the alleged "bullet holes" are seen in the Dal-Tex facade several seconds before the head shot even occurs, so the CTers can't possibly utilize any kind of "The bullets deflected wildly after striking JFK's skull" excuse either. So, good luck.

No. I'm thinking Agnes Moorehead instead. But since Agnes is no longer with us, perhaps Kathy Bates would be a better choice....

Somebody actually thinks there could have been bullet holes in the front of the Dal-Tex Building between the 2nd and 3rd floors?? Boy, those assassins must have been really lousy gunmen. Or maybe they were blindfolded and firing indiscriminately all over Dealey Plaza, not caring what they were aiming at. Or did the real killers, just like Lee Oswald, have an oak tree and a traffic light pole situated between their rifles and the President's body, which could possibly have deflected some of their shots, even though those shooter(s) would have been firing from west to east? And where in the world could any such assassin(s) have been located in order to possibly cause two bullet holes to pepper the front of the Dal-Tex? This reminds me of the insane theory proposed by some conspiracy theorists (including Internet conspiracy fantasist Robert Caprio in this 2007 discussion) concerning two different bullets that allegedly were found in 1966 and 1967 on the roofs of various buildings located many blocks from Dealey Plaza. Now, I ask: if those two bullets on top of those buildings had been fired by assassins in Dealey Plaza, then what exactly were those killers aiming at---a bird up in the sky? Or did the assassins think President Kennedy was really located on the roof of a nearby building? ~a shrug and a chuckle~

Oh, never mind.

@Ron Bulman: Do you think Oswald shot J.D. Tippit?

But, Micah, you aren't suggesting that the Sibert/O'Neill report was saying there were TWO head entry wounds, are you?

Just to be clear..... You aren't suggesting in that truncated portion of THIS PAGE of the Sibert/O'Neill Report that Humes was saying that TWO separate bullets entered JFK's HEAD....are you? Because the S&O Report is quite clear in that page I just linked that only TWO bullets total hit Kennedy---one entering the upper back and one entering the back of the head. The reference to "a second high velocity bullet" in that S&O Report was clearly referring to a second TOTAL bullet to hit the President. It wasn't referring to two head shot bullets.

Wrong. The medical evidence doesn't suggest any such thing, and the HSCA and Clark panels knew this. There was only ONE entry hole in JFK's head. All the autopsy doctors substantiate this, as does the autopsy report itself. If the HSCA and Clark panels saw any proof of the "EOP" entry in any of the photos or X-rays, of course they would have said so. There was no logical reason under the sun for those men to start lying about where that entry wound was. Conspiracists have invented various reasons for the HSCA and Clark people to want to raise the wound up into the cowlick, but that's the fertile imaginings of the CTers at work and nothing more than that. The fact is: those men studied the photos and X-rays and saw the wound high on the head....so that's what they reported. Simple as that. (The unproven theories of CTers notwithstanding.)

A vivid imagination is such a terrible thing to waste, isn't it Jim?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The entire JAMA interview with Dr. Humes.... https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/Image02.htm

And they went through all that fakery and legerdemain just so they could say basically the EXACT SAME THING ---- that being: the bullet entered JFK's head from behind. Right? And, Jimmy, you're not going to sit there and tell me that Dr. Russell Fisher, the Chief Medical Examiner for the state of Maryland since 1949, would have held the opinion in 1968 when he was a part of the Clark Panel that a bullet which has just hit a very hard object like the skull of President John F. Kennedy could not possibly have changed its trajectory after striking that object? You don't really think that Fisher held such a belief, do you James? Anyone who thinks Dr. Fisher held such a crazy belief in the year 1968 must, themselves, be a little crazy. Ergo, there was no good reason whatsoever for Russell S. Fisher to want to engage in the type of "Let's Raise The Entry Wound By Four Inches" scheme that James DiEugenio thinks he did engage in.

Well, since you believe that President Kennedy sustained a "right frontal entry wound that blew a fragment of his right occipital skull backward", then you really have no choice but to also believe that ALL THREE of the photographic pieces of evidence depicted below (the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, and Abraham Zapruder's home movie) must have been faked and manipulated by someone so as to completely eliminate the right-rear blowout of the President's skull. If you choose to believe in such wholesale fakery of the evidence, be my guest. But you'll pardon me if I excuse myself from sitting at your table.

Jim, Thanks for posting the ARRB testimony by Dr. Humes concerning the X-ray. Yes, there are some problems and some discrepancies concerning the autopsy of President Kennedy. I cannot deny that fact. Nor have I ever tried to deny that these discrepancies and oddities exist in the record of this case. But I certainly don't believe that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel (and his 3 colleagues on that 1968 panel) decided to falsely "move" the entry wound in JFK's head northward by a total of four inches as part of some sinister and covert cover-up operation. That theory, in my opinion, is ridiculous (and, frankly, laughable), mainly due to the fact that the total amount of "net gain" that would have been attained via such an underhanded piece of on-paper surgery to the President's skull would have been extremely minimal to the people who were orchestrating such a fraud so as to fool the public at large. Because whether the wound was right at the level of the EOP on JFK's head or 100 millimeters above that location (as determined by Dr. Fisher's Clark Panel in '68), the end result (either way) would have been a conclusion that has one single bullet striking the President's head--with that one bullet entering JFK's head from behind. And both of those possible entry points---whether it be a high point or a low point---are both perfectly consistent and compatible with the conclusion that has Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone assassin firing his rifle from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building (especially when factoring in the likelihood that the bullet that crashed into JFK's head probably changed directions somewhat after striking the hard skull, thereby eliminating any definitive conclusion that any investigative body would hope to reach about the precise angle of trajectory of the bullet as it travelled through the President's cranium). For more about that pesky "6.5mm. Object" seen in one of JFK's X-rays ....

Jimmy Boy, Not a one of those things happened, of course. ...The fatal entrance wound never "changed" locations. It was always in the same place on the BACK of Kennedy's head. And the "red spot" photo proves it was high on the head, not low. Mistakes have been made by some people (including the Bethesda doctors) over the years as to the precise place on JFK's head where that wound was located, but the biggest mistake was made by Humes & Boswell on the night of the autopsy by not measuring the vertical distance of the wound from ANY body landmark. Incredibly, it appears they didn't measure the "north/south" distance from any landmark at all! But the photographs confirm it was 100mm. above the EOP. Why not go with the BEST evidence (in this case, those photos)? Or am I supposed to believe the Red Spot pic is a phony? ....Nobody KNOWS what the "6.5mm opacity" is on the A-P X-ray. Nobody can say for CERTAIN. Maybe it's a metal (bullet) fragment, but maybe it's not. We'll likely never know for sure. ....And your constant refrain of "The particle trail disappeared" has me shrugging too. What are you talking about? The "particle trail" is easily visible in the lateral X-ray of Kennedy's skull. Why would anyone insist it has "disappeared"? It hasn't disappeared at all. ~shrug time~

Were the 17 pathologists who confirmed ONLY REAR ENTRY WOUNDS all liars, Jim? Or do you want to pretend that all the photos are fake?