David Von Pein

As I said, I merely was emphasizing that if a "miraculous act of God" had occurred which confirmed the LOW entry location, that fact would not suddenly result in Oswald being innocent. Either entry locale is consistent with Oswald firing from behind. There's ONE entry wound in JFK's head. There is no dispute on THAT fact, as Vince Bugliosi points out in the RH excerpt I cited earlier. And we know that that ONE entry wound was in the BACK of the head---not the FRONT of the head. We can argue all year long about exactly WHERE that ONE entry wound was located. I can SEE the bullet hole in the photos (and not just the color picture; I see it in the B&W photo too, without doubt). The bullet hole is the red spot. And I find it somewhat amusing that even YOU, Patrick Speer, admit that the "red oval" does, indeed, "resemble" a bullet hole. And yet, incredibly, you also say that the red spot cannot possibly be the actual bullet hole, even though you will stipulate to the fact that there was ONE single bullet hole of entry in the back of the President's head. Oh, well. ~~huge shrug~~

Says Mark Knight even though this "sock puppet" (DVP) expressed his disagreement with Gary on the Jesse Curry issue discussed above. Maybe I'm a new breed of "sock puppet" --- a sock puppet with a mind of his own. Imagine the uniqueness of that!

This whole topic, of course, is only an academic one in the first place. Because even if by some miraculous act of God or prestidigitation the bullet hole of entry in President Kennedy's cranium was located low on his head, instead of high on his head as the photographs amply illustrate, it wouldn't change the status of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt one solitary bit. Because either entry site on JFK's head is still perfectly consistent with a conclusion of Oswald shooting the President from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. Back to Vince for a moment.... "Is it possible we are talking about two separate wounds to the back of the head? No. All seventeen pathologists said there was only one gunshot wound to the back of the president's head. So, by definition, we have to be talking about the same wound. Moreover, the fourteen pathologists who followed the three autopsy surgeons were able to demonstrate that the wound they found was the same wound (same dimensions) the autopsy surgeons described in their report." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 395 of "Reclaiming History"

Obviously so, if he examined the entrance wound. Because the entrance wound is so obviously high on the head--near the cowlick. And what about this?..... "In concluding that the autopsy surgeons were wrong about the precise location of the entrance wound (as described in the autopsy report), the HSCA also noted that photographs show the lower area of the president's brain to be "virtually intact"—an impossibility had the bullet entered the skull as low as the three autopsy pathologists contend." -- Page 395 of "Reclaiming History" And let me remind Pat of the Clark Panel "100mm. above the EOP" stuff he is forced to ignore..... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html And the garbage about the HSCA licking the bootstraps of Fisher's Clark Panel just so that Baden & Co. wouldn't have to disagree with the Almighty Dr. Fisher in public is, as I say, garbage. The two panels were independent panels (Clark & HSCA FPP). One wasn't required to bow down to the other. Such a notion is preposterous. IOW, just one more CT myth to add to the sky-high stack of myths that never die in this case.

I'm not sure, Jon. But there's this from Vince Bugliosi's book.... "Only four people in the autopsy room [had a close-up view of the president's head], the three autopsy surgeons and John Stringer, the chief medical photographer for the navy at the autopsy who took the only photographs of the president's head. When I spoke to Stringer [by telephone on September 21, 2000], he said there was "no question" in his mind that the "large exit wound in the president's head was to the right side of his head, above the right ear." And in an ARRB interview on April 8, 1996, Stringer said, "There was a fist-sized hole in the right side of his head above his ear." Though...Stringer's recollection of matters is questionable, he said he remembers this very clearly. When I asked him if there was any large defect to the rear of the president's head, he said, "No. All there was was a small entrance wound to the back of the president's head. During the autopsy, Dr. Humes pointed out this entrance wound to everyone."" -- Pages 409-410 of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" ---------------------------- And there's also this.... "Not only do the autopsy photos and X-rays definitively show that the entrance wound is in the upper part of the president's skull, but they show a bullet track (deposit of small metal fragments as the bullet proceeded forward) only in the upper portion of the skull. Additionally, if the bullet had entered the president's skull at the lower point the autopsy surgeons said it did, there would have been damage to the cerebellum, the lower part of the brain, which there was not. Dr. Baden testified that his forensic pathology panel "did not see any photographic or X-ray evidence...indicating any injury of the brain other than the extensive damage to the right upper part of the brain, consistent with the upper track which the panel agrees to." In concluding that the autopsy surgeons were wrong about the precise location of the entrance wound (as described in the autopsy report), the HSCA also noted that photographs show the lower area of the president's brain to be "virtually intact"—an impossibility had the bullet entered the skull as low as the three autopsy pathologists contend." -- Page 395 of "Reclaiming History" Also See: http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/ARRB_Medical_Interviews.html The above link includes a July 1996 interview with autopsy photographer John Stringer.

Jon, as far as I know, it was taken by John Stringer.

Pat, Okay, I'll stop you right there. You readily acknowledge the fact that the "red oval" in the autopsy photograph below "resembles a gunshot wound". So, here's a simple observation and what I think is a very logical (and basic) question to ask after reading your quote above.... Since there is a spot on the back of JFK's head that DOES look like it could be a bullet hole---and since we both KNOW for a fact that there WAS, indeed, one single bullet hole of entry on the back side of President Kennedy's head---then what do you suppose the chances are of the thing that "resembles a gunshot wound" in the autopsy photo really NOT being a bullet hole in JFK's head after all? Seems like a fair question to me. And I don't think it's a question that can be reasonably answered in the following manner (as some CTers and LNers seem to want to do)..... Well, DVP, the red spot only LOOKS like a bullet hole. The REAL bullet hole is hiding somewhere else in that autopsy picture. It's just a coincidence that the red spot (of blood?) in the photo just happened to take the form and general shape and appearance of a bullet hole. Whereas the REAL bullet hole, which cannot be seen at all in the picture (or at least most people have a hard time seeing it, except perhaps Patrick J. Speer) has decided to go AWOL from the photo, with no "redness" or other qualities to it at all that can be easily noticeable, even though that photo was taken under very good (and bright) lighting conditions. ~shrug~ [End Silly Explanation.] So I'm just trying to wrap my head around the notion that the thing that looks like the bullet hole in the back of JFK's head really ISN'T a bullet hole at all. But at the same time, there really IS a bullet hole of entrance SOMEWHERE ELSE on the back of JFK's head in the above photograph. What an amazing piece of unintentional and miraculous photographic misinterpretation that would turn out to be indeed, if it is to be believed. And, amazingly, Pat Speer (and many other CTers and LNers) actually do believe in it. I, however, cannot stretch unbelievable coincidence quite that far. The red spot, in my opinion, is definitely the bullet hole. More "BOH" discussion: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/boh.html

You're dreaming, Pat. This 3D GIF, created by John Mytton, clearly shows the entry hole high on the head near the cowlick---in stereo yet....

Yeah, yeah. Sure, Pat. That's why there's a ruler up next to the red spot. And that's why the red spot is the ONLY thing in that picture which comes even close to resembling a bullet hole. And that's why the HSCA and the Clark Panel BOTH confirmed via multiple measurements (in both the SCALP and the SKULL) that the entry wound on the back of President Kennedy's head was located approximately 100mm. above the EOP. box.com / 1978 HSCA Interview With Dr. Pierre A. Finck jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html From the Clark Panel Report (which is a 1968 report that will forever be ignored or deemed worthless by various conspiracy theorists, including Mr. Patrick J. Speer).... "One bullet struck the back of the decedent's head well above the external occipital protuberance. Based upon the observation that he was leaning forward with his head turned obliquely to the left when this bullet struck, the photographs and X-rays indicate that it came from a site above and slightly to his right. This bullet fragmented after entering the cranium, one major piece of it passing forward and laterally to produce an explosive fracture of the right side of the skull as it emerged from the head. [...] On one of the lateral films of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed. Also there is, embedded in the outer table of the skull close to the lower edge of the hole, a large metallic fragment which on the anteroposterior film (#1) lies 25 mm. to the right of the midline. This fragment as seen in the latter film is round and measures 6.5 mm. in diameter. [...] The foregoing observations indicate that the decedent's head was struck from behind by a single projectile. It entered the occipital region 25 mm. to the right of the midline and 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The projectile fragmented on entering the skull, one major section leaving a trail of fine metallic debris as it passed forward and laterally to explosively fracture the right frontal and parietal bones as it emerged from the head."

Why on Earth would Vince have done something dumb like that when he had this picture to look at, which proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the bullet entered near the cowlick?....

Thank heaven for that. Because if Pat Speer had gotten Vince to "come to his senses", Vince would have been believing in make-believe bullet holes in the back of President Kennedy's head that nobody else but Pat Speer can see....fake paper bags....and God knows what else.

Here's something about Vince that I never knew.... Wikipedia shows Vince's full name as Vincent T. Bugliosi, Jr. I never knew Vince was a "Junior". I know his son is named Vince Jr., but I didn't think Vince Sr. was also a Jr. ~shrug~ wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Bugliosi ------------------- EDIT: From the Los Angeles Times.... "Vincent T. Bugliosi was born in Hibbing, Minn., on Aug. 18, 1934, the son of Ida and Vincent Bugliosi Sr. His father ran a small grocery store and was later employed as a railroad conductor." Source: http://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-vincent-bugliosi-20150609-story.html

From Dale Myers' blog.... "I knew Vince quite well having assisted him on his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy." He was cantankerous, volatile, and brilliant. His comprehensive book on the Kennedy case, despite the occasional and inevitable flaws, is easily the best single volume on the assassination saga ever written. His unwavering support of my own work over the years was much appreciated. For that, I remain truly grateful." -- Dale K. Myers; June 9, 2015 [End Quote.] jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015/06/vincent-bugliosi-has-died -------------------- I, like Dale, will always be grateful to Vince Bugliosi. I never met Vince in person, but through a few letters and e-mails (forwarded to him by his great secretary, Rosemary, because, as you all probably know, Vince didn't use a computer at all and never had an e-mail address of his own), I have thought of Vince as a personal friend during the last eight years. I will miss him.

E-MAIL FROM GARY MACK: Subject: Paraffin Tests Date: 6/8/2015 9:13:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein ------------------- As for DPD comments about the paraffin test results, they were made hours and hours after Oswald, based on other evidence police possessed, had already been charged with killing JFK. As is very clear from media recordings, Curry merely said the test "only showed that he fired a gun." -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Right. And that is NOT an accurate statement, because a paraffin test will not reliably tell you that information. That's the whole point of the discussion I started---the tests are not reliable. They can swing in all directions. So when Curry told the press (and millions watching on TV) that the paraffin test "showed that he fired a gun", he was not really telling the whole story. He should have said it this way: "It only shows that he MIGHT have fired a gun. But that kind of test is never conclusive one way or the other, so we can't say for sure." But I suppose we could surmise that Curry was just playing things a little "dumb" because he didn't want a softer statement (like the one above) to somehow make its way to Oswald's ears (and there seemed to be no way to keep the reporters from shouting out anything they wanted to shout at Oswald during his many trips through the DPD hallways during those 2 days at City Hall). Is that what you think Curry could have been doing? Was he using a bit of psychology by not telling the whole truth to the press about the uselessness of paraffin tests? I don't know. But I do know the statement he made to the press on 11/23 was not an accurate one. Another possibility (however remote) is that Curry was just plain ignorant about paraffin test results. Maybe he really DID think that a positive result positively meant that Oswald "fired a gun". ~shrug~ It's hard for me to believe that the POLICE CHIEF in a huge U.S. city could truly be that ignorant of the facts about paraffin tests, however. DVP -------------------------------------------------------------- E-MAIL FROM GARY MACK: Subject: Paraffin Tests Date: 6/9/2015 3:15:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein ------------------- Hi Dave, Well, Dave, looks like Burnham's the one who is "conflating", for lie detector tests are always admissible in court as long as the prosecution and defense agree to do so. Besides, when the DPD told Oswald on 11/22 that they could run a paraffin test to determine if he fired a gun, neither he nor they were in court. One was in jail and the other was gathering evidence. And as I recall, not only did Oswald agree to allow the test, he taunted the officers by saying they'd just have to do the test instead of him confessing. What Oswald didn't know, and what Curry certainly didn't want the public to know, was that DPD knew full well that the test results might or might not be conclusive. That is why he said what he did to the press once the paraffin test results came in....and what he told them was accurate. What he left out of his statement was that the test might have been positive for some other reason. Gary -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID VON PEIN SAID: No. What Curry told the press about the paraffin test results was not completely accurate. He was stretching the truth, because he very likely knew the positive test result did not NECESSARILY mean what he told the press (and the world) it DEFINITELY DID mean -- i.e., that Oswald had "fired a gun". He was misleading the press on that topic--without question. Although I agree that his motive for misleading them was likely a valid and legitimate one, versus it being a dastardly and underhanded "cover-up" motive on Chief Curry's behalf.

This is a very sad day for me.... nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Vincent-Bugliosi-Dies-at-80 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/remembering-vince-bugliosi--(1934-2015)

And you, Glenn, keep relying on Doug Horne, David Lifton, David Mantik, and Mark Lane. They'll lead you to the promised land, no doubt.

And by improving my "reasoning skills", you mean I should accept the notion that the JFK X-ray is nothing but a lie and a sham. Right, Glenn? Even though I also know what is written on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7?.... "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." Thanks, Glenn. But no thanks. I'll stick with my current batch of reasoning skills. Lest I end up in the "Everything's Fake" arena.

James, We KNOW that McClelland's crazy "scalped pulled up over the wound in the BOH" theory is not accurate, because if it were accurate, then this X-ray would show a big hole in the back of the head---and it shows no such thing. This X-ray is the #1 pictorial item that proves there was no massive hole in the rear of JFK's head. There is NO MISSING BONE at the back of the head. And McClelland (and Company) insist that the BACK of Kennedy's head was blown out....

That's not true, Pat. Check out the timing. Gary's e-mail to me was sent one minute BEFORE I posted my last post above. So nothing in Gary's e-mail message could possibly be in "response" to anything I said my Post #4 above.

Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, throughout the years.... Click on each picture for more info and/or more photos: 1936: CIRCA 1954: NOVEMBER 22, 1963: MAY 24, 1964: OCTOBER 2012: Many more Dealey Plaza pics here.... kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/11/kennedy-gallery-270.html

E-MAIL FROM GARY MACK: Date: 6/8/2015 4:03:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein ------------------- Hi Dave, It's always interesting to me to see what folks leave out of their posts in an effort to make a point. The "sophisticated" test the AEC did on Oswald's cast was, of course, not available to the DPD which conducted the first study. And why did DPD do the test to begin with? So they could intimidate Oswald by telling him, honestly, that they could run a nitrate test to see if he "fired a gun so you might as well confess." Also left out is the very simple fact that there was no way [to] test the specific shooting circumstances by a nitrate or any other kind of test. Maybe the swirling wind at the Elm/Houston intersection blew any gases away from Oswald's cheek as he pulled the trigger? I don't know, nor does Speer or J. Edgar. Those and other explanations (ink, urine or other chemicals on the skin) explain why Hoover properly deemed the paraffin tests unreliable. All one could reasonably hope to achieve was an indicator of some sort to be used as the investigation continued. There, and I did it in less than a chapter! Gary ============================== DAVID VON PEIN SAYS: My thanks to Gary Mack (as always) for the useful information he continues to provide on all matters "JFK" related.

Pat, All of that stuff you just wrote above is all very nice and tidy (and probably very accurate). But..... The fact remains, just as my thread title suggests, that paraffin tests are totally unreliable when it comes to proving whether or not someone fired a gun. And the absolute proof that the paraffin tests are not reliable is contained in my thread-starting post (and in Commission Document 787), wherein it is revealed that the various tests conducted by the FBI resulted in a number of false positives AND false negatives. You don't deny the veracity of those FBI tests, do you Pat? Or do you? But, yes, Pat, I do definitely agree with you about one thing you said. And that is when you said this.... "The FBI used the DPD's test to suggest Oswald's guilt both to the press in the aftermath of Oswald's murder, and to President Johnson in their 12-9 report (CD1), and that they only started denouncing the test after Mark Lane discovered the cheek test was negative. You, at the very least, should acknowledge their disingenuousness on this matter, even if you think the tests are meaningless." -- P. Speer I agree completely with your above statement, Pat. The DPD (and probably the FBI too) was not telling the complete story to the public about the inherent unreliability of the paraffin tests when Chief Jesse Curry told the press (and the world) on live television on 11/23/63 that a positive paraffin result on Oswald's hands positively indicated that he had "fired a gun" (see the video here). That statement by Chief Curry, particularly the way he phrased it when speaking to the press, is just not 100% accurate due to the unreliability of such nitrate/paraffin tests. And surely Curry knew that fact when he spoke with the reporters in the DPD hallways numerous times on November 23. Plus, I have voiced my displeasure with my favorite "LN" author, Vincent Bugliosi, concerning this "paraffin test" topic in the past too. In my opinion, Vince should definitely not have included in his book Oswald's positive paraffin result as one of his "53 pieces of evidence" that lead to Oswald's guilt. And I said so eight years ago when I wrote this.... "In [the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt"] chapter, Vincent Bugliosi lists every one of his "53 pieces of evidence" that point toward Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination. The only item on Vince's list that I think really doesn't belong there is #41, where VB talks about the results of the paraffin test on Oswald's hands being positive. [EDIT: Since writing the above words in 2007, I've added one more thing that appears on Bugliosi's list that I don't think belongs there--item #23 about Oswald changing his pants. (Which is something I don't think happened at all anyway, but even if it did, it shouldn't be on Vincent's 53-item list, IMO.)] In my opinion, it was a mistake for Vince to have placed that particular item on his list because he knows that paraffin tests are not considered very reliable. And VB even discusses the unreliability of such tests on page 164 of [his] book. However, in VB's defense of including the paraffin test results on his 53-item list, I'd like to add this .... While it is, indeed, true that paraffin tests are inherently unreliable (since the presence of nitrates on a person's hands can be caused by various other things besides just gunpowder residue) -- I'd also ask this question with respect to Lee Oswald's "positive" paraffin results in this case: What do you suppose the odds are of something OTHER than gunpowder residue causing that "positive" result in his paraffin test when we also know that Lee Oswald was CARRYING A GUN ON HIM when he was apprehended in the Texas Theater on November 22nd, 1963? I'd say, given these circumstances (plus the fact that the very gun Oswald had on him when he was arrested was determined beyond all doubt to be the weapon that killed Officer J.D. Tippit), the odds would be pretty doggone low that something other than gunpowder resulted in that positive paraffin conclusion. I think Vince Bugliosi should have probably included the above "What are the odds?" argument as an addendum to his 41st item on page 965 [of "Reclaiming History"], but he did not include any such addendum." -- DVP; June 2007

Yes. Exactly, James. And I said that very thing in my "Odd Tales" article (excerpted below)..... "Each doctor said that the autopsy photos depicted the President's body in just exactly the way that each doctor remembers seeing Kennedy at Parkland. And yet the exact opposite is (of course) true -- i.e., before viewing the photos at the National Archives, each doctor pointed to the REAR of their heads for the PBS camera (which is where they all said the large exit wound was located on JFK's head--with Dulany actually pointing to the CENTER area of the back of his head, nearer the cowlick or the EOP area). Dr. Pepper Jenkins, however, does come close to placing the large head wound on the SIDE of JFK's head, instead of locating it at the far-right-rear of the head only. The four doctors then go into a room and view the photos and then they each come back out and claim, on camera, that the wounds in the pictures are exactly the same as what they said they saw at Parkland. That's just nuts. It cannot possibly be kosher. [...] After seeing the various photos which undeniably PROVE that they were each wrong about where they originally said the large wound on JFK's head was located, the doctors still could not bring themselves to say this to the NOVA camera --- "After looking at these photos, I must admit that I was mistaken when I said that the President's large head wound was located in the far-right-rear portion of his head. I must have been in error. And these photographs prove that I was in error." Instead, the four doctors said that the photos somehow CORROBORATED their original belief regarding JFK's head wounds. But we know the photos do not corroborate a single one of those doctors (although Dr. Jenkins came the closest to admitting he was wrong about the specific location of the exit wound). I guess the doctors at Parkland don't like to admit they made an innocent error, even though two of the doctors did admit in the 1988 NOVA program that they were in error when they had earlier said they had seen the "cerebellum" portion of JFK's brain." David Von Pein November 2008 May 2013 ------------- jfk-archives.blogspot.com/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988

So, apparently it's the view of many conspiracy theorists that the letter we find in Commission Document No. 787 is yet another of the many alleged lies told by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover following the assassination of President Kennedy. Because it's also stated by many conspiracy believers that the negative result of Lee Harvey Oswald's paraffin test conducted on his cheek proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Oswald did not fire a rifle at JFK in Dallas on November 22nd, 1963. Commission Document 787 indicates otherwise, however, to the dismay of the conspiracists, including Doug Horne, who thinks the negative "cheek" test on Oswald is one of the best reasons there is to believe that Oswald didn't shoot the President. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-723.html