David Von Pein

Marina's HSCA testimony (re: the backyard photos)(audio).... https://app.box.com/s/hf7yp5ctenxvgjttuq7jwtuuv57eagb7

Good job, Michael. Just keep ignoring what Marina herself said.... "...I took the pictures..."

So what? Lee told her what to do and what button to press, and she did it. No big deal.

"I was very nervous that day when I took the [backyard] pictures. I can't remember how many I took, but I know I took them and that is what is important. It would be easier if I said I never took them, but that is not the truth." -- Marina Oswald; Early 1990s (Via Gerald Posner's book, "Case Closed", Page 106 [footnote])

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

"THE FOUR DARK DAYS" (CBS-TV SPECIAL, AIRED ON NOVEMBER 25, 1963): http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-four-dark-days-cbs-special.html

"PRESIDENTS AND ASSASSINS" (CBS NEWS SPECIAL REPORT, AIRED ON NOVEMBER 25, 1963): http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/05/presidents-and-assassins.html

Yes, they can. And these 3 images prove that they can---because there is no "BOH" wound anywhere to be found in these THREE different examples of photographic evidence. (Were ALL of these pictures faked?)....

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?" DR. MALCOLM PERRY -- "It could have been either." [At 3 H 373.] ------------------------------- ARLEN SPECTER -- "Was the wound in the neck consistent with being either an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?" DR. CHARLES CARRICO -- "Yes." MR. SPECTER -- "Or, did it look to be more one than the other?" DR. CARRICO -- "No; it could have been either, depending on the size of the missile, the velocity of the missile, the tissues that it struck." [At 6 H 5.] ------------------------------- ARLEN SPECTER -- "What did you mean when you just made your reference to the academic aspect with the wound, Dr. Akin?" DR. GENE AKIN -- "Well, naturally, the thought flashed through my mind that this might have been an entrance wound. I immediately thought it could also have been an exit wound, depending upon the nature of the missile that made the wound." [At 6 H 65.] ------------------------------- Related Links: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/06/jfk-wounds-and-more-sbt-talk.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1273.html

I supplied a perfectly credible (and evidence-based) answer to your question some fourteen days ago, on July 26th.... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25088-where-is-the-exit/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-383269

REPRISE.... JOSEPH McBRIDE SAID: No Dan Rather in the [McIntire] photo. I noticed that immediately when this was first printed by the Dallas Morning News in 1988 when I was in town for the twenty-fifth anniversary. A colleague has said Rather was at the Trade Mart. Rather has given various claims for his whereabouts at the time of the shooting, including his frequent claim he was on the other side of the overpass from the shooting area waiting for a film drop. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: But that doesn't mean Rather wasn't there in the area nearby. Not every last square inch of the area is covered in the McIntire photo. Maybe Rather was standing just outside McIntire's camera range. For that matter, how do you know that the man on the far right of the picture isn't Dan Rather?

Have you been getting your info from Dave Healy again?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/#DVP-Vs-Various-Individual-Conspiracy-Theorists http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-430.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/why-would-they-do-this.html

Professor James H. Fetzer was definitely an active member of this forum in circa 2009—2010, as the three threads linked below (all started by Fetzer) would indicate. And he almost certainly was "banned" at some point after 2010, otherwise his name in these posts would still be presented as a clickable link that leads to a profile page. But he's now listed as only a "Guest" in these threads and his name can't be clicked on.... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/14121-did-zapruder-take-the-zapruder-film/ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15173-six-seconds-in-dallas-truth-or-obfuscation/ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15218-did-josiah-thompson-rip-off-david-lifton/ Side note.... Even though Jim Fetzer can no longer post anything here at EF, I'm glad to see that his old posts are still visible here at this forum, instead of having them totally wiped out for all time (like John Simkin did with banned members' posts a few years ago, such as with my own EF posts from 2006 and James DiEugenio's contributions from 2010—2013, all of which were wiped out with the click of a button by Simkin). It's good to have the ability to search for even a banned person's posts and have the material still available for viewing, like those threads linked above that were started by Prof. Fetzer.

Good questions, Sandy. As a general rule, I think James Gordon's newest forum rule is a good one. But I also think that in order for someone to be penalized, the person posting the banned person's material must have knowledge of the "banned" status of the quoted person. That's only fair, right? And why in the world would every member here be aware of the "banned or not banned" status of all other members? It's not reasonable to think that such information is known by everybody here---or that everybody would even care about knowing such info. I certainly don't care about such things. For example, I was not aware of the banned status of the fellow named Doyle until today. So that seems like it'd be a problem for the EF staff --- how can the moderators prove that a member knows that another person has been officially banned from posting at EF? Seems to me like the best policy would be to warn the offender first (to allow for the very real possibility that the offender had no idea that he/she was posting stuff from a "banned" member), and if a second occurrence of the violation takes place, then penalize the offender.

Because the forum member in question (Jim H.) was posting verbatim quotes written by a person who was (evidently) banned from this forum. Such activity should be considered unacceptable, IMO. I agree with James Gordon's new rule.

Oh, OK. I didn't see the link. Thanks, Jim. Here's the direct link to the whole film: https://www.npostart.nl/2doc/11-11-2015/VPWON_1250532

FYI.... Here's the "Plaza Man" trailer: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d9MooGuoEcxP9-eIePvbwTiQ3KPyexki/view

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The complete 1992 JAMA interview with Dr. James Humes can be found HERE. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But what about Dr. McClelland's observations concerning the throat wound?.... "Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. Robert McClelland; 2009 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOODhkYTRkOFdNUlU/view

Go to 4:19—5:22 in this video. Do you think Dr. Perry was merely lying his butt off in that 1967 interview? (More of Elmer Moore's handiwork perhaps?)

But Dr. Burkley didn't perform the autopsy on the President's body, did he? https://drive.google.com/audio file/Interview With George Burkley

Oh brother. The Pot/Kettle irony is so thick in that last quote of Ray's, you could slice it with O.J.'s knife. The fact is, of course, that conspiracy theorists will constantly "discount evidence of people who were actually at the autopsy...because they disagree with [their] arguments". Like, say, the following extremely important conclusions reached by three people who "were actually at the autopsy": "It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds. .... The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased. .... The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. .... The other missile...made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." -- Page 6 of JFK's Autopsy Report [Warren Report, Page 543] Conspiracists own the patent on "discounting evidence because they disagree" with it. Don't they, Ray?

You need to back up to Page 75 of that ARRB deposition of Edward Reed, because you, Cory, have totally misrepresented what Reed was talking about when he mentioned a "bullet". He was clearly talking about being aware during the autopsy that a bullet had been found in Dallas. He wasn't referring to any bullet being recovered from JFK's body during the autopsy. In fact, when discussing whether any bullet was found by the autopsy surgeons during the autopsy, Reed specifically said these words on Page 77 of his 1997 ARRB deposition --- "But there was no bullet." And to show how bad Mr. Reed's memory was about some things in 1997, he stated he was pretty certain that President Kennedy's body arrived at Bethesda at about 4:30 PM on November 22nd. (Mr. Reed apparently was not even aware of the fact that JFK's body didn't even land in Washington on Air Force One until 5:58 PM on 11/22/63, which means his "4:30" body arrival time is impossible.) With blatant errors like that "4:30" mistake on display in Mr. Reed's deposition, it makes you wonder what other things Reed might have misremembered 34 years after the assassination. ARRB Footnote.... Interestingly (and humorously) enough, according to that document issued by the ARRB which features the testimony of Edward Reed, apparently little 2-year-old "John F. Kennedy, Jr." was the President who was really assassinated in Dallas. Well, I guess this means that even an Assassination Records Review Board can make an honest mistake every now and then.