David Von Pein

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.)

RELATED LINK.... POSITIONING THE GUNMAN IN THE SNIPER'S NEST: jfk-assassination-arguments-part-956.html

No. Now, explain to me how that makes a lick of difference when trying to prove whether Oswald was guilty or not?

When have I ever suggested the shirt and jacket are lying? But it's the hole in Kennedy's BACK that counts the most. Why would anyone think the CLOTHING trumps this picture?.... (Cue Cliff Varnell's entrance....stage right.) And how anyone could conclude that the throat wound was located HIGHER than the back wound after comparing these two pictures below is a really big (HSCA) mystery that I have yet to solve.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-back-wound-location.html

So sorry that the facts upset you, Bob. Grow a thicker skin.

GARY MACK SAID: Hi Dave, I honestly don't know how you have the patience with some of these guys. Some recent CT posts on these pages have serious evidence and logic problems. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: You can say that again, Gary. It borders on the unbelievable (and the bizarre). GARY MACK SAID: The Texas Portal pics ARE the original DPD negatives and pictures and they show the same things that appear in the early Tom Alyea/WFAA films. All other pictures were shot after 3:30 that afternoon - including those by Jack Beers - AFTER some boxes were moved. The images showing a box on the window ledge show the scene AS FIRST FOUND. Many people have squatted at the SN window in the decades before the Museum had to close access to the area, but there was certainly room for a shooter. In fact, according to a home movie I filmed in 1988, I had to stand up a little for the early shot (Jack White and Robert Groden were there too, and it'd be great to include the film in a TV doc someday). As a result, the Howlett/SS frame that folks are using shows a later shot because of the gun angle down the street and the lack of an elevation adjustment for it. The SS film, as you know, was made long before investigators had full knowledge of how the assassination happened, so Howlett's feet and shoulder positions cannot be used for accuracy conclusions AT THAT MOMENT. Gary DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thanks for your input, Gary (as always).

Bob, Norman heard the shots from over his head. Why are you implying Norman did NOT hear the shots? (Or is it the NUMBER of shots you're talking about?)

I wish you would share this evidence with us, Dave. Unless, of course, you don't really have any? And the cycle of madness continues. Round and round till infinity. No amount of evidence satisfies CTers. And it never will. Why do you suppose that is, Bob? I know, I know. I'm supposed to just believe all three shells are fake....and the C2766 rifle is a plant and so is CE399....and the two front-seat bullet fragments are phony....and all 4 witnesses who saw a rifle in the 6th-floor window were wrong (or l-i-a-r-s)....and Harold Norman didn't know what he was talking about when he said he heard three shells hitting the floor AS THE ASSASSINATION WAS HAPPENING. (I always get a chuckle out of that one --- Real-Time, As-It's-Happening Shell Planting In The Sniper's Nest! I love it. Either that, or Norman's just a blatant l-i-a-r, which is apparently what many CTers believe he was.)

Yeah, by box office standards, I guess it was a bomb. Sort of like the JFK book I helped Mel Ayton write. A very good book, but a complete bomb as far as sales go (just as I predicted). Sales could hardly be any worse, in fact. But I'm proud of that book nonetheless, because in abbreviated form it lays out the actual facts of John F. Kennedy's murder, without all the conspiracy-flavored nonsense that permeates this case and forums like this one---with this thread being a prime example of the "nonsense". I mean, really, no shooter firing from the Sniper's Nest? Can a theory possibly get any nuttier than that one? Get real.

Yeah, Ken. You should be quite familiar with that line of thinking--being a JFK conspiracy buff and all.

It got watered down to a 90-minute feature film -- "Parkland". (Which you probably already knew.) "Parkland" is a pretty good film, too. (But I would have loved the 10-hour mini-series better, of course.) jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/08/parkland-2013-movie.html classic--movies.blogspot.com/2013/11/parkland.html Note -- I don't really consider "Parkland" to be a "classic" movie, but since my movie website is called "Classic Movies", and I wanted to include "Parkland" on my movie site---well...what's a shill to do?