David Von Pein

They're documents from TWO separate entities --- the FBI and the SS. Did the Secret Service get together with the FBI guys to make sure they were on the same page regarding putting the $21.45 figure in both of their reports? And then there's Waldman #7 too, which also shows the $21.45 figure, which perfectly matches the amount on the money order and the amounts shown in CD75 and CD87. Waldman 7 was found in the Klein's files (as Bill Waldman confirms below). So, am I supposed to believe that William Waldman was part of the "conspiracy" too? Is there ANYBODY who wasn't trying to railroad Lee Harvey? .... Mr. BELIN -- I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 and ask you to state if you know what this is. Mr. WALDMAN -- This is a copy made from our microfilm reader-printer of an order received by Klein's from a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box No. 2915, in Dallas, Texas. I want to clarify that this is not the order, itself, received from Mr. Hidell, but it's a form created by us internally from an order received from Mr. Hidell on a small coupon taken from an advertisement of ours in a magazine. Mr. BELIN -- This Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 is a print from the microfilm negative which we just viewed upstairs; is that correct? Mr. WALDMAN -- That's correct.

ALBERT DOYLE SAID: The information was gotten from [the] FBI for the Money Order on the 23rd. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Chief Curry's "order letter" announcement came at about 7 PM Dallas time on November 23rd. The money order was not found until approximately 9:35 PM EST (8:35 PM Dallas time). So the "$12.78" announcement made by Curry and fed to the media and newspapers was NOT being based on the discovery of the "money order". It was the "order letter" that had been found up to that point at 7 PM CST. Now, I guess CTers who are bent on finding ANY inaccuracy at all to justify their staunch belief that the rifle transaction was totally fraudulent could complain about the amount shown on Oswald's "order letter" (i.e., the Klein's order form; CE773)--which was $19.95--not being released to the press by the FBI. But the $21.45 amount was a figure that Police Chief Jesse Curry was probably not aware of when he announced to the press in the DPD hallway at about 7:00 on Saturday night that the "FBI has the order letter for the rifle". ALBERT DOYLE SAID: Hargrove is saying [the] FBI deliberately reported the incorrect $12.78 price because they were adjusting for the phony Dial Ryder installation of a scope. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: But the FBI didn't even interview Dial Ryder until Monday, November 25th. So that theory is dead in the water before it ever gets off the ground. From Ryder's WC testimony: Mr. RYDER -- "I was interviewed by the FBI and Dallas Police Department and I believe a couple Secret Service men came out." Mr. LIEBELER -- "Which one of those interviewed you first?" Mr. RYDER -- "The FBI was the first one out." Mr. LIEBELER -- "Do you remember what the date was when the FBI first interviewed you?" Mr. RYDER -- "It was on Monday, the day of the funeral of President Kennedy." http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12852.msg414750.html#msg414750

~sigh~ Common Sense Interjection..... [Replay....] As for any "new and improved money order, this time for $21.45 for a rifle with a scope" --- that's a lot of baloney too, because as early as 11/23/63, we find documentation showing that a money order that was definitely handled by Klein's Sporting Goods AND the First National Bank of Chicago in the amount of $21.45 was recovered at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, on the night of November 23rd, the day after the assassination. This documentation is all laid out in a goodly amount of detail in Commission Document #75 and Commission Document #87. So, Jim Hargrove, do you think that the FBI and Secret Service reports that appear in CD75 and CD87 are phony documents of some kind? And do you think that a money order in the amount of $21.45 was NOT actually found at the Records Center in Alexandria at all?

Allow me to add this general observation to these proceedings.... Even IF the First National Bank WAS "required" to place stamped markings on the Hidell money order, that still does not positively HAVE to mean the M.O. is a fake and a fraud. Under such circumstances, somebody at the bank could have just screwed up and failed to stamp the Hidell M.O. Why is that NOT even a remote possibility in the eyes of CTers? People foul up all the time. It couldn't be more common. And I'll also remind everyone again of the following section of the banking regulations that were cited earlier (which is a segment taken from the 1969 regulations, but this might have also been in place in 1963 too; we haven't seen a "1963" manual or "circular" on this stuff as yet).... "16. In the event a cash item is received by a Federal Reserve Bank from a sender without the endorsement thereon of such sender, the Federal Reserve Bank may present, send, or forward the item as if it bore such endorsement, or place on the item the name of such sender and the date of its receipt by the Federal Reserve Bank, or return the item to the sender for proper endorsement by the sender. This Bank makes the warranties stated in Section 210.6(6) of Regula­tion J by presenting, sending, or forwarding a cash item. These warranties arise whether or not such item bears the endorsement of this Bank." https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1969_6370.pdf

You REALLY can't figure this out, Jim? I think it's fairly clear that the FBI just simply didn't release the EXACT DOLLAR AMOUNT ($21.45) that appeared on the front of the money order. So the media people were going with the CURRENT Nov. '63 price for the gun (without the scope)--$12.78. But we know the FBI and Secret Service--on Nov. 23!--had the info regarding the exact dollar amount ($21.45), because CD75 and CD87 that I've linked dozens of times in this thread verify that fact. So why would you think anything is "magic" or suspicious about this at all? Do you think BOTH of those documents (CD75 & CD87)---which are from TWO different agencies (the FBI and the SS)---are fake documents?

But, Jon, I'd be willing to bet that in the case of a commercial bank (like the First National Bank of Chicago, Illinois) sending a LARGE BATCH (or even a not-so-"large" batch) OF *UNITED STATES POSTAL MONEY ORDERS* to the Federal Reserve Bank, a system was in place by which the bank (First National) was not required to place individual stamped markings on each and every money order. It's fairly obvious to me that a "bulk deposit" system must have been in place in March of 1963, because I certainly don't think for a second that the Hidell money order is a fraudulent document. "As for the lack of any bank stamps appearing on the back of Oswald's postal money order, I don't have a definitive answer to explain it. But I'd be willing to bet the farm that there IS a reasonable and non-conspiratorial answer to explain the lack of markings on the back of that document without resorting to the conclusion that the money order was manufactured and faked by a group of conspirators in a complicated and intricate effort to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for John F. Kennedy's murder. And I know that conspiracy theorists who think Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in early 1963 have a heck of a lot MORE evidence to explain away than I do. Just check my list [here]." -- DVP; 10/27/15

Of course it was coming from the FBI originally, Jim. Who ELSE would you expect it to be coming from?

And you actually think ANY of those things indicate the possibility of FAKERY or ALTERATION by conspirators? Geez.

The NY Times probably got the "March 20" date from Jesse Curry, who announced it on live TV on 11/23/63 (as well as announcing that the handwriting on the rifle order was Oswald's). So it became common knowledge as of the early evening of Nov. 23rd. Nothing mysterious about it at all. TV stations had the "March 20" info as well. And WBKB in Chicago was also saying the gun cost $12.78 (because they were showing the audience a Nov. '63 ad at the time)....

Jim, There's no "magic" or "miracles" of any kind involved here at all. And there's no sinister or underhanded cover-up involved either. The reason why the media was reporting the $12.78 cost for the rifle (sans the scope) was quite simple --- they were simply referring to the Klein's ads that were currently running in various magazines in November of 1963. Between the time Oswald ordered his rifle in March '63 and the time of the assassination eight months later, the price of the Italian carbine (without the scope attached) in the Klein's advertisements had decreased by 10 cents, from $12.88 to $12.78. And it's highly unlikely that any of the people in the press still had ready access to any Klein's magazine ads from eight or nine months earlier. So they were merely reporting on the CURRENT price of the gun in their TV and newspaper reports. And even Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry told reporters on 11/23/63: "I believe the gun was supposed to cost twelve dollars and seventy-eight cents, I believe. I believe it was advertised in some magazine for that." As for any "new and improved money order, this time for $21.45 for a rifle with a scope" --- that's a lot of baloney too, because as early as 11/23/63, we find documentation showing that a money order that was definitely handled by Klein's Sporting Goods AND the First National Bank of Chicago in the amount of $21.45 was recovered at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, on the night of November 23rd, the day after the assassination. This documentation is all laid out in a goodly amount of detail in Commission Document #75 and Commission Document #87. So, Jim Hargrove, do you think that the FBI and Secret Service reports that appear in CD75 and CD87 are phony documents of some kind? And do you think that a money order in the amount of $21.45 was NOT actually found at the Records Center in Alexandria at all?

How did the unknown "they" (the film-alterers) manage to fake/alter the Z-Film so fast---BEFORE any of the three copies were made? Or do you think "they" somehow performed a miracle by faking the film FOUR separate times (once for the original film and then they faked each of the three copies separately after those copies were created at Jamieson's)? Any way you cut it --- it's impossible and unrealistic (not to mention ridiculous). But that never stopped an alterationist from proposing such silliness. Oops! Looks like you've forgotten a first-day witness (who appeared on WFAA-TV at 2:31 PM, Dallas time, just two hours after he filmed the assassination with his own camera). Was Abraham Zapruder being TOLD where to place his hand here?: And then there's Gayle Newman as well. Was she part of the never-ending cover-up too, Ron? And this image was captured at approximately 1:18 PM CST, just 48 minutes after JFK was shot:

Yes, I agree. It is. But there's also no doubt whatsoever that a great big hole WAS there in the RIGHT-FRONT-TOP area of JFK's head. And here's the inescapable proof....

I guess Jon G. Tidd has overlooked (or just decided to totally ignore) Pat Speer's informative post regarding the "computer-enhanced X-rays". Here's a replay.... "Custer denounced the x-rays multiple times...after being shown the computer-enhanced x-rays published by the HSCA, which were not only computer-enhanced to increase the contrast, but cropped to remove the jaw. When interviewed by the ARRB, however, and shown the original un-enhanced, un-cropped x-rays, he recognized his mark on the x-rays, and acknowledged them as Kennedy's x-rays, and x-rays he'd taken. Same with Edward Reed, the other radiology tech at work on 11-22-63. So now, ask yourself, is it a coincidence that Custer and Reed both denounced the x-rays when shown the computer-enhanced and cropped x-rays published by the HSCA, and then signed off on their authenticity once shown the originals? I suspect not. Rather than recognize the obvious--that they had failed to recognize the enhanced x-rays because they had a different appearance than the x-rays they normally saw at Bethesda, and then recognized the originals shown them by the ARRB, because they looked just like the x-rays they had seen at Bethesda--Horne (and I presume Mantik) assume Custer and Reed got all scared once shown the originals, and lied. That's pretty pathetic, IMO. It's amazing how so many of the medical witnesses (e.g. Carrico, Jenkins, Perry, Ebersole, Custer, Reed, Stringer, Riebe) are heroes when they tell people like Lifton, Mantik and Horne what they [want] to hear, but are written off as liars and cowards when they tell them what they don't want to hear." -- Patrick J. Speer; Dec. 12, 2015 (12:07 AM EST)

Yeah, me too. And we KNOW for an absolute FACT that Baker saw LEE OSWALD and nobody else. More.... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: One of the many things that conspiracy theorists will always refuse to evaluate properly is the fact that Howard Brennan provided a description of the 6th-floor assassin on Day 1 (November 22) in his affidavit that generally fits Lee Oswald. Even the age of the assassin Brennan saw fits perfectly with Marrion Baker's incorrect estimate of Lee Oswald's age -- about 30 -- which we know is wrong, but we also know that the man Baker described as being "approximately 30 years old" WAS Lee Harvey Oswald and not somebody who could have merely been confused with Oswald. And then there are the "weight" estimates provided by Brennan and Baker in their individual affidavits, which also (just like the "age" estimate) blend together perfectly: Baker said -- "165 pounds". Brennan said -- "165 to 175 pounds". And, just like Baker's estimate for Oswald's age, the weight estimate he provided in his affidavit is wrong, but we still know that Baker was estimating the weight of the real Lee Harvey Oswald when he wrote down "165 pounds" in his 11/22/63 affidavit. Ergo, we know that it is, indeed, possible for a person to look right at Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, and think he weighed as much as 165 pounds. Shouldn't this fact mean just a little something to CTers when they attempt to assess whether or not Howard Brennan could have possibly seen Oswald in the Sniper's Nest on that same day? Do CTers think that Baker and Brennan got together and swapped information so that their affidavits would merge perfectly with respect to both the "age" and "weight" estimates? A CONSPIRACY THEORIST KNOWN AS "NICKNAME" SAID: Brennan's testimony does your case no good, unfortunately. He recalls seeing "a white man, early 30's, slender, weight about 165 to 175 pounds." As if that description doesn't fit 40 million people. Add that he was 120 feet away, staring at a figure six stories up. Could you positively ID someone from that distance? And even if it was Oswald he saw, that only proves that Oswald was ONE OF the shooters, not the only shooter. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: NickName, Read my last post again, and place Brennan's 11/22 affidavit alongside Baker's 11/22 affidavit. Can't you see the similarities? And, as I said, we know for an absolute irrefutable fact that Marrion Baker was describing Lee Harvey Oswald in that affidavit and nobody else on Earth. And yet he made the same TWO incorrect estimates that Howard Brennan also made -- age and weight. And you surely aren't going to pull a DiEugenio on me and claim something silly like this (are you?).... "Baker never saw Oswald. .... I believe the [Oswald/Baker/Truly] incident was created after the fact." -- James DiEugenio; July 13-14, 2015 GARRY PUFFER SAID: A guy who weighs 141 pounds would never be said to weigh 165. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Tell that to Marrion L. Baker of the Dallas Police Department, Garry.... "The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds." -- M.L. Baker; November 22, 1963 Let me guess, Garry --- Marrion Baker wasn't really describing the real Lee Harvey Oswald when he said the man he stopped at gunpoint in the Depository's second-floor lunchroom weighed "165 pounds", right? You think Baker was either lying or he was describing somebody besides Oswald (despite the fact Roy Truly, who was right there in the lunchroom with Baker during the encounter, confirmed it was Lee Oswald). Right? Let's hear the CTers' lame, rip-roaring, half-baked excuse for totally dismissing these words written by Roy Truly on 11/23/63: "The officer and I went through the shipping department to the freight elevator. We then started up the stairway. We hit the second floor landing, the officer stuck his head into the lunch room area where there are Coke and candy machines. Lee Oswald was in there. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee. I answered yes." -- Roy S. Truly; November 23, 1963 HANK SIENZANT SAID: Great post, David. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thanks, Hank. I like to keep this "Assassination Arguments Part 1000" page handy whenever somebody tells me that it would have been utterly impossible for any witness to think Lee Oswald weighed as much as 165 pounds. DAVID G. HEALY SAID: What a ludicrous post. Witnesses can THINK what they want about any old thing. It's what they THINK and interpret about what they saw that's important. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Right. And Marrion L. Baker THOUGHT the man he stopped in the 2nd-floor lunchroom weighed about 165 pounds. (It says so right there in Baker's written statement that he composed on the same day.) And Marrion L. Baker INTERPRETED what he saw (i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald's body) as being a person who weighed 165 pounds. (And Healy berates me for my post being "ludicrous". Incrediburgible! Pot collides head-on with Kettle yet again.) DAVID G. HEALY SAID: For one reading witnesses' testimony, it is entirely POSSIBLE for one to state: it's utterly impossible to cram 165 pounds into a 130[-pound] frame. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Sure. But that's not the point, you clown, and you know it. The point is: How much did Officer Baker think Lee Oswald weighed? Because as much as you conspiracy-happy clowns dislike this fact, Marrion Baker proved for all time that it most certainly was NOT "impossible" for a person who was staring right at Lee Harvey Oswald on the date of 11/22/63 to believe that Oswald weighed as much as 165 pounds. And Howard Brennan's first-day affidavit, in which Brennan says he thought the sixth-floor assassin weighed as much as "165 to 175 pounds", when coupled with Marrion Baker's statement regarding Oswald's estimated weight (and age too [30 years old]), make it all too obvious that witnesses who saw Oswald on the day of the assassination CAN--and DID--think Oswald weighed at least 165 pounds. And Brennan's statement concerning the man he saw firing a rifle at President Kennedy needs to be evaluated with this important fact in mind too....i.e.: The "165 to 175-pound" person Brennan saw in the window was located in the exact same place on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building where we know evidence was found that is incriminating against the exact same "165-pound" person seen just a couple of minutes later by Dallas Police Officer Marrion Baker. Incriminating evidence such as fingerprints, palmprints, the empty 38-inch paper bag with Oswald's prints on it, and the three expended bullet shells that were conclusively proven to have been fired in and ejected from the Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action rifle purchased by Lee Harvey Oswald on March 12, 1963. Given the amount of physical evidence that is screaming "Oswald Was Here In This Sniper's Nest On November 22, 1963", the odds that Howard L. Brennan saw anyone OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald in that sixth-floor window at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63 are virtually zero. David Von Pein August 15, 2015 December 1, 2015

I've often wondered why more of the Parkland witnesses didn't see at least *some* of the large wound in the right-front of JFK's head. From a 2009 Internet discussion: DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I have also wondered why very, very few of the Parkland Hospital witnesses said they saw the large exit wound on the right side of JFK's head (which is an exit wound that we positively KNOW was there when JFK was in the emergency room at Parkland)? Even if Jackie Kennedy closed up the flap of scalp on the right side of the President's head (which I think is quite possible), I would still think that a lot more people at Parkland would have been able to see the outline or at least SOME portion of the gaping RIGHT-FRONT exit wound, which is the wound that was causing (IMO) the large amount of "pooling" of blood toward the right-rear of JFK's head (which is what I believe to be the best explanation [to date] for how those Parkland witnesses could have all been mistaken about the location of the wound). But I've never been totally pleased with that "pooling" explanation, mainly because I'm wondering why nobody at Parkland claimed to see TWO wounds on the right side of the President's head: 1.) The place where the blood and brain tissue was "pooling" (the right-rear; which was mistaken for an actual HOLE in the President's head). and: 2.) The actual exit wound itself, located in the Right/Front/Top area of JFK's head, which is an exit-wound location that is confirmed in several different ways -- e.g., the Zapruder Film, the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, and the autopsy doctors' remarks about the exit wound location in post-1963 interviews, including these firm and unambiguous comments made by Dr. James Humes on CBS-TV in 1967: "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- Dr. Humes; June 1967 BTW, I was a believer in the "Blood Pooling" theory before I ever read Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book. So it wasn't Mr. Bugliosi or Dr. Baden who convinced me that this is probably the best explanation for the Parkland witnesses' BOH observations. In fact, before reading Vince's book, I was truly hoping that VB would drop a bombshell on me and come up with something different and, frankly, BETTER, to explain away those BOH witnesses. But, alas, Vince doesn't have any better explanation than the "pooling" theory described by Dr. Baden in the book excerpt shown below: "Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," [baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head"." -- Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi In 2006, I was theorizing the exact same thing: "If I were to hazard a guess as to why (and how) so many different observers could all see the same (wrong) thing regarding JFK's head wound, I'd say it's possibly due to the fact that the massive amount of blood coming from the President's large wound on the right side of his head was pooling toward the BACK of his head while he was resting flat on his back on the hospital stretcher, creating the incorrect impression to the observers that the wound was located where the greatest amount of blood was seen." -- DVP; December 10, 2006

SANDY LARSEN SAID: The Zapruder film was not privately owned. Life Magazine bought the rights for $1,000,000 in today's dollars. Very few people saw the Z film till Geraldo Rivera televised it in 1975. And the ones who did see it lied about it. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Zapruder's film was privately owned (by Abraham Zapruder) at the time it was developed, processed, and copied for the Secret Service on 11/22/63. And that's the most important timeframe that I was referring to when I said the film was a "privately-owned non-Government home movie". Because in order for the silly Z-Film Alterationists to have a prayer of being right about the film being altered, that film certainly MUST have been altered BEFORE any of the three copies were made at the Jamieson film lab on November 22nd. And there's no way in hell anyone "altered" the film that quickly. Not even George Reeves as Superman could have accomplished that ultra-fast film-altering feat. Therefore, based on that timing factor alone, we can have all the confidence in the world that the film was most certainly NOT altered. REPLAY.... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Do you REALLY think that the Z-Film plus the autopsy photos plus the autopsy X-rays were altered in order to "move" the large wound in JFK's head from the back to the right-front? SANDY LARSEN SAID: Yes I do think that. It's not the big deal you make it out to be. Bright college students could do it. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Oh, brother. SANDY LARSEN SAID: One has to be a real chump to believe all the lies the public has been fed regarding the JFK assassination. Just like the public was lied to about Viet Nam, 9/11 and Iraq, Iran-Contra, U.S meddling in other countries, assassinations, and coups. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: But you've got to be an even bigger chump to believe that the Zapruder Film was altered (with lightning-like speed AND with Mr. Zapruder practically hovering over the film-fakers every step of the way), as well as believing all (or certainly most) of the autopsy photos AND X-rays were faked and altered by conspirators too (despite the fact the HSCA determined just exactly the opposite).

Well, let's face it, no matter which side of the "Head Wound" debate you decide to endorse, a whole bunch of people are going to turn out to be dead wrong. That's just a fact of life. If you're an "LNer", like I am, you've got to try and reconcile how all of those witnesses at Parkland Hospital (and some Bethesda witnesses too) could possibly have seen something that did not exist---a big hole in the back (or "occipital") part of JFK's head. And if you're a "CTer", then you've got to ask yourself how the autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck) could have ALL been dead wrong, because not a one of them ever said that Kennedy had a huge hole in the back of his head. (Conspiracy believers, I guess, must think that all three of those doctors decided to get together after the autopsy and tell a bunch of lies in the official autopsy report that each one of them attached his name to. Yeah, right.) And the CTers also need to somehow reconcile those autopsy photos and X-rays, which do not come close to depicting a gaping back-of-the-head wound described by many of the Parkland witnesses, such as Dr. Robert McClelland. And then there are the few witnesses on the north side of Elm Street who watched the assassination occurring as it actually happened. Those witnesses, of course, did not get an extended or detailed look at JFK's head injuries, but they were looking right at the President when his head exploded into a cloud of blood and brain tissue....and, as I mentioned earlier, the closest Elm Street eyewitnesses were interviewed almost immediately after the assassination and they said things on live television that support and corroborate (in general) the things we see in Abraham Zapruder's home movie and in the autopsy pictures and X-rays. So, whether you're an LNer or a conspiracy believer, quite a few people are going to have to be placed into the "THEY WERE WRONG" category when it comes to the question of: Where was President Kennedy's large head wound located? But the photographic evidence I talked about earlier isn't being "hidden" from anybody now. That is, the Zapruder Film and the autopsy photographs and X-rays. We have ALL of that stuff to examine now at our leisure. And the HSCA and Rockefeller panels did too. And they determined, independent from one another, that JFK was struck by only TWO bullets, with both of those bullets coming FROM BEHIND the President's car, including the one and only missile that struck JFK in the head. As I asked before, do you REALLY think that the Z-Film plus the autopsy photos plus the autopsy X-rays were altered in order to "move" the large wound in JFK's head from the back to the right-front? (Of course, there was no opportunity whatsoever for any plotters to have altered the Zapruder Film prior to that film being developed and copied for the Secret Service and FBI on November 22, 1963. Abe Zapruder himself stayed with his film every step of the way through the processing and copying stages at Kodak and the Jamieson film lab. Do CTers think Abraham Zapruder was part of a plot or a "cover-up" too?) In short --- the THREE layers of photographic evidence---one of which (the Zapruder Film) was a privately-owned non-Government home movie---prove for all time, IMO, that President John F. Kennedy did NOT have a large wound in the back portion of his cranium after he was shot in Dallas on 11/22/63.

Sandy, But what about the Zapruder Film? It most certainly does NOT show a big hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head. In the Z-Film, the exit wound in JFK's head is clearly located toward the FRONT and RIGHT SIDE of the head, above the President's right ear.... So that makes THREE separate areas of photographic evidence which all corroborate each other with respect to the location of the large wound in President Kennedy's head: 1. The autopsy photos. 2. The autopsy X-rays. 3. The Zapruder Film. Do you, Sandy, really think that ALL THREE of the above pieces of photographic (visual) evidence are fake in this case? If so, that's a heck of a lot of fakery you've got to prove. And so far, no one has come close to proving that ANY of those three photographic items have been faked or altered. And there's also the fact that the closest witnesses to the head shot in Dealey Plaza, who had a good view of the RIGHT side of JFK's head as it was exploding in front of them, said things in their first interviews on WFAA-TV on 11/22/63 that support the idea that the President's large head (exit) wound was located just exactly where we find it in the autopsy photos and X-rays and in the Zapruder Film---i.e., above JFK's right ear. Those witnesses include Abraham Zapruder himself and Bill and Gayle Newman.... -----

From "Reclaiming History":

You don't have any idea what you're talking about, Healy. The "white blob" being discussed in this thread has nothing to do with the "6.5 mm. object/opacity" (which Mantik thinks is made out of cardboard; ~chuckle~).

Oh, the horror! I'm back on Ignore. I'll surely be committing hari-kari now! Geesh. What an ego.

Let's review.... >>> Oswald's writing is on the Hidell money order (per multiple handwriting analysts---all of whom were total boobs or incompetents or liars, per people like DiEugenio). >>> Klein's stamp is on the back of the M.O. >>> A File Locator Number is on the M.O. (which is ONLY put there AFTER the M.O. has gone to the FRB). >>> The M.O. is found just where it should be found (per CD75) on 11/23/63---the Federal Records Center in Alexandria/Washington. >>> The "bleed thru" issue is now a total NON-issue, as proven by Tim Brennan (via his pointing out the "No Bleed-Thru" status that exists in the M.O. as seen in Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, below....) But all of the above is FAKE/FRAUDULENT, per many CTers. You're fighting a losing battle, CTers. The money order was handled by Oswald, Klein's, and the FRB. Maybe it's time for conspiracy theorists to accept that fact.

And, as I said before, the ONLY possible reason for anyone to have wanted to add a "white blob" or a "white patch" to the X-ray would be to fake the X-ray to make it look like the back of the President's head was intact (i.e., with no missing bone). Therefore, the bottom-line issue about this matter IS, indeed, "whether the x rays show an intact skull". If that's NOT the "issue", then for Pete sake, what is? You think Mantik believes that somebody faked an X-ray that already showed an intact back of the head? That's really crazy, Jimmy. (Even for you.)

Huh? It's not??! You must be joking. OF COURSE that's what it's all about, Jim. That's the ENTIRE genesis for the "White Blob" X-ray debate! Otherwise, this whole topic about the X-rays is a complete non-issue. Dr. Mantik thinks that President Kennedy had a huge hole in the back of his head and that's why somebody (allegedly) tampered with the X-rays. Why ELSE would the forever-unidentified and unknown "they" be monkeying around with the X-rays? Just for kicks?