David Von Pein

Nope. That's not possible (unless you want to believe the very same TWO mistakes/assumptions about the "bullet fragment" and "gave to somebody" occurred in both 1983 and again in 1988), because in November 1988, five years after his '83 interview, a different reporter quoted Landis saying this: "I distinctly remember there was a bullet fragment on the seat which I picked up and handed to somebody." 1983: 1988:

Oh my. What a load of pure nonsense there. Curtin's biggest hunk of silliness might be this excerpt: "You will immediately realize that these recent revelations are a continuation of the coverup." -- Edward J. Curtin, Jr.; Sep. 14, 2023

Actually, the video in question is extremely good and informative, as I discussed here in July.... https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22174-kennedy-videos/?do=findComment&comment=509119

Ah, OK. I see what your "point" was now. Sorry, I didn't understand at first what you were referring to. Hello back, Peter! Seeing you posting JFK stuff again takes me back to the "aaj" (alt.assassination.jfk) days when everybody's newsgroup posts had to be approved by the moderators before going live. And you were one such moderator as I recall. I only wish THIS AAJ NEWSGROUP could be revived again. But after Mr. McAdams' death in April 2021, the aaj forum just stopped operating entirely (due to the fact that John, at that point in 2021, was the only moderator for the forum). Too bad that you, Peter, weren't still part of the moderation force in '21. If you had been, maybe that forum would still be going strong.

A lighter moment with Paul Landis. (This is a very funny story.) ....

Wow. Mr. Rynkiewicz's embellishments make Mr. Landis' seem like nothing. When reading Marjan's latest fantasy above, it's rather difficult to locate even that "layer of truth" I was talking about in my previous post. (But, however, Marjan does seem to endorse the SBT. So I guess that's certainly some "layer of truth". Good job there, Marjan.)

Fred Litwin, in this article on his website, posted a quote from The Columbus Dispatch newspaper dated November 20, 1988, which confirms something that is also found in this November 1983 newspaper article that I posted online two days ago: The 1988 paper (seen in the pictures below), like the 1983 Associated Press newspaper article that I previously posted, says that Mr. Landis "picked up" a bullet "fragment" (not a whole bullet) and "handed" that fragment "to somebody". So we now have two different newspaper accounts in the 1980s, five years apart, of Paul Landis saying to two different reporters that he had picked up only a "fragment" of a bullet, and that he had given that fragment "to somebody" (vs. Landis himself carrying any type of bullet or fragment into the hospital). Also note that in the 1988 article seen below, the reporter/interviewer has placed quotation marks around these key words: "I distinctly remember there was a bullet fragment on the seat which I picked up and handed to somebody." So the reporter in 1988 is representing those words as having been directly spoken by Paul Landis. It's not being represented as merely something coming from the interviewer's memory of what Landis said, because there are quotation marks around that entire sentence. The fact that we now have access to two different newspaper articles featuring interviews with Paul Landis that include the exact same information, with those articles and interviews being conducted some five years apart, virtually guarantees that Mr. Landis was not "misquoted" in either article concerning those two key "fragment" and "gave it to somebody" issues. And Landis is, indeed, now saying that he was misquoted in at least one publication concerning those two important elements of his story. But the notion that two different interviewers (one in 1983 and another in 1988) both made the same mistakes and misquoted Landis in the exact same manner when it comes to both of those bullet-related issues does not seem to me to be a very credible or believable argument for Mr. Landis to be making. Click these two images for a slightly larger view: ---------------------------------- 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 above tend to confirm that "layer of truth". But the remainder of Landis' current 2023 story just simply cannot be believed, in my opinion. My thanks to Fred Litwin for tracking down and providing me with the above screen captures from the 1988 newspaper article.

Cory, Ruth Paine isn't in the same category as Paul Landis at all. Not even close. Can you please provide me with a couple of examples of Ruth changing her story and an example or two of Ruth "magically remember[ing] something". Thank you.

I wonder where the "Landis Bullet" is located in relation to the sprawled-out Clint Hill in this rare photo? ....

Huh?? WTF does that mean? What connection can there possibly be? You surely aren't referring to "the Walker note", are you? SMH (too).

Those clips are from the video below (which was recorded exactly 7 years ago today):

No, I don't think so.

So, what's your point?

Does anyone think Clint Hill was carrying around a spent bullet in his pocket on Nov. 22, which was slightly damaged and bent and lacking any shell casing? ~shrug~

In 2012, I asked former Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine some of those same questions via e-mail. Here's an excerpt from one of the e-mails I received from Mr. Blaine: "In 1963 the Secret Service or any federal agent who found evidence marked it so that there was a clean trail." I've archived my 2012 discussions with Mr. Blaine at my webpage below: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399.html So, that brings up another thing to add to this discussion about Mr. Landis and his bullet "discovery".... Why didn't Landis put his mark on the bullet that he says he handled on 11/22/63? Has anyone ever seen any "PL" or "PEL" (for Paul E. Landis Jr.) initials on Bullet CE399? I haven't. That would really be a bombshell discovery if somebody could find Landis' initials on that bullet.

But that still doesn't explain why Landis would remain totally silent on DAY ONE (11/22/63) and not say a word to anybody at Parkland after he (supposedly) dropped that bullet on Kennedy's stretcher. At the time of his "discovery", Landis didn't know there would be a "Magic Bullet" controversy in the future. Therefore, your explanation above doesn't hold any water.

No it isn't. It's not "perfectly understandable" to me at all. In fact, it's totally mystifying to me as to why on Earth he didn't TELL SOMEONE about the bullet IMMEDIATELY after putting it on JFK's stretcher (if, in fact, that's what he did). And the reason for why his total silence is not believable (or "understandable") is because at the time Landis did what he said he did with that bullet, he had absolutely no knowledge or information about any of the details concerning the assassination. He had no idea who Oswald was at that time and he had no idea if a conspiracy might be involved. He knew nothing at that point. And yet he tells NOBODY about finding (and moving!) an important piece of evidence like a bullet?! Such dead silence by a member of the U.S. Secret Service (or anyone in law enforcement) in such a situation is completely beyond belief, not to mention totally irresponsible on Landis' part. And, in my opinion, even if it had been days or weeks or months later that he had somehow come across a piece of new evidence connected with JFK's death, it still would not be at all "perfectly understandable" that he would just keep completely silent about coming into contact with such a piece of potentially vital evidence in the case of a murdered President.

(AN AUDIO VERSION CAN BE HEARD HERE)

Bullshit. Of course it is. Which is why the Clark Panel utilized that very word -- "track". And Perry also said this (which is always totally ignored by CTers, of course): ARLEN SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?" DR. MALCOLM PERRY -- "It could have been either." Naturally, Jim. They were part of the never-ending cover-up too, right? Good decision. That Ignore button might keep you from embarrassing yourself any further. (But based on your past performance, I kinda doubt it.)

Wrong..... Quoting from the Clark Panel Report..... [QUOTE ON:] "The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck. The possibility that the path of the bullet through the neck might have been more satisfactorily explored by the insertion of a finger or probe was considered. Obviously the cutaneous wound in the back was too small to permit the insertion of a finger. The insertion of a metal probe would have carried the risk of creating a false passage, in part because of the changed relationship of muscles at the time of autopsy and in part because of the existence of postmortem rigidity. Although the precise path of the bullet could undoubtedly have been demonstrated by complete dissection of the soft tissue between the two cutaneous wounds, there is no reason to believe that the information disclosed thereby would alter significantly the conclusions expressed in this report." [END QUOTE.] This part of the above Clark Panel excerpt deserves a replay and added emphasis: "There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..." Another interesting part of the 1968 Clark Panel Report is the portion of the report in which the Clark Panel confirms, via measurements, that the bullet hole in President Kennedy's throat was located 3.5 centimeters LOWER (anatomically) than the bullet wound in the President's upper back.... [QUOTE ON:] "There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. [...] The center of the circular wound [in the front of the neck] is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in its passage through the body." [END QUOTE.]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/06/paul-landis.html

But if the bullet was "undercharged" or "defective", I'm wondering how it ever even made it as far as JFK's upper back. (And why aren't you wondering the same thing?) Why didn't that "undercharged" bullet die a slow death long before it ever got close to Kennedy's body? Did the bullet only become "undercharged" AFTER it had reached its destination? Let the CTer speculation begin anew.

A big piece of incorrect info in that video is when the female host claims that Kennedy's stretcher was at some point located in the Parkland corridor right next to Connally's stretcher. That is totally inaccurate information, because JFK's stretcher was never in the same area where Darrell Tomlinson found the bullet. ---------------- ARLEN SPECTER -- "Is it possible that the stretcher that Mr. Kennedy was on was rolled with the sheets on it down into the area near the elevator?" MARGARET M. HENCHLIFFE (Parkland Hospital Nurse) -- "No, sir." MR. SPECTER -- "Are you sure of that?" MISS HENCHLIFFE -- "I am positive of that." [6 H 142] -------------------

Yes, but it fell out of his leg only AFTER it did a lot of other damage to TWO victims. You surely aren't going to claim that CE399 falling out of Connally's leg (at a point when it was almost totally spent) is the same as a bullet hitting JFK's upper back at full muzzle velocity....are you?

And for anyone who wants to be treated to the ultimate in CTer denial regarding the SBT ..... all you have to do is.....