David Von Pein

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

Either one of those options—low occipital or upper occipital—is absolutely impossible, because we know that there is not a single solitary bit of occipital bone missing (or blasted out) anywhere on President Kennedy's head, which is a fact that is verified in the X-ray shown below (and also shown in HSCA Volume #7, at 7 HSCA 112): And FWIW, it's my opinion that the "mystery" photo (also known as the F8 autopsy photograph) is virtually worthless as far as being able to prove anything about JFK's head wounds. It's a mess, IMO. And I didn't just start saying that today.... "The F-8 photo is, in my opinion, essentially worthless and useless. At least from the standpoint of trying to PROVE anything definitive regarding the location of the wounds in JFK's head. Others disagree, of course. But, in my view, F-8 is just a big mess. I can't make head nor tail out of it. Maybe other people can, but I can't. .... In a way, that F-8 photo is TOO GOOD. It evidently is a picture taken DEEP inside Kennedy's cranium, which doesn't leave very much stuff visible OUTSIDE the cranium for proper orientation. And therein lies the big problem with it, IMO. What's UP and what's DOWN? It's hard to tell." -- DVP; September 8, 2014 "Don't ask me anything about that mess known as F8, because it's an ink blot test as far as I'm concerned. Totally useless. In a way, that picture is TOO GOOD. If we only had some more "orientation" features within F8, it would sure be more useful. It's an incredible picture, though, I must say. I've often wondered just exactly how (and where) the camera was situated and maneuvered in order to snap that picture?" -- DVP; April 1, 2009 "John Canal thinks F8 is a "simple photo". That must be why [according to some people anyway] Dr. Baden testified with F8 upside-side in 1978, huh? For Pete sake, John, just take a look at all of the major disagreements concerning F8 over the years among the people who post on just the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup. And there are some very smart people posting there too. And yet many people say F8 shows one thing, while a different batch of people say that F8 is depicting something else entirely. A "simple" photo? I think not. F8 is essentially a worthless and useless mess. But if you want to rely on that "simple" F8 photograph, more power to ya (I guess)." -- DVP; May 17, 2009 "The autopsy photo known as F8 is a complete mess. And if you took the time to explain it to me 101 different times, I doubt it would still make much sense (from a "Which Way Is Up On This Damn Picture?" point-of-view). It would still be a total freaking mess. IMO, autopsy photograph #F8 is not aiding anyone at all who is attempting to locate certain wounds (entry vs. exit points, etc.) on John F. Kennedy's head. Because everybody's got a different "official" opinion on the picture, it seems. In other words, how can mud possibly bring about clarity? IMO, it can't. So I'll choose to dismiss it entirely and utilize better and clearer-to-interpret evidence." -- DVP; August 17, 2008 More "F8" discussion here: JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/search="F8 Autopsy Photo Is A Mess"

But where's the image in your post, Pat? I can't see it. All I can see is this (but no image GIF)....

"Discredited by James"? Oh brother, that's a laugh. The CTer excuses and SBT denials are truly a sight to behold in that discussion here at The Education Forum a few months ago. It's one of my very favorite pages to revisit (the one I've archived below), because like no other discussion I can think of, it exemplifies the truly desperate status of the Anti-SBT crowd..... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html

Are you going to keep pretending you've never seen the Lawrence Schiller 1967 re-enactment video which proves the CTers are nuts when they keep harping on the shadows? Here's the proof you apparently want to forever ignore.... dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/Re-creating The Backyard Photos (1967 Video) ---- jfk-assassination-arguments--The-Backyard-Photographs

Yes, he could well be reacting to a bullet, but one being fired and not being hit. Why do you think Connally is wrong with when he says he was hit? Because it doesn't fit your scenario? So, even though he HASN'T yet been hit (according to you)---but he WILL be getting hit in the right wrist in just another couple of seconds---it's just a coincidence that Connally raises his right arm very quickly at Z226? IOW -- Do you think the "arm/hat flip" was caused merely by John Connally HEARING the sound of a gunshot?

But you'll be happy to know that it's snowing in the mountains.

Yeah, David H., Oswald's posture is merely identical (or pert-near) in both images. But just ignore that fact because of the "clothing texture". (Hilarious.) Or maybe you'd like to add the photo on the left to your list of "Fake" items, huh?

Take note of the "Oswald lean" in the photo on the left below. It's remarkably similar to the "leaning" posture that many conspiracy theorists think was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to achieve in the backyard photos:

What is Connally doing here, Ray? Could he be "reacting" to a bullet injury? This clip ends at Z225....

"I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder...So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back." -- John Connally; WC Testimony ----------- But we can see in the Z-Film that Connally was not looking straight ahead, nor was he facing slightly to his left. He was still turned slightly to his RIGHT when he was hit. And the best examination of this was done by Dale Myers, whose computer animation was keyed directly to the Z-Film itself. And this is one of the frames from Myers' animation that shows Connally turned to his right at Z225.... http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/kframe.htm