David Von Pein

Jim, Nothing you have ever said knocks down the case against Lee Oswald murdering both JFK and Officer Tippit. Because in order for Oswald to be innocent of BOTH of those crimes, as you (incredibly) do believe, then we'd have to believe that literally ALL of the many pieces of evidence that incriminate Oswald are fake or fraudulent pieces of evidence. And that notion is, of course, just plain ridiculous. And now, Jim, you seem to think that after a relatively brief examination into the Manson case, you have discovered things that rip apart the whole "Helter Skelter" case that Vincent Bugliosi worked on for over a year between late 1969 and January of 1971. Your arrogance is staggering, James. And as far as the JFK case goes, as I said before (and it's probably even more accurate today, with Jim DiEugenio entertaining the idea of even more conspiracy theories in his head since I wrote this 1.5 years ago).... "I can add dozens of additional outrageous things to the list [below], but I'll stop at those twenty-two items for now. And yet despite [that] laundry list of silliness, James DiEugenio is still held in high esteem by many people when it comes to his evaluation of the evidence and his assessment of the facts concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Unbelievable." -- David Von Pein; January 4, 2013 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-81.html#The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes

So, Jim, do you think Charlie Manson ordered the Tate-LaBianca murders? Or was Manson just a "patsy"? I want to hear James DiEugenio utter these words.... Charles Manson was completely innocent. He didn't order anybody to be killed. In light of Susan Atkins CONFESSING to the murders, Jim has already made himself look really silly with this remark from last year.... "In my opinion, there is no way somebody like Susan Atkins should have ever spent the rest of her life in jail. It's very debatable whether she ever killed anybody. I don't think she did." -- Jim DiEugenio; March 6, 2014 I just want to see how far down Absurd Avenue Jim is willing to go in order to smear the late Mr. Bugliosi (and Vince's tireless work that he did on the Manson case) by telling the world he thinks Manson is snow-white innocent. Are you willing to go that far, Jim? Or have you done so already?

Given all of the evidence presented HERE, plus adding in just a small amount of common sense to go with it, can any reasonable person really come to a conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not own and possess Rifle #C2766 (CE139) in the year 1963? I'll answer that last question myself -- No, they cannot. Lots more Rifle Talk below..... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/mannlicher-carcano.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/lee-harvey-oswalds-rifle.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-852.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-93.html Excerpt from above article.... "In the final analysis of the Manson case, regardless of what the motive for the murders might have been, it is crystal clear by taking just a cursory look at the trial transcripts and the trial excerpts that can be found in the book "Helter Skelter", that Vincent Bugliosi did, in fact, prosecute the real killers of the seven victims in the Tate-LaBianca case. Another thing that has become crystal clear is that James DiEugenio has made a habit out of turning guilty murderers into innocent bystanders. He's attempted to perform that magical feat in the JFK case when he insists that a double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of killing President Kennedy and was also innocent of murdering Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit, and now Jim D. seems to want to do it again with respect to a vicious and savage killer by the name of Susan Denise Atkins. But, then too, given DiEugenio's track record of getting almost everything wrong when it comes to the John F. Kennedy murder case [such as all of these things], I guess I shouldn't be too surprised by any of the foolish things that come out of his mouth anymore." David Von Pein March 7, 2014

Yeah, Ken. It's either that or maybe I was having a bit of a giggle at the expense of crazy JFK conspiracy theories. Which of those two options is likely the correct one?

I can't possibly know the answer to that question for certain, Jon. No one can know. But I do have some thoughts on it.... 11:55 AM-12:05 PM (estimated) -- Oswald has the whole sixth floor to himself. This is just prior to Bonnie Ray Williams coming back up to the 6th Floor to eat his lunch. It's my belief that Lee Oswald, during this (approx.) 10-minute time period around noon or shortly after, probably went to the west end of the sixth floor (where he had his rifle hidden in the brown bag). Oswald unwraps the rifle at the west end of the sixth floor and assembles the rifle at the west end (hence, Arnold Rowland sees a white man with a rifle at the west end of the building at approx. this time, maybe a little later, 12:15 or so, but keep in mind the approximation of all times). It's quite possible, IMO, that Oswald initially was considering using the WEST-end window as his shooting window. But, for one reason or another, he decided that a window on the EAST end of the sixth floor would better serve his purposes. Perhaps he was mentally factoring in the angles and trajectories in his head, and possibly realized that an east-end perch would be a better one, especially since the Secret Service agents would all have their backs to him when he began firing, if he decided to wait until after the cars had turned the Elm/Houston corner....which, IMO, Oswald definitely had in his mind to do, due to the pre-arranged way the rifle-rest boxes were constructed (i.e., in a "Rifle Always Pointing West/Southwest" manner). It's also possible that, as Oswald mulled over potential shooting locations, he realized that a goodly number of boxes were already down on the east end of the 6th Floor, which would make constructing a makeshift "Nest" all the easier for him. More.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-timeline-part-1.html Wrong. The dent in one of the shell casings does NOT mean it MUST have been fired before 11/22. The HSCA (and many others who have fired Carcano rifles) have achieved a dented lip on a cartridge case AFTER firing a shot and then very quickly working the bolt. It's been proven. And it merely indicates Oswald's haste in trying to work the bolt. The shell just wasn't quite clear of the chamber yet, and Oswald's very fast working of the bolt dented the ejecting spent cartridge. Close. I think it was more like 8.36 seconds: Shot 1 -- Z160 (approx.). Shot 2 -- Z224. Shot 3 -- Z313. Total Time = 8.36 seconds.

Tell all that to Dr. Cyril Wecht, Mark. If I remember Dr. Wecht's comments about this topic correctly, he thinks all wounds should be referenced FROM THE TOP OF THE HEAD DOWNWARD, which, of course, means it would ALSO be a "movable" body part, because it still is, after all, being referenced in relation to the HEAD, which is movable. The mastoid measurement is perfectly fine. CTers just like to gripe about everything the autopsists did. If the measurement was taken from the mastoid when the body was in an anatomic posture (i.e., the "autopsy" position)--and why would Humes be doing such a measurement with the body of JFK in any other position?--then measuring from the mastoid process is a perfectly good place to measure from. Certainly AS GOOD as Dr. Wecht's preferred starting point of the top of the head.

The shirt doesn't tell anybody where the wound was. The autopsy photo and the "14 cm. below tip of right mastoid process" measurement from the autopsy report and the face sheet are the things that tell us where the wound was located on the body of John F. Kennedy. You think the SHIRT is BETTER information than the "14 cm. below the mastoid" measurement? Why would anyone other than Cliff Varnell think that? The Rydberg drawings are pretty much worthless. I never use them. I use CE903 instead. It's much more accurate. And no "Neck" entry required (or even WANTED) here....

As if Talbot and Bugliosi aren't "researchers". You're funny, Healy. But maybe this one will suit your needs. I know all CTers love this guy. Right, DGH?....

An example of the "Conspiracy Mind" at work..... The second nun from the left in that Nov. 25 picture bears a striking resemblance to Sister Mary Stigmata in the movie "The Blues Brothers": And based upon the fact that Stigmata was in Dallas on Nov. 25, 1963, just three days after the assassination, coupled with the fact that she was a Catholic nun and John F. Kennedy was a Catholic, I think it's reasonable to conclude that Sister Stigmata (aka Kathleen Freemen) probably was packing a rod deep within the sewer system of Dealey Plaza at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63, and she utilized her status as a "Woman Of The Cloth" to avoid any suspicion by the authorities, and that it was Stigmata (and not Jimmy Files or Mac Wallace or Lumpy Rutherford) who fired the fatal shot into President Kennedy's brain from the storm drain on Elm Street. And after performing the grisly deed, Stigmata concealed the murder weapon under her vestments, hitched a ride back to Jack Ruby's apartment with David Ferrie, and waited until the heat was off before returning to her regular church duties at The Church Of The Holy Hit Man in Clay Shaw's hometown of Kentwood, Louisiana. Case solved. It couldn't have happened any other way given the evidence of the nuns praying in the Plaza on Monday, November 25th, 1963.

My post that you so foolishly think makes me look bad and makes you look good speaks for itself. It says that I, unlike CTers, do not have the freedom to "make up stuff from pure nothingness". THAT'S the "freedom" I do not possess. And yet you use that quote as a signature because you actually are silly enough to think I'm suggesting I don't have the "freedom" to believe what I want to believe. (As if I would ever want to start creating unsupportable conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination.) Here's an idea, Ken --- Why don't you switch signatures for a while and use the following quote of yours. I'm sure you think this makes you look GOOD, right? So why not spotlight it?.... "Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?"

I've heard many CTers claim that the Stemmons sign was removed the day after the assassination, which is nonsense. The two pictures below were taken during the WC re-enactment in Dealey Plaza on May 24, 1964 (6 months and 2 days after JFK was killed), and it sure looks like BOTH the Stemmons and R.L. Thornton signs are the same ones that were there on Nov. 22. If they are different signs, I sure can't tell the difference.... And here are the two signs on 11/24/63.... And here's the Stemmons sign on 11/25/63....

Oh, yes, David. I agree that some of the Rydberg drawings are worthless. They're a mess. And the photo on the right that you posted above is totally wrong (of course). It's not even close to representing the correct location of either wound. According to that silly drawing, the wound in the upper back is so far right of the spine, it almost misses JFK entirely. WTF? I wonder who invented that fictional entry location? ~shrug~ But there's no "dishonest" intent in those drawings, IMO. How can I POSSIBLY say such a thing, you ask? Answer: Commission Exhibit 903 (again), which shows precisely where the WC puts the wound on the back side of JFK's body---and it is NOT up in the "neck" (nor does it NEED to be in the "neck" to accommodate the SBT, as CE903 proves for all time). But, since we now DO have the ACTUAL autopsy pictures to look at, we can SEE where the real wounds are located. And those two entry wounds are both on the BACK part of JFK's body (in the back and head), perfectly consistent with the conclusion that TWO shots (and only two) struck JFK from BEHIND. You don't deny my last sentence, do you David (regardless of the where the terrible Rydberg drawings place the wounds)?

Kenny needs to go to math class. But maybe Ken thinks that measurements are taken at an autopsy from the feet upward. LOL.

You just did it again. You just again implied that I might be using Gary Mack's name to make "your [my] statement". And you don't even seem to know it. Amazing.

"Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Kenneth Drew Where is the damage control? What did I accuse you of? I asked you a question, which you continue to duck. Does he or does he not allow you to use his name in making your statement? I'm not saying that he does, I'm asking you if he allows you to speak on his behalf? Simple question. Now I'm convinced Kenny can't read at all. Earth to Drew! --- Check out Post #205.

WTF? Ken is getting more hilarious by the minute. Kenny thinks this is a 6-inch ruler in this picture, and yet Ken also thinks "the hole is at approx the 5-6 inch point". All anyone can do now is shake their heads and do this --- ~shrug~

Just look at that big steaming pile of "damage control" Kenny is shoveling out in his Post #207. Unbelievable. He's even in denial about the undeniable meaning of this remark he aimed at me.... "Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Kenneth Drew Kenny's middle initial has GOT to be D. ("Denial".)

I don't think ANYTHING is really being "measured" in the "ruler photo", Jon. The ruler is probably just there for scale. But Ken is certainly way off if he thinks the wound is "5-6 inches" down on that ruler. If it's a 12-inch ruler (which it likely is), then there's no way it's halfway down the ruler's length (quite obviously). None of the autopsy photos are "fakes". The HSCA proved that fact in Volume 7 of their materials. Go look it up, Jon. Or were all 20 people on the HSCA's Photographic Panel telling a bunch of lies too? I'll help you look it up. Here's the link.... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm

Okay.... "Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Ken Drew In that quote above you are directly implying that I just might be using Gary Mack's name falsely by posting my own comments under Gary's name. There is no other possible interpretation of those words you wrote. I'd call that an "accusation". But you don't even seem to remember (or comprehend) what you yourself wrote on this forum just a few minutes ago. I understood it perfectly. You were implying that Gary Mack might not have written any of the words I attributed to him. And, instead, you were implying that I myself wrote those words and tried to pass them off as Gary Mack's words. How else could anybody interpret this question you asked?... "Did he actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Ken Drew You most certainly did. You accused me of pretending to be Gary Mack. That's basically what you were implying. And you know it. You're just trying to do some damage control now, because you know that what you accused me of doing is downright stupid. I don't control Gary Mack's actions. And I would never try to speak for Gary (even though that is exactly what you implied I might be doing in your earlier post). Gary can post in any fashion he sees fit. He chooses not to post on the forums. That's his choice. Sometimes I choose to post his e-mails here (when they relate to a particular topic or thread). I, myself, would love it if Gary would start posting here (and at other JFK forums on the Internet). He has helped me out many times in the past via his evidence-packed e-mails that he has chosen to send me (and almost always unsolicited e-mails, I might add). He writes to me (and many other people too) when he feels the record needs to be set straight on a particular sub-topic of the JFK case. Now, yes, I too would like it if he would post regularly (or even semi-regularly) on the forums. I'm sure we would be treated to even MORE useful information about so many JFK topics if he were to do that. But he has chosen not to post directly on the forums, and that's his decision. But regardless of the manner or the frequency by which Gary's useful information gets passed along, I for one am grateful to Gary Mack for sharing it with me. Not that it's really any of your business, but the answer is Yes to the second question. I do have Gary's express permission to post his e-mail messages on public forums like this one. The answer to your first question above, however, is No. Gary has never once "asked" me to post something on the forums for him. I do that on my own, usually because the info Gary imparts needs to get "out there" to the masses in order to set the record straight concerning so many of the myths that are still being spread by conspiracy theorists. KENNETH DREW SAID: I understood the reason for personal messenging [sic] on the Forum was that your comments could or would remain confidential and not be posted. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Gary never sends me his messages via the forum's Private Message service. He always uses e-mail. And many times I'll even show the precise date and time of the e-mails when I re-post his messages on the forums. I didn't format Gary's last message to me in that manner, but many times I have. KENNETH DREW SAID: I don't see in his 'quotes' where he asked you or gave you permission to share his personal messages. Did he? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Answered above. I suppose I could put a disclaimer such as "Posted here by permission of Gary Mack" on each of Gary's messages I have posted. But I don't feel that's really necessary.

Ken, if you think the back wound is at about the "5-6 inch point" on that ruler, you need to go back to school. (Or go look at a ruler.) It's not nearly at the "5-6 inch point". And it couldn't be more obvious when comparing the two pictures I posted above that the upper-back wound was physically ABOVE the wound in the throat of JFK. Even Dr. Humes (in his WC testimony) said the throat wound was physically LOWER than the back wound. And the Clark Panel measured out the distances and said the throat wound was 3.5 cm. LOWER anatomically than the back wound.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html (And, btw, that's not a "stick" in JFK's throat, Ken. It's a line somebody drew on that picture years ago. (I think I downloaded that particular image from the old JFK Lancer forum. I wasn't the one who drew in that line.) Here's a bigger version of that turned-sideways autopsy photo (sans the added drawn-in line)....

He did say it for himself. It's the stuff I posted right after the words "GARY MACK SAID:". Gary has been a member of this forum since July 10, 2006. (Which, ironically enough, is almost--to the very day--when I first joined this forum. I lasted 4 days here in July 2006 before Mr. Simkin decided he had had enough of my silly LNer ravings and tossed me out the door.) Gary Mack's EF Profile: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=4967 I don't see why. His information is either useful and accurate and valuable or it isn't -- whether he says it to me via an e-mail or whether he posts it himself in a post at this forum. It's the same information either way. And I happen to think Gary is loaded with good and useful info about the JFK case. I doubt there's another person alive who has so much overall knowledge about this case. And I, for one, appreciate it when he takes the time to write to me by e-mail with all kinds of informative details. That's not very nice, Ken. You're accusing me (by the implication in your question above) of deliberately misquoting someone (or misrepresenting myself by pretending to be Gary Mack). That's a despicable allegation, IMO. FYI, I have never deliberately misquoted anyone. I am always very very careful when I quote another person. I never want anyone reading my posts to be confused as to who is saying what. And I don't appreciate the implied dishonesty you just accused me of. Because I would never even consider passing off my own thoughts as someone else's (or vice versa). And I really don't understand WHY you would think I would ever engage in such a silly tactic. Care to explain why you said what you just said, Ken? And you, Kenneth Drew, clearly do not know what the hell you are talking about. ~Mark VII~ BTW / FYI..... Here's a really good interview with Gary Mack (from 2003):

Darn! Healy must not like me anymore! He didn't call me "hon" today. (I'm sad.)