David Von Pein
-
Posts
8,017 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Von Pein
-
-
20 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
BTW, Jim, do you have a copy of the Nov. 20 (Wednesday) DMN? I've always heard (including from you) that the route printed in that day's DMN showed no Elm turn. But I've never been able to find a copy of that paper online. Do you have it? If so, what exactly does it say re: the route? I'm just curious.
20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:I do not have the story from DMN on the 20th. My files were given to Bill Davy.
I've now found the November 20th Dallas Morning News online. It's right there in the WC volumes too, in CE1364. [Duh! ~slaps forehead~] And it does say only Main Street. But it also says that the route would go from "Main" to "Stemmons Freeway", and the only proper (and legal) way to get from Main to Stemmons is via Elm Street. So, really, the 11/20 DMN does actually IMPLY the Houston and Elm turns when it says "MAIN" followed immediately by "STEMMONS".
-
18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Freund wrote a story on the sixteenth, which said the motorcade would come down Main Street.
Freund then printed the story above, on the 19th, that included the dogleg.
On the 20th, the DMN changed it to the Main Street only directions.
Then on the 22nd, it printed a map which only included the Main Street route.
Therefore, if you go by the stories...the route was changed after the 19th.
Notice how Jim totally ignored (once again) the Dallas Times Herald 11/21 map that I posted yesterday. (Jim likes to rely ONLY on the Dallas Morning News, I guess. The Times Herald doesn't count at all evidently.)
So, when we include the Times Herald of Nov. 21 (which Jim is avoiding at all costs), let's try to follow the Bouncing Motorcade Route from day to day....
---------------------------------
November 16 --- Main Street only (DMN).
November 19 --- Elm Street turn (Both Dallas papers---the DMN and DTH).
November 20 --- Main Street only (DMN).
November 21 --- Elm Street turn (DTH).
November 22 --- Back to Main Street only (DMN).
November 22 --- Elm Street turn (via the actual motorcade route taken by JFK that day).
---------------------------------
Now, it would require a massive amount of tortured logic to conclude that the above newspaper reports truly indicate that the motorcade route was actually changed back and forth a total of five different times over the course of a six-day period.
The route was never changed, and these two items below---which are identical---prove that fact (IMHO)....
November 19 --- Elm Street turn (Both Dallas papers---the DMN and DTH).
November 22 --- Elm Street turn (via the actual motorcade route taken by JFK that day).
-
20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Davey, if you are saying they are all wrong, then what are you insinuating?
They are wrong, certainly. But I don't think any of them are liars. But particularly Bellah's story is wrong. And provably so---via the 11/19 papers. (Unless, for some reason, Bellah wasn't provided the COMPLETE motorcade route until 11/21, which I guess is possible. But that doesn't prove the Elm dogleg WASN'T part of the original route. It would only indicate that some officers weren't privy to the full route until a couple days later.)
BTW, Jim, do you have a copy of the Nov. 20 (Wednesday) DMN? I've always heard (including from you) that the route printed in that day's DMN showed no Elm turn. But I've never been able to find a copy of that paper online. Do you have it? If so, what exactly does it say re: the route? I'm just curious.*
* EDIT --- I've now found the 11/20 DMN online. It's right there in the WCR volumes too, in CE1364. (Duh.) And it does say only Main Street. But it also says that the route would go from MAIN to STEMMONS, and the only proper (and legal) way to get from MAIN to STEMMONS is via the Elm St. dogleg. So, really, the 11/20 DMN does IMPLY the Houston & Elm turns when it says MAIN followed immediately by STEMMONS.
-
15 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
Therefore, if you go by the stories, which DVP originally misrepresented, the route was changed after the 19th.
Just exactly how did I "misrepresent" the various DMN stories, Jim? Please cite for that charge.
Also....
Since you think the route was changed AFTER the 19th, then how do you account for the Times Herald including the Elm turn in its Nov. 21st edition [below]? This is the very same route published by this same paper on the 19th. Were the 2 Dallas papers getting their info from completely different sources? Is that what you believe?
-
48 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
Also, note the change of tactics. Now he says well, all those people must be lying.
This is nothing but a blatant falsehood spouted by DiEugenio. I never once accused anyone of "lying" when it comes to this "Motorcade Route" topic.
-
18 minutes ago, Rich Pope said:
The front page of the Dallas Morning News on November 22, the day of the President's visit, showed the president's car skipping Main Street altogether.
Huh?? It doesn't show any such thing. The Main St. portion of the route is on this DMN map, plain as day....
Here's the complete DMN 11/22/63 front page.....
-
The "changed at the last moment [on the evening of Nov. 21st]" recollections attributed to Police Officer Sam Bellah are proven wrong by taking just one look at the November 19th Dallas newspapers. There was no "last minute change"---period. And this 11/19/63 Dallas Morning News article proves it....
-
1 hour ago, Don Jeffries said:
The motorcade route doesn't get as much scrutiny as it should. Neocons in our community have attempted to diminish the significance of the change, and of the actual route eventually taken.
But there's no PROOF whatsoever that any "change" actually was made to the motorcade route at all. The "change" resides mainly in the wishful-thinking imaginations of conspiracy advocates.
One thing is a certainty --- the constant back-and-forth "changes" that Jim DiEugenio is talking about (re: the DMN reports of Nov. 16-22) are not "changes" in the actual motorcade route at all. And no reasonable person could possibly believe they do reflect "changes".
The "Only On Main Street" reports from the DMN are simply not as detailed regarding the streets JFK was going to travel on. And it's especially silly for Jim to prop up the very first of those DMN reports --- which is this 11/16/63 article --- which only says "Main Street". But that 11/16 report was printed at a time when Jim KNOWS that the final motorcade route had not yet been revealed to anybody. The police and Secret Service didn't finalize the route until two days later, on Nov. 18. So for Jim to say (as he did yesterday) --- "On November 16th, the motorcade was going down Main Street, no doglegs" --- is just ridiculous, because the DMN could not have possibly even known, as of 11/16, about any possible "doglegs" the motorcade route would encounter on Houston or Elm Streets. And I don't think ANY other street names are mentioned AT ALL in that 11/16 DMN article. So why would Jim make an issue out of the two "dogleg" turns not being printed in that article, when it would appear that no other street names are mentioned at all, except "Main"?
As a side note regarding the "breaches of security" that conspiracy theorists are always contending were rampant in Dealey Plaza on November 22....
I'd be willing to bet that President Kennedy's open-top car was taken down many streets in many U.S. cities in which "hazards" very similar to the Houston-to-Elm hairpin turn were, in fact, negotiated by the driver of Kennedy's limousine. And I know there have been instances during motorcade parades when the President's car actually came to a complete stop in the midst of throngs of spectators. And we need to look no further than Dallas on November 22nd to verify this fact---because on two separate occasions during the Dallas parade, JFK ordered the car to stop so that Kennedy could greet well-wishers, which he did. But since JFK wasn't shot during those two unscheduled motorcade stops, nobody ever says a word about that "breach of security" on the part of the Secret Service.
And the day I find in my large JFK video collection the pre-11/22/63 clip of President Kennedy's heavy SS-100-X Lincoln limousine slowing down to a crawl to navigate a hairpin turn like the one his vehicle encountered at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets in Dallas, I'll be sure to post that video at this forum. But maybe somebody can beat me to it, because video or film footage of such a common occurrence during a Kennedy motorcade must surely be out there in a video vault somewhere.
-
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
I won't go into the whole Roberts/Rybka call off,
That's yet another myth that won't die the death it deserves. It wasn't Rybka who was "called off". ....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-service.html#Lawton-And-Rybka
-
29 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:
One of the surprises of my research was finding that O'Donnell evidently was the inside man on the plot at the White House.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/happenstance-or-conspiracy-part-1.html
-
The final selection of the motorcade route was definitely a "last few days decision", Ron. Without doubt. The Trade Mart wasn't even selected as the luncheon locale until Nov. 14. That's "last few days", to be sure.
-
5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
And why you keep on saying that the route was solidified on November 19th because it was in the papers, that does not at all justify itself as an argument.
If it did then the route pictured on 11/22 on the front page of the Dallas Morning News would not have appeared: it does not show the doglegs Davey Boy. (Destiny Betrayed, first edition, p. 57)
Now, much more revealing [than] anything you have offered is a summary of the DMN coverage I did for that book. On November 16th, the motorcade was going down Main Street, no doglegs. On November 19th, the route described included the doglegs. But a day later, the doglegs were eliminated. And on the day of the assassination, the pictured route continued in that vein.
Jim,
You're just flat-out wrong about the "dogleg" turns onto Houston Street and Elm Street being "eliminated" on Wednesday, November 20, 1963. No such "elimination" of those two turns occurred at all. And I don't see how even you, a dedicated conspiracy theorist, can believe such a thing either---because in order for you to actually believe that those two turns were "eliminated" on Nov. 20th, you'd have to actually believe the motorcade route was changed twice after the Dallas Morning News published its "Houston to Elm" version of the motorcade route on Tuesday morning, November 19th. You'd have to believe the route was then changed on November 20th (with this change taking the cars straight down Main Street), and then you'd have to believe the route was changed back again to the same "Houston to Elm" version of the route that was previously reported in both Dallas papers on November 19th. That's kind of crazy if you ask me.
The logical answer as to why the map of the parade route that appeared in this 11/22/63 edition of the Dallas Morning News didn't show the "dogleg" turns onto Houston and Elm Streets is because the map that was printed was fairly small in size, and it would have been a tight squeeze to fit the two short dogleg turns into a map of that size. (Although I suppose CTers can still argue that the two doglegs could still have been squeezed into that map, seeing as how the creators of this particular map did find room for all of the other turns along the motorcade route, e.g., Turtle Creek, Cedar Springs, Harwood, etc.)
But, again, with the Elm Street turn being published in the papers on 11/19/63, I cannot see where the conspiracy believers can go with their argument that the motorcade route was changed around at the "last minute". As I said, the CTers would have to believe the route was changed TWICE after the Nov. 19 papers were published, with the second of these changes exactly mirroring the route that was made public on the 19th. And that's just wacky.
Plus, let me also point out that members of the radio and television media were fully aware of the "Houston to Elm" turn as of at least mid-morning on November 22nd, which is a fact that would certainly tend to undermine the theory that the small map published on the front page of the Dallas Morning News that same morning (November 22) reflected an "elimination" of the Houston-to-Elm turn.
As I discuss in Appendix 1 ("Additional Controversial Issues Surrounding The JFK Assassination") of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" (on pages 421 and 422), both Bob Walker of WFAA-TV and Joe Long of KLIF-Radio narrated extensive live TV and radio coverage from Love Field as JFK arrived in the city of Dallas on Air Force One on 11/22/63 [see the two videos below].Go to 28:15 ---- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8UwZ588YcqILS0xWDZYeG9EWmc/view
Go to 4:04 ---- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOVTZ1MzBybFZvTVk/view
In each of those live broadcasts above, Walker and Long give a description of the motorcade route that the President will travel that day. In Walker's description, he says: "...it'll turn on Houston Street to Elm". In Long's KLIF report, he said: "The main route of travel will be west on Main to Houston, then through the Triple Underpass to Stemmons Freeway, and on to the Trade Mart." (And even though the words "Elm Street" were not spoken by Joe Long in that radio coverage, his description of the route implies the Houston-to-Elm turn, of course, because the only way to get "through the Triple Underpass" from "Houston" is by turning left on Elm from Houston.)
In addition....
There is also this map of the Dallas motorcade route that was published in the Dallas Times Herald on Thursday evening, November 21, 1963, which clearly shows the Main to Houston and the Houston to Elm turns....
CLICK TO ENLARGE:
So, in the final analysis (and after looking at all of the various motorcade descriptions and maps that were printed in the two Dallas newspapers starting on Saturday, November 16, 1963), it becomes fairly obvious what the answer to the "map" mystery is:
Some of the maps (as well as the Nov. 16 DMN text description) published in the Dallas papers just simply didn't include all of the streets that President Kennedy was going to travel on during his motorcade through downtown Dallas. Because if that's not the answer, then we'd have to believe that the actual motorcade route was being changed practically every day from November 16th to the 22nd, with the route bouncing around like a tennis ball.QuoteYour continuing tendency to cherry pick evidence, as you already did with Marina, is really a disturbing quality of your postings here. And no matter how many times you get called out on it, that grievous tendency of yours is never eradicated.
Well, Jim, seeing as how I just destroyed the entire argument you were trying to make when you said this a little while ago....
"On November 16th, the motorcade was going down Main Street, no doglegs. On November 19th, the route described included the doglegs. But a day later, the doglegs were eliminated. And on the day of the assassination, the pictured route continued in that vein."
....I think it's a bit disingenuous on your part to claim that I am the one who is doing the "cherry picking" when it comes to this particular topic. With the introduction into the mix of the above motorcade map published in the 11/21/63 edition of the Dallas Times Herald, you are the one who is now going to have to "cherry pick" the various newspapers in order to keep your fantasy alive of the motorcade route ever being changed at all after the complete and finalized route was first printed in the Dallas papers on November 19th. Good luck playing your version of Motorcade Route Hopscotch what with that November 21st Times Herald map now staring you in the face too.*
* And I realize you probably weren't even aware that the 11/21/63 map even existed before today (and I don't think I had ever seen that map prior to finding it online today either), but now that you can see that the Elm Street turn was being fully revealed to the public the day before President Kennedy went to Dallas, I don't see how you can continue to believe that the small scale map seen in the DMN on Nov. 22 is some kind of proof that the "doglegs were eliminated" [your quote] on November 20th.
Can you continue to believe such a thing now, Jim?
-
1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:
Who was it that originally pointed out that the head first went forward before snapping back? He has since come to the conclusion that it was an illusion caused by camera movement, and said by looking at the background you can spot the forward movement illusion.
Yeah....anything to avoid the obvious, I guess. (Just like my 2015 discussion with EF members re: the SBT.)
-
9 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:
David - this is the problem. I decided long ago to dismiss Marina’s testimony because there was no way to know what was true and what wasn’t. She was not a reliable witness.
Paul,
And do you have any idea why Marina still, to this day, is saying she took the backyard pictures (despite the fact that she now thinks Lee was innocent and was framed as the patsy for JFK's murder)? Is she still afraid of being deported? ....
"I was very nervous that day when I took the pictures," [Marina told author Gerald Posner]. "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." -- Page 106 of Gerald Posner's "Case Closed"
And....
On November 30, 2000, Marina told author Vince Bugliosi that she took the backyard photos and she also re-confirmed for Bugliosi that Lee Oswald had taken a shot at General Edwin Walker:
"Although...I did not come to interrogate Marina about the facts of the case, since this had already been done ad nauseam, a few references to factual matters were made. When she insisted on Oswald's innocence, suggesting he would never do such a murderous act, I reminded her that he had, in fact, attempted to murder Major General Edwin Walker, and she readily admitted he had, telling me she knew this because "Lee told me he did." But she hastened to add that the president was different because "Lee liked Kennedy." And [Fort Worth lawyer and friend of Bugliosi's] Jack Duffy, who has studied the assassination for years and leans toward the conspiracy theory, asked Marina if she had taken "the backyard photos" of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did." "That settles that issue," Duffy said." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent BugliosiQuoteI work backwards from the Zapruder film. Knowing that Oswald could not have fired the fatal headshot leads inevitably to conclude conspiracy, and from there all bets are off. All evidence, all witness statements, have to be weighed against that central fact.
And so, Paul, would I be correct in assuming then that you do NOT think that President Kennedy's head is moving initially FORWARD at the instant he was struck by the head shot? And would you agree that a movement of the President's head FORWARD at the critical moment of impact would, indeed, tend to indicate that the bullet that caused that forward movement was likely fired from BEHIND the President?
.gif)
And can I also assume, Paul, based on your last comment quoted above, that you are also of the opinion that the autopsy photo of JFK's head below is a fake and has been altered in some manner (despite the conclusion reached by the HSCA on this matter [at Page 41 of HSCA Vol. 7])?
-
8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
Davey:
Let us turn the tables on you.
Were all his witnesses lying who said they were introduced to the route about 24 hours before the motorcade?
I have no idea why anyone would say they were "introduced to the route" only 24 hours prior to the motorcade----because that is kind of crazy given the PROVABLE FACT that the Houston-to-Elm turn was announced IN THE PAPERS on November 19. So the press and the public knew it on Nov. 19---we KNOW that for a fact (unless you want to now claim that the DMN and Times Herald papers that appear in the WC volumes are phony and fake newspapers).
8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:This would be Batchelor, Bellah, Jones and Dale. Hmm.
As far as Chief Batchelor specifically is concerned, we know (via Page 32 of the Warren Report) that he, HIMSELF, was riding along with SS Agents Sorrels and Lawson on the dry run of the motorcade route that was done on November 18. So Batchelor was certainly aware of the "dogleg" route as of that date. Why he would claim otherwise can only elicit a shrug from this writer.
-
8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
As late as November 14th, there was no dogleg on the motorcade route.
But since Kenneth O'Donnell didn't officially decide to hold the luncheon at the Trade Mart until that exact day you just mentioned---November 14th [see WCR, p.31]---then of course there was no dogleg as of that date. There was no definitive motorcade route at all as of November 14th. The final motorcade route wasn't announced until "the afternoon of November 18th" [WCR; p.32].
8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:Palamara later adds that the final route was not actually decided upon until November 20th.
That's ridiculous, and Vince Palamara has to know it. The Houston-to-Elm dogleg was described in the November 19th Dallas newspapers, which makes perfect sense considering what I just said above about the route being officially announced on Nov. 18. Therefore, the dogleg was part of the motorcade route as of November 18th, otherwise the Dallas Morning News couldn't have printed the route in its paper on the morning of the 19th [as seen in CE1363].
Who does Palamara think he's kidding?
Some conspiracy myths just refuse to die, don't they? And "The Motorcade Route Was Changed" junk is apparently one such myth that I guess will be with us until the end of time.
More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/Was JFK's Motorcade Route Changed At The Last Minute?
-
1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:
...did anyone [in] Oswald’s life prior to that day ever see him with a revolver?
Yes. Marina Oswald saw Lee's pistol on more than one occasion. Here's what Marina said about the revolver in her Warren Commission testimony (and also take note of her comments about how she took the famous Backyard Photos, plus her remarks about how Lee would go out "practicing" with his rifle, which is something that most conspiracy theorists are always telling me never once happened, despite this testimony given by Marina Oswald)....
-----------------------------------------
MARINA OSWALD -- ...he also had a gun, a revolver.
J. LEE RANKIN -- Do you recall when he first had the pistol, that you remember?
MRS. OSWALD -- He had that on Neely Street, but I think that he acquired the rifle before he acquired the pistol. The pistol I saw twice---once in his room, and the second time when I took these photographs.
MR. RANKIN -- What period of time was there between when he got the rifle and you learned of it, and the time that you first learned about the pistol?
MRS. OSWALD -- I can't say.
MR. RANKIN -- When you testified about his practicing with the rifle, are you describing a period when you were still at Neely Street?
MRS. OSWALD -- Yes.
MR. RANKIN -- Do you know where he practiced with the rifle?
MRS. OSWALD -- I don't know where. I don't know the name of the place where this took place. But I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield.
MR. RANKIN -- Would that be at the airport---Love Field?
MRS. OSWALD -- Love Field.
MR. RANKIN -- So you think he was practicing out in the open and not at a rifle range?
MRS. OSWALD -- Yes.
MR. RANKIN -- Do you recall seeing the rifle when the telescopic lens was on it?
MRS. OSWALD -- I hadn't paid any attention initially. I know a rifle was a rifle. I didn't know whether or not it had a telescope attached to it. But the first time I remember seeing it was in New Orleans, where I recognized the telescope. But probably the telescope was on before. I simply hadn't paid attention. I hope you understand. When I saw it, I thought that all rifles have that.
MR. RANKIN -- Did you make any objection to having the rifle around?
MRS. OSWALD -- Of course.
MR. RANKIN -- What did he say to that?
MRS. OSWALD -- That for a man to have a rifle---since I am a woman, I don't understand him, and I shouldn't bother him. A fine life.
MR. RANKIN -- Is that the same rifle that you are referring to that you took the picture of with your husband and when he had the pistol, too?
MRS. OSWALD -- Yes. I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business---it was man's business. If I had known these were such dangerous toys of course---you understand that I thought that Lee had changed in that direction, and I didn't think it was a serious occupation with him, just playing around.
MR. RANKIN -- Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?
MRS. OSWALD -- I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures. I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me---if someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know.
MR. RANKIN -- Was it on a day off that you took the picture?
MRS. OSWALD -- It was on a Sunday.
MR. RANKIN -- How did it occur? Did he come to you and ask you to take the picture?
MRS. OSWALD -- I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.
MR. RANKIN -- And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time, was he?
MRS. OSWALD -- Yes.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/marina-oswald.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:
Well, seeing as there is no transcript or recording, something I still cannot fathom, the answer is yes I believe Fritz lied. And without transcript or recording we are left with two possibilities instead of one incontrovertible fact.
OK. Fine.
In addition to accusing just Captain John Will Fritz of the DPD of being a l-i-a-r when it comes to this topic of "Did Oswald Carry A Pistol On 11/22/63?", here are three more people who said Oswald was carrying a gun that day --- James Hosty of the FBI, James Bookhout of the FBI, and civilian shoe store manager Johnny Brewer. Do you now want to call all three of these people liars too, including the civilian witness (Brewer)?....
"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him..." -- Via this 11/22/63 Hosty/Bookhout FD-302 FBI Report
"...he [Oswald] reached under his shirt and pulled out a revolver." -- Johnny C. Brewer; July 1986 [5:40 in the video below]
-
2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:
I think there’s doubt he [Lee Harvey Oswald] ever had the revolver in his possession.
So, Paul, do you therefore think Captain Fritz lied through his teeth when he wrote these things in his report?....
"I asked him [Oswald] where he went to when he left work, and he told me that he had a room on 1026 North Beckley, that he went over there and changed his trousers and got his pistol and went to the picture show. I asked him why he carried his pistol, and he remarked, "You know how boys do when they have a gun, they just carry it." " [WCR; Page 601] [DVP's emphasis]
-
INTERNET CONSPIRACY BELIEVER GARRY PUFFER SAID:
I'm tired of hearing this lie told by James Humes and commonly repeated by nearly everyone that Humes did not find out about the throat wound until Saturday, Absolutely not true. Here is a statement from Dr. Robert Livingston about a call he made to Bethesda from Parkland on the evening of Nov. 22:
"...the Officer on Duty put me through to speak directly with Dr Humes who was waiting to perform the autopsy. After introductions, we began a pleasant conversation. He told me that he had not heard much about the reporting from Dallas and from the Parkland Hospital. I told him that the reason for my making such a...call was to stress that the Parkland Hospital physicians' examination of President Kennedy revealed what they reported to be a small wound in the neck, closely adjacent to and to the right of the trachea.
I explained that I had knowledge from the literature on high-velocity wound ballistics research, in addition to considerable personal combat experience examining and repairing bullet and shrapnel wounds. I was confident that a small wound of that sort had to be a wound of entrance and that if it were a wound of exit, it would almost certainly be widely blown out, with cruciate or otherwise wide, tearing outward ruptures of the underlying tissues and skin.
I stressed to Dr. Humes how important it was that the autopsy pathologists carefully examine the President's neck to characterize that particular wound and to distinguish it from the neighboring tracheotomy wound."
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Garry,
Do you actually believe that Dr. Humes was told before the autopsy (in some detail) about the bullet hole in JFK's throat, but then Humes just totally ignored that information when it came time to perform the autopsy?
In a word --- Nonsense.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Of course I believe it, and you know very well why the wound was not examined.
Do you actually believe Dr. Humes did not tell any lies concerning the autopsy? In a word, nonsense, David.
I don't think he liked doing it, but a military doctor does what he's told to do.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Let's see what Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission (emphasis added by DVP).....
Commander HUMES -- "We were able to ascertain with absolute certainty that the bullet had passed by the apical portion of the right lung producing the injury which we mentioned. I did not at that point have the information from Doctor Perry about the wound in the anterior neck, and while that was a possible explanation for the point of exit, we also had to consider the possibility that the missile in some rather inexplicable fashion had been stopped in its path through the President's body and, in fact, then had fallen from the body onto the stretcher."
Mr. SPECTER -- "And what theory did you think possible, at that juncture, to explain the passing of the bullet back out the point of entry; or had you been provided with the fact that external heart massage had been performed on the President?"
Commander HUMES -- "Yes, sir; we had, and we considered the possibility that some of the physical maneuvering performed by the doctors might have in some way caused this event to take place."
Mr. SPECTER -- "Now, have you since discounted that possibility, Doctor Humes?"
Commander HUMES -- "Yes; in essence we have. When examining the wounds in the base of the President's neck anteriorly, the region of the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital, we noted and we noted in our record, some contusion and bruising of the muscles of the neck of the President. We noted that at the time of the postmortem examination."
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
God, David, stop with the WC testimony to "prove" anything. So much of the testimony is false, and you know this. Humes had been telling his lie for so long by the time he faced the WC, it probably seemed like the truth to him.
Sorry, I'll put my money on Dr. Livingston, who had no reason to lie, against Dr. Humes, who had every reason to lie and did just that.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Let's have a look at how reliable good old Dr. Livingston is.....
From Vince Bugliosi's book....
"[Dr. Robert B.] Livingston is the person who claims that just hours after the assassination, when there was mass confusion and no one knew anything for sure about the trajectory or origin of fire, he reached Dr. Humes on the phone at Bethesda Naval Hospital just prior to the autopsy and informed Humes that JFK’s front neck wound was probably an entry wound, and that Humes had to terminate the conversation because FBI agents would not let him continue (Statement of Robert B. Livingston, MD, November 18, 1993, in Fetzer, "Assassination Science", p. 162; David W. Mantik, “The JFK Assassination: Cause for Doubt,” in Fetzer, "Murder in Dealey Plaza", p.113).
Mind you, Livingston claims he told Humes this before Humes learned from Dr. Perry that there was a bullet wound to the front of Kennedy’s neck. But Livingston, calling from San Diego, knew better. My, my.
In a 1993 deposition, Livingston changed the time of the alleged call, claiming that he talked to Humes for fifteen minutes to a half hour between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m. (EST) on the afternoon of the assassination, when we know Humes wasn’t even at Bethesda (ARRB MD 24, Deposition of Robert B. Livingston, MD, Case No. 73-93, "Crenshaw and Shaw versus Sutherland", November 19, 1993, pp.101, 105, 199).
Dr. Humes told the ARRB in 1996 that he had never heard of Dr. Livingston and after reading parts of his deposition said, “Well, this is ridiculous. I was at home at this time. He never talked to me, period . . . This is fantasy. Pure fantasy . . . Never happened. That’s all I can tell you” (ARRB Transcript of Proceedings, Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes, February 13, 1996, pp.47, 48, 49).
In his deposition, Livingston admitted that although the information he had was important, he never contacted the Warren Commission, HSCA, Clark Panel, or any other official investigation, but that when he finally did take action (in April–May of 1992), he only wrote letters and met with known conspiracy theorists—Peter Dale Scott, David Lifton, Gary Aguilar, and Harrison Edward Livingstone.
Livingston ultimately expressed his belief in a conspiracy to assassinate and cover up the JFK assassination, going so far as to claim that whoever was involved in the JFK killing and cover-up was also involved in his getting sprayed with gasoline at a service station once (ARRB MD 24, Deposition of Robert B. Livingston, MD, Case No. 73-93, "Crenshaw and Shaw versus Sutherland", November 19, 1993, pp.41, 48–51, 54–56, 78, 87, 179–181)." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 286 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Sorry, David, but I don't trust Bugliosi any more than you trust Mark Lane, so don't quote Vince to convince me of anything.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But everything Dr. Humes did during the autopsy on 11/22/63 at Bethesda, while President Kennedy's body was lying on the autopsy table, indicates that Dr. Humes did not positively know that there was a bullet hole in JFK's throat.
And we don't have to take just Dr. Humes' word for this. We also have the Sibert/O'Neill report to guide us, too. In that report written by FBI agents James Sibert and Francis O'Neill on November 22, 1963 (and dictated on November 26, 1963) [ARRB MD 44], it states the following on Page 4:
"Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets."
Therefore, via the above excerpt that comes from the report written by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, it's quite clear that the autopsy doctors (including James J. Humes) were not fully aware during the course of the autopsy of the existence of the bullet hole in the lower part of President Kennedy's throat.
In addition, the Sibert/O'Neill report also states on Page 3 that President Kennedy's body had undergone "surgery of the head area". And we know from later interviews with James Sibert (such as this one in 2005) that the "surgery of the head area" remark had come straight from the mouth of Dr. James Humes himself.
Now, I ask this: If Dr. Humes had been part of a covert plot to secretly alter John F. Kennedy's head wounds (and according to Douglas P. Horne, Humes DID alter the President's head wounds), then why on Earth would Humes have uttered aloud that there had been apparent "surgery of the head area"? It makes no sense.David Von Pein
June 17, 2015 -
Micah,
Quoting from Dr. Humes' ARRB testimony in 1996 [emphasis is mine]....
DR. HUMES -- "My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays."------------------------
I could swear that Humes mentions in his WC testimony (someplace) about how he thought on 11/22 when doing the autopsy that the bullet probably did exit the throat, but (for some reason) he waited until the next day to call Parkland to confirm it.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
-
2 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:
Do you think Humes contacted Perry on Friday night or the next day?
The next day (Saturday morning, 11/23). Both Perry and Humes confirm this. (Do you think they BOTH would have lied about this?)
2 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:Why are there so many indications they were aware of the throat wound during the body examination?
Like what for instance?
-
-
So many Oswalds....
So few of them actually him....
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11133#relPageId=318
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The person thought to be Oswald can be seen at 43:50 in the video below. None of those people looks anything like Lee Harvey Oswald, however. (The picture quality is fuzzy, but since it came to me from a multi-generation VHS videotaped source, the poor quality cannot be helped.) ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who changed the motorcade route?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David Von Pein
Regarding the topic of "TWO DIFFERENT EDITIONS OF THE SAME NEWSPAPER".....
I noticed yesterday (while I was searching the Internet for various Nov. '63 papers) that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (just like the DMN did) printed up two completely different front pages on 11/22/63. So evidently this habit of "Two Different Editions" wasn't uncommon....