David Von Pein

There's also this e-mail I received from Gary Mack in 2010.... Date: 8/17/2010 1:57:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein -------------------- Dave, Regarding the purchase of weapons in Texas in the early 60s, Federal regulations required retailers to keep a log of all such sales. For example, Ray's Hardware in Dallas still has their January 19, 1960 log showing the revolver bought by Jack Ruby (but paid for by police detective Joe Cody, one of Ruby's friends). One of the folks at Ray's told me long ago that they must keep such records. Gary

Contrary to the beliefs of many JFK conspiracy theorists (including filmmaker Oliver Stone), there can be no doubt that at least some store owners who sold firearms in 1963 definitely did keep records of their gun sales. The two examples brought up in 2010 by Jean Davison here and here can easily be checked and verified by going to the primary source documents and Warren Commission testimony relating to those two examples — Albert Yeargan's July 21, 1964, affidavit, located at 11 H 207, and Alfred Hodge's Warren Commission testimony, which can be found at 15 H 496. Yeargan said the following in his affidavit: "When I worked for the H.L. Green Company, it had in stock and was offering for sale, a large number of Italian 6.5 mm rifles that were surpluses from World War II. On November 22, 1963, FBI Agents, Secret Service Agents, and I examined all sales records and receipt records concerning Italian 6.5 mm rifles. The records showed that the H.L. Green Company obtained its supply of these Italian 6.5 mm rifles from the Crescent Firearms Company in New York City." - Albert C. Yeargan, Jr. And Hodge told the Warren Commission this on June 26, 1964: "When it came in over the radio that [President Kennedy] had been killed with a 7-millimeter [sic] rifle, my wife and myself--we got our book and started checking to see who we had sold a 7-millimeter rifle to." -- Alfred D. Hodge Hodge also told the WC this [at 15 H 503]: "Captain Fritz' men came by with a shell, a Peters Wad Cutter, and that's this man and woman that got killed a few days ago out here and it has no concern with this case, but anyway, I checked my book and I found where I sold that man a gun and a box of ammunition, and they couldn't find nobody else that had that particular kind of ammunition, they said, so I called Captain Fritz and gave them that information and they went out and called me back in 2 hours and they said, "Boy, you're just as right as rain," and I give them a list of all the .45 automatics I had sold, and so they went out and picked up this bloody uniform and got a confession from him and he admitted everything." -- Alfred D. Hodge David Von Pein September 6, 2015

You shouldn't have stopped at the second paragraph of my "Oswald Is Guilty" page, Kenny.....

I strongly disagree, Pat. (What a surprise there, huh?) Every single thing that Lee Harvey Oswald did on both November 21st and November 22nd is indicative of Oswald working alone to kill the President. Everything.... ....He hitches a ride to Irving with Buell Frazier on Thursday to get the rifle. ....Oswald lies to Frazier about the reason he wants to go to Irving on Thursday. (And if Oswald had had an accomplice with a car--ANY accomplice--then Lee would have avoided having to tell the "curtain rods" lie to Frazier on both Thursday and Friday, because the accomplice would have driven Lee and his rifle--or perhaps a different rifle--to the Depository on the morning of November 22nd. But Lee chose to hitch a ride with Buell Wesley Frazier instead. And nobody in their right mind has ever claimed that Frazier was an accomplice of Oswald's.) ....After shooting JFK, Oswald leaves the Book Depository Building on foot. There's no car with a co-conspirator waiting for him. Lee is on his own. ....After walking several blocks east on Elm Street right after the assassination to put as much distance between himself and the scene of the crime as he could, Lee is then left to utilize public transportation and a taxi to get him to his roominghouse in Oak Cliff, indicating once again his "I'm out here all alone" status between 12:30 and 1:00 PM CST on 11/22/63. ....Lee then grabs his revolver at his roominghouse (which is another risky thing that could have easily been avoided if Oswald had had an accomplice aiding him that day; the accomplice could have already had a gun waiting for Lee in his car). ....After leaving his room, Lee is then on the move again---again on foot. No car. No accomplice. Lee's hoofin' it all alone. There is nobody there to help him escape. Lee is all by himself. Nothing Lee Harvey Oswald did indicates in any way that he was part of a multi-person conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. And the physical evidence Oswald left behind in the wake of the two murders he committed in Dallas on November 22 most certainly does not send out even the vaguest signal of "conspiracy". Oswald's rifle positively was the weapon that killed JFK. And Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver was unquestionably and beyond all doubt the gun that ended the life of policeman J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street. In short, Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK and Tippit murders is no "theory". It's an evidence-based fact. The possibility that Oswald had some measure of help from some unknown and unseen individual can never be eliminated with 100% certainty. But as I just laid out above, if Oswald did have a co-conspirator, then that co-plotter was as useless and worthless to Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63 as a snow shovel on the sun.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1013.html

But you clearly agreed with him. Otherwise, why post Tanenbaum's words? (Duh.) But, of course, that whole point is a moot one---since the SBT was so obviously the correct conclusion for the Warren Commission to reach. Says the man named James who has a bunch of things all "twisted" around himself, such as the following golden gems of fantasy from DiEugenio's archives of the bizarre: "[Marrion] Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015 "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 [Howard] Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010 "I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010 "You cannot even prove he [Lee Harvey Oswald] ever had possession of the handgun." -- James DiEugenio; June 25, 2013 "I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010 "JBC [John B. Connally] does not react until around frame 237." -- James DiEugenio; August 2010 "Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly on the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio; 2008 "A Mauser was the first weapon found and...a Mauser shell was found in Dealey Plaza." -- James DiEugenio; April 3, 2015 "It's like I have always said, the WC was the Troika: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, with Warren for window dressing." -- James DiEugenio; August 1, 2015 "I think that that whole thing about burning the [autopsy] notes...was just a cover story." -- James DiEugenio; December 11, 2008 "I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. .... 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 [west] end." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010 "Specter and Humes understood that the probe was gonna be a big problem. They thought the photographs would never be declassified. So Specter made up this B.S. story about the strap muscles, never knowing that that story was going to be exposed." -- James DiEugenio; July 16, 2009 "I have minimized the testimony of Linnie Mae [Randle]. I do so because in my view it is highly questionable." -- James DiEugenio; 2008 "I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." -- James DiEugenio; August 5, 2015 "I just proved that CE 399 was not found at Parkland." -- James DiEugenio; June 4, 2010 "At Bethesda, the military severely curtails the autopsy so that no one will ever know the true circumstances of how Kennedy was killed. Also, the FBI switches the bullet found at Parkland Hospital to fit the second rifle found at the TSBD, a Mannlicher Carcano." -- James DiEugenio; 2008 "I am not calling [Dallas police officer M.N.] McDonald a [L-word], the evidence is doing it." -- James DiEugenio; July 26, 2015 ---------------------- [End Quotes.] Boy, with a record of absurdity like the one presented above (and also HERE), one of the very last individuals on the planet who should be using the words "twisted travesty" when talking about anyone else's conclusions relating to the JFK case is Mr. James DiEugenio. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html

Jim DiEugenio is blowing smoke---yet again. As if the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases amounts to only a mere "theory". Give us all a freakin' break, Jimmy. Apparently to DiEugenio, the guns owned by Oswald, along with the bullets, the shells, the prints, the paper bag, the "LHO Did It" witnesses, Oswald's constant lies, and Oswald's guilty-like actions are things that all add up to just a "theory" with no solid basis in fact whatsoever. All of that stuff was merely manufactured to make Oswald look guilty. Yeah, right, Jim. The entire batch of physical evidence amounts to just an Oswald-did-it "theory". Oh, brother. What a crock. As Jack Nicholson said --- "Sell crazy someplace else."

MARTIN HAY SAID: As is obvious from the title of their book, Ayton and Von Pein want you to believe that there is no "reasonable doubt" about Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the assassination. The authors even treat us to their (very unusual) definition of the term, writing that.... "If the preponderance of evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is not reasonable to say a particular anomalous piece of evidence shows innocence. Even when more than one anomaly arises, as it certainly does with respect to the JFK assassination, it is still not 'reasonable' to assume innocence if the preponderance of evidence shows guilt." (p. 118) Why is this so unusual? Because the above is not the legal definition of the term as used in American criminal courts. The legal definition of beyond reasonable doubt in that venue is that 12 reasonable jurors have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt; they are convinced to a moral certainty that the accused committed the crime. If they do have doubt, they are not reasonable doubts. Which means that, during the deliberations, the one or two people who were reserving judgment had their doubts washed away by the other 10 or 11 jurors' arguments. Another way of explaining it is this: the prosecutor has judiciously, methodically and conclusively closed off all other avenues of possible explication to the defense. The crime could have happened no other way. It is the most stringent standard in American jurisprudence. That is because a man's life or liberty is at stake. The second most stringent standard is, "by clear and convincing evidence." That standard is used in many administrative hearings, such as those by the ABA to disbar an attorney. The standard the authors quote above is actually the lowest standard and is used in most civil courts. It is very hard to believe the writers do not understand the difference. Ayton is from the UK, but Von Pein is an American. Yet, at least the book editor should have pointed out this serious discrepancy which, in and of itself, mitigates the portentousness of the title. This reversal reduces the book to a utilitarian, not a fact finding or judicial inquiry. In other words, because of the Ayton/Von Pein switcheroo, the many serious evidentiary issues repeatedly highlighted by critics over the last fifty years do not amount to reasonable doubt. Needless to say, actual legal experts; lawyers who understand the different standards and why they are used; would feel differently. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Many, many people have had differences of opinion concerning the proper legal definition of the term "reasonable doubt". It can be a confusing issue even among seasoned trial attorneys. Take the O.J. Simpson case as a good example of this. Veteran lawyer Vincent Bugliosi, who I think probably knew a little bit more about the rules that apply in an American courtroom than does Mr. Martin Hay, has expressed his opinion as to the manner in which Simpson's defense team (particularly DNA lawyer Barry Scheck) defined the term "reasonable doubt" to the jury at Simpson's 1995 criminal trial. And Bugliosi had no doubt that the definition of that term that was used by Simpson's defense lawyers was dead wrong and was (to quote Mr. Bugliosi) "not simply the law". Here's what Bugliosi said about the "reasonable doubt" jury instruction in 1999 during a filmed simulation of the final arguments that Vince would have delivered to the jury if he had prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case (and this very same argument would also, of course, have applied at Lee Harvey Oswald's criminal trial, had Oswald lived to be put on trial for the murders of President Kennedy and Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit).... Vincent Bugliosi Defines Reasonable Doubt So, as we can see by watching the above video, it's pretty clear that the following words written on page 118 of the book "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", which are words that were quoted by Martin Hay earlier in this post, are 100% accurate.... "If the preponderance of evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is not reasonable to say a particular anomalous piece of evidence shows innocence. Even when more than one anomaly arises, as it certainly does with respect to the JFK assassination, it is still not 'reasonable' to assume innocence if the preponderance of evidence shows guilt." How could any "reasonable" person argue with the logic that exists within the above paragraph (regardless of whether you're inside or outside the confines of an American courtroom)? And, BTW, since I helped Mel Ayton write the book "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" while we were outside the environment of a United States courtroom (and we also utilized some evidence and testimony to illustrate Lee Oswald's guilt that might not have been allowed to be presented at Oswald's trial, had there been one), the whole notion that an author of a book on the JFK assassination MUST chain himself to—and be forever bound by—the "Rules Of The Courtroom" is a notion that only someone (such as, say, a JFK conspiracy theorist) would think was the only possible way of arriving at the truth concerning the facts surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald and the murder of President John F. Kennedy. In other words, the conspiracy theorists who constantly repeat the refrain "Oswald would never have been convicted in a court of law" are pretty much doing the only thing they CAN do in order to avoid the obviousness of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt — they're relying on legal technicalities, and hoping that those technicalities would have prevented some (or most) of the incriminating evidence against Oswald from ever seeing the light of day if there had been an actual court trial in the JFK murder case. Because, let's face it, if all of the incriminating evidence that points to Mr. Oswald is legitimate evidence that was not tampered with in any manner, then Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of two murders in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. Quoting from Vince Bugliosi's JFK book (emphasis added by DVP).... "An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. [...] The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality. Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine. Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes) David Von Pein September 1, 2015

Reprise........ Allow me to stress these words from that cover letter that was sent to the FBI's Alan Belmont: "...the report, of course, had to be accurate."

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: This memorandum written by Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach on Monday, November 25, 1963, says that "ALL THE FACTS" concerning Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of President Kennedy should be MADE KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC. Some "cover-up" memo that was, huh? Another interesting non-conspiratorial portion of the Katzenbach memo is this part: "I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination." Do conspiracy theorists think that Katzenbach was really talking in some kind of secret code or something when he said that a "complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination" should be made public "as soon as possible"? I.E., was Katzenbach REALLY saying that only a "phony" or a "fake" FBI report about Oswald and the assassination should be made public? Because if Katzenbach really knew about Oswald's rumored involvement with the FBI (and CIA), and Katzenbach was "in" on some cover-up operation from the get-go, he certainly wouldn't REALLY want the FBI to release a "complete and thorough" report concerning Oswald, now would he? Vincent Bugliosi puts it this way in his book, "Reclaiming History": "The conspiracy theorists have converted Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to squelch RUMORS that had no basis in fact into Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to suppress the FACTS of the assassination. But how could Katzenbach and Warren have known way back then that they had to spell out that ONLY false rumors, rumors without a stitch of evidence to support them, had to be squelched for the benefit of the American public? How could they have known back then that there would actually be people like Mark Lane who would accuse men like Warren, Gerald Ford, John Cooper, and so on...of getting in a room and all deciding to deliberately suppress, or not even look for, evidence of a conspiracy to murder the president...or that there would be intelligent, rational, and sensible people of the considerable stature of Michael Beschloss and Evan Thomas who would decide to give their good minds a rest and actually buy into this nonsense?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 367-368 of "Reclaiming History" The Katzenbach memo: Footnote -- Full credit needs to go to Bud here for emphasizing in his previous posts [in early May 2007, HERE and HERE] the "All the facts" language in the Katzenbach memorandum. An excellent observation, as are all of Bud's conspiracy-smashing observations. Of course, I suppose the conspiracy theorists will shrug off Katzenbach's words as just another ruse of some sort by the people covering up the facts surrounding the assassination. But if Katzenbach's November 25th memo to Bill Moyers had, indeed, truly been "conspiratorial" in some fashion, then the CTers have an even bigger (logical) question to answer: Why on Earth would Nicholas Katzenbach write such a crazy memo in the first place if he was part of some kind of a cover-up operation that was in place right after President Kennedy's assassination? DEX OLSEN SAID: With a following of dimwits, dullards, disturbed and the dishonest, David Von Pein replied [in this post]: "Why would [J. Lee] Rankin admit to something stupid and wholly incorrect like that, Dexter?" See Katzenbach's memo, written while Oswald was still above ground, then kindly point out the differences between it and the WC's conclusions. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Here is a higher-quality version of the complete Katzenbach memo from the Mary Ferrell website: PAGE 1 --- PAGE 2 And here is Nicholas Katzenbach himself explaining the meaning of that memo: Katzenbach was nothing but a rotten [L-word], right Dexter? Also: The following paragraph from page 2 of the memo certainly doesn't sound like Katzenbach is part of any kind of cover-up or conspiracy to me: "I think...that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort." And I completely agree with Vincent Bugliosi's assessment on this topic. That is, when Katzenbach said he wanted to "head off public speculation...of the wrong sort", he was talking only about "heading off" UNWARRANTED speculation and FALSE RUMORS concerning the assassination. That's the "wrong sort" of stuff that Nicholas Katzenbach was talking about there, IMO. In addition, there are the following comments that appear in this 11/25/63 cover letter that was sent to Assistant FBI Director Alan Belmont concerning the Katzenbach memorandum: "It is Katzenbach's feeling that this matter can best be handled by making public the results of the FBI's investigation. He thought time was of the essence, but that the report, of course, had to be accurate." Allow me to stress these words from that cover letter that was sent to the FBI's Alan Belmont: "...the report, of course, had to be accurate." David Von Pein October 27, 2007 July 4-5, 2015

A recent Facebook discussion which fits in here pretty nicely..... ================================ GARY REVEL SAID: "Lone Nut Theorists" have one thing in common. They all abuse the US Constitution. The guaranteed right it gives us of a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence—a presumption of guilt—as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society. Lee Harvey Oswald was never even properly criminally charged with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Those who continue to label him as an assassin and/or the killer of JFK are demeaning the very Constitutional rights that they exploit in the process. The requirement that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a crime in order to convict a defendant is no exception. The burden of proof imposed on the prosecution and the presumption of innocence granted every defendant are based on the "Due Process" Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. DAN PAUL SAID: That's a pretty big generalization, Gary. When the evidence points squarely at Oswald, who should be blamed? He will obviously never be tried and convicted, but I for one can't dismiss his guilt because he was killed before being brought to trial. For me, the infamous "them", or the equally blatant smearing of other men's reputations (LBJ, Bush Sr. etc.) that is offered up by the conspiracy theorists is no better. For me, it's what does the evidence show? It points directly at Lee Harvey Oswald. That cannot be ignored. PATRICK SKOMSKI SAID: Oswald was arraigned for JFK's murder. And was killed so he could not go to trial. The presumption of innocence is a creature of law where the rules apply in the courtroom and do not apply in the Court of Public Opinion. SHERRY FIESTER SAID: Gary states "Lone Nut Theorists" have one thing in common. They all abuse the US Constitution. My response: If someone makes an assumption of guilt without any merit, they have violated the presumption of innocence. But, if someone examines the available information and believes it is irrefutable evidence of guilt, they are not -- especially since we have never seen a trial and one is not likely. I don't think it intentional to be unlawful. However, that said, using "alleged shooter" is much more correct. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I just don't see how a reasonable person who has examined even HALF of the evidence in this case can hold the belief that Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt (in TWO murders) has NOT been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. GARY REVEL SAID: As I have said to many over the last 38 years: I find no fault in those who believe Oswald killed JFK because of the consistent and mind-blowing propaganda and dis-information campaign operated by the authorities of that time. That operation has continued, to some degree, however, people like myself, who actually investigated the assassination, found its bizarre and obvious mis-handling by those who were responsible to see justice done to be nothing less than outrageous. Those are the devils in the details. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: But those "details" that you devilish CTers love so much can easily be manipulated and RE-interpreted to mean things that the CTer WANT them to mean. Take the Katzenbach memo as one such example. And certain witness testimony as another---Lee Bowers, for example. And Bill Newman. Conspiracy theorists have been propping up those two witnesses for decades in an effort to "prove" that a gunman was on the Grassy Knoll. But when we examine the testimony and public statements of Bowers and Newman further, we can really see that neither witness "proves" that a shooter was on the Knoll. Far from it. In fact, William Newman is actually a pretty good "LN" type of witness when we decide to actually LISTEN to Mr. Newman's explanation of what he saw and heard in Dealey Plaza (versus just merely accepting the garbage printed in conspiracy books written by people like Mark Lane and others). So, yes, I agree that the "details" are important. But conspiracy theorists, in my opinion, are much more inclined to misinterpret and/or deliberately mangle those "details" than are lone-assassin believers. And Bill Newman is a perfect example, as we can see right here. PAUL MATTHEWS SAID: My research has led me to discover that in terms of manipulation, misquoting, lying, it's not the government, it's been the CT authors. Your example, David, of the Katzenbach letter is a prime example. But for me the biggest lie is the manipulation of the seating positions regarding the single bullet. That is outrageous. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Precisely right, Paul. I think it was Bob Groden on a radio show not that many years ago who was still insisting that John Connally was sitting DIRECTLY in front of JFK when the shooting occurred. Even though Groden had undoubtedly seen the Hess & Eisenhardt limo diagram published by the HSCA, which shows that Connally's jump seat was located somewhat INBOARD in relation to Kennedy's back seat. (Not to mention the many photos and films taken on November 22 which verify that Connally was definitely sitting INBOARD and LOWER than President Kennedy in the car.) Plus, we know from the photos that JFK was pretty much jammed as far as humanly possible to the RIGHT in his seat (so that he could comfortably rest his right arm on the top of the door frame and easily wave to the large crowds in Dallas). So that fact (JFK being as FAR RIGHT in his seat as he possibly could be) makes for an even more pronounced "Kennedy Was Sitting To The RIGHT Of Connally" seating arrangement on 11/22/63. But many CTers still like to drag out the old myth about how the bullet couldn't have gone through both victims because Connally wasn't sitting to JFK's left at all. The devil's in the details alright. And just look at what some CTers have done to that "seating arrangement" detail. They've mangled it to fit their needs. (Just ask Oliver Stone.) Full discussion here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1016450378385613/permalink/1017323051631679

And just how many "things" (which is a word I'll use since you don't like for me to call the evidence "evidence", seeing as how it never crossed a courtroom's threshold) would it take for you to be "persuaded"? 250 things? 1,000? How many? Because apparently the few dozen or so "things" that currently all point toward Lee Oswald aren't nearly enough. Are they, Jon? So....how many things does it take? "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"

Good job, David G. Healy. Just pretend that nobody has ever "built a case" to prove Oswald guilty, even though you know damn well that many people have done so. That sand is nearly covering the top of your head, Dave. How can you breathe?

Jon, My reasoning is as follows --- Lee Harvey Oswald is guilty because all of the evidence points to him being guilty of the two murders he was charged with committing on 11/22/63. Give me a reasonable explanation for how all of the evidence (bullets, shells, guns, paper bag, prints, eyewitnesses, Oswald's own actions, and Oswald's lies) can exist as it currently does exist in this case and still have Lee Oswald being innocent of shooting JFK and/or J.D. Tippit. Can any conspiracy theorist do that? Nobody yet has managed to do so. Good luck.

Pat, And, IMO, that total LACK of brain injury in the LOWER sections of JFK's brain is one of the main reasons we can KNOW for certain that the bullet probably did not enter LOW on the head [see the video below]. It must have entered higher up on the President's head, just as the Clark Panel and HSCA concluded (and correctly concluded, IMO).... "On one of the lateral films of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed. Also there is, embedded in the outer table of the skull close to the lower edge of the hole, a large metallic fragment which on the anteroposterior film (#1) lies 25 mm. to the right of the midline. This fragment as seen in the latter film is round and measures 6.5 mm. in diameter. [...] The foregoing observations indicate that the decedent's head was struck from behind by a single projectile. It entered the occipital region 25 mm. to the right of the midline and 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The projectile fragmented on entering the skull, one major section leaving a trail of fine metallic debris as it passed forward and laterally to explosively fracture the right frontal and parietal bones as it emerged from the head." -- Via the 1968 Clark Panel Report jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html

That is wacky, Pat. I still can't see it. But, anyhow, thanks for leading me to Chapter 20 so I could locate the proper GIF image. I've renamed and re-uploaded the GIF via my Blogger.com site after I downloaded it off of your website. (Maybe EF didn't like the file name or something.) Anyway, here's my Blogspot version (with proper "PatSpeer.com" credit in the file name).... blogspot.com/Autopsy-Photos-Cropped-Via-PatSpeer.com.gif

Just to illustrate how easy it is to play "Let's Find A Possible Bullet Hole In JFK's Head In The F8 Photo", I don't see why the object within the white circle couldn't be yet another candidate....

FYI.... Here is a GIF of the F8 ("Mystery") autopsy photo that I got off of Pat Speer's website. This might be the GIF Pat posted in Post #1 that is no longer showing up....

There's no way I can add anything definitive with respect to the F8 photo, and that's because I do not think it is possible to determine the exact location of various parts of President Kennedy's head in that picture. As I said before, I could probably stare at it all day long and it wouldn't help me out much. Okay. Thanks, Pat.

I just used the regular image tags --- [ img ] and [ /img ] . I still can't see your GIF in Post #1. Can you see it? Maybe it's a browser thing. I'm using Firefox 40.0. ~shrug~

What makes you think the "shape" that you are convinced is the entry wound measures exactly 15 by 6 millimeters? And even if it IS the entry wound, why couldn't it be located high on JFK's head, near the cowlick, which is the place on the head that the Clark Panel and the HSCA determined the entry wound was located via OTHER (multiple!) photographs and X-rays? Tell me again why the "shape" you think is the entry wound in F8 cannot possibly in a million years be located anywhere near the cowlick area of John F. Kennedy's head? Thank you.

It's not that I "refuse" to "come to grips" with the F8 mess of a picture. I just don't think it's possible to utilize F8 as a reliable or definitive piece of evidence. With so many different opinions about what the photo is depicting, how can anyone use the F8 picture to bolster ANY kind of a theory? I don't think that's possible. Even if you're right, Pat, about the orientation of the picture, I still can't see any way to DEFINITIVELY say that "this is an entry wound" or "this is positively the exit wound", etc. Because even WITH a proper orientation of the photograph, it's still a big inconclusive mess regarding President Kennedy's head wounds. (IMHO.) And BTW, where is your GIF in your first post, Pat? Can anybody else see it? I sure can't.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Maybe it's time for conspiracy theorists to stop the "Everything's Been Faked" talk and accept the truth that GIF images like the one shown above amply prove --- President Kennedy was shot once in the head--from behind. ANTHONY MARSH SAID: Stop being silly. Everyone has been poisoned by Lifton's theory. It's very easy to see the orientation of Fox 8 once you realize that they had to pull the scalp down over the eyes to remove the brain. I have marked major landmarks for you [in the captions of Tony's "fantasy" version of the F8 photo, seen HERE]. You can also read Dr. Lawrence Angel's report. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Some of Tony Marsh's captions all over the F-8 picture are ludicrous [see the pic below], especially Anthony's utter fantasy of pretending a portion of the picture positively shows an "entrance wound" in the "forehead" of JFK. That's one of Tony's favorite fantasies, of course, as he puts make-believe "entry" holes in the President's head that NONE of the autopsy doctors saw or mentioned in the autopsy report. But, as we can easily see, that F-8 close-up picture is one great-big mess. Not good for anything, IMO. DVP Sept. 9, 2014 http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,11229.msg338176.html#msg338176 ------------------------------- Anthony-Marsh-Fantasy-Version-Of-Autopsy-Photo-Number-F8.jpg

MICHAEL WELCH SAID: Thank you again David! You are making a lot of balanced sense, like usual! DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thank you, Michael. But even though I don't rely on the F-8 autopsy photo to arrive at any of my conclusions about JFK's head wounds, that doesn't mean I am forced to toss my hands in the air and say "It can't be solved". Because there are plenty of other things we can look at to reach a reasonable conclusion as to where President Kennedy's head wounds were located. There are the other autopsy photos (not counting F-8) and the X-rays. Plus the autopsy report itself, which almost all conspiracy theorists seem to want to just completely ignore (or mangle the verbiage within that report). The autopsy report couldn't be much clearer on two key aspects of the President's wounds--- 1.) JFK was shot TWICE and only TWICE. 2.) And JFK was shot only from BEHIND. (With no evidence of any shots from the FRONT striking the President's body anywhere.) "It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds. .... The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- From Page 6 of JFK's Autopsy Report [CE387; WR Page 543] The above words were endorsed by ALL THREE of the autopsy surgeons. I mean, how much more PROOF do CTers need? That paragraph above when combined with the autopsy pictures and X-rays are just about as ironclad and rock-solid as you can get. The only way those things wouldn't be "ironclad" would be if all three autopsy doctors were total boobs and/or liars....AND the autopsy photos and X-rays are fakes too. And the HSCA put that notion to rest in 1978 (see 7 HSCA 41 for the verification regarding the photos that almost all CTers also completely ignore or deem invalid for some reason). Another really nice way to show that the autopsy pictures that we currently have to study on the Internet (the "Fox set") have not been altered or faked in some manner is to compare the photos in stereo pairs (as the HSCA Photographic Panel did). And John Mytton has created at least two amazing motion GIF clips of JFK's autopsy photos which help to prove that those pictures are not fraudulent. And that's because the different pictures perfectly match each other in STEREO fashion, such as John Mytton's GIF below (and he's got another one which shows two views of the top of JFK's head too, merging together in GIF form perfectly)..... DVP Sept. 8, 2014 http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,11229.msg338137.html#msg338137