David Von Pein

Maybe you should try reading the testimony of these police officers--all of whom testified to seeing the bag in the SN before it was picked up off the floor.... Bob Studebaker J.C. Day Marvin Johnson L.D. Montgomery All liars, Ken? You believe in all the myths, don't you Ken? Is there ANY crackpot conspiracy theory you don't embrace? Any at all? Try reading the last paragraph of CE3131, Ken.... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0423a.htm More lies, Ken? (The part about only a single PALMprint being unidentified, I mean.) BTW, Kenneth, thanks for the free advertisement via your new signature. It's an odd choice for a sig, though. Normally people have no desire to make themselves look bad. But I guess you're a different breed. ~shrug~

FIVE Oswald prints in the "Nest" (total). And among those five, I'm including the two LHO prints on the paper bag too, because that bag was in the "Nest" as well (despite the fact no picture of it exists in the SN itself). All planted, Ken?

So what? You actually think that I am going to think you have "debunked" anything connected with the SBT? You must be kidding, Pat. You've debunked NOTHING. Least of all the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory. You and I both have a lot of written material on our respective websites. And we're both in the same boat (so to speak). I.E., I will never convince you that ANYTHING relating to the SBT is true. And, conversely, and knowing what I know about the SBT, you are never going to be able to convince me that the SBT is false or that the WC was a pack of liars with respect to the SBT. That's the way it is. And that's the way it likely always will be. Pat, Here is the thing that makes your anti-CE903 rant unworthy of consideration (and you know this is true, but you seem to forget it every time I bring it up)... CE903 represents the AVERAGE ANGLE between Z210 and Z225. So THAT'S why the chalk mark doesn't quite "line up" perfectly. Yes, I do have an article entitled "The SBT Perfection Of CE903". But I've added an addendum near the bottom of that article to talk about that "average trajectory angle" thing. But, in general terms of proving the workability and doability of the SBT, I do still think that CE903 does equal "SBT Perfection". Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has. And they never will (even if they try). And that's mainly because the SBT is so obviously true. And it's a heck of a lot more difficult to try and re-create a fantasy than it is to try and re-create something that actually happened. And that's why the Warren Commission was able to get so close to perfection when re-creating the Single-Bullet Theory in that Dallas garage on May 24, 1964. Because they were re-creating something that the sum total of the evidence indicates actually happened on Elm Street on November 22, 1963.

You didn't read my article about the bones very well, did you Ken?..... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-914.html ------------ Excerpts.... TONY FRATINI SAID: BRW [bonnie Ray Williams] was snacking on his chicken lunch and drinking a soda pop within the SN [sniper's Nest]. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Dead wrong. Why are you making this stuff up about Bonnie Ray? TONY FRATINI SAID: How do you think the assassin got BRW to "vacate" the SN? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: No need for it, because BRW was never INSIDE the SN at any time on 11/22/63. And there's no testimony to that effect from BR Williams at all. So why did you say it? COLIN CROW SAID: The consolidated evidence indicates BRW lied and spent time before vacating the SN leaving his chicken sandwich unfinished. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Beautiful. One more "xxxx" to add to a CTer's list. What a surprise. Everybody's a xxxx except Lee Harvey. COLIN CROW SAID: Who moved the chicken twice lunch, David? If BRW is truthful it goes from the two wheeler to the SN and back to the two wheeler. BRW did not vacate his position until just a few minutes before the shots. Why not take his uneaten chicken with him? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I doubt there was ever any chicken bones right AT or IN the Sniper's Nest. Or on the SN boxes. The chicken bones and lunch sack and Dr. Pepper bottle were further WEST, where Bonnie Ray Williams said he ate lunch. I think Luke Mooney was incorrect about the precise location where the bones were found. There's also confusion over the FIFTH or SIXTH floor for the chicken remnants, as Tom Alyea and Gerald Hill discuss in this 1993 video.... [Can't Embed a Blogger Video. Sorry.] TONY FRATINI SAID: Here we go - now DVP is moving the chicken lunch sack and the chicken bones! We know that [Gerald] Hill stuck his head out of the correct floor with the lunch sack/piece of chicken in his hand. It was Hill who initially moved the evidence from the boxes behind the SN. [Quoting Jim Ewell's words as they appear in Larry Sneed's book] "No More Silence".... "Jerry Hill worked his way up to the sixth floor, leaned out an open window, and he had what was thought to be Oswald’s little fried chicken lunch. It was in a little pop box. Jerry was holding that box and holding up one of the chicken bones exclaiming to everybody that listened to him down on the street that the fried chicken was what he had been eating. About that time there was a commotion around one of the squad cars, and we could hear a radio saying that an officer had been shot in Oak Cliff." DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I'm not "moving" the chicken bones to the fifth floor. Tom Alyea does that in that 1993 video. He's certain there were bones on the fifth floor. And maybe there were. I'm not sure. But Bonnie Ray certainly never said he left any bones on any boxes.... Mr. BALL. Where did you put the bones? Mr. WILLIAMS. I don't remember exactly, but I think I put some of them back in the sack. Just as I was ready to go I threw the sack down. Mr. BALL. What did you do with the sack? Mr. WILLIAMS. I think I just dropped it there. Mr. BALL. Anywhere near the two-wheeler? Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it was. Also.... From Vince Bugliosi's book....

I can sure agree with you on that, David. The "YouTube Comment" world is almost like a completely different universe. People say things there that I doubt they'd say to their worst enemy on any given day--ever. But for some crazy reason, I guess when people make comments on YouTube, they decide that all rules for decorum and decency have to be thrown out the window. It's really a remarkale phenomenon at times. And I'm in a position to notice it more than other people might, since I allow comments without moderation on my JFK channel. But if I see certain words in any comments, I reach for the delete button asap. The CTers seem to like to gather at YouTube---for JFK stuff and my 9/11 videos too. The 9/11 gutter talk is even worse than the JFK talk. (Hard as that might be to believe.) But even with all the filth and "Von Pein is a shill and CIA agent" crap I see every day at YouTube, I should also point out that there are some very nice and non-offensive comments made quite often too. But the good ones are far outdistanced by the trash talkers.

And this part of your above comment is indicative of someone who IS "acting like an adult" and who ISN'T "belittling" someone else, is it? .... "You're not nearly as smart as many of the others in here." I think Pot just bumped into Kettle. (Again.)

I couldn't disagree more strongly, Glenn. (As usual.) Let's again have a look at my list of the "Out Of The Ordinary" things done by Lee Oswald on Nov. 21 and 22 (and it's beyond belief how anyone can say #9 is "weak", given the various types of proof that indicate Oswald was guilty of that murder).... 1.) The unusual Thursday trip to Irving. 2.) The "paper bag" and the provable lies associated with that bag that LHO told. ("Curtain rods" anyone?) 3.) Not carrying any lunch at all with him to work on Nov. 22nd. 4.) Leaving work at 12:33 PM (just three minutes after the assassination). 5.) Not waiting for his usual bus at the corner of Elm & Houston after departing the TSBD at 12:33 on 11/22. 6.) Being in such a hurry after getting on McWatters' bus that he felt he just had to get off the bus. 7.) Taking a cab to his roominghouse. (And there's not another provable instance of the penny-pinching Oswald ever spending money to take a cab while within the borders of the USA.) 8.) Rushing in and out of his roominghouse on 11/22. 9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street. 10.) Waving a gun around in the theater while shouting out some things that can only be looked upon as things being uttered by a person with a guilty state of mind.

So much for being ignored by Glenn Nall. (But it was nice while it lasted.) BTW, who "reprimanded" you for calling me a "shill"? I don't think Stephen Roy counts. He's not an EF moderator/administrator, is he?

You're funny, Bob. As usual. All threads go off course. You know that. Everybody knows it. It's as inevitable as a CTer saying the SBT is bunk. You act like it's a brand-new thing. And I'm certainly not the only person who has gone "off topic" in EF threads. But you'll just give CTers a pass when they do it, right Bobby? And, of course, it would be physically impossible to just totally ignore ol' DVP, wouldn't it, Bob? And how is it that I am preventing people from talking about Connally's back wound again? Just start talking about it some more. Too simple for you? BTW, this is a thread that I myself started. Go start your own thread on "Connally's back wound" if you want.

Yes, Ray. Of course I believe Frazier on that "No Lunch Bag" point. And you believe the accused double-murderer instead, right?

Keep blaming everybody but Oswald, Ray. You'll surely arrive at the truth by doing that.

That's just ONE of the things (among many) that make up the SUM TOTAL that we need to evaluate, Mark. I'm not saying that the "No Lunch" thing, by ITSELF, "proves" Oswald is guilty. And you HAVE to know I'm not suggesting any such silly thing. But that "No Lunch" item is, IMO, just one additional piece of the puzzle in Oswald's "Out Of The Ordinary" day that I was talking about in my 10-point list. Because, by all accounts, Oswald usually DID take his lunch with him when he went to work at the TSBD. Plus, the "No Lunch" thing also shows he lied to the police after the shooting too. Because we know from Buell Frazier's testimony that Frazier asked Lee why he didn't have any lunch bag with him that morning (Nov. 22). And Oswald told Frazier that he was going to "buy" his lunch that day from the catering service man. But here's what Oswald told Captain Fritz: "He [Oswald] said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and this was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister." -- Via Will Fritz' written report (WR; Page 605) Now, who is the person most likely to be telling the truth about Oswald's lunch --- Buell Wesley Frazier or Lee Harvey Oswald?

Ray, You think something OTHER than a bullet caused the damage to JFK's shirt? What would that have been? The Parkland doctors? Why would they have cut his shirt in those locations?

You expect too much, Ray. But expecting way too much is always a good way to justify your remaining in the "SBT Is A Load Of Rubbish" camp.

Ray, The bullet didn't exit above the tie. We know that for a fact by the damage to JFK's shirt and tie. It exited right AT the level of the tie knot. Dr. Carrico was obviously off a little bit in his calculations of where the bullet hole was located. Also.... The Warren Commission's re-enactment shows the general path the bullet took on Nov. 22. It's not 100% exact. It CAN'T be, as I explained, because CE903 represents only an AVERAGE angle between the range of frames the WC used for the SBT (Z210-225). The WC couldn't pinpoint the exact Z-Film frame when the bullet struck. So they used an average angle between Z210 and 225. That isn't nearly good enouigh for you, though, is it, Ray? You require so much more. But what I'd like to see is some kind of CTer re-enactment to show the feasibility of TWO bullets going into JFK's body and striking no bones but not exiting the body, and then both bullets getting lost. It's no wonder we never see any kind of goofy re-creation like that. I'd be embarrassed to present such a bizarre theory at COPA or the NID conference too.

You're kidding, aren't you Ray? That yellow line you drew in there is STILL very close to meeting the SBT requirements. (Looks mighty close to me anyway.) But, as I said above, will ANY CTer ever accept anything that isn't 100% spot-on and to-the-millimeter when it comes to any of the attempts to replicate the Single-Bullet Theory? Do conspiracy believers ever allow for any "margin of error" when evaluating the work of the Warren Commission, or the 2004 Australian team of researchers, or Dale Myers, or Gary Mack, or ANYBODY else when discussing the details of the Single-Bullet Theory? If not, why not? We all know that it's not very likely that anyone could ever duplicate the SBT shot right down to the last little detail (and to the millimeter). Seems to me that CTers expect way too much of the people doing any SBT re-enactments. And with respect to the Warren Commission's 5/24/64 re-enactment of the SBT in Dallas, CTers are also expecting way too much exactitude and pinpoint accuracy from the WC too. As I explained in this article, a little bit of leeway MUST be granted the WC when evaluating the re-created bullet trajectory we see in CE903. Because that picture actually equates to the bullet hitting President Kennedy at Zapruder Film frame 217.5. And is there a person alive who REALLY thinks the bullet hit at precisely Z217.50? I doubt it. I certainly don't.

It makes little difference what WORD was used to describe the point of entry ("back" or "neck" or "base of the back of the neck"), because Commission Exhibit 903 proves that Arlen Specter and Company knew where to place that wound on a human body. And they placed it just where they should have placed it---in the UPPER BACK, just like it shows in the autopsy photo and in the autopsy report. The semantics are secondary next to what the Warren Commission DID when Lyndal Shaneyfelt took this photo in CE903. And the wound is NOT in the "neck". Period. So maybe it's time for CTers to let go of the 50-year myth labelled "The Warren Commission Lied About The Location Of The Back Wound". Because just one quick glance at Commission Exhibit No. 903 should make every conspiracy theorist who has ever embraced that myth turn six shades of crimson.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

Boy, Mark, what an incredibly dumb (and hilarious) statement you just uttered there. In reality, of course, it's the conspiracy theorists (for the most part) who refuse to accept "modern technology" when examining the JFK case. The latest example being Luke Haag's ballistics experiments. And before that, it was Dale Myers' detailed computer reconstruction of the shooting. Has there been a CTer on the planet who has ever fairly and objectively examined Mr. Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" work? I'm doubting it. And then there's the SBT test done by the Discovery Channel in Australia in 2004 ("Beyond The Magic Bullet"), utilizing high-tech surrogate models. CTers have never given that experiment anything close to a "fair shake". And even though a perfect re-creation of the SBT is never likely to be achieved, it seems as though ANYTHING less than complete "perfection" will be snubbed by the CT crowd, even though those CTers know full well that the Australian experiment, in large measure, DID replicate the general path of the SBT, with the test bullet sustaining fairly little damage. And the test bullet's nose in the Australian re-enactment was still intact and rounded after going through two mock-up torsos. And that is something almost all CTers have been saying is totally impossible if a 6.5mm MC bullet were to have gone through two bodies and broken multiple bones in one of those bodies. But the Australian test proved the CTers dead wrong in that regard. But that fact doesn't matter a whit to CTers like Cyril Wecht. They still act like the Australian test was never even performed. (Go figure.) But thanks for today's daily pot/kettle laugh from the CT Brigade, Mark. I enjoyed it. http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jfk-beyond-magic-bullet.html

Nothing more than another conspiracy myth. GERALD FORD AND THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY: The subject of Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford "moving" the location of President Kennedy's back wound has come up quite a bit in the wake of Mr. Ford's death on December 26, 2006; with, of course, the conspiracy theorists of the world highlighting how Ford supposedly "moved" the wound for some conspiratorial or "cover-up" purposes. But if CTers were to examine the WHOLE record of the JFK back wound (and the genesis of the Single-Bullet Theory), they'd realize that Ford's moving of the wound (on paper) actually tends to do the SBT more HARM than it does good! I hadn't really realized that fact until just recently....with this fact coming to the forefront via some JFK Forum postings written by Jean Davison (the author of the 1983 book "Oswald's Game"). Why does the "Ford Move" do the SBT more harm than good, you ask? Well, for starters, there's this photo of CE903 (showing Arlen Specter with a probe/rod being held up for the cameraman to photograph).... ....We can easily see that the metal rod does not indicate that JFK's back wound is in the "neck". It's definitely in the upper back; with an exit point JUST EXACTLY at the tie knot, perfectly matching the SBT's flight path. This CE903 evidence is something that I had seen many times before; but I hadn't really thought about its significance too much. Most CTers, in their usual "Everything Must Be Faked/Phony" style, scoff at CE903, claiming it proves the SBT is "impossible", for some reason....which is obviously a kooky notion, because it proves no such thing. In some recent postings at "The Education Forum", Jean Davison was highlighting the significance of CE903, and reminding everyone who would listen that the photo that is seen in CE903 actually does, indeed, visibly show the general path/trajectory of the SBT, just exactly how Specter (et al) purported it as happening. And the CE903 photo is also is general agreement (location-wise) with the autopsy photo showing John F. Kennedy's back wound.... To quote Jean herself: "Both Morningstar and Kurtz claim that the entry wound HAD to be raised to the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren Commission's single bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't supported, it's simply a claim. Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to raise the wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC illustration of the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903: Whether one agrees with it or not, that IS the WC's trajectory for the single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry in "the back of the neck". I respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue. My question is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision in order to support the SBT?" -- Jean Davison; December 31, 2006 ~~~~~~ "To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the back wound up to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT trajectory, not strengthen it. Again I'll refer you to CE 903. Although Specter didn't drill a hole in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done so, the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18 degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound under JFK's Adam's apple. Or take a look at this photo of JFK. Try drawing a line of c. 18 degrees backward from the knot in JFK's tie. Where does it come out? Upper back, right? The claim that Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not true. If I haven't made my point by now, I give up." -- Jean Davison; January 2, 2007 ~~~~~~ Is it any wonder why I've always loved the woman named "Jean" who wrote the above common-sense-filled remarks regarding Gerald Ford and the Single-Bullet Theory? Just excellent! David Von Pein January 6, 2007 ============================= 2014 ADDENDUM: JEAN DAVISON SAID: The downward trajectory of the bullet exiting below Kennedy's Adam's apple was approximately 18 degrees according to surveyors' calculations for the HSCA and WC. Going backward from the exit (at the knot in his tie), 18 degrees puts the entry somewhere in his upper back. Moving the entry up to the neck would make the bullet's angle too steep to have hit Connally where it did, imo. I think this can be seen in almost any side view of JFK: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hunt/croft-love.jpg http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/croft.jpg The angle from nape of his neck to the tie knot looks closer to 45 degrees, imo. Where could that shot have come from, a helicopter? Ford didn't need to move the back wound up. And in fact he didn't, since the phrase he revised put the wound on "his back at a point slightly above the shoulder." [Jean's emphasis.] It can't be above the shoulder and still be in the back. (Except maybe in conspiracyland where apparently anything is possible.) DAVID VON PEIN SAID: And just one quick look at CE903 tells us that the WC did not "move" the wound up into Kennedy's "neck". Specter's pointer in CE903 places the wound just where the autopsy photo has it--in the upper back--which works perfectly for the SBT bullet, moving downward at an angle of 17.72 degrees, to exit right at the tie knot.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html JEAN DAVISON SAID: I've said repeatedly that the wound was in the upper back, below the shoulders. It doesn't matter where the Rydberg drawing put it, or where Ford put it, or where the hole in the jacket was. Kennedy wasn't wounded in any of those places. The entry wound is where it's shown in the autopsy photos, in his UPPER BACK. PAT SPEER SAID: So WHY did members of the Warren Commission's staff claim the wound was in the neck, after viewing photos proving it to have been in the back? And WHY did the Johnson Justice Dept., after viewing the photos and knowing full well the wound was in the back, pressure the autopsy doctors into telling the media and the country they'd reviewed the autopsy photos and that this review had proved the wound was where it is shown in the Rydberg drawings, in the neck? It's one thing to suspect Oswald acted alone, but it's another thing entirely to pretend there was no deliberate deception regarding the location of the back wound. JEAN DAVISON SAID: I don't "pretend," Pat, and I resent that implication. I don't know what you're referring to that you're interpreting as "pressure," but that's your interpretation. I doubt that Ford, for one, knew the exact location of the back/neck wound. I think he recognized that the sentence as written couldn't possibly be right since there's nothing "in the back slightly above the shoulders." By definition, above the shoulders is "neck." Ford tried to correct it and made matters worse. One thing I feel certain of is that there was no rational motive for anyone to "raise" the back wound. Moving it to the neck doesn't support the SBT, no matter what suspicion may tell you. An entry in the neck would destroy the SBT trajectory. This reminds me of the old claim that Z frames 314 and 315 were reversed in the WC exhibits deliberately. "They" were trying to make the backward head movement disappear, some writers said. Except that the reversal did no such thing, and it was immediately obvious that the two frames were simply out of order. Imo, it often seems that CTs don't allow for human error or Murphy's law or Hanlon's razor ("Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity [or incompetence].") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor PAT SPEER SAID: When you study the history of the back wound, Jean, it's 100% clear to anyone not named Pollyanna that a number of people, from Humes and Boswell to Specter and Lattimer, have lied about the back wound location. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: What you call "lies", I would classify as merely semantics. And I truly believe that, too. Why? Because there was simply no reason for anyone to want to start telling a bunch of lies regarding the true location of John F. Kennedy's upper-back wound. And CE903, once again, proves my point here.... Exhibit 903, like it or not, does NOT show the wound of entry to be in the "neck" of JFK. It is positively in the UPPER BACK. And as such, any future references made by people such as Arlen Specter or Gerald Ford (or anyone else) to a wound in the "neck" are merely careless misstatements when attempting to describe the location of where the wound was. It's a semantics problem, in my opinion, and nothing more. We see it over and over again in the Warren Commission volumes and in the Warren Report itself---references to a wound in the "neck" of President Kennedy.... "During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was observed near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck..." -- WR; Page 87 "The position of President Kennedy's car when he was struck in the neck..." -- WR; Page 97 "A surveyor then placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of entry on the back of the President's neck..." -- WR; Page 106 And it's fairly obvious that those references to "neck" in the Warren Report that I just cited above are references that were put on paper by the Commission AFTER the assassination reconstruction was performed in a Dallas garage on May 24, 1964, that resulted in Lyndal Shaneyfelt taking the picture seen in Commission Exhibit 903. And since that photograph in CE903 does not indicate that there was a bullet wound of entrance in the "neck" of John Kennedy, where does that really leave any of the conspiracy theorists who want to still insist that the Warren Commission (and other people) "lied" about the true location of JFK's upper-back wound? Do those conspiracists think Arlen Specter, et al, had a strong desire to look like idiots when they continued to refer to the "back" wound as a "neck" wound in various places within the WCR, even though Specter knows that CE903 is ALSO going to be part of the public record, which clearly shows the wound to be in the BACK of the JFK stand-in? In other words, why would Specter (et al) lie when Commission Exhibit 903 proves forever and for always that there was absolutely NO NEED to lie about this matter at all? It seems to me as if some of the people describing the location of that wound, including the person or persons who were responsible for writing the words we find on those three pages of the final Warren Commission Report that I quoted above, were in a bit of a quandary about how to precisely describe the part of the body where the bullet entered due to the fact that it entered at a place on JFK's body where the "neck" and the "back" are merging. So we sometimes got differing descriptions. But it's pretty clear that even though CE903 is providing solid VISUAL confirmation that the bullet entered in the upper BACK of JFK, the people in charge of writing up the 888-page Warren Report still, for the most part, favored the use of the word "neck" instead. (Go figure.) David Von Pein December 7, 2014 JEAN DAVISON SAID: Pat, In my opinion, Oswald was not only guilty, he was obviously guilty, but I wouldn't tell anyone, "One can only avoid that conclusion by refusing to look at the evidence." If you don't see it, you don't see it. I don't interpret the evidence the same way you do. When you end up with a large number of people "lying" for no apparent reason, that's a red flag, imo. I'm no Pollyanna, I'm a Doubting Thomas. Can you show me a SBT trajectory of c. 18 degrees that works when the wound is raised to the neck -- specifically, a trajectory from the SN [sniper's Nest] exiting at the tie knot and hitting Connally where it did? Without that, there's no motive for anyone to lie about the wound's location. As I recall, Boswell told a Baltimore newspaper that the wound was where the autopsy measurements placed it: c. 5 1/2 inches below the mastoid process. Isn't that in the upper back? I think a part of the confusion came from "semantics," as David suggests. The bullet entered the upper back but since the throat extends below the shoulders on the front of the body, the bullet also passed through and exited a part of the neck. It was a "back/neck wound," literally. IMO, the "Pollyanna" view of the assassination is thinking that Kennedy was killed by his political enemies. This gives his death significance and makes it understandable. It suggests an orderly universe where things happen for a reason. But if you're stuck with believing as I do that the assassination was a senseless random event with JFK and LHO arriving on Elm St. on the same day entirely by chance, that's a very bleak view. Pollyanna would curl up and die.

CLAVIGER SAID: JFK assassination witness Carolyn Walther describes seeing 2 different gunmen.... 1967 CBS-TV INTERVIEW WITH MRS. CAROLYN WALTHER JEAN DAVISON SAID: Other witnesses were looking at that window during the same time frame and saw only one man surrounded by brown boxes. A "man" in a brown jacket appears in the Dillard photo. ANTHONY MARSH SAID: Way to go. So your claim is the second man was brown boxes and his brown suit was merely brown boxes. And what was his shorter rifle? A broom handle? Do you stay up late at night dreaming up these bizarre excuses? BTW, did any of the manual laborers at the TSBD ever wear suits to work? Especially when laying new flooring? CLAVIGER SAID: Jean, Is there a colorized version of [that] photo? Is it really a person or a combination of dirty windows and imagination, as in the Rorschach Inkblot Test? OTOH, LHO did wear a brown shirt home after he escaped the TSBD that some witnesses may confuse with a jacket [such as Marrion Baker]. CHARLES WALLACE SAID: Jean, Are you finally admitting that you see a man in the window in the Dillard photo? This man matches up with Lillian Mooneyham's account that she saw a man there a moment or so after Dillard took his photo. In any event, this person that was seen in the window after the shots cannot be Oswald. He is on the second floor trying to buy a Coke, according to [Marrion] Baker and Roy Truly. JEAN DAVISON SAID: It's boxes, that's why I put "man" in quotes. In another interview, Walther said she saw NO boxes anywhere in the building. Instead she saw a "brown suit" from the shoulders to hips, no face, to the gunman's right. Check the Dillard photo again [pictured below]. (There's no colorized photo to my knowledge.) Walther's story doesn't wash because other witnesses like Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan saw ONE man in the window during this time, someone surrounded by brown boxes. She made an honest mistake, imo. WALT CAKEBREAD SAID: Jean Davison wrote: "Other witnesses were looking at that window". That's not correct, Jean. Carolyn Walther clearly says that she was looking at a window on either the "fourth or fifth floor". And since we have photographic proof that three young black men were behind the fifth floor window at the east end of the TSBD, then that leaves only the fourth floor where she saw the two men with a gun. We can be certain she wasn't referring to the sixth floor because she specificially said that the window where she saw the men was "about even with the top of that tree." JEAN DAVISON SAID: Many witnesses got the floor wrong. You know that, Walt. Walther said it was the corner window in the southeast corner [see document below]: Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2086 JOHN McADAMS SAID: So [Charles Wallace] you think that some conspirator was hanging around in the Sniper's Nest for 4 1/2 or 5 minutes after the shooting [per Lillian Mooneyham's statement to the FBI on January 8, 1964; see CE2098]? Just lolling around. Never occurred to him that he needed to get the hell out of there. JOHN FIORENTINO SAID: I don't know about "4 1/2 or 5 minutes after the shooting", but I do know this: According to the HSCA..... "There is an apparent rearranging of boxes within 2 minutes after the last shot was fired at President Kennedy." (6 HSCA 109). JOHN McADAMS SAID: It's difficult to reconcile without saying that the HSCA made a mistake. Back in the 1990s, Dale Myers did a 3-D model of the Sniper's Nest and found that there was in fact no inconsistency. I'm not aware of any online version of that recreation. If anybody knows, maybe they can chime in. I find the "moved boxes" business questionable simply because I can't see why anybody, Oswald or a conspirator, would fool around with the boxes. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: There was nobody in the window moving boxes around a few minutes after the last shot was fired at the President. It's a ridiculous theory to begin with. Why on Earth would anyone have felt any need to move boxes around right after the shooting? It's dumb. John Mytton has created a really nice gif clip which merges the Powell and Dillard pictures together, and the merged montage indicates that no boxes were moved at all. It's all a matter of perspective. Here's Mytton's montage gif: ANTHONY MARSH SAID: So tell us [Jean Davison] what type of boxes walk around holding a rifle. Was that the famous UPS monster movie? JEAN DAVISON SAID: Walther's testimony has to be evaluated in the context of the other evidence. Wouldn't you agree? If she is right and there were two men in a southeast corner window and no boxes, what do you make of the testimony of the other witnesses, like Edwards and Fischer: Mr. BELIN. What did you see? Mr. EDWARDS. .... one individual who was up there in the corner room of the sixth floor which was crowded in among boxes. Mr. BELIN. You say on the sixth floor? Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. [...] Mr. BELIN. Did you see any other people on the sixth floor? Mr. EDWARDS. No. [VI, 203-204] ~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. BELIN. Could you see any other objects in the window? Mr. FISCHER. There were boxes and cases stacked all the way from the bottom to the top and from the left to the right behind him. [VI, 194] ~~~~~~~~~~ Fischer, Edwards, Brennan, Euins saw one man and boxes in the SN [sniper's Nest] window. Photos show boxes where Walther said she saw a second man's brown jacket. They were all looking up there just before the motorcade arrived. They're all wrong and she's right? JEAN DAVISON ALSO SAID: She [Carolyn Walther] didn't say Brown Suit man was holding a rifle or walking around. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Yes she did, Jean. Walther told CBS News in 1967 that BOTH men she saw in the TSBD were holding guns. See the video below: 1967 CBS-TV INTERVIEW WITH MRS. CAROLYN WALTHER JEAN DAVISON SAID: I don't hear her saying that both men had guns, though it's hard to follow at times. She said the second man had on a "brown suit" and "all I could see" was half of his body from the shoulders to the hips. I think she could've easily misinterpreted the boxes in the Dillard photo. JOHN FIORENTINO SAID: David: You're mistaken about this. She never indicates BOTH men had a rifle. In fact, her statements are remarkably in tune with her FBI interview. I used to listen to depositions, etc. quite frequently during my law firm years. It's not easy sometimes when you're not asking the questions. In any event, listen again, then read her FBI interview. Jean, you are correct. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: You [Jean] may be right. Mrs. Walther might have been talking about seeing TWO men with ONE gun. But it is a bit muddled and unclear. And, of course, we know she didn't really see two men in that window--period. So she is simply mistaken on that point in the first place. ANTHONY MARSH SAID: But I still like [Jean's] idea that the brown suit was the brown boxes holding a rifle. Now, can you explain for me how the SECOND gun being shorter than the first gun equals only one gun? Maybe you think it was a take-apart gun. JEAN DAVISON SAID: That's not what she said. She said one of the men "was holding a short gun. It wasn't as long as a rifle." That's "A" not "THE" rifle -- which wouldn't imply a second gun. Josiah Thompson quotes another interview (1966) which makes it clearer. QUOTE: Mrs. Walther: ...The man that was holding the gun was partially leaning out, just slightly, and he had his forearms on the window and it was not a long rifle. This was a short gun. Not a pistol. I had never seen one like it. The other man was standing beside him, but I could only see a part of his face, and he was dressed in brown. Interviewer: And was he holding anything? Mrs. W: Not that I could see. UNQUOTE JEAN DAVISON LATER SAID [RE: THE ALLEGED MOVEMENT OF BOXES IN THE TSBD WINDOW]: I may be wrong, but I disagree with the HSCA about this (among other things). I found this old post by Dale Myers that gives his take on it. JOHN FIORENTINO SAID: David says............ "And, of course, we know she didn't really see two men in that window--period." I say.............. You "know" that, do you? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: If she's really referring to the SIXTH floor--yes. I do know that. Don't you? And if she's referring to the fourth floor, she's dead wrong too, because that window is closed: And if she's referring to the fifth floor, she's dead wrong, because I think we can all agree that neither Bonnie Ray Williams nor Harold Norman were holding any firearms when they were watching the motorcade. David Von Pein April 2013 September 2013 ================================= ADDENDUM #1: From Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History"..... "Another Dealey Plaza witness quoted often by conspiracy theorists is Carolyn Walther. She told the FBI on December 5, 1963 [it was actually December 4th], that from her vantage point on the east side of Houston near Elm, within a minute before the shooting she saw a man standing in the southeasternmost window of either the fourth or the fifth floor of the Book Depository Building. (She said she was "positive" the window wasn't as high as the sixth floor.) The man was leaning out the window holding a weapon that looked like a machine gun. He had blond or light brown hair. In the same window, to the left of this man, she saw a portion of another man in a brown suit coat. She could not see his head and she gave no description of him. Walther repeated her story to "the investigators" for a 1967 book and in 1978 to the Dallas Morning News. Apart from the fact that we know from photographs and testimony that the fourth-floor window was closed and the fifth-floor window occupied by identified Book Depository employees (James Jarman, Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman, one of whom, Norman, can be seen leaning out the window in the Robert Hughes film, and undoubtedly is the person whom Walther saw), there is another very serious problem with Walther's statement. She was watching the motorcade with her friend, Pearl Springer, who told the FBI that not only didn't she see any armed man standing in the window, but much more importantly, Walther, after the shooting, did not mention to her anything about seeing any man in the window holding a rifle, machine gun, or any other type of weapon. Apparently Walther never considered her observation important enough to waste a breath on. I understand." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 835-836 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" ================================= ADDENDUM #2: Excerpt from Page 20 of the book "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs. This excerpt includes a quote by Carolyn Walther taken from her November 1978 interview with Dallas reporter Earl Golz.... "They [the FBI] tried to make me think that what I saw were boxes. Now the boxes are much lighter colored. And this was definitely the shape of a person or part of a person. I never read their report. I talked to them and it seemed like they weren't very interested. They were going to set out to prove me a xxxx, and I had no intention of arguing with them and being harassed. I felt like I had told them all I knew. And I had relieved myself of the burden of it. And if they didn't want to believe it or had some reason not to, well, then, that was all right with me." -- Mrs. Carolyn Walther; 11/21/78 ================================= ADDENDUM #3: Excerpts from the book "The Girl On The Stairs" by Barry Ernest.... "[Carolyn Walther] was not interviewed by the Warren Commission. "I fully expected to be questioned by them," Mrs. Walther told me in a phone conversation [on March 27, 1968]. "I guess they weren't interested in what I had to say." [...] She told the FBI the man was "on either the fourth or fifth floor" and was "positive this window was not as high as the sixth floor." "But I now know it was the sixth floor," she added. Mrs. Walther explained to me she initially thought and thus told authorities that the man with the rifle was on the "fourth or fifth floor because I just wasn't sure which it was at the time." But she said she clearly remembers that this man was on the floor directly above where "two colored men were hanging out a window looking at the motorcade." [...] [Again quoting Walther:] "Next to the man with a rifle and in the same window was another man. I could only see him from about his waist up to his shoulders and never got a good look at his face. But there was definitely another man there." That second man was wearing "a brown suit coat." Could she have been looking at the brown cardboard boxes that were stacked in that window? "That's what the FBI accused me of doing," she answered. "But boxes don't move on their own, do they?" Point taken." -- Barry Ernest; Pages 83-84 of "The Girl On The Stairs: My Search For A Missing Witness To The Assassination Of John F. Kennedy" ================================= ADDENDUM #4: DAVID VON PEIN SAID: The best (and most hilarious) part of Mrs. Carolyn Walther's 12/4/63 FBI interview (CE2086) is this part.... "This man had the window open and was standing up leaning out the window with both his hands extended outside the window ledge. In his hands, this man was holding a rifle with the barrel pointed downward." Now, I do think it's true that assassin Lee Harvey Oswald did "advertise" (in a sense) the fact he had a rifle with him on the sixth floor about 15 minutes before the assassination when he was seen by witness Arnold Rowland on the WEST end of the sixth floor holding his rifle, which was (IMO) a very stupid thing for Oswald to do. But can you imagine any would-be assassin wanting to lean out of a window while holding a rifle in his hand? Talk about brazen. That takes the cake. Hence, I'm taking some of Mrs. Walther's statements with a large grain of salt. David Von Pein June 21, 2015

By all means, please do. You haven't said a single thing worthy of consideration anyway. And I've already archived enough of your statements about all the evidence being "irrelevant" that I certainly don't need any more of your preposterous comments for my files. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-959.html

And why don't you have 'total freedom'? Who or what constrains you from having the freedom to see the truth? DVP are you deliberately avoiding this question? Of course I'm deliberately avoiding that question, Ken. Because it's a silly (i.e., dumb) question. However, since you are a charter member of the popular "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity here on the Internet, you are, quite naturally, unable to tell that your question is inane and ridiculous.

Glenn / Ken, The evidence of Oswald's guilt is right there before your eyes. It's not my fault you can't (or won't) add up the pieces. You say you want the truth. I say "the truth" has been staring you in the face since 11/22/63. Unfortunately, you choose to look the other way. And I'd love to hear Ken (or any CTer) try to logically explain to a jury Oswald's actions (and his utterances) in the theater within the context of the "Oswald Never Shot Anybody On Nov. 22" framework. Would ANY of the jurors not be doubling over from laughter? I doubt it. Here is just a sample of the type of silliness a defense lawyer would have to present to a jury if Lee Oswald had lived long enough to stand trial for J.D. Tippit's murder.... The Hilarious Defense Of Lee Harvey Oswald

Glenn, You asked some questions. Then I asked you some questions in return. And this somehow equals "shill"-like behavior? My question about the TSBD witnesses is neither insulting nor embarrassing -- to anyone. And why you think it is is a mystery. What's truly embarrassing (for you), Glenn, is your complete dismissal of virtually all of the evidence because you can't classify it as "Direct Evidence". Your repeated claims that my points regarding LHO's odd behavior on 11/21 and 11/22 are ALL "irrelevant" is something you should have been embarrassed to write. In fact, given the OTHER evidence which all points in one way or another to Oswald (whether it be "direct" or "circumstantial" in nature), the ten items on my "Out Of The Ordinary Behavior" list are entirely relevant. Crucial, in fact. You even dismiss the Tippit murder on my 10-point list! A murder committed by Oswald is just brushed aside by Glenn Nall as if it's totally unimportant when talking about the events of 11/22/63.... DVP SAID: 9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street. GLENN NALL SAID: NOT proven, AND irrelevant [unquote.] Now THAT'S not only embarrassing for you, Glenn. It's just plain ridiculous.

Glenn, Each of those witnesses saw LHO inside the building (in different places within the building) throughout the day on 11/22. But the important point I was making is: NONE of those TSBD employees said they saw LHO at precisely 12:30. Do you disagree with that? Do you think Arnold or Shelley or Frazier or Lovelady (or some other TSBD worker of your choosing) provides Oswald with a "12:30" alibi?