David Von Pein

Indeed, Michael, I find a lot of amusement in it. (Do you need even 2 guesses to figure out the source of the bulk of my amusement?) Here are just a few random samples of some of the things written by conspiracy theorists that I have archived at my websites over the last several years, providing an immense amount of "amusement", to be sure. (Authors' identities withheld. No sense rubbing salt in these wounds.) .... [Silly Quotes On:] "The [autopsy] images were altered, fake representations of JFK's wounds. Any examination of them is also fake, as it is based on false information." ~~~~~~~~~~ "Oswald was already in the Texas Theater at the time of Tippet’s [sic] murder." ~~~~~~~~~~ "Baker never saw Oswald. .... I believe the [Oswald/Baker/Truly] incident was created after the fact." ~~~~~~~~~~ "I will not respond to any thread that David von Pein [sic] or any of his numerous sock puppets start. He (and his multiple fake profiles) are not looking for truth. .... It is just not productive to engage a disinformation artist." ~~~~~~~~~~ "David Von Pain [sic] is a known disinformation agent working for John McAdams on the newsgroup alts. He's been thrown off most of the assassination sites for being an abusive flame thrower and a miserable t-r-o-l-l." ~~~~~~~~~~ "I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." ~~~~~~~~~~ "DVP doesn't post evidence but only his opinion of what it says and means." ~~~~~~~~~~ "Do not be fooled by this guy [DVP]. His education is what he has always kept covered up. Hiding his real identity has thrown everyone for a loop, his plan exactly. .... Remember he was from the town that Ruth Paine visited on her trip to pick up Marina -- Richmond, Indiana, a strong Quaker town. Von Pein would only have been a couple years old in '63, but he had family. Although I can't prove it, I think his family knew Ruth Paine. He may have set [sic] on her lap? .... I suspect he is a disinfo agent." [Oh, man! If only my bladder wasn't so damn weak!] ~~~~~~~~~~ "I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. .... I think Brennan is a completely created witness." ~~~~~~~~~~ "Couldn't find anything good in it [the book "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"] and didn't see anything you got right." ~~~~~~~~~~ "You cannot even prove he [LHO] ever had possession of the handgun." ~~~~~~~~~~ "What's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other end." ~~~~~~~~~~ "And despite all your years writing about the case, you haven't a single piece of solid definitive evidence against Oswald." [Time for another one of these ----> ] ~~~~~~~~~~ "DVP, Either you are a surrogate for the U.S. Government. Or you speak the same as the government." ~~~~~~~~~~ "I do not think you (or your pal Vince Bugliosi) have ever understood what the Kennedy murder was all about. You both seem to view it as a simple homicide. But it was not. It was not simply about "killing the President"; It was about murdering the President and getting away with it. .... In this case, the evidence had to be altered, messed with, replaced, substituted, planted, choose your own terms. .... Critical evidence has been changed, and replaced with a false overlay, if you will." ~~~~~~~~~~ "I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." ~~~~~~~~~~ "They messed with the Hughes film. They messed with every film and photo that they could get their hands on. The JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event in the history of the world." ~~~~~~~~~~ "Having studied these [Zapruder Film] frames - Z 222 to Z 230 - it is clear that what is happening is that John Connally is turning his body to the left so that by Z 230 he is actually facing forward. These frames in a gif would demonstrate that - were Z 226 and Z 227 and Z 228 not partially or wholly blurred. Unfortunately they are blurred and when incorporated into a gif these same frames throw up extraordinary results. It is these same extraordinary results that allow members like you [David Von Pein] to suggest that these very frames actually suggest that John Connally is reacting to being struck by a bullet when - in fact - he has not been struck." ~~~~~~~~~~ "I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." ~~~~~~~~~~ "JEH [J. Edgar Hoover] alone controlled all the evidence." ~~~~~~~~~~ "I think that that whole thing about burning the [autopsy] notes...was just a cover story." ~~~~~~~~~~ "I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no evidence. There is no evidence. There is no evidence. Other than the fact that Oswald could NOT have killed the president." ~~~~~~~~~~ "I am 99.9999999% convinced now that Oswald did not room at the Bledsoe residence. He did not know this woman." ~~~~~~~~~~ "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people. I think we also need to figure out a way to move towards prosecuting them. These persons are just in flagrant denial of the obvious evidence of Oswald's CIA relationship." ~~~~~~~~~~ "Now can we work on getting Von Pein legally prohibited from use of the internet?" ~~~~~~~~~~ "The biggest development in the history of JFK assassination research has just happened. We have irrefutable proof now that the garage shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald was FBI Agent James Bookhout. .... There is no longer a speck of doubt that an agent of the US government, James Bookhout, shot Lee Harvey Oswald--not Jack Ruby." ~~~~~~~~~~ "I believe that Lee Oswald shot neither JFK or Tippit." [End Silly Quotes.] Whew! That's enough amusement to last until next Christmas!

Oh. So THAT'S what you meant. (Figures. You're a CTer.)

But, Jim, Michael was talking specifically about how the "information" and the "issues" (i.e., the major talking points pertaining to JFK's death) haven't changed very much since Mark Lane's appearance on William Buckley's "Firing Line" television program in 1966. And Michael is absolutely right too. Some "new" things have come up since 1966, of course. But not a single one of them has been significant at all*, and not one of them has undermined or undercut the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone killer of both John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.* The Warren Commission's work and conclusions will stand the test of time and will continue to be the definitive word on the JFK assassination for all people who have the ability to properly and reasonably and dispassionately evaluate and assess the sum total of the evidence associated with the murders of JFK and Officer Tippit.* * IMO. For a few illustrative examples which tend to indicate that Michael Clark is 100% correct when he said what he said above ("the information and issues haven't changed much"), go to the webpages below. In those linked discussions, CTers and I argue about some of the very same already-debunked JFK conspiracy theories that were also the subject of debate and argument way back when Mark Lane was appearing on TV shows and college campuses in the 1960s. Only the year has changed. Same debates, different millennium: jfk-archives/2013/06/the-conspiracy-myths-continue jfk-archives/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle jfk-archives/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt jfk-archives/2014/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-804 jfk-archives/2017/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1227 ------------------------------------- More Mark Lane Interviews & Debates: dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/mark-lane.html

@Brad: All of my old Topps baseball cards are now gone too. My dad didn't toss them out, though. I myself threw them all away years ago. Geez, how stupid I was for doing that! I'd love to have those cards back today. And I'm a persnickety fusspot too, keep in mind, so I kept each card in perfect (mint) condition all the time. Who knows what my "Johnny Bench In Action" card from '72 would be worth today in the mint condition I kept it in. @Michael: Great Kentucky Post newspaper clipping. A no-hitter, eh? That's incredible (even for a Knothole player). The best I could ever do was two doubles in one game in 1976 (plus a few good plays on defense while digging out low throws at first base). Your newspaper clipping reminds me of something else from my "baseball past" that I wish I still had today -- the box scores from my Little League games. Yes, as incredible as it might sound today, the local paper in my small hometown (The Palladium-Item in Richmond, Indiana) actually would publish in the Sports section the complete box scores for every Optimist League game played. I think I used to cut out those box scores and keep them as souvenirs, but they're all gone now. I must have tossed them all in the trash along with my many complete sets of Topps baseball cards. Oh, the ignorance of youth. Thank you both (Brad and Michael) for sharing your baseball memories. I know it has nothing to do with the JFK case....but, heck, there are a few things in the world besides the events of November 22nd, 1963, right?

REPLAY.... JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: I have seen the Wilkinson scan. In their high-resolution scan I can assure you that the black patch does not appear anywhere else. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: But has anyone even bothered to look at the intensity of the "blackness" of Clint Hill's head when examining the "Wilkinson scan" of the Zapruder Film? In other words, when viewing the Wilkinson HD scan, has anyone performed the type of comparison like the one I did on a lower-quality version of the Z-Film (comparing Clint Hill's head to JFK's head) to see whether or not the "black" levels are the same or totally different in shading and intensity? If such a direct "Hill vs. JFK" comparison hasn't been done for that Wilkinson material, and if nobody has even paid any attention to Clint Hill in the Wilkinson scan (has anyone?), then how can we know that Jim DiEugenio is 100% correct when he said this recently: "I can assure you that the black patch does not appear anywhere else"? Now, to be fair, maybe somebody has done a direct comparison of Clint Hill's head with President Kennedy's in the "Wilkinson scan". I don't know for sure. That's why I asked. But even if someone has done such a comparison and has concluded that a "black patch" has definitely been artificially placed over the back of JFK's head in many frames of the Zapruder home movie, I still wonder how those CTers can explain the fact that high-quality autopsy photos of JFK's head (like the one below) pretty much prove, via the presence of individual hairs that are visible in the right-rear section of the head, that President Kennedy most certainly did not have a huge gaping hole in the back of his head when he was on the autopsy table at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of 11/22/63....because there most certainly is not a "black patch" over the back of JFK's head in this autopsy photograph:

But if you were to ask most conspiracy believers around the Internet, they would say that I have had grand-slams hit off me every time I take the mound. Actually, though, for the "official" record books [~chuckle~], I only pitched in one game during my glorious 4-year (Optimist Little League) baseball "career" (1973-1976). I hurled two-thirds of an inning in one game when our team was apparently getting our brains beaten out so badly that there was nobody else left to put in except first baseman Von Pein. (I did okay, though, giving up no runs with one strikeout.) Sorry about this additional "baseball" diversion, but I was watching an old reel of home movies that my brother recently transferred into a digital computer file, and it includes this one minute of footage that my father took of me playing baseball as an 11-year-old in 1973, which prompted me to create the homemade "Topps baseball card" seen below. (Has anybody else here ever wanted to see their name and picture on a Topps bubble gum card?) Yeah, I know, this "card" should be more rectangular than this, but I did the best I could with the two fuzzy pictures I captured from my father's home movie. And, Brad, I hope you will take notice of the bond I share with the Hall-of-Famer you mentioned earlier--Mickey Mantle. We both wore the same uniform number (7). The similarity ends there, however. Mickey batted .298 lifetime. I hit about .198. I guess maybe that's why the Reds weren't beating down my door to draft me. ....

But don't forget ..... DVP (that's me) led the league in saves with 44. (To go with a not-too-shabby 2.89 earned-run average.) And I've always had good success in my 16-year career against Mantle. Mickey's only 17-for-71 (.239) lifetime against the southpaw hurling of DVP, with just 2 long balls (one in 1964 and the other [a grand-slam, unfortunately] in '66). So the odds are with DVP in this battle against The Mick. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9E6ed_4-hx6dFRSaHRVRi1vZTg/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1HfZEtZCsf5YkgzWkJaN29VSjQ/view

How about this for an answer ---- Who cares? That seems to be the best answer I can think of to that meaningless question.

Well, Brad, unless Abraham Zapruder himself was part of a plot to secretly "alter" his own film, then I don't see how it was possible for the film to be faked/altered. When could it have been done with Mr. Z there the whole time? But this "timing" problem never seems to bother the conspiracy theorists. ~shrug~

I know it makes most conspiracy theorists roll their eyes and sigh heavily with boredom whenever I do this, but nevertheless I'm going to post the following excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book anyway, because (IMO) there is no better reference book to consult than Vincent's "Reclaiming History" when it comes to the many sub-topics associated with the assassination of President Kennedy. These "RH" excerpts pertain to the topic of "Alleged Zapruder Film Fakery".... [Quotes On:] "I want to address one of the craziest allegations that conspiracy buffs have ever latched onto in their efforts to pull the conspiratorial wool over the eyes of gullible people everywhere. The Zapruder film, of course, was originally touted by the vast majority of conspiracy theorists as incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy that killed the president (Connally reacting later than Kennedy, head snap to rear, etc.). As prosecutor Jim Garrison argued in his final summation in the Clay Shaw murder trial in 1969, the head snap to the rear on the film proves the fatal head shot "came from the front." Though the Warren Commission's investigation of Kennedy's death, he said, was "the greatest fraud in the history of our country," how wonderful, he told the jurors that they had seen the "one eyewitness which was indifferent to power — the Zapruder film. The lens of the camera tells what happened . . . and that is one of the reasons two hundred million Americans have not seen the Zapruder film." Even the zany Garrison would have never believed that the latest big rage in the conspiracy community today is its charge that the film, through alteration, is a forgery, created by photographic experts (hired by the "conspirators") in an effort to conceal the truth about the shooting in Dallas and frame Oswald. Can you imagine that, folks? The deliriously wacky conspiracy buffs are now claiming that the Zapruder film itself, the film of the assassination, is a hoax, a fraud, a forgery. What's next? Kennedy is still alive in a suite on the top floor of Parkland Hospital? G. Gordon Liddy was the grassy knoll assassin? Oswald was, as rumored, Ruby's illegitimate son? Just stay tuned to the buffs' wacko network. [...] One would think the "alterationists" (the name applied to those in the conspiracy community who believe the Zapruder film was altered) would have a difficult time with the fact that the Zapruder film shows that the back of the president's head always looks intact (negating the conspiracy position that there was a large exit wound to the rear of the president's head) and also shows a large exit wound to the right front of the president's head (validating the Warren Commission's and HSCA's position that the head wound shot came from the president's rear, not the grassy knoll). But where there's a will there's a way. Alterationist David Lifton, while conceding "it wasn't easy" for the conspirator-forgers of the film to do it, claims that they "blacked out" the back of the president's head to conceal the large exit wound, and "painted on" what looked like a large exit wound to the right front of the president's head. But Lifton offers no evidence to support his absolutely incredible allegation, nor is he troubled in the least, apparently, by the fact that Zapruder testified that while viewing the motorcade through his telephoto lens he saw the right side of the president's head open up and "blood and everything" come out. [...] The list of alleged discrepancies, contradictions, and anomalies seems to grow in direct proportion to the number of amateur Internet-based film experts who take up the challenge of finding the "proof of conspiracy" that they believe is imbedded somewhere in the frames of Zapruder's film, just waiting to be extracted, like DNA from a crime scene. Most of this thoughtless nonsense is sold on the strength of what is theoretically possible today using modern computer technology. However, twenty-first-century technology is hardly a measuring stick for events that allegedly occurred more than four decades ago. In fact, there is nothing simple about the kinds of wholesale changes that are alleged to have been made during the course of altering the Zapruder film, even with today's technology. [...] Since the alleged conspirators couldn't have known at the time that it was Zapruder's film, not any of the many others, that they had to seize because it was the only one that captured the entire assassination sequence, their only going after his film makes absolutely no sense. If we're to govern our reasoning on this issue by common sense, the above reality, all by itself, would tell any reasonable person that the Zapruder film was not altered. Another reason why it's obvious the Zapruder film was not altered is that, as we know, at the very heart of nearly all conspiracy arguments is the contention that the fatal shot to the president's head came from the grassy knoll to the president's right front, not from the right rear where Oswald was. We also know that the head snap to the rear has convinced Americans more than any other thing that, indeed, the head shot came from the president's front, and this, without an explanation, exonerates Oswald at least as to the fatal shot. Since the whole alleged purpose of the forgery of the Zapruder film, per the conspiracy theorists, was to frame Oswald as the lone gunman and conceal the truth from the American public (the truth, per the buffs, being that the shot to the head came from the grassy knoll), if there were one thing, and one thing only that the forgers would have altered, they would have altered the Zapruder film to make it look like Kennedy's head had been violently thrust forward (indicating a shot from the rear, where Oswald was), not backward, as the film shows. Instead, if we're to believe the conspiracy theorists, the conspirator-forgers decided to alter everything else in the film, including the height of a spectator, but not the most important thing of all, the head snap to the rear. Leading alterationist Dr. David Mantik claims that the conspirator-forgers excised frames that he said would have shown "tissue debris" from Kennedy's head going backward. "Backward going debris would have been overwhelming evidence of a frontal shot (or shots) and would have posed too serious a threat to the official story of only posterior [from the rear] shots." But if the forgers would delete the backward movement of the spray, they all the more so would want to delete the much more visible head snap to the rear. [...] The original Zapruder film was proved to have been shot using Zapruder's camera, which effectively eliminates the alterationist argument that the film is actually a forgery of selected frames created by using an optical printer. In 1998, at the request of the ARRB, Roland J. Zavada, the retired standards director for imaging technologies at Kodak, and Kodak's preeminent 8-millimeter film expert, analyzed the "out-of-camera" original film (i.e., the actual film that Zapruder had loaded into his camera on November 22, 1963), several first-generation copies, and a number of prints of the Zapruder film, as well as the actual Bell & Howell camera used by Zapruder to create the film. Edge print codes embedded in the original film show that the film was manufactured in 1961 at Kodak in Rochester, New York, and processed (i.e., developed) in November 1963, both of which are very strong indications that the film being examined was, indeed, the original film. The processing number 0183, perforated vertically along the width of the film (a common practice used to match up processed films with customer orders), was traced to the Kodak developing laboratory in Dallas where Zapruder took his film to be processed. The link between the processing number (0183) and Zapruder's film was confirmed by the technicians involved in the developing process, and proves that the Zapruder film, as we know it, was developed in Dallas on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, and not at some other time and place after alterations had been made. Further, Zavada concluded that whatever "anomalies" there were in the Zapruder film "can be explained by the design and image capture characteristics of [Zapruder's] Bell & Howell 414 PD Camera." [...] Even hypothetically assuming that a forgery were possible, the forgers would have had to alter the original Zapruder film before any copies were made, since an altered copy could immediately be exposed as a fraud when it was compared with the original. But we know from the record that Abraham Zapruder kept the original film in his possession until it was sold to Life magazine on Saturday, November 23, 1963, which means, of course, that no one could have altered the film before then. Yet by that time, multiple copies of the film were already in the hands of the Secret Service and the FBI, both of whom were, in turn, making second- and third-generation copies for their files. Or do the alterationists want us to believe that the "conspirators" altered the original film after these second- and third-generation copies had been made? But in that case, any one of the copies could expose the fact that the original had been altered. The fact that each of the many copies of the Zapruder film matches all others as well as the original film proves beyond any doubt that no alterations were made. [...] Richard W. Burgess of the Department of Classical Studies at the University of Ottawa...in addition to noting that “I have personal knowledge of the sorts of processes and effects that were available to film-makers in 1963 and I can state categorically that the Zapruder film has not had anything added to it or removed from it apart from the splices that everyone knows about,” he finds the hypothesis set forth by [Harrison] Livingstone and [David] Lifton ludicrous on its face. He writes that such an alteration “would result in a ridiculously amateurish mess that would not fool a four-year-old, even in the hands of a skilled miniature painter under a microscope.” Burgess tells of the enormous complexity, and ultimate futility, of such an endeavor. He writes, “Any attempted modification would necessitate [as Lifton says] the enlargement of the film to 35 mm (to maintain clarity, and reduce changes in color saturation and balance, contrast, and grain), various types of optical printing with traveling mattes, and then reduction back to 8 mm. The conspirators would have to begin by rear-projecting each frame onto the back of an animator’s drawing table and tracing each successive frame of Kennedy onto a piece of paper. This is known as rotoscoping . . . Then an animator would have to animate the ‘blob’ by drawing it onto the successive rotoscoped images of Kennedy’s head. These drawings would then be transferred to animation cels and painted. The area around the painted wound on each cel would then be painted black. Another set of cels would then be copied, but with the wound painted black and the rest of the cel clear. These images would then be filmed with an animation camera onto two sets of film, one with the wound surrounded by black (film 1) and the other with a black blob floating in mid-air on clear film (film 2). This is a traveling matte. Next the Zapruder film enlargement would be run through an optical printer with film 2 on top in correct frame register, producing film 3. This film would show a black hole where the wound should be. Film 3 would then be rewound and film 1 (the wound surrounded by black) would be run through the printer exposing film 3 again. Since black does not expose the film, the surrounding black of film 1 wouldn’t expose the already exposed Zapruder film and, if the copying of the cels was done exactly and the job was done properly on a high quality optical printer, the painted wound would fit right into the unexposed hole in film 3 like a moving jigsaw puzzle piece. Film 3 is reduced back to 8 mm and there you have it: faked Zapruder film.” “Unfortunately,” Burgess writes, “this would and could never work, for a number of important reasons.” He goes on to give several independent reasons, just one of which being the poor quality of the image to start with resulting in a final version that would be “so murky as to be almost useless, even with fine grain, low contrast 35 mm masters and specialized color duping film, a new development in 1963.” He then goes on to discuss “the problem of registration,” keeping each frame in the same relative position. He writes that “it was easy . . . to describe the process of rotoscoping and optical printing, but it would have been impossible for anyone to have been able to maintain perfect registration of the [fake] wound on the head. Without perfect registration the wound would move around on the head, as if it weren’t attached. This goes for movement in all three dimensions. Not only would the animated [fake] wound have to move back and forth and up and down in perfect synchronization with Kennedy’s head, but it would also have to shift with changes in depth and angle; it would have to show foreshortening in exact calibration with Kennedy’s head movements. This is impossible since even a half a grain’s shift would cut the animated wound free of Kennedy’s head and make it look like some grotesque free-floating balloon. In the film, the wound is firmly part of Kennedy’s head. Indeed, part of the flap in front actually flops about in reaction to the violence of Kennedy’s head movements. Such virtually invisible ‘finessing’ in a process already unbelievably complex is simply impossible.” ('Fourth Decade', September 1994, pp.5–7)" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Via "Reclaiming History" (Pages 504-511 and Pages 350-351 of Endnotes) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/02/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-120.html

GARRY PUFFER SAID: Even though I've made a half dozen requests, he [DVP] still will not tell us his "expert" qualifications in regard to the JFK assassination. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I've never once in my life ever said I was any kind of a JFK "expert". Never. And I've never said I am a "researcher" either. Because I'm really not. I'm just a person interested in JFK, his life, and his death, and I choose to post a lot of stuff about JFK on my sites. GARRY PUFFER SAID: I make no claim to be a serious researcher, and Davey-poo does. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: That's an absolute lie right there. And Puffer surely knows it. I have never ever "claimed" to be a "serious researcher". In fact, I like to stay away from that particular word--"researcher". I'd rather consider myself an "interested party with some common sense when it comes to properly evaluating the evidence in the JFK murder case". GARRY PUFFER SAID: You have never told us the magic key to telling the difference between real evidence and evidence set up to frame someone. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Anybody can claim "THE EVIDENCE IS ALL FAKE". But that's simply a crutch used by CTers (and defense lawyers like Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck in the O.J. Simpson case) because they know they don't have anything else they CAN argue. Because if the evidence is not fake, then Oswald The Resident Patsy is guilty. Period. It's a cop-out to bellow about "fake" evidence at every turn in the road, Garry. Can't you see that it's merely a cop-out utilized by desperate CTers looking for any excuse to set LHO free? Plus, there are Oswald's own ACTIONS to carefully consider and evaluate too. That's apart from the physical evidence that LHO left behind in both of the murders. Oswald ACTED like a guilty person, didn't he? Do innocent people poke cops in the face and exclaim "It's all over now" and then pull out a gun? It's the physical evidence PLUS Oswald's own guilty-like actions that--together--spell out the answers in the JFK and Tippit cases. And if Oswald wasn't working alone on 11/22/63, then his co-plotters need a new line of work --- because those guys were worthless to Oswald on November 22 in Dallas. And the Warren Commission had absolutely NOTHING to do with either of the following two very important things: 1.) The collection of the physical evidence in the Kennedy and Tippit murder cases. 2.) Lee Harvey Oswald's movements and actions on November 21 and 22, 1963. David Von Pein September 3-4, 2015 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1014.html

What about that Z312/317 comparison, Sandy? Do you really think somebody put a black patch over the back of JFK's head in Z312---before the time of the fatal head shot? (Those film-fakers were thorough, weren't they?) And they must have also painted in the black blob in Z311 too.... http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z311.jpg And in Z310.... http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z310.jpg And 309.... http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z309.jpg (Should I keep going back to the beginning of the film?)

Latest additions to my Audio/Video Index.... 2 audio files concerning the RFK shooting (KNX-Radio and an NBC-Radio special program hosted by Bill Ryan).... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B56lqh-7-SzQRlRjVDJnc0xabW8/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B56lqh-7-SzQeGhKeXJTS18tNTQ/view

Well, let's see if the "Black Patch" conspiracy clowns can somehow get around Robin Unger's interesting GIF clip which toggles back and forth between Zapruder frames 312 and 317 --- which, of course, is a comparison between a frame that was exposed in Zapruder's camera BEFORE President Kennedy was struck in the head (Z312) and another frame exposed in Mr. Z's camera AFTER the President was hit in the head with a bullet (Z317). Did the film-fakers decide to paste in a "black patch" over JFK's head at a point in time on the film which was BEFORE he was even struck by the fatal bullet? .... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-895.html#Comparing-Z312-And-Z317 ROBIN UNGER SAID: Taking into account that the head is deformed in frame Z317, to my eyes the dark "Shadow area" in Z317 / Z312 [seen in the GIF below] appear very similar.... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Fabulous. It's now getting harder to keep up with the revised "new" theory that conspiracy theorists will now have to embrace in order to keep their "Blacked Out Head" theory alive and well. Here's the latest revision.... "JFK's and Clint Hill's and Nellie Connally's heads (and maybe a lot more heads too that nobody has even noticed yet) have been artificially blacked out in all post-Z313 frames of the Zapruder Film. Plus, JFK's head has also been artificially blacked out in frame 312, which is one-eighteenth of a second BEFORE he was even hit in the head by any bullet." And, of course, we can also go back earlier in the Z-Film and find many more frames which show the "blackness" on the back of JFK's head BEFORE he was even shot in the head. ... One example [being] frame 275. And what about Roy Kellerman too? His head looks pretty black [in Z275] as well. Does that mean Kellerman's head has been "blacked out" by film-fakers in Z275?

David J., Try doing the same zooming-in on Clint Hill's head at approx. frame 340 of the Z-Film and see if you think Hill's pitch-black head also resembles a "black sharpie patch". From a 2015 discussion..... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: What's causing the same kind of "blackness" to appear on the back of Clint Hill's head in the very same Z-Film frame? Was Hill's head "blacked out" by the conspirators too?.... ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID: Hill's head is turned far more to the north, and is in shadow. Look at Altgens' shadow. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: In this comparison I made below of the head positions of Secret Service agent Clint Hill and JFK, it doesn't look to me as if Hill's head is in a position (relative to the sun) that is all that much different than JFK's head position. Does it? And yet I see the same blackness appearing at the back of both of their heads. And with respect to the Z317 frame shown here of President Kennedy's head, I've heard many conspiracy theorists say that they think JFK's head has most certainly been artificially "blacked out" here (click to enlarge).... Looks like one more conspiracy myth debunked by merely examining other parts of the same allegedly "altered" Zapruder home movie. [...] And...since no plotter or conspirator bent on altering or faking the Zapruder Film would possibly have had any need or desire to alter any part of Clint Hill's image in the film, then I think even most conspiracy believers would agree with me that the "blackness" that we see at the back of Clint Hill's head in frame 340 is legitimate, unaltered blackness being seen on his head. Therefore, since Hill's "blackness" is real and legit in Z340, then why would anybody think that the similar "blackness" at the back of President Kennedy's head in Z317 (which is just 1.25 seconds earlier than Z340 in the very same home movie) is blackness that must have been added to the film by some unknown film-fakers? It's time to stamp the "blacked out head" theory with this label --- DEBUNKED! More: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-895.html

Thanks, Micah. That version of the photo (above) goes a long way toward debunking the crazy theory in which many conspiracy theorists postulate the notion that a large "black patch" was inserted over JFK's head in the photo to artificially cover up virtually all of the right-rear quadrant of Kennedy's head (to cover up the alleged huge hole that supposedly existed in that part of his head). But in the version you posted above, we can clearly see most/many of the individual hairs on Kennedy's head in the right-rear area. So that's obviously not a "black patch" there. (Or did some clever fellow using Paint Shop decide to fake the picture by adding in the individual hairs on JFK's cranium? Maybe some CTer can advance that theory now.) BTW, those individual hairs are also easily visible in a couple of the black-and-white autopsy photos I've seen of the back of JFK's head as well. And one of those pictures I have on my computer is (I think) a second-generation print sent to me by researcher John Fiorentino several years ago. The picture, as I understand it, was sent to John by David Belin. (Forgive me if I'm wrong in that assumption, John. I discuss that photo here [two-thirds of the way down the page]). But even that version you posted, Micah, will still probably not sway the opinion of some of those "black patch" CTers, because there's still a little bit of a dark area in the lower-right. So some CTers can still cling to the "black patch" theory even with that "brightened up" version of the photo (even though some of the exact same type of "blackness" can be seen in various other portions of the photo too). http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-895.html

One of the experts on the acoustics evidence, Charles Rader, discusses the matter in the interview below, which serves as a good overview of the "Acoustics / 4th Shot" issue.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/jfk-acoustics-charles-rader-interview.html

Let's approach the "BOH" issue this way.... 1.) We know (or at least I do) that there was ONE bullet hole of entry in the back of JFK's head. and.... 2.) We have an autopsy photo (the one below) which appears to show ONE bullet wound of entry in the back of JFK's head. Now, I wonder what the odds are of having the ONE wound of entry that we know existed in JFK's head NOT being the ONE AND ONLY thing in this picture that resembles a bullet hole? Food for thought.....isn't it?

Simple: they tidied up JFK's hair before taking the "red spot" BOH picture. Why is that so impossible to believe?

You think this photo shows any part of the BACK of JFK's head? Oh my, you ARE confused.

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....

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?

For God sake, Cliff! Have at least a LITTLE pity on my poor weak bladder!

I can't tell EXACTLY (to the millimeter) how much the jacket is bunched up in Croft, Cliff. You can't either. Nobody can do that. How could they? It's impossible to do. But the photo depicts SOME "bunching". That is undeniable. To deny it is silly given the Croft picture staring you in the face every day. Or is Robert Croft's picture fake too?

A picture's worth...well, you know..... So the above picture is a complete fake, right Ray? Got it.