David Von Pein

31 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Doesn't it give you pause that the HSCA moved the entrance wound location from the EOP to the cowlick?

Yes, it gives me "pause". But what the heck am I supposed to do about it? The HSCA did what they pretty much had to do, and they concluded what they pretty much had to conclude, given the nature of the photos and X-rays (plus the re-examination by the HSCA of the Clark Panel's findings).

Quote

Doesn't it bother you that the autopsists -- who held the body in their hands -- saw that the wound was near the EOP. And yet their judgement was trumped by the HSCA experts who were shown a drawing of the head with an exaggerated/fabricated cowlick hole?

Once again, why on Earth are you saying something so silly? The HSCA did NOT rely on the Dox drawing to reach its conclusions at all. They relied on the ORIGINAL AUTOPSY PICTURES & X-RAYS, which most certainly DO show a hole in the BOH, 100mm. above the EOP, as measured by the Clark Panel.

And both autopsy pictures (the color one and the B&W one) definitely DO show a hole in the BOH, high on the head. I see it in both photos. And it's especially visible in BOTH pictures when viewing the animated GIF image. (A "curl of hair"?? That's funny.)

37 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

Doesn't it give you pause that the HSCA had to move the entrance wound from the EOP to the cowlick in order for the trajectory from the TSBD snipers nest to work??

But that's only because the HSCA (Thomas Canning) didn't factor in the possibility of the bullet being slightly deflected and therefore CHANGING DIRECTIONS after entering JFK's skull, which is a scenario that is very likely, IMO. That bullet, after hitting the back of the head at full velocity, likely didn't stay on the EXACT same trajectory. That can make all the difference in the world. (See Dale Myers' analysis on this point --- http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm.)

Quote

Doesn't it bother you that the autopsists -- who held the body in their hands -- saw that the wound was at the EOP. Yet their judgement was trumped by the HSCA experts who saw only a drawing of the head with an exaggerated/fabricated cowlick hole?

Huh? Why are you saying the HSCA experts "saw only a drawing of the head"? The HSCA didn't ONLY have the Ida Dox drawings at their disposal. They also had full access to all of JFK's original first-generation autopsy photographs and X-rays (and they even published the X-rays in their 12 volumes of supporting evidence). And it was those actual AUTOPSY PHOTOS (not the Dox drawings) that convinced the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel that the entry wound in JFK's head was located about four inches (3.9 in.) above the EOP. And the Clark Panel's 1968 examination of the autopsy materials supported the "cowlick" entry as well....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html

Where does the entry wound appear to be in these photos below, Sandy? Low on the head or high on the head? Or don't you see a bullet hole at all here? ....

  ------

James DiEugenio said:

To use the Zapruder film to declare:

1.) Directionality, and

2.) The number of bullets to the skull

Is a use that is particular to you. And only you would stoop so low as to use it for those purposes.

The probative evidence concerning those matters would be the autopsy. But as Martin Hay pointed out in his destruction of your horrendous book, you did not care to examine that area in any depth or scope.

I don't blame you at all for that, Davey Boy. It's a real loser for you and I am glad you know it, since it reveals that you are not ready for the old folks home quite yet.

You're as hilarious as ever, "Jimmy Boy". You just implied that I—DVP—am the only person in the history of the world who has ever utilized the Zapruder Film to demonstrate that JFK was struck in the head by only ONE bullet, with that single bullet coming from behind (per the Z-Film).

All I can say to you after you made this weird and flat-out ludicrous claim....

"Only you would stoop so low as to use it [the Zapruder Film] for those purposes."

....is Huh?? (and maybe WTF??)....because virtually EVERY Lone Assassin believer in the world at one time or another has utilized Abraham Zapruder's 26-second home movie to bolster his or her arguments about President Kennedy being hit in the head only one time from behind, including such prominent LN authors as Gerald Posner (see Page 475 of "Case Closed", 1994 paperback edition) and Vincent Bugliosi (see the many references made to the Z-Film as it relates to Bugliosi's arguments concerning the fatal head shot in "Reclaiming History", including the excerpt printed below)....

"It had to be pure oversight on the part of someone at the HSCA to not publish this enhanced [high contrast] reproduction of Z313...for this reproduction is almost, if not equally, as dramatic as that of the head snap to the rear, only it shows vivid, graphic evidence that the fatal shot to the head at Z312—313 was fired from the rear. As can be clearly seen, the terrible spray of blood, shell fragments, and brain matter a millisecond after the president was shot appears to be to the front. I now had more than enough evidence, of every species I would possibly need, to demonstrate to the jury [at the mock trial in London in 1986] that at the all-important moment of impact, Kennedy's head was pushed forward, not backward, proving the head shot came from the rear." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 486 of "Reclaiming History"

But, amazingly, apparently (per James DiEugenio) it is David V.P.—and ONLY me—who has used the Zapruder Film as a tool of "head shot analysis" and study. How about that folks? Jimmy says that I'm all alone when it comes to that type of Z-Film analysis. Incredible.

My goodness, if Jim's memory is so bad he can't even remember that major authors like Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi have (many times) utilized Mr. Zapruder's amateur movie to buttress their arguments pertaining to JFK's head wounds, then perhaps Mr. DiEugenio is ready for the place that he just said I'm not quite ready to reside in just yet—the "old folks home".

I'll get you a rocking chair, Jim.

Addendum....

And for Jim D. to suggest, as he did above, that no conspiracy advocate has ever used the Zapruder Film to try and support their position that JFK was shot in the head from the front (and with multiple bullets, per many different CTers) is a suggestion that is not only dead wrong, it's downright bizarre!

I can't count how many times I've talked to CTers who have insisted, based on their own subjective Z-Film "analysis", that the film is providing the absolute PROOF that JFK was struck in the head from the front, thereby proving that a conspiracy existed to kill the President in Dallas.

Jim, even you yourself have done that very thing you are claiming that only I have done (re: "directionality") --- you have stated in the past your belief that the Zapruder Film shows that JFK was shot in the head from the front, when you said this nine years ago:

"The only part of the head that looks like it's being impacted is the front." -- James DiEugenio; November 27, 2008

So, once again, we're treated to a Pot/Kettle moment from a conspiracy theorist named James DiEugenio.

Thanks, Jim.
 

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

David, your sequence show's JFK's brain exploding, spraying motorcycle officer Hargis to his left rear.  There wasn't much left to examine, though much has ben made of it.  The bit Jackie grabbed off the trunk, some of the left side with particles in it per the "x-rays"?  Official illustrator Skip Rydeberg describes brains as having the consistency of scrambled eggs.  You do believe his depictions are accurate?

The Rydberg drawings are awful. I've said that for years. The biggest mistake made by the Warren Commission was their failure to examine (in detail) the autopsy photographs and X-rays. That was a huge blunder on their part, no doubt about it. And that's why we have to be satisfied (as far as the Warren Report and the 26 volumes are concerned anyway) with those awful Rydberg drawings, which have caused more harm than good for decades, prompting even more people to scream "Cover Up" at the top of their lungs. But when the autopsy photos did finally become available to the masses (albeit in bootleg form), we can see that the WC was right anyway --- i.e., JFK was shot only from BEHIND --- just as the autopsy said.

But it looks like you, Ron, believe in the conspiracy myth that Jackie was retrieving a piece of JFK's head off of the trunk of the limousine---which is merely a theory that has never been proven to be a fact. Yes, there's Clint Hill's testimony, but beyond that, there's merely amateur Z-Film interpretation of Jackie Kennedy's movements on the trunk and what those movements SUPPOSEDLY mean. I have my own ideas on the matter, as expressed here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Jackie+Trunk

.......

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

OMG, to bring in Petty's jocular testimony at that phony TV trial is so utterly ridiculous as to be absurd.

Yeah, I knew you wouldn't be able to resist digging your claws into Dr. Petty after I posted his '86 testimony. You're as predictable as a morning sunrise. (But, then again, I suppose I'm just as predictable---in an "LN" sort of fashion. So, it's a draw on the "predictability" score.)

Side Note---

Earth to Jim D.:

Just because you love to continually refer to "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (1986) as a "phony trial", that doesn't mean everybody on the planet has to agree with your assessment of that television program. It's actually a very good mock trial, in which we were able to see real assassination witnesses being examined on TV by a prosecutor and a defense lawyer for the first and only time (not counting the Clay Shaw Trial, which, of course, was not televised).

Quote

...without any of those things[,] you have no idea of where the bullet(s) entered or exited.

That is totally wrong (and absurd), Jim. Even without the brain, we know the bullet (singular) entered THE REAR part of the head (and whether it was the "EOP" or the "Cowlick", it was still the REAR of the head, perfectly consistent with a shot coming from Oswald's window in the Depository). The autopsy photos and X-rays prove that "ENTERED THE REAR OF THE HEAD" fact. Plus the autopsy report proves it too (which is a report that almost all CTers think is a total lie from start to finish, of course).

And even without the brain, it's clear that the bullet (singular) exited the RIGHT SIDE of JFK's head (toward the front), just as the Zapruder Film clearly and amply demonstrates....

So, Dr. Petty was 100% correct when he said: "It would be nice to have the brain." Yes, it'd be nice. But it's certainly not imperative to have it in order to answer the big questions concerning the head entry and exit locations.

10 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

I'm pretty sure the EOP wound can be the only answer.

Not according to Dr. Petty....

Micah,

Over the years, I've discussed the "Cowlick vs. EOP" topic at great length with (mostly) John A. Canal. I've archived most of those discussions here:

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

Quick Note --- Regardless of exactly WHERE on the head the entry wound was located, we know from all the autopsy doctors (plus the autopsy report) that there was only ONE entry wound in JFK's cranium...and that ONE single entry hole was located at the BACK of Kennedy's head.

So, CTers are defeated either way, regardless of whether it was an "EOP" entry location or a "Cowlick" entry location.

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

Ha Ha! I think you ruined his plan to post this thread in his little Hall of Selective Fame that he maintains on his website. 

Not at all. I posted this material on my site more than 24 hours ago....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1255.html

I always enjoy archiving discussions where CTers say really dumb things, like this Golden Nugget Of Idiocy authored by Mr. Josephs today....

"You can't get any of the WCR evidence to support your conclusion." 

Hard to get any sillier (and funnier) than the above CT gem.

@David Josephs....

What must really suck for you and your CT brethren, David, is to have to admit that the basic fact I mentioned previously is 100% true (if Oswald had been framed for JFK's murder, as so many conspiracy theorists firmly believe), which is this basic fact....

"Face it, David Josephs ---- the people that many conspiracy theorists think were framing Lee Harvey Oswald (IN ADVANCE) in 1963 must have been total morons."

And that you have the gall to actually say this to me....

"You can't get any of the WCR evidence to support your conclusion."

....only goes to show how "out to lunch" you truly are.

Do you really think that reasonable and sensible people who reside outside the doors of Internet JFK forums are actually in such a deep state of denial about the JFK evidence that they are going to believe the B.S. you just uttered about there being no evidence in the Warren Report whatsoever which supports the conclusion that Lee Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy? Yeah, right.

The fact is (and always has been) that virtually ALL of the evidence in the JFK case supports the WCR conclusion of Oswald's sole guilt in the murders of both JFK and J.D. Tippit.

But apparently, if you're a CTer posting on an Internet JFK forum, ALL equals NOTHING AT ALL.

What a (CTer) crock.

David Josephs said:

6 month application yields a 15-day visa...  how dat?

Beats me, Dave. I guess it's just one more thing (among many) that your idiotic plotters and Patsy Framers did wrong when they were framing Oswald in November of '63.

Just a few examples....

Per many CTers....

....The unknown "they" who were in the process of allegedly "framing" Lee Harvey Oswald screwed up the dates on the letter and/or envelope in Commission Exhibits 15 and 16.

....They screwed up the length of time for the visa that Oswald was supposedly applying for.

....They screwed up everything imaginable relating to Oswald's rifle purchase (e.g., the length of the gun, the postmark on the Klein's envelope, they permitted the "fake" order to get to Klein's way too soon [in just 24 hours], they didn't check LHO's employment records closely enough at Jaggars and thusly had the "fake" rifle order being mailed at a time when the CTers say Oswald couldn't possibly have left work to go to the post office, etc.).

....They screwed up the Backyard Photos of Oswald holding the rifle (e.g., the shadows are all wrong, Oswald is "leaning" over in an impossible fashion, etc.).

....They screwed up the part of the frame-up at the car dealership (because Oswald The Patsy couldn't really drive nearly well enough to test drive a car at the high speeds and in the reckless way that Mr. Bogard said he did).

....They screwed up the part of the frame-up at Dial Ryder's Irving Sports Shop (because Oswald's rifle was already supposed to have a scope on it).

And on and on and......on.

Face it, David Josephs ---- the people that many conspiracy theorists think were framing Lee Harvey Oswald (in advance) in 1963 must have been total morons.

So, those bumbling/stumbling plotters strike again! They want everybody to think Oswald sent a letter to Washington AFTER Nov. 9th, so "they" fake an envelope which has "Nov. 2" on it, right? Even though those same plotters COULD have put ANY date on the envelope via the postmark that was apparently a "fake" postmark. Correct?

Brilliant!

The things CTers believe never cease being incredible---and hilarious.

29 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Let's be fair to Dave.

He says there is a faint 1 in the postmark date.  I also see what appears to be a faint 1.

Portions of the letters "TEX" at the bottom of the mark are faint as well.

So Dave may have something.

On the other hand, it appears to me that the faint 1 is printed at a counter-clockwise angle. If that is not a optical illusion, then I doubt the faint 1 is real.

There's also the fact that there appears to definitely be ENOUGH ROOM to easily fit a "1" right in front of the "2" in that CE16 postmark. Now, whether that extra little bit of space is significant, I really have no idea. Perhaps that "gap" is always present (even when an envelope is being stamped with a date with just one number in it).

Maybe somebody at the The International Machine Cancel Society could be of some help. (I've talked to a few members of that organization a few years ago during another "Postmark" controversy, regarding Commission Exhibit 773.)
 

From Marina Oswald's Warren Commission testimony:

MARINA OSWALD -- "...I know that he [Lee Oswald] was typing there. I don't know what he was typing."

J. LEE RANKIN -- "And it is Ruth Paine's typewriter that you are referring to, when you say Ruth?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "Ruth Paine. Because Lee did not have a typewriter, and it is hardly likely that he would have had it typed somewhere else."

MR. RANKIN -- "I hand you Exhibit 16, which purports to be the envelope for the letter, Exhibit 15. Have you ever seen that?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "The envelope I did see. I did not see the letter, but I did see the envelope. Lee had retyped it some 10 times or so."

MR. RANKIN -- "Do you recall or could you clarify for us about the date on the envelope--whether it is November 2 or November 12?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "November 12."

MR. RANKIN -- "I might call your attention, Mrs. Oswald, to the fact that Exhibit 15, the letter, is dated November 9. Does that help you any?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes. Then this must be 12."

MR. RANKIN -- "That is the only way you can determine it, is it?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes."
 

Do you think CE16 is a phony document, Michael? Yes or no?

The "1" is definitely there in CE16, Michael. I can see it. It's just very dim. And another reason I know it's there is because Oswald wrote that letter on 11/9/63. Therefore, the postmark for such a letter cannot possibly be 11/2/63.

Are you actually claiming that the envelope seen in CE16 is a fake envelope with a forged postmark? Really??

The "1" is easier to see if you use a magnifying glass when viewing this image:

David Josephs said:

As to that stamp showing the 12th... when there's a "1" it shows a "1".

You're attempting to compare the March '63 postmark on the Klein's envelope with the postmark seen in CE16 from eight months later. But that's not a reasonable comparison at all. In fact, it's an altogether silly comparison. Many factors could explain why the "1" in the March 12th postmark showed up very clearly, but the "1" in the postmark on Oswald's November 12th envelope didn't show up very well. And the postmarks are from totally different cities (Dallas vs. Irving). So why would anyone feel that that is a fair comparison in any way?

Plus, the fact that the November '63 envelope seen in CE16 was mailed in Irving, Texas, provides a further indication that Oswald wrote and mailed that letter while he was staying at Ruth Paine's residence in Irving during the weekend of November 9-11.

In any event, Oswald's Russian Embassy letter most certainly could not have been postmarked "Nov. 2", because Oswald didn't even write the letter until November 9, which is a date pretty much confirmed via Ruth Paine's testimony that I previously posted.

Also note the somewhat dim nature of the "1" (as well as the "9") in the "1963" part of the postmark in CE16....

David Josephs said:

While the type-written letter is dated Nov 9... the envelope is postmarked Nov 2.

I don't think the postmark says Nov. 2, David. I think it says Nov. 12. The "1" in the 12 is just very faint and can hardly be seen.

11/12/63 was a Tuesday, while Nov. 9 was a Saturday. So the November 12 date on the postmark makes perfect sense too, given the fact that Nov. 12 was the Tuesday after the national holiday which fell on Monday, Nov. 11 (Veterans Day). And the post office, of course, was closed on Veterans Day. Ergo, Oswald's letter was postmarked the next business day---Tues., Nov. 12th.

And it makes sense that the letter Oswald wrote to the Russian Embassy (CE15) is dated on a Saturday, since Oswald was, indeed, spending that weekend (plus the Veterans Day holiday on Monday, November 11) at Ruth Paine's home in Irving.

Commission Exhibit No. 16 (Oswald's Envelope):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0029b.htm

There is also this portion of Ruth Paine's Warren Commission testimony regarding the date on which Lee Oswald borrowed Ruth's typewriter to compose his letter to the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C.:

Mrs. PAINE -- This was on the morning of November 9, Saturday. He asked to use my typewriter, and I said he might.

Mr. JENNER -- Excuse me. Would you please state to the Commission why you are reasonably firm that it was the morning of November 9? What arrests your attention to that particular date?

Mrs. PAINE -- Because I remember the weekend that this note or rough draft remained on my secretary desk. He spent the weekend on it. And the weekend was close and its residence on that desk was stopped also on the evening of Sunday, the 10th, when I moved everything in the living room around; the whole arrangement of the furniture was changed, so that I am very clear in my mind as to what weekend this was.

Mr. JENNER -- All right, go ahead.

Mrs. PAINE -- He was using the typewriter. I came and put June in her high-chair near him at the table where he was typing, and he moved something over what he was typing from, which aroused my curiosity.

Mr. JENNER -- Why did that arouse your curiosity?

Mrs. PAINE -- It appeared he didn't want me to see what he was writing or to whom he was writing. I didn't know why he had covered it. If I had peered around him, I could have looked at the typewriter and the page in it, but I didn't.

Mr. JENNER -- It did make you curious?

Mrs. PAINE -- It did make me curious. Then, later that day, I noticed a scrawling handwriting on a piece of paper on the corner at the top of my secretary desk in the living room. It remained there. Sunday morning I was the first one up. I took a closer look at this, a folded sheet of paper folded at the middle. The first sentence arrested me because I knew it to be false.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r2.htm

------------------------------------------------

http://Ruth-Paine.blogspot.com

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

How many days were they [the Clark Panel] in session?

DVP Interjection...

Answer:

Two days (February 26-27, 1968).

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html

When I said this earlier....

"I doubt very much that there would even be a sliver of a chance that THIS FORUM would be liable in any way at all, since THIS FORUM is not the site that is hosting the video in the first place. It's some OTHER site that's doing the "hosting" of the material."

....I wasn't referring to anything regarding "Invision". I was instead referring to the site that is hosting the video in question (such as YouTube or Vimeo, etc.). And it's highly unlikely that any "third party" site that merely allows the embedding of videos on its site (such as EF) would be liable for any of the content within those embedded (or linked) videos.

I'm pretty sure, however, that this EF site has something written in its TOS that says not to post copyrighted material without permission. Right?

But when copyrighted stuff is posted (and thousands of such videos are posted on Internet forums every single day), does anyone really think that all those site owners are going to perform a detailed check to make sure the video doesn't violate any copyright? Of course they aren't. No way that ever happens.

The site (or forum) owners discourage the posting of copyrighted works, of course (via the TOS that nobody ever reads), but there's no way that the EF can be sued for merely having a Grey's Anatomy clip embedded in a post by a member named Ramon F. Herrera. Herrera and/or YouTube would face the copyright consequences. Not EF.

Mark Knight,

Even if the copyrighted material were to be posted (linked and/or embedded) here at The Education Forum, I doubt very much that there would even be a sliver of a chance that THIS FORUM would be liable in any way at all, since THIS FORUM is not the site that is hosting the video in the first place. It's some OTHER site that's doing the "hosting" of the material. So it would be THAT site (and/or the person who uploaded it to that other site) who would face the consequences in a copyright dispute. That fact seems pretty basic (and obvious) to me.

There are hundreds (probably thousands) of posts at this forum which include embedded YouTube videos. And The Education Forum isn't deemed "liable" in any way at all for the fact that those YouTube videos (many of which, let's face it, violate somebody's copyright) have been embedded by EF members.

59 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

DVP is always good for a few laughs.

And make sure you laugh in the face of the Clark Panel too, Jim. (Naturally, those 4 people were all idiots and/or crooked cover-up agents as well, correct?)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html

But, of course, the bullet didn't enter low (near the EOP) on JFK's head. The autopsy BOH pictures prove that fact, IMO. The bullet entered higher than the EOP. (Also see the Clark Panel Report, which verifies the bullet entered JFK's head "approx. 100 millimeters above the EOP".)

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

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

This breaking news sounds like pure Italian hokum to me.

Bingo!

Apparently every 10 years (in years that end in "7") the Italians like to come up with something incredibly stupid concerning the JFK case. In 2007, it was the absurd "IT TAKES 19 SECONDS TO FIRE 3 SHOTS FROM A CARCANO" nonsense....

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/fO7k4MmCddQ/F4NDaPWXqIwJ

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/06/italian-experts-test-jfk-assassination.html

I wonder what the phony bombshell story from Italy will be in 2027?

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I think the day of the interview was the 27th.

But don't hold me to that date since I throw out my Day Runner once the month is over.

Do you remember that you did the interview on a Tuesday? (June 27 was a Tuesday.)

Thanks.