David Von Pein

As can be easily seen in the autopsy photos, Dr. Humes was right (and the HSCA was wrong) regarding the height of the two JFK wounds (back & throat). There was no "11-degree upward" angle through JFK's body. The back wound was anatomically higher than the throat wound (just like Dr. Humes told the WC in '64). And these photos prove it....



"The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the

point of entrance posteriorly." -- Dr. James Humes; 1964

Continually referring to outdated and debunked government investigations and conclusions as if they are the tablets from Sinai...

You're funny, David. Only in the world of JFK CTers could someone consider the huge pile of evidence against Oswald as being "outdated and debunked". I wonder how the facts and the physical evidence suddenly become "outdated". And none of that evidence has been "debunked", despite the CTer efforts to capsize the LN ship.

Nothing has come along to supplant the conclusions reached by the Dallas Police on 11/22/63 and by the Warren Commission in 1964. Certainly nothing you CTers believe happened can replace the hard evidence put forth by the DPD and the WC. That's not even a close call. You don't have a single piece of physical evidence to back up your claim of conspiracy. Not one. And you never did. And you never will. Because no such evidence exists. Nor did it ever exist.

To show just how pathetic and miserable the case for conspiracy is at this forum, Ken Drew is running around trying to pretend that just maybe JFK was killed by a pistol shot--or a handgun of some type. Even with CE567/569 staring him in the face (assuming he even knows what those are). The case for "denying the evidence" doesn't get much stronger than that.

In short -- LNers possess all the physical evidence. CTers have Prayer Man, Umbrella Man, and their overactive imaginations.

That's the way it's always been and always will be. Because Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LNers don't even need the Warren Commission to prove Oswald's guilt. The DPD already did that on Day 1.

Did I say JFK wasn't shot? I said "there is no proof he was shot with a rifle." Well, can you, or anyone, prove that? No. I said there is no proof of what type of weapon was fired at him? Well, is there?

Yeah, right, Ken.

Kennedy must have been shot with a bow and arrow instead of a rifle --- even though there were bullet fragments from a RIFLE found right there in the car. And those were fragments from not just any ol' rifle. They were from the C2766 rifle. But that little fact means zilch to a conspiracy hobbyist and fantasist like you. Perhaps you think those bullet fragments were already there in the limousine BEFORE the car passed the Depository on November 22, eh?

Your posts are getting more ridiculous with each passing hour.

Time for a new hobby, Ken. Maybe croquet. Or bird watching. Because you're really lousy at this "JFK" thing.

And last, but not least, there is not any evidence of any shot ever having been fired from the sniper's nest.

Yeah, all those witnesses who saw a gun in the sixth-floor window (Brennan, Couch, Euins, Jackson, and Worrell) must have all been imagining it. They must have really seen a bow & arrow instead.

And those three spent bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest must have been figments of Luke Mooney's imagination when he found the Nest at 1:12 PM on Nov. 22. Right, Ken?

And Williams, Jarman, and Norman must have been dreaming when they heard the shots coming from over their heads. And Norman was also dreaming when he heard three shells hit the plywood floor directly above him. Must have been nails or screws instead, just as Gerry Spence laughably suggested to Harold Norman when he had Norman on the witness stand in 1986. Right, Kenny?

During his cross-examination of Harold Norman, Spence was actually suggesting to the jury that perhaps--just perhaps--the jury should consider the possibility that the metal objects Norman heard hitting the floor on 11/22/63---at the exact same time JFK was being shot with rifle bullets from the Depository---were not bullet shell casings at all....but were, instead, possibly screws or nails striking the floor. IOW, somebody just happened to be dropping some screws or nails on the floor directly above Norman at the same time somebody was ALSO shooting at JFK with a gun in the same location on the sixth floor.

If I had been on that jury in London in '86, I doubt I could have kept from busting a gut with laughter when Spence threw that one up for the jury's consideration. But, incredibly, Gerry threw it up there just the same.

Well, DVP, you need to wipe your Pigpen slop off your eyeballs...[snip]

Nice DiEugenio imitation.

Pretty soon you'll be saying "okay" after every sentence.

Time Out for a Fact Break!

Sorry to interrupt all of the fantasy talk going on, but.....

There was no hole in the windshield.

Very few people that I know have ever accepted that LHO was actually the one that killed JFK...

You're confusing Internet CT clowns (such as yourself; and it becomes a much easier task to label Kenneth Drew a "clown" after reading all of the stupid things he says in the quote below) with the average man on the street who has an opinion on the case. Maybe you should check out the 2003 ABC News poll.

Hardly anybody thinks "Lee shot John", eh? Think again....

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?":

ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%

ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%

OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%

NO OPINION ------------- 10%

http://PollingReport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle, there is no proof of what weapon was fired at him, there is not one piece of evidence linking any human to having fired at him and there is not one piece of evidence that any shots have ever been fired from the snipers nest. To sum it all up, your total is Zero.

Good gosh Almighty, you really do reside in Fantasy Land, don't you?

Why not just pretend JFK wasn't killed at all?

But, how do you know it 'did not happen'[?]

I know it didn't happen because the rifle you inaccurately claimed Weitzman said on TV was a "Mauser" (via Weitzman himself seeing a "Mauser" stamp on the weapon) wasn't really a Mauser at all --- it was Oswald's C2766 Italian Carcano. Even Weitzman himself in 1967 (in a real TV broadcast this time, not just one that your false memory has invented) said that the rifle he saw was not a Mauser.

Therefore, Weitzman had no opportunity to see the word "Mauser" stamped on the TSBD rifle, since there was no "Mauser" found in the TSBD that day for Weitzman to see.

Simple.

David Josephs,

We're not in a court of law where a strict "chain of possession" for every last thing that you CTers think is mandatory needs to be produced. So why pretend we are in such a court?

You know, as do I, that there's no GOOD ENOUGH reason to actually think somebody was running around forging and faking all the documents associated with LHO's rifle purchase. It's frankly dumb, IMO, to even begin to consider such an outlandish idea regarding the rifle paperwork.

Plus, you also know, as do I, that there was no good reason for the FBI to have wanted to examine a whole bunch of OTHER unrelated Klein's orders, just to prove that the Oswald order was legit. The FBI undoubtedly didn't have that frame of mind. And I doubt the FBI has such a frame of mind about similar evidence even today.

As I mentioned to you in another discussion on a related matter that seems to concern you so much (although I've never heard of anyone else who has expressed the slightest bit of concern over this issue) —— all other Klein's orders were completely irrelevant to the FBI on 11/22 and 11/23/63. They were searching for the paperwork connected with ONE particular rifle---the one with the "C2766" stamped on it. No other Klein's order mattered. And why should it have mattered? Those OTHER non-C2766 Klein's sales weren't of any importance to anyone on Nov. 22. But they sure are important things to David Josephs in 2015....and that's because he's a conspiracy hobbyist who loves to invent new (and more) reasons to pretend Oswald never fired a shot, plus new ways to pretend the FBI was incompetent.

But, as I've said many times, the things a JFK conspiracy theorist believes couldn't possibly matter less in the long run. Lee Harvey Oswald will be forever identified (and rightly so) as President Kennedy's lone assassin by reasonable men and women everywhere --- even without ever seeing a single other Klein's order for the Italian carbine that Oswald made so famous.

DVP, you don't really believe that anyone has authenticated the back yard fake photos do you?

Of course I do. The HSCA did a great amount of work on the photos and they found, as I quoted previously, "no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials".

Go to HSCA Volume 6 (linked below) and learn a few things, Ken....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0072b.htm

I mean, when you can look at the photos and see what's in the background through the body on the photo, you know the image is layed [sic] on over the background.

All I can do here is look bewildered and shrug incessantly at the odd statement Ken just uttered.

~incessant shrug commencing~~

They didn't get the heads aligned correctly and they didn't get the shadows lined up correctly.

Watch the video at the webpage below....and then come back here and tell me that the shadows are all messed up....

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/oswald-backyard-photos.html

Even a complete novice could tell those photos are fake within a couple minutes of looking. But you're telling us that you buy it hook line and sinker. You can tell, without any doubt whatsoever, but for some reason you can't see any differences in that rifle and the TSBD rifle?

That's why the HSCA hired a panel of several "experts" in the field of photography. They were hired to examine the backyard pictures in order to determine whether they were fake or not. And they did make a determination --- "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials."

You just don't like that conclusion, Ken. So, therefore, you have decided that YOU are a much better photo expert and analyst than the 20 members of the House Select Committee's Photographic Panel. Pardon me if I go with the true experts in this field, however.

We know that Marina only said that she took a photo after they told her she was booked on a flight to Russia, but if she remembered taking the photos, they could cancel her travel plans.

More pure bunk from Mr. Kenneth Drew's keyboard.

You really don't have a clue about the actual evidence in this case, do you, Ken? (Either that, or you have decided on your own to just totally dismiss ALL of the evidence as fake and phony. Right?)

Anyway, you should know that it was proven that Oswald's camera (and ONLY that camera) could have taken one of the backyard pictures (the one in which the negative still exists). Therefore, we know that LHO's own Imperial-Reflex camera took one of those pictures. Do you think the plotters stole Oswald's camera too? Or do you think the Warren Commission and the FBI lied through their collective teeth (yet again) when they said that Oswald's camera was the only camera on Earth that could have captured one of those backyard images?

A good hunk of advice for you, Ken, IMO, is this....

Stop the myths. And stop pretending every single piece of evidence pointing to Oswald is counterfeit.

That's good advice for any CTer, in fact. Too bad more of them don't take it.

You're nitpicking, Ken. You said that you saw Weitzman on TV on 11/22/63 and that Weitzman himself said the rifle was a Mauser (whether it be a "7.65" Mauser or some other caliber, who cares). And that just simply did not happen. Therefore, you could not possibly have seen it on TV in 1963.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

We have the copies of the rifle documents preserved for all time in the WC volumes (and now online, of course). But I'm not sure where the "original" Klein's microfilms are located (or even if they were preserved at all).

But regardless of where the originals are located, the notion that the copies we currently have are tainted in some way is just another way the CTers have of pretending that the various pieces of incriminating evidence against Oswald have been manufactured or manipulated in order to frame LHO.

And, I will stress again, unless William Waldman of Klein's was lying through his teeth to the Warren Commission (and why should anyone believe he was?), then this document is exactly the same thing as having the original document in our possession right this minute, because it represents a photographic reproduction of the original microfilm, just as Bill Waldman said in his Warren Commission testimony at 7 H 366.


GARY MACK SAID:

Hi Dave,

What happened to the microfilm record with Oswald's purchase? Well, the original was certainly given back to the company. If Klein's was my company, I'd insist on having it returned, for I'd need those records for accurate information about the hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of transactions it contains. Would I have let the FBI copy it if they wanted? Sure, but give it back ASAP.

Did the FBI ask to copy it? I don't know. There's no indication they were interested in anything other than finding out who ordered that particular rifle. Once the purchaser was located, everything else on the microfilm was probably thought to be irrelevant. And it was.

Oswald placed his order during the crucial, documented period when Klein's changed from offering shorter Carcanos to longer ones. Then, once Klein's confirmed the receipt of payment, they shipped the rifle. The company wouldn't ship a rifle to anyone without having payment, would it? And that means waiting for a check to clear or a money order to clear. Oswald's money order must have cleared since Klein's records show it and also that the shipment was made.

The lack of a money order stamp on the back would, it seems to me, be unimportant since it is clear Klein's knew the payment was made. That's all that mattered to them. Did a clerk somewhere screw up, or did a machine pinch roller misfeed a money order so it bypassed the stamp? Did the ink supplier go dry or become disconnected or clogged as Oswald's MO went down the line? Any of those and other explanations could be the mundane answer, it seems to me.

Gary


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hi Gary,

You could be correct on all of your above points, but I'm wondering if Klein's would have worried at all about a U.S. Postal Money Order clearing before Klein's mailed the rifle to Oswald?

I doubt they would have delayed shipping the merchandise in this instance because it wasn't a private check that needed to be cleared; it was, in essence, an official document issued by the U.S. Government (via the U.S. Post Office).

If it had been a private check that Oswald had paid with, then I'd say that Klein's would definitely have waited for the check to clear. But why would Klein's need to wait for a U.S. Postal M.O. to clear? They know that's going to clear, since Oswald has already paid the post office the $21.45.

But, then too, Klein's did wait seven days to ship LHO the gun (a delay from March 13 to the 20th). And the M.O. surely did "clear" in that amount of time. But I just wonder if the 7-day delay had anything to do with the M.O. waiting to clear? I don't know.

Anyway, these are just random "Money Order" thoughts this morning.

Thanks.


GARY MACK SAID:

I don't know the PO procedure either, but I have to think that when a customer buys an MO, it is issued immediately. At some point the recipient would want to ascertain whether the MO was good or not. But you're right, this is an area that needs some exploration. There must be a reason why Klein's waited a week before shipping.

Gary


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

My guess is that Klein's might have been extra busy at that time and had a backlog of orders to fill, and they didn't get to Oswald's order for another seven days.

The Klein's deposit for 3/13/63 was for $13,827 [see Waldman Exhibit No. 10]. That sounds like a lot of sporting goods sales to me for one day in 1963. So they must have been busy indeed—based on those numbers.

David, you're making MY point.

And just how am I doing that? By pointing out the HSCA's conclusion of "No Fakery"? And by pointing out the fact that Marina says she did take the BY pics?

~~shrug~~

The rifle in the BYP is not the same as the rifle found in the TSBD.

Yes it is....

"A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66

No need for "square one" at all.

So what about the hearse that arrived at Bethesda? Was it a Pontiac or Cadillac?

It was, of course, the same Pontiac ambulance/hearse that left Andrews carrying JFK's body, Jackie Kennedy, and Bobby Kennedy.

I know of no pictures of the Pontiac arriving at Bethesda, however. I've certainly never seen any pictures of that arrival anyway. I'd love to find some, though, to add to my Kennedy Gallery.

Another picture I'd love to find (and I've always been curious as to why none seems to exist) is a picture of JFK's SS-100-X limo leaving Parkland Hospital. There were tons of newsmen (with cameras) crawling all over Parkland during the period when that limousine would have certainly been leaving Parkland for Love Field. But there's not a single photo in existence of the car departing the hospital (that I am aware of). Very odd.

WAIT Uh Oh ... We've suddenly found bogus back yard photos of LHO holding some other similar weapon! Why were these created and by whom, not Marina? REALLY bad patsying? When precisely were these created and for what purpose? Nothing at all to do with the lone nut. Maybe Roscoe White's body? Marina didn't take the photos. Different rifle. What's going on here? Why do we have them at all?

But Bruce, the backyard photos have been authenticated as genuine. They are NOT fake pictures. Why are you continuing to believe in the "Fake Backyard Pictures" myth?

The HSCA authenticated the BY pics:

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146

And Marina Oswald has always maintained that she took the photos. She doesn't recall exactly how many she took, but she recalls taking SOME pictures in the Neely St. backyard while Lee was holding guns and was dressed all in black--just like the things we see in the photos you are assuming are fakes.

In addition, I would still like a good (i.e., reasonable) answer to a question I've been asking for years....

Why on Earth would anyone want to fake multiple pictures that are depicting the exact same thing (Oswald with guns and newspapers in the Neely backyard)?

It makes no sense for any "plotters" to even WANT to fake more than just one such photograph. The chances of the fakery being exposed is only multiplied by the number of fake pictures being created. And why wouldn't just ONE such photo suffice for the patsy framers? Obviously, one photo would have sufficed. One picture is just as good as having three or four. And a lot less risky.

So, IMO, the NUMBER of backyard photos that exist is another thing that (circumstantially) suggests that those photos are genuine. Because only a team of goofs and morons would have had any desire to risk faking multiple versions of the exact same thing. It's just a dumb idea to begin with.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html

Any comments on this? Do we know if the hearse that took the Dallas casket from Andrews and arrived at Bethesda was a Lincoln or Cadillac? (Or both?)

Ron,

The hearse that carried JFK's body from Andrews to Bethesda was a Pontiac. It wasn't a Cadillac or a Lincoln.

From the TIME website....

"In January of last year [2011], a 1963 Pontiac ambulance that carried the president’s body from Air Force One when [it] landed in Maryland was sold for $132,000, noted CNNMoney. At the time, the ambulance was said to be a fake by historians cited by Jalopnik. The ambulance’s new owner, Addison Brown, was quoted by Reuters saying that she had “no doubt” the vehicle was real."

November-22-1963-JFKs-Casket-Is-Taken-Off-Air-Force-One-At-Andrews-Air-Force-Base.jpg

kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2013/03/kennedy-gallery-296.html

AT NO TIME did I say that he said it was a 7.65 Mauser.

You most certainly did. You said this....

"It was pointed out that Weitzman was some kind of expert on firearms so they looked to him for ID. He pointed out that it said right on the weapon that it was a Mauser." -- K. Drew

Your false memory is about the worst I've ever seen. You don't even remember what you've said just minutes after you've said it. And I'm supposed to believe you can recall intricate details about the TV coverage from 52 years ago? Yeah, sure.

I watched TV continuously for at least 3 days, beginning as soon as the news coverage of the assassination began that day. I saw several police officers looking amongst the shelves and boxes etc in the SBD. I saw them with a rifle in their hands. Some of them were looking at it, there was a discussion as to what type of rifle it was. It was pointed out that Weitzman was some kind of expert on firearms so they looked to him for ID. He pointed out that it said right on the weapon that it was a Mauser. Everyone took a look and seemed to be satisfied, at least to the point that all or most of them signed a sworn affidavit that it was a Mauser.

This is all in your mind, Ken. Nothing even remotely close to that scenario occurred during the live TV broadcasts of November 22, 1963. Not even close. You've conflated Weitzman's affidavit with Roger Craig's 1974 lie and then you've convinced yourself you saw this scenario play out on live television on 11/22/63. But it never happened. And the biggest reason we can KNOW this scenario you painted never happened on TV is because the rifle found in the Depository could not possibly have been stamped with a "7.65 Mauser" marking....because it wasn't a Mauser....it was a Mannlicher-Carcano.

BTW, the only video or film footage that was taken of the rifle while it was still inside the TSBD building is the footage taken by Tom Alyea. And it's a SILENT motion picture. There's no audio on Alyea's film. So how did you manage to HEAR people talking in that footage, Ken?

What you probably are remembering is the WFAA/ABC coverage that has ABC's Bob Clark narrating while we see the Alyea Film on the screen. At one point while narrating Alyea's footage, Clark tells the audience (incorrectly, of course) that the rifle being shown in the film is an "Argentine Mauser". That is the closest that Ken Drew can possibly get to the situation that he says occurred in his post above.

We have the copies of the rifle documents preserved for all time in the WC volumes (and now online, of course). But I'm not sure where the "original" Klein's microfilms are located (or even if they were preserved at all).

But regardless of where the originals are located, the notion that the copies we currently have are tainted in some way is just another way the CTers have of pretending that the various pieces of incriminating evidence against Oswald have been manufactured or manipulated in order to frame LHO.

And, I will stress again, unless Bill Waldman was lying through his teeth to the Warren Commission (and why should anyone believe he was?), then this document below is exactly the same thing as having the original document in our possession right this minute, because it represents a photographic reproduction of the original microfilm, just as Bill Waldman said in his WC testimony at 7 H 366....

So where are those microfilm records TODAY? Can you produce them? Can you tell us where in the National Archives they might be found?

Because if that microfilm CANNOT be found today...then its evidentiary value is greatly diminished.

Mark,

The WC exhibits known as Waldman 7 and CE788 and CE773 are photographic copies made from the original Klein's microfilmed records. That's practically the same thing as having the original microfilms. Although for handwriting anaylsis, it is always better to have an "original". But that argument certainly doesn't apply to Waldman #7, which has no "Oswald" writing on it at all. So that excuse won't work for CTers regarding the crucial document known as Waldman Exhibit No. 7.

Plus there is the testimony of Bill Waldman, who verified that what we see in Waldman #7 is a copy of the original.

Those things don't meet your requirements for "proof", Mark? You MUST see the "originals" in order to believe the documents are authentic, is that it?

In order for the rifle paper trail to be a falsified trail, CTers have no choice but to call William Waldman a big fat xxxx. There IS no way around that.

Now, somebody please tell me WHY I should think William J. Waldman was a xxxx and a person who wanted to frame Oswald?

Should I have a reason to think everybody EXCEPT Lee Harvey Oswald is a suspect in this crime?

David, too many questions....

Bruce,

IMO, there are no unanswered "questions" with respect to Oswald's rifle purchase at all. To the contrary, it couldn't BE any more crystal clear from the paperwork that Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's and Klein's shipped Rifle C2766 to Oswald's PO Box. How much more straightforward can it get? And the testimony of the Klein's representative (Waldman) seals the deal on the transaction---that rifle WAS shipped by Klein's in Chicago to to Oswald's post office box in Dallas.

The rifle transaction is, in a sense, ON FILM --- microfilm records.

Sure, anybody can pretend that all the documents are fakes. But that's just a cop-out. No CTer has ever proved that ANY of the documents connected with LHO's rifle have been manufactured. And yet many CTers seem to think they ALL were faked.

As they have done in so many other areas of the JFK murder case, conspiracy advocates have invented any number of flimsy reasons to disregard the perfectly solid evidence that proves Oswald ordered the rifle and that Oswald (aka Hidell) was shipped the eventual Kennedy murder weapon by Klein's.

In addition, I think one of the silliest and dumbest and lamest of all the theories put forth over the years by CTers is the throry that has a group of unknown plotters creating all of the rifle documents from whole cloth in order to have what looks like a solid trail for the rifle purchase. A much much better "CTer theory" would be to just accept what is obviously the truth about Oswald ordering and possessing the C2766 rifle --- and then the CTers can pretend that the plotters went about the much easier task of framing Oswald with his own rifle, versus having the conspirators having the need to invent the rifle trail from the ground up themselves.

But that's what usually happens when CTers go down these silly paths to conspiracy --- they end up looking mighty foolish when the truth (and the paperwork and the testimony of William Waldman) is stacked up alongside the weak-sister "Everything's Phony" excuse that is always propped up by the conspiracy believers.

Then why did EVERY cheek that fired the weapon test positive...?

Wrong....

"There were negative reactions on both hands and on the cheek of the FBI agent who fired the assassination weapon. Thus, we had the other side of the coin: A negative reaction from the paraffin test did not prove that a person had not fired a rifle." -- David Belin; Page 18 of "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury"

Kenneth,

Maybe it's time for you to stop believing in so many myths about this case.

There was no hole in the windshield.

Paraffin tests are essentially worthless as evidence.

And there is no proof that there was any gunman on the Knoll.

The next thing you'll be posting is that Mr. Umbrella Man was an assassin too.

...the rifle thought to have fired at JFK was not owned by LHO...

Bruce,

The JFK murder weapon had the exact same serial number as the rifle Klein's mailed to Oswald's P.O. Box.

Why deny the obvious? Klein's shipped Oswald/Hidell the same weapon that ended up being used by an assassin to murder the President.

And who is more likely to have used a rifle that was mailed to Oswald/Hidell than Oswald/Hidell himself --- be it November 22, 1963, or any other day?

So you're going to tell me that I didn't see what I said I saw in 1963?

It's not uncommon at all for people to think they had seen something on television that we know they could not have possibly seen. But in that person's mind, they would swear on a stack of bibles that they saw it. It's part of their memory forever---even though it's a distorted and inaccurate chunk of their memory.

I provided one such example of this type of false memory when I talked about the woman who said she saw "the whole thing on television", which we know was impossible.

Another example emerged during a radio interview with a JFK author (it was probably in one of Vincent Bugliosi's many interviews in 2007, but I can't recall exactly which interview this occurred in). A caller claimed that he heard Jack Ruby shouting several things to Oswald before Ruby fired the shot that killed LHO. And the caller insisted he heard Ruby's voice as he was watching the live TV coverage of the shooting on November 24, 1963. The caller's memory is vividly clear on this point.

Of course, we know from the videotape TV footage and from the Ike Pappas audio recording that Ruby's voice is never heard once. Ruby never uttered a sound that was audible on either television or radio. But a man has a clear memory of Ruby shouting stuff at Oswald nonetheless. And his false memory will likely never change---even though he probably knows he is wrong.