David Von Pein

Of course the jacket and shirt "moved up", Ray. What else? It's the only possible (logical) conclusion. Otherwise, I would have to dive head-first into the "Autopsy Photos Are Fake" abyss. And I'm not diving down into that pit of absurdity.

Sandy, Can't you see that Kennedy's coat is hiked up on his back in this Croft photo below? Shouldn't this help to explain why the holes in the clothing are lower than they are in comparison to the hole in Kennedy's skin? Given this "hiking up" of the coat (and the shirt underneath the coat too, which no CTer on Earth can possibly prove WASN'T "hiked up" or "bunched up" to the same level as the jacket), we should EXPECT the bullet hole in JFK's upper back (skin) to be HIGHER than the holes in the clothing. Isn't this just ordinary common sense? ....

Michael, The chalk mark on the stand-in's back was, for some idiotic reason, placed in a location that was based (in part) on the hole in JFK's coat. This fact is confirmed by Thomas Kelley of the Secret Service in Kelley's WC testimony [at 5 H 133]: ARLEN SPECTER -- "What marking, if any, was placed on the back of...the stand-in for President Kennedy?" THOMAS J. KELLEY -- "There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here." MR. SPECTER -- "And what did that chalk mark represent?" MR. KELLEY -- "That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President." MR. SPECTER -- "And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?" MR. KELLEY -- "That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians...and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time." Therefore, it would seem as if the chalk mark was also based (at least in part) on the hole in JFK's jacket, which IMO is just totally ridiculous, since we know that the hole in the coat is located well BELOW the hole in JFK's skin (due to the fact that Kennedy's coat was bunched up higher than normal when the shooting occurred). Which means that if the jacket on the JFK stand-in in the photo below were to be "bunched up" a little bit (and we can see it isn't bunched up at all in that photograph), it would make the chalk mark rise a little higher on the back of the stand-in, which would mean it would almost perfectly line up with where Arlen Specter is holding the metal rod in that picture. That "bunching up" of the jacket could very well be the answer as to why the chalk mark is located below the level of Arlen Specter's pointer in the picture below. If we bunch up the jacket a little bit (like JFK's coat was bunched, per the Croft photo), it's a perfect alignment. Also See: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3.html

Well, Jim, Time Magazine seemed to think that "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" was a pretty decent simulated trial.... "The trial in London took place on July 23, 24, and 25, 1986. After the jury was out deliberating for six hours, they returned, on July 26, with a verdict of guilty, convicting Oswald of the murder of John F Kennedy. Obviously, were it not for my participation in this docu-trial of Oswald, which Time magazine said was "as close to a real trial as the accused killer of John F. Kennedy will probably ever get," this book would never have been written." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xxiv of "Reclaiming History"* * Bugliosi's sources for the Time Magazine information: “Best of ’86” [Time Magazine; January 5, 1987, p.78] ... see also “What If Oswald Had Stood Trial?” by Richard Zoglin [Time Magazine; December 1, 1986, p.60] Vince Bugliosi also said this about the docu-trial back in 1986: "I defy anyone who is familiar with the Kennedy assassination to look at the 18 hours of tape or examine the trial transcript and say that the gut issues of the case were not addressed or were treated cosmetically." -- Vincent Bugliosi; 1986 So not everybody in the world thinks that the 1986 mock trial was a "phony circus sideshow" or a "piece of crap". Time Magazine and Vince Bugliosi didn't think that way. And neither do I.... "Although it wasn't a "real" trial (quite obviously), "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" did a nice job (at least partially) of filling a gap that had long been in need of filling -- and that is: to present the evidence against Lee Oswald in a courtroom setting, complete with the adversarial process of United States law on full display (i.e., the prosecution vs. the defense). Lee Harvey Oswald, posthumously, had his day in court. Some conspiracy theorists maintain that the 1986 mock trial was nothing but a "sham", a "farce", a "fictional TV drama" with no real facts or truths being brought out in the courtroom. I, however, would strongly disagree with such assertions regarding "On Trial". While not binding as an actual "Guilty" verdict in the case against Oswald, the fact remains that a lot of REAL evidence, presented by REAL witnesses, came to light in that London courtroom. And whether Oswald was alive or not to defend himself against this evidence, it is evidence that still exists all the same. And it's evidence that convicted Lee Harvey Oswald of a Presidential assassination in the eyes of twelve Dallas citizens in 1986. And, in my opinion, that's a nice gap in the world of "JFK Assassination Lore" to have filled in." -- David Von Pein; October 28, 2008 More on Dr. Charles Petty here.... JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/Dr. Charles Petty --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You must be joking! There was only ONLY hole in JFK's back (in the UPPER BACK, not the neck)....and there was only ONE bullet hole in the back side of JFK's coat and shirt. Ergo, the SAME BULLET had to have passed through ALL THREE of those holes. Only a super-rabid conspiracy advocate (like Cliff "The Clothes Prove Everything In The Whole Case" Varnell) would even begin to say that the movable CLOTHING on President Kennedy's body is more important than the autopsy photos and the autopsy measurements, which show where the bullet actually entered JFK's body. (Why does this simple stuff even need to be explained to conspiracists? It's embarrassing.) More on the "bunched" clothing.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html

Paul Trejo, like many other CTers I've talked to over the years, apparently wants to ignore the fact that the HSCA's "4th shot" evidence was completely debunked and invalidated in 1982. He talks as though the "acoustics evidence" is still upright and valid here in 2017. (Paul must be related to Anthony Marsh.) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html

Thanks, Paul. But I still maintain that conspiracy theorists have little to nothing to offer in the way of "evidence" (particularly physical evidence). Let's face it, Paul, all JFK conspiracy theories rely on nothing but speculation, guesswork, and unsubstantiated and questionable witnesses like Gerry Hemming. Don't you wish you had just ONE solid piece of physical evidence to support your belief in a JFK conspiracy? Instead, you've got Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Follow-up discussion.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1197.html

Indeed, Brad. .... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html Excerpts from above article/webpage (BTW/FWIW, in the years since writing these comments, I've severely curtailed my use of the "K" word when referring to conspiracy believers): "The Rabid Kooks will continue to isolate the evidence and then hold up each "isolated" piece and shout "Look! Here's proof of conspiracy!", without placing that piece back into the TOTALITY of the overall evidence in the case (in order to figure out if this isolated hunk of data really DOES, in fact, point away from Oswald's lone guilt). Several recent "isolation" examples have been demonstrated by crazy CT-Kooks. Such as (but certainly not limited to the following): The "Irving Sports Shop" controversy. Did LHO have some repair work done on his rifle (C2766)? Or was it part of the grand "plot" to set him up as the "Patsy"? .... Bud provided various reasonable examples of why the CT-Kooks have totally misinterpreted the Sports Shop incident. But the kooks fail to re-assess that incident. They, instead, will INSIST it was an act of "conspiracy". .... Howard Brennan's testimony, which has been dissected to totally-ludicrous levels of craziness by some CT-Kooks. The kooks will "isolate" things within Brennan's testimony, and will single these things out as being that ever-desired "proof of conspiracy" in JFK's murder. And such isolation regarding Brennan's remarks is just plain screwy -- esp. when it comes to the kooks who wish to tear down Brennan's physical description of the sixth-floor assassin, which was a description that comes remarkably close, indeed, to matching Lee Oswald---"A [white] man in his early thirties, fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot-10, 160 to 170 pounds." -- Howard L. Brennan That description, when taken as a "general" witness observation, certainly does NOT exclude Lee Harvey Oswald. In fact, it "fits" Lee Harvey Oswald pretty darn nicely in most crucial respects -- e.g., Oswald was "slender"; Oswald was a "white man"; Oswald did have a "fair complexion"; Oswald was 5'9" (Brennan was a mere one inch off there); Oswald weighed an "estimated 150 pounds" (per his autopsy report). So Brennan was only ten pounds off on his weight estimate of the assassin. ..... But the kooks will isolate the "early 30s" reference, or the "170 pounds" remark, and attempt to make it appear that Mr. Brennan could not POSSIBLY have been looking at Lee Oswald for those few fleeting moments on 11/22/63." -- DVP; August 2006 --------------- "JFK's head could have performed a Linda Blair imitation and spun around thirteen times after the bullet hit him, and it still wouldn't have altered the verifiable entry and exit wounds on his head that were discovered at the President's autopsy. But CTers love to isolate the "Back And To The Left" motion of JFK's head, instead of looking at the autopsy photos and autopsy report which verify that JUST ONE BULLET hit Kennedy in the head. And that one bullet positively came from behind." -- DVP; December 2006 --------------- "The plain truth of the matter is that ANY kook can easily pick apart the Warren Report (they've had ample time, and desire, to do this of course) and then isolate some things that (on the surface) appear to lead down Conspiracy Avenue. But what these CTers fail to EVER do is place those isolated items back into a COHESIVE WHOLE that adds up to a logical and reasonable...conspiracy plot to kill JFK. Have we EVER seen such a COHESIVE WHOLE from the CTers? Ever? I sure haven't. Their theories are scattershot and piecemeal (at best); and utterly laughable (at worst)." -- DVP; February 2007 ------------------------------- Bonus Quote from VB.... "The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence." ----Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 952-953 of "Reclaiming History"

It doesn't really take too much "guessing". He just walked out the front door. He was seen by Mrs. Reid on the 2nd floor headed for the area where the front stairs were located. Those stairs dump you out right by the front entrance of the building. The building wasn't sealed by the police until about 12:37 PM, and Oswald likely walked out the front door at about 12:33, beating the "sealing off" time by four minutes. So, there's really no big mystery there. You seem to be making stuff up out of thin air, Paul. Please provide the citation/proof/testimony/verification that Lee Oswald "handed over his rifle to a trusted ally" on November 22, 1963. I'd like to see that proof. You wrote the above comment as if it were a proven fact, when, in actuality, you're just rewriting history and inventing conspiracy scenarios to suit your needs and/or wishes. More speculation. And nothing more. And you're implying that Officer Tippit was part of some plot to rub out Oswald, which (IMO) is irresponsible, since there's not a scrap of reliable evidence to even suggest that J.D. Tippit was involved in any way whatsoever with the murders that occurred on 11/22/63, other than as Oswald's second victim. More ridiculous unsupportable speculation and conjecture. I bet Mrs. Marie Tippit just loves this kind of talk about her murdered husband. She must do nothing but shake her head back and forth in disgust all day long when she hears all the fantasy talk about J.D. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-195.html What's the source for all of that junk, Paul? Jeffrey Caufield only? Conspiracy talk can be fun to play around with, I guess. But when a whole bunch of evidence all points toward one single person (and one single rifle), then why pretend Oswald "handed over" his rifle to some co-conspirator, when a perfectly reasonable and sensible scenario -- i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald himself shot the President -- is right there on the table as well? Should we over-complicate the evidence by interjecting "conspiracy", even though none of the physical evidence (or Oswald's own actions on Nov. 21 or 22) requires the interjection of any conspiracy whatsoever? EDIT -- To be fair to Paul Trejo, when re-reading Paul's post, which is knee-deep in speculation and guesswork, Paul did say these words to begin his post: "I can't resist adding my own opinions here." Key word there being "Opinions".

But, Vince, obviously the vast majority of your reviews at Amazon were not promoting books that YOU yourself wrote. They were for books that other people wrote. And I don't think you actually posted any reviews for your OWN books at Amazon, did you? So, I wonder why Amazon would start deleting all your stuff? Sounds totally unfair to me. Is it merely because you referred to yourself as a "leading civilian authority on the Secret Service" in a lot of your reviews, you think?

Hey Vince, I'm perplexed by something.... What the heck happened to your 400+ reviews at Amazon.com? They all seem to have vanished. I just spent the last half-hour fixing about 15 dead links on my webpages where I have linked to some of your Amazon reviews, but they're all gone now for some reason. In some cases, I can get the review back by putting it through Archive.org's Wayback Machine, like this one. But without the Wayback device, that link is now dead.... http://www.amazon.com/review/R23U3HRSNOQ2X3 What happened? Did somebody hack your Amazon account and decide to start deleting all your stuff? I noticed you have another Amazon account (with Vincent as your first name, instead of Vince), but there's only 9 reviews on that account.

Well, David Lifton, I think about the only thing a reasonable person needs to do in order to come to a firm conclusion that your theory is utter hogwash (not to mention impossible) is to read the following portion of this post of yours: "The plan, from the outset, was to murder the president, and then alter his body to change the story of how he died. If one has control of the body (immediately) after the shooting, one then is in a position to change the story of how he died, i.e., to fabricate a false "solution" to the crime." -- David Lifton; Feb. 6, 2017 The key words written by David L. above are these words: "The plan, from the outset, was to...alter his body." Maybe we should all take a step back and just think about the above comment for a few moments. It shouldn't take very long, though, for any sensible person to fully appreciate just how ridiculous and far-out and nonsensical and impossible and downright crazy that comment by David S. Lifton truly is. But I guess it does prove one thing: If a conspiracy theorist puts his mind to it, he can always manage to "improve" his fantasy theory --- even a conspiracy fantasy that began 50 years ago. Time for a Reality Check now. Here's something I said to Mr. Lifton in 2013, and it certainly applies here in 2017 as well: "The JFK case has a very curious effect on certain people (such as David Lifton of Los Angeles) -- They treat the evidence as if it's something that needs to be molded and crafted into something that it is not. In plainer terms, they simply IGNORE all the evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt in the assassination of the 35th President, and they expect the masses to fall at their feet and give thanks to these expert "researchers" like Mr. Lifton who have literally made a mockery out of the true evidence in this case. Body alteration....casket-switching....bullet-planting...."diversions" in the Sniper's Nest window....NO SHOTS hit the victims from behind....and "Oswald Was Nothing But A Patsy" are the mottos endorsed by this band of JFK conspiracists. And, incredibly, ALL of the above cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus (aka: hogwash) is supposedly, per the likes of David Lifton, providing a MORE REASONABLE and MORE LOGICAL and MORE RATIONAL and MORE TRUTHFUL explanation to the events in Dallas on 11/22/63 than to simply believe that the evidence in this case has NOT been forged, faked, or manipulated and, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald was just exactly what the evidence in this case says he was --- a double-murderer. Somebody please provide Mr. Lifton with a dictionary -- because he evidently has no idea what the definitions are for words like "Reasonable", "Rational", "Logical", and "Truthful"." -- DVP; May 4, 2013 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-von-pein-vs-david-lifton.html

Well, Micah, I think it's quite clear from ALL the evidence in the case (including the Z-Film) that JFK was struck in the head by just one bullet. And this issue was investigated in great depth by the HSCA. So, should we now dismiss all 9 members of the Forensic Pathology Panel? .... "We, as the [forensic pathology] panel members, do feel after close examination of the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin. And further, although the original examination of the brain was not complete, photographs of the brain were examined by the panel members, and do show the injury to the brain itself is on the top portion of the brain. The bottom portion or undersurface of the brain, which would have had to have been injured if the bullet perforated in the lower area as indicated in the autopsy report, was intact. If a bullet entered in this lower area, the cerebellum portion of the brain would have had to be injured and it was not injured. So that is the basis for what remains a disagreement between our panel and the original autopsy doctors. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head." -- Dr. Michael Baden; 1978 http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0092b.htm

Right. I think the bullet entered the cowlick area because the photos clearly indicate that the cowlick location is the area where there's a bullet hole. My earlier comment was merely in order to emphasize the fact that the autopsy report and the three autopsy doctors verified that just one bullet struck JFK's head---and that one bullet entered from behind. And that is a conclusive fact, as Dr. Humes said in his 1967 CBS interview, due to the inward bevelling/coning present on the skull. Humes also said.... "In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings." -- Dr. James J. Humes; October 1991 As for the alleged EOP entry location (@ 12:30)....

But, Micah, would you agree that my following comment is true?.... Regardless of exactly where the entry wound was located on the President's head (whether it be high on his head near the cowlick or low on his head near the EOP), we know there was only one entry wound in JFK's head, and that entry wound (according to all three of the autopsy surgeons) was located in the BACK of President Kennedy's head. Dr. James Humes talks in detail about JFK's wounds in 1967: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOb3Z2UU9VUkdiSU0/view

You got it. The conspiracy crap never ends, and it never will. Craziness sells. And David Lifton knows that better than anybody. After all.... "One theory that perhaps "takes the cake" is set forth by conspiracy author David Lifton. .... One could safely say that Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- Vincent Bugliosi -----------------------------------------------------------

Here are some of my interactions with Ted Rubinstein.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Ted+Rubinstein

NBC RADIO NETWORK'S FIRST "HOTLINE" BULLETINS ON 11/22/63: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2ERm-cucsE0V2pQNXJmMndLNkU/view ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ KRLD-RADIO BULLETINS FROM THE SCENE OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2ERm-cucsE0OFBsemlvVXJPbm8/view

No matter what anyone might say to the contrary, nobody had a loaded gun pointed at Brad Milch's head while he was typing his comments above. (Did they, Brad?)

The "Search This Blog" search engine in the upper left corner of all "Blogger" (Blogspot) blogs is, indeed, a pretty good search engine. But that tool wouldn't be very helpful for the kind of searching on a single webpage that Brad Milch was talking about. And it wouldn't help at all in locating an excerpt within a video. That would be impossible to search for via a search engine.

That was actually DPD Captain Glen King who did that, not Curry. And, yes, I do have that footage in my archive (at 1:44:20 in the video below).... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oJmFGgfM3zT0htcGlSQzc5bVk/view Now, I suppose it's quite possible that Jesse Curry ALSO made a plea to the public asking people to bring in their photos and films. I'm not sure. But I know Glen King made such a request on TV on Saturday, 11/23/63. I can supply that video footage of the Mal Couch film being shown on TV on 11/22/63, but I can't confirm the exact time when it was first shown because my WFAA material is not totally uncut from start to finish. There are many gaps in the coverage. But the unedited Mal Couch film was definitely shown on WFAA-TV in Dallas at some point late in the day on November 22nd. If you look close, you can even see Marrion Baker dashing toward the Depository in the Couch film. Fast-forward 30 minutes into the video below (which is the exact same video I linked earlier in this post).... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oJmFGgfM3zT0htcGlSQzc5bVk/view

Thank you, Brad. With respect to a "subject index".... I like the idea, but to a certain extent that's exactly what my "Master Video Index" is --- it's a (mostly) alphabetical listing of every downloadable/streamable video file that I've got in my collection. And one of the greatest features of Internet web browsers is the "Word Find" tool, which I use every day of my life. And I hope people are using it as an aid when searching my Video Index, because it's invaluable. For instance, take the "Jesse Curry" example you mentioned above (although I think you might have made a small error there; see my next post for an explanation).... If somebody wants to find a video with "Jesse Curry" in the title, they can just load up my Video Index page (which only takes about 3 seconds to fully load, because the page consists of virtually all text, with very few pictures) and then simply start typing "Jesse..." on their keyboard. You only need to type "Jess", in fact, and the "Search As You Type" feature on most browsers will take you instantly down to the Jesse Curry files on my page. The "text searchable" nature of the Index is something I pointed out at this forum two months ago, in fact.... "When I started to put that catalog of links together, I wanted something comprehensive, fast-loading, and text searchable. And the new index meets all of those criteria. It took me ten days to create just that one page (working on it 13-15 hours a day)...and I shall be adding to the index many more times in the future, I am sure." -- DVP; 12/8/16 A more intricate and "subject"-specific series of indexed entries would probably be useful too. But, Brad, at what point do you think such a detailed index would become kind of cumbersome and awkwardly large? And what things should be included in such a sub-index of subject matter? And what things should be excluded? The list of sub-topics is practically endless (as your two examples above tend to illustrate). My Master Index is pretty huge right now as it is (and getting bigger every week), sans any kind of detailed "subject" information. I tried to incorporate as much pertinent information into the title of each video file that the space would permit for just a one-line title (and I did want to keep the titles down to only one line, because I think it looks better that way). Thank you, Brad, for your suggestion.

ERRORS BY THE NEWS MEDIA IN REPORTING JFK'S ASSASSINATION (LONGER, REVISED VERSION): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzEbCwH8buS1eVpJY3ZMbThJSGs/view Related Discussion: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/05/jfk-assassination-media-errors.html

Thanks, Bart. I needed that.