David Von Pein

I agree with Gerry Down. The answer to your above question is most certainly Yes. Let's have a look at Commission Exhibit No. 569.... ------------------------------------- Also See: https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html

Here's a review of Bart Kamp's new 2023 book "Prayer Man: More Than A Fuzzy Picture". This well-written review, which contains opinions that I agree with 100%, was posted at Amazon by an individual using only the initials "LBP" [who, I later learned, is former EF Forum member Lance Payette]..... Review Title: "Well-meaning and worthwhile presentation of patent nonsense" Quote On: "Bart Kamp is a serious and well-meaning JFK assassination researcher who is a fixture at the Reopen the Kennedy Case forum, where the overarching theme is that LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS COMPLETELY INNOCENT!!! This book thus reflects that perspective. More to the point, one of the obsessions there is Prayer Man, an exceedingly fuzzy photo of someone on the Texas School Book Depository steps who might well be a woman but WAS IN FACT LEE HARVEY OSWALD!!! There is an initial mental hurdle you must overcome to find this book fascinating and worthwhile. It must make sense to you that Oswald, the designated patsy whose rifle would be found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was nevertheless allowed by the bumbling conspirators to be standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination. A secondary mental hurdle is accepting that it "just so happens" that Oswald was captured in a single fuzzy photo that could well be your Aunt Tillie but not in pristinely clear photos that were or well could have been taken in Dealey Plaza on that fateful day. A third mental hurdle, I suppose, is that Oswald never said he was standing on the steps - as I probably would've done if I'd been in his shoes and had such an ironclad alibi- and precisely no one, including the TSBD employees who actually were standing on the steps, ever said they saw him. I confess, I am of such puny and limited imagination that I am incapable of clearing these hurdles and entering into the wild and wacky world of Prayer Man enthusiasts. I can conceive of no possible conspiracy scenario this side of "Reptilian aliens did it!!!" that would have allowed Oswald to be standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination. Nope, sorry, I regard Prayer Man as utter and self-evident nonsense. That being said, I emphasize again that Mr. Kamp is a serious assassination enthusiast whose Prayer Man website is a veritable goldmine of documents and information even if you regard Prayer Man as nonsense. Ditto for this book. It is chock-full of worthwhile information and links regardless of your perspective on Prayer Man. I give it 4 stars for sheer effort. I am constantly agog at some of the wild and wacky notions that seemingly sane and intelligent conspiracy enthusiasts manage to compartmentalize in their otherwise sane and intelligent minds, and this book also serves as a good illustration of why I am constantly agog." -- "LBP"; August 4, 2023 Link To This Review At Amazon.com ------------------------------ Also See: http:// DVP's JFK Archives / "Prayer Man" (And Other Assorted Topics)

Excerpts from a forum discussion from several years ago, including an interesting "131 pounds" coincidence regarding both Lee Harvey Oswald and Donald Wayne House.... THOMAS GRAVES SAID: So, when do you think Oswald was measured as being 5' 9 1/2" tall and weighing 131 pounds by the Dallas Police Department? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I really don't know. I'm puzzled by those figures too (69.5 inches and 131 lbs. exactly). I was looking through the Warren Commission exhibits relating to the cards that Oswald had on him when he was arrested, and I was thinking that one of those cards might have had that height and weight information on them. But I didn't find any such document or card. But I'm thinking there might be one. But I suppose it's also possible the DPD put Oswald on a scale and also measured his height as part of the routine procedure when booking a suspect who has been arrested. (Is it routine to "weigh in" the suspects after they're arrested? I haven't the foggiest idea. But maybe they did. That info could be in the WC testimony of some DPD personnel, I suppose.) [2021 EDIT: I just came across this 11/23/63 FBI report concerning the details of Donald Wayne House, who was picked up by the police as a suspect in President Kennedy's assassination shortly after the shooting. And in that FBI report, it gives the weight of House as precisely 131 pounds, which is an interesting coincidence, isn't it? Because that's the exact same weight figure attached to Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprint card being discussed [here]. Did somebody goof at Dallas P.D. and mix up the two JFK Assassination suspects? Food for thought anyway.] But the whole topic about Marrion Baker seeing somebody OTHER than the real Lee Oswald on the 2nd floor is simply CTer desperation in full-fledged panic mode. Nothing more than that. As I proved earlier, it was certainly possible for a person to stare right at Lee Harvey Oswald and guess his AGE and WEIGHT incorrectly. And Marrion L. Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit is the PROOF that that did happen. And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds....perfectly matching Baker's inaccurate guesses with respect to the real Lee Harvey Oswald. And Mr. Oswald just happened to be a man whose fingerprints (and bullet shells) littered the exact same place where Brennan saw his "30-year-old, 165- to 175-pound" assassin in the window firing a rifle. How 'bout that for coincidence?

The two-page FBI report relating to Donald Wayne House (click to enlarge):

To see video of Don House in custody at the Fort Worth police station, see the video below (at the 6:25:33 mark):

The title of this thread is indeed pathetic and ridiculous. It's almost as ridiculous as believing that Oswald was innocent of killing JFK and J.D. Tippit. (Almost.)

No sensible person could possibly truly believe the stories told by all of the various people who have come forward over the years to say they saw bullets all over the place. It's absurd. I don't think even very many CTers believe all of the "I Saw A Bullet" stories.

Even if the "6.5 mm. object" on the X-ray is, indeed, a bullet fragment, that still wouldn't make the total weight of the head-shot bullet greater than 160 grains. No way. No how.

You can't possibly be serious. You really believe that these two fragments taken from JFK's head (CE843), which weighed 1.8 grains, plus the fragments seen in this X-ray plus these three small fragments recovered from under Nellie Connally's seat in the limo (which were said by Robert Frazier to weigh a total of 2.3 grains) plus the 65.6 grains of total weight that exists in the two large front-seat bullet fragments (21.0 grains for one of the fragments and 44.6 grains for the other, per Robert Frazier's Warren Commission testimony)....you want to believe that all of those fragments, when added together, weighed more than approximately 160 grains (which is the average weight of a Carcano bullet)? Let's add them up..... 1.8 + 2.3 + 65.6 = 69.7 grains. Weight of Oswald's unfired bullet = Approx. 160 grains (but some people have said it's as high as 161). Unaccounted for weight = 90.3 grains (which would include the fragments left in JFK's skull, which were never weighed, of course). But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that those bullet fragments that were left in JFK's head weighed a total of 90 grains (which is, of course, a ridiculously high weight estimate for such tiny little fragments), that would still leave 0.3 grains unaccounted for (or 1.3 grains if you want to go with a pre-fired bullet weight of 161 instead of 160). I guess perhaps you want to theorize that the one "Paul Landis" bullet fragment (which I have acknowledged) was a really, really big one, is that it? We'll never know the weight of any Landis Fragment, of course, since the person that Landis said he gave that fragment to apparently did a disappearing act and never placed the fragment into evidence. But you can always guess as to the weight. But you'd better guess pretty high, because that's the only way you're ever going to get the total weight of the head-shot bullet to exceed 160 grains. As I said before --- you can't be serious. (Can you?)

No, it doesn't. Not even close. A single "fragment" being found by Paul Landis in the back of the limousine doesn't do the Lone Gunman scenario a bit of harm. As I said before, over HALF of the head-shot bullet was never recovered at all. So why would it be surprising to have some small fragments from the head shot left in the limo where President Kennedy was located? It's certainly not a matter of there being too many head-shot fragments seen and/or recovered (despite what Michael Griffith said in a prior post), because not even close to the entire head-shot bullet was ever seen or recovered. The best the CTers can possibly do regarding this matter of "fragments" being found in the BACK SEAT of the limo is to gripe about the fact that whoever did see and/or pick up any such small head-shot fragments didn't bother to place those fragments into the official record of the JFK case (for some unknown reason).

Correct. That is indeed Paul Landis' new 2023 story. (Really believable, huh?)

VINCE PALAMARA SAID: David, what do you think Landis' motive is? To sell books? My enthusiasm over his book is in the toilet and it isn't even released yet! What a difference a few days makes. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Vince, I really haven't the slightest idea what Landis' motive might be. Mr. Landis certainly gives the appearance of being a very forthright and truthful person. And I certainly don't relish the notion of calling him an outright teller of deliberate falsehoods. But the fact remains: He changed his story significantly over these last 40 years. I don't think there can be any question about that fact after you take a look at the two newspaper clippings I have posted. Perhaps his advanced age has taken its toll on his memory and his ability to be able to recall things clearly and correctly. But when we've got TWO different interviews from the 1980s (when Mr. Landis was a much younger man) which are verifying BOTH of the key elements of his "bullet" story --- i.e., it was a bullet "fragment" he saw/handled and "gave to somebody" --- then it seems pretty clear what the truth really is when it comes to Mr. Landis' 11/22/63 involvement with any type of "bullets" or "fragments" in the limo. Mr. Landis, IMO, needs to be confronted with BOTH of the newspaper articles in question at the same time, which each say the very same thing concerning the matter of the "bullet fragment". I'd be interested to know if Landis thinks he was misquoted in both of those articles, five years apart. I suppose that Paul Landis could, if he wanted to, now start saying that he did indeed retrieve a bullet "fragment" from the limo and "gave it to somebody", but he ALSO saw and picked up a "whole bullet" on the back seat and took it into the hospital. And the reason he never told a single soul about the "whole bullet" ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION was because.....well.....uh.....um.....[fill in your own choice of reasons here, because I can't think of a single good one myself]. But I think that even that opportunity may have passed Mr. Landis by, because I read a few days back that Landis has, indeed, claimed he was "misquoted" in one of the earlier newspaper articles. So he now needs to have BOTH the 1983 and the 1988 articles shoved before his eyes at the same time while a live microphone awaits his response.

Allow me to re-post something I said five days ago..... [Quote On:] "FWIW.... Here's what I think happened.... Paul Landis really did see and pick up a bullet fragment (not a whole bullet) off of the back seat of the Presidential limousine at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963. He then might very well have given that fragment to someone else nearby, with that person never being identified. And, it would seem, that particular bullet fragment which Mr. Landis handled never came to light as evidence either. But we must keep in mind that a lot of tiny fragments from the fatal head shot that were probably scattered all over the car and in Dealey Plaza were never introduced as official evidence either. After all, more than half of the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the head was never found or recovered at all. But now, in 2023, for some unknown reason, that bullet fragment (which he gave to someone else at Parkland on 11/22/63) has now been embellished by Mr. Landis and has morphed into a whole bullet (the CE399 "stretcher bullet" or so-called "magic bullet"), with Landis embellishing things further by also now saying he took that whole bullet into the hospital himself and placed it on JFK's stretcher in the emergency room. So, in my opinion, Mr. Landis' current story probably does contain a layer of truth in it, which is very common among witnesses who have, shall we say, enhanced or added things to their assassination stories over the years (with Jean Hill, Roger Craig, and Buell Wesley Frazier coming to mind as three such examples). I think Paul Landis probably did see (and perhaps also pick up) a small bullet fragment in the limousine. That's the "layer of truth" that exists in his account. And the two newspaper articles from the 1980s cited HERE tend to confirm that "layer of truth". But the remainder of Landis' current 2023 story just simply cannot be believed, in my opinion." -- DVP; September 13, 2023

In some of Mr. Landis' recent spate of interviews, he has definitely implied that it's his opinion that the whole bullet he allegedly found in the limo was, indeed, Bullet CE399. He says as much in the interview below from four days ago (Sept. 14th). In this interview, at the 4:50 mark, Landis says that the whole bullet found by Darrell Tomlinson is "my bullet; that's the bullet I found". So, based on those remarks, Mr. Landis certainly seems to be of the opinion that the whole bullet he (allegedly) found was CE399.

But it's really CNN host Jake Tapper who identifies it (incorrectly) as an "exam table". Landis just seems to follow Tapper's incorrect lead, for some reason. * * It's incorrect because we know that JFK was never put on any "exam table" in Trauma Room One, a fact confirmed by various Parkland witnesses, including Dr. Robert McClelland, as I discuss at another forum here. In various other interviews, Landis unquestionably says he put the bullet on JFK's stretcher, right next to Kennedy's feet.

Here's a newspaper clipping that appeared in the Dallas Morning News on November 15, 1963, exactly one week before the assassination: -------------------------------------------- Related Newspaper Articles: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Newspaper Articles About JFK's Texas Trip (Sept.-Nov. 1963)

Did you mean for the above sentence to be in red (as "speculative"), Sandy? Because if not, then you've got it wrong, because Landis is definitely NOT saying he found the whole bullet on the back seat itself (i.e., where a passenger actually sits). He's claiming the whole bullet he found was up on TOP of the back seat "where the cushioning meets the trunk of the car" (direct quote from Landis in his recent NBC interview, below).

You mean you've never even read the autopsy report (which was written BY HUMES himself)? Geez.

But then there's also the excerpt supplied by Vince Palamara above from the 2010 book that Landis was a part of ("The Kennedy Detail"), in which Landis seems to be confirming the part about finding only a FRAGMENT, with that fragment being located "in the back where the top would be secured". So there are TWO things there (in the 2010 book) that perfectly match what Landis was saying in 1983 -- "fragment" and the "top" of the back seat (vs. just the "back seat"). But now, in 2023, that "fragment" found on the TOP of the back seat has been changed by Mr. Landis into a WHOLE BULLET that he found on the TOP of the back seat. So the location of the found bullet item has remained the same in Landis' accounts from 1983 to 2023, but the size of that item has grown quite a bit indeed.

BTW / FWIW.... Here's another 1983 newspaper (pictured below) featuring the same article about Paul Landis that I've already linked to previously, except that in this 11/22/83 paper from Greenfield, Ohio, the author of the article is also shown ("Tim Curran, Associated Press Writer"). Click to enlarge:

I suppose that Paul Landis could, if he wanted to, now start saying that he did indeed retrieve a bullet "fragment" from the limo and "gave it to somebody", but he ALSO saw and picked up a "whole bullet" on the back seat and took it into the hospital. And the reason he never told a single soul about the "whole bullet" ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION was because.....well.....uh.....um.....[fill in your own choice of reasons here, because I can't think of a single good one myself]. But I think that even that opportunity may have passed Mr. Landis by, because I read a few days back that Landis has, indeed, claimed he was "misquoted" in one of the earlier newspaper articles. So he now needs to have BOTH the '83 and the '88 articles shoved before his eyes at the same time while a live microphone awaits his response.

I really haven't the slightest idea, Vince. Mr. Landis certainly gives the appearance of being a very forthright and truthful person. And I certainly don't relish the notion of calling him an outright teller of deliberate falsehoods. But the fact remains: He changed his story significantly over these last 40 years. I don't think there can be any question about that fact after you take a look at the two newspaper clippings I again provided above in my last post. Perhaps his advanced age has taken its toll on his memory and his ability to be able to recall things clearly and correctly. But when we've got TWO different interviews from the 1980s (when Mr. Landis was a much younger man) which are verifying BOTH of the key elements of his "bullet" story --- i.e., it was a bullet "fragment" he saw/handled and "gave to somebody" --- then it seems pretty clear what the truth really is when it comes to Mr. Landis' 11/22/63 involvement with any type of "bullets" or "fragments" in the limo. Mr. Landis, IMO, needs to be confronted with BOTH of the above newspaper articles at the same time, which each say the very same thing concerning the matter of the "bullet fragment". I'd be interested to know if Landis thinks he was misquoted in both of those articles, five years apart.