David Von Pein

No, I can't. But I certainly wouldn't conclude that the various dates that show up on certain documents indicate any kind of fakery. Because it makes no sense for someone faking a document to put into the record a copy of that fake document which includes dates on it that would make that fake document look like an obvious fake document. Therefore, the answer likely resides outside the realm of "fakery". But, maybe the plotters working for Hoover's FBI weren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

Incompetence is everywhere, isn't it Ray? But where are you trying to go with this line of thought regarding the dates on the documents? Are you suggesting that the various dates that appear on some documents indicate they are fakes? Or what?

Brian, You and I have just proved that there's a "Scenario For Every Occasion" (and for everyone with a computer and a mouse).

Yes. Plus, given what CTers think of Mr. Ford and the perpetual decades-long "cover-up" that Ford was supposedly a part of -- just THINK for two seconds about how utterly stupid it would have been for Ford to utter such a comment to ANYONE. Does it make ANY sense from that POV of the CTers who think it was Ford's job to keep quiet and "cover up" the truth about JFK's death? It's laughable. And it's even more laughable from my "LN" POV and what I've heard Ford say in public many times since 1964. So, yes, it's a lie. (Either that or somebody has severely misquoted Mr. Ford.)

"(I guess)" Yep. "I guess" is the best I can do. Sorry.

Gerald Ford (1978) ------> https://app.box.com/s/jdihp42tp51stkwn60z7hr5dl29hsx80 -------

Beats me, Brian. I can't read a word of it.

The 11/22 stamp is meant to reflect the date of the interview. (I guess.) ~shrug~

That was commonplace for FBI reports, Ray. The date in the upper-right corner (which I assume is the date the report was typed up and put in the files) is almost always one or two days AFTER the information in the body of the report is collected. Here's an example where the dates are four days apart -----> http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=295 (And, btw. that document I just linked to above is one that more CTers should probably take notice of, because it proves (IMO) that FBI Special Agent Elmer L. Todd definitely DID scratch his initials into the stretcher bullet on 11/22/63. Many CTers will argue that it proves no such thing and that Todd must have marked some bullet OTHER than CE399. I would beg to differ, however.)

Good points, Pat. Oswald is still guilty as O.J., and all the "Oswald Did It" evidence IS still there on the table here in 2015 (even though it was collected by "a bunch of incompetent boobs", to quote Patrick J. Speer). But you make valid points regarding the DPD's weaknesses. If only life (and the DPD) were perfect and flawless. What a grand existence it would be.

ADDENDUM (after reading some more of Lieutenant J.C. Day's Warren Commission testimony): Not true, Pat. See my last post. Lieutenant Day specifically said he had noticed TWO prints on the trigger housing while Day was still looking at the rifle inside the Book Depository Building. So Day obviously would have had MULTIPLE prints in his mind when he talked to FBI agent Nat Pinkston if Day had been referring to the trigger guard prints in the Pinkston memo. Not true. Lieutenant Day specifically mentioned in his WC testimony that he wanted to "try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print". And, btw, Day said this about wanting to use "photography" on the palmprint even AFTER he had already used Scotch tape to lift most of the palmprint off of the gun already! He said he wanted to then photograph the remaining "traces" of the print which he said he could still see on the gun after he lifted the majority of the print off the barrel.... J.C. DAY -- "On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun." {DVP's emphasis.) So, based on the sum total of things Lieutenant J.C. Day told Nat Pinkston on 11/22/63, I think the Pinkston memo is referring to the palmprint and not the trigger guard prints. Let's re-examine what's in the Pinkston document: 1.) "[Lt. Day] had been successful in raising a partial latent print." (Sounds like he's talking about the palmprint here, from the SINGULAR nature of the wording.) 2.) "He had not had time to photograph or lift this print." (Again, we have the use of the SINGULAR, "print".) 3.) "...intended to return immediately and endeavor to both photograph and lift this latent print." (Once again, the singular--"print"--is used here. And this is, IMO, perfectly consistent with what Lieutenant Day told the Warren Commission in the testimony I cited above. I.E., Day did, indeed, have it in his mind to both photograph and lift the palmprint. And he undoubtedly would have photographed the leftover remnants of the print if he had not been told to stop working on the rifle late on November 22nd in order to hand it over to the FBI.) Now, I'll admit that I'm perplexed about one part of Lt. Day's WC testimony concerning his work on the palmprint....and that is: Why on Earth wouldn't he have photographed the complete palmprint BEFORE he lifted it with the tape? It seems odd that he only considered "photography" AFTER he had already lifted most of the print off the rifle. But since I'm not an expert on how to best get prints off of a firearm, I'm in no position to say that Lt. Day blew it. But it does seem odd that he wouldn't take a picture of the print before he tried to lift it. But the record indicates that he did not. ~additional shrug~ Final Conclusion.... It's my opinion (FWIW) that the Nat Pinkston FBI document of 11/23/63 is referring to the palmprint and not the multiple trigger guard prints found on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle by Lieutenant Day.

Yes, I see your point, Pat. And it makes sense too. However, based on Lieutenant Day's Warren Commission testimony, it's pretty clear that he had noticed TWO PRINTS (plural) on the trigger housing of the rifle before he ever took the gun out of the Book Depository: J.C. DAY -- "After ejecting the live round, then I gave my attention to the rifle. I put fingerprint powder on the side of the rifle over the magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough. I also noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain Fritz it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I would have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints. .... I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the woodstock when I took the woodstock loose." (DVP's emphasis.) But the Pinkston document specifically indicates just a SINGLE "latent print" having been observed by Lieutenant Day, which would seem to be more indicative of the SINGLE palmprint Day lifted off of the under side of the rifle (IMHO). But I do agree with you about your #5 item on your list above, Pat. It seems odd that Day wouldn't have mentioned to Pinkston about seeing the TWO trigger guard prints too, particularly since he had seen those two prints while the gun was still being examined in the TSBD. But we're left with just a reference in Pinkston's report to only one "latent print". ~shrug~

1.) But WHERE on Kennedy's body IS the wound, Pat? Neck or back? 2.) And does the ACTUAL wound of entrance align itself with what we see in CE903? I'll answer both of my above questions... 1.) The upper back. 2.) Yes, it does. (Within the leeway that must be granted the WC regarding the precise "SBT" angle, given the fact the angle seen in CE903 is merely an AVERAGE angle between Z-Film frames 210 and 225. So a tiny bit of "margin of error" HAS to be applied to this "CE903" topic, as I discuss here....) jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3.html So, again, we're back to merely semantics. Nothing more. (Caption by DVP.)

Related discussion about Lt. J.C. Day.... JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: In an actual court proceeding, [Dallas Police Lieutenant J.C.] Day would have been impeached by Drain and LaTona [sic] to the point that he would [have] been laughable. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: And just exactly HOW would Vince Drain and Sebastian Latona have "impeached" Lt. Carl Day of the DPD? You actually think something Drain and Latona said means that Day couldn't possibly have lifted Oswald's palmprint from the rifle on November 22? If you DO really believe that, you've taken a trip deeper into Rod Serling's T-Zone than even I had figured. I'll also add this: Anyone who thinks that J.C. Day was a xxxx regarding the palmprint matter needs to read "Reclaiming History", starting on Page 799. A key excerpt: "Warren Commission assistant counsel Wesley Liebeler told the HSCA that in "late August or September" of 1964, he suggested questioning [DPD Lieutenant J.C.] Day further in an attempt to resolve the multitude of questions that remained surrounding the discovery of the palm print. It had occurred to Liebeler and a few other assistant counsels, as it would later to Mark Lane, that perhaps the palm print didn't come from the rifle at all. The Commission, at that time, only had Day's word for it. It wanted something stronger. But when Liebeler approached Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin about it, he objected. "Mr. Rankin was not terribly enthusiastic about having a couple of Commission lawyers go down to Dallas and start questioning the Dallas Police Department," Liebeler told the HSCA in 1978. "Quite frankly . . . it would have raised all kinds of questions at that time as to what in the hell was going on, what are we doing going down and taking depositions from the Dallas Police Department two months after the report was supposed to be out?" But Liebeler said they realized the problem could be resolved "in another way." Several Commission assistant counsels subsequently met with FBI inspector James R. Malley, the bureau's liaison with the Commission, and FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona. Liebeler asked Latona whether there was a way to prove that the lift came from the rifle. Latona reexamined the lift submitted by Lieutenant Day and noticed pits, marks, and rust spots on it that corresponded to identical areas on the underside of the rifle barrel--the very spot from which Day said the print had been lifted. J. Edgar Hoover sent a letter by courier to the Commission on September 4 to confirm this finding, along with a photograph showing the corresponding marks on the barrel and the lift. Liebeler was satisfied. Now, there was no doubt whatsoever--the palm print Day had lifted had come from Oswald's rifle." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 803 of "Reclaiming History" [Also See: 11 HSCA 254-255.] JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: In fact, I seriously doubt if the judge would have allowed him to testify. And when you brought in the Groody testimony, I mean, please. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Jimbo thinks Paul Groody is MORE reliable than Lt. Day. To repeat what Jimbo just said -- I mean, please! (And remember my weak bladder, will ya?!) [...] JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: What's next: Oswald was a good shot? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: He was a good shot by ordinary CIVILIAN standards, yes. And he was certainly (at one time at least, in 1956) an average shot by Marine standards. Or do you think the United States Marine Corps dishes out "sharpshooter" rankings to really, really lousy riflemen? [...] PAT SPEER SAID: Ah, yes, the Hoover letter. Note that Hoover's letter was just that, a letter. It was NOT sworn testimony. Note also that the exhibit itself is nearly impossible to make out, and that NO corresponding photo was taken showing where the heck this lift came from on the rifle. Note also that Hoover had no problem lying even when under oath, as proved by his testimony, where he claimed the FBI had no reason to put Oswald on the watch list, months after he'd ordered an internal witch-hunt in which those failing to put him on the watch list had been persecuted. And then there's this... The rifle was returned to the DPD on the 24th. The FBI didn't find out about the lift until the 26th. It remains possible, therefore, that the print was somehow added to the rifle, and THEN lifted. As stated, I never came to a conclusion as to this possibility...but the evidence presented by Hoover and Bugliosi in support of the print's authenticity, is weak, weak, weak... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Let's leave Hoover and Bugliosi out of this for a moment and talk about the people who actually set the ball in motion for re-examining the palmprint that Lt. Day lifted off of the rifle -- namely Wesley Liebeler and (most importantly) fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona: It was LATONA, not Hoover or Bugliosi, who said the palmprint contained the rust spots and other marks that EXACTLY matched the place on the rifle where Lt. Day said he lifted the print. Or do you think Mr. Liebeler was telling a big fat lie in the HSCA testimony shown below? (I would guess that some conspiracy theorists will rake Liebeler over the coals for using the word "happily" in this testimony, even if those CTers don't have the nerve to come out and call him an outright xxxx regarding this palmprint issue.) .... "Latona went back and looked at the lift [CE637; Oswald's palmprint]. He found that there were indications in the lift itself of pits and scores and marks and rust spots that had been on the surface from which the print had been lifted, and happily they conformed precisely to a portion of the underside of the rifle barrel and the FBI so reported to us. As far as I was concerned that conclusively established the proposition that that lift had come from that rifle." -- Wesley J. Liebeler; HSCA Testimony [11 HSCA 254] So what we have here, folks, is a situation where the Warren Commission and its staff (namely Wesley J. Liebeler) weren't totally satisfied with something associated with their investigation into President Kennedy's death (the palmprint of Oswald's lifted by DPD Lieutenant Carl Day), and so Liebeler did something about it. He had Latona re-examine the print to see if further information could be obtained in order to find out whether or not it could be proven that that print had, indeed, been taken off of Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. And even when such proof and corroboration is discovered, the conspiracy theorists (such as Pat Speer) are still not satisfied at all. The theorists will still cry foul and say that the print COULD have possibly been lifted on November 24 after the rifle was returned to Dallas (to use Pat Speer's exact words, he speculated that it was certainly possible that "the print was somehow added to the rifle, and THEN lifted"). In response to that speculation brought forth by Mr. Speer which I just quoted above, let me offer up the following excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book: "Apart from the absurd notion that for some reason Lieutenant Day would decide to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for Kennedy's assassination, as he told me in 2002, "I don't even think such a thing [transferring Oswald's prints on the finger and palm print samples, or exemplars, he gave to the Dallas Police Department, onto the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle] could be done. In this day and age they might be able to figure out some way to transfer the ink print on the card to the weapon, but I wouldn't know how to do it myself. Sounds like an impossible task to me."" -- Page 802 of "Reclaiming History" Conspiracists are quite good at offering up a wide variety of convenient excuses in order to avoid the obvious truth. With that truth being: Lee Harvey Oswald's palmprint was lifted off of Oswald's OWN RIFLE just hours after that same rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building in Dallas, Texas. Pat Speer says the evidence is "weak, weak, weak". But in my opinion, it's simply a case of a conspiracy theorist offering up more "excuses, excuses, excuses". David Von Pein March 2013 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-85.html ----------

Pat, Yes, you could be right. The document could conceivably be talking about the trigger guard prints. But it could very well be referring to the only print Lt. Day LIFTED -- and that was CE637, Oswald's palmprint. I think the Pinkston document is referring to the palmprint. But I stipulate that I could be wrong. It's too bad Pinkston didn't add just a few more details to his report to indicate what KIND of "latent print" it was -- Finger vs. Palm. (Or what part of the gun it came off of.)

The lies of Roger Craig are quite extensive. I think he did see a man getting into a Rambler at about 12:40 in Dealey Plaza. But we know that that person could not possibly have been Lee Oswald... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/cecil-mcwatters.html The sum total of all the evidence (plus other witness testimony) prove that Roger Craig told two huge whopper lies regarding the bullet shells ("an inch apart, pointing in the same direction") and the rifle ("right on the barrel was stamped '7.65 Mauser'"). -------------- Related Discussion.... JERRY CRAIG (NEPHEW OF FORMER DALLAS COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF ROGER D. CRAIG) SAID: ANYBODY THAT SAYS MY UNCLE ROGER WAS LYING IS A FOOL. THERE ARE PICTURES OF HIM AT THE DOOR OF WILL FRITZ' OFFICE IDENTIFYING OSWALD AND HIM IN THE TSBD WITH THE MAUSER BEING FOUND!!!!! DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Roger D. Craig was one of the few people connected with the JFK murder case who I am very confident referring to as a "xxxx". Without any doubt whatsoever. (Another one being Jean Hill.) It can proven that Roger Craig was a xxxx by typing out just the following words: STAMPED ON THE RIFLE WAS "7.65 MAUSER". Craig made the above claim about Oswald's rifle. That claim makes him a xxxx. And there's NOTHING that any conspiracist can do to UNDO Deputy Craig's blatant and obvious LIE with respect to the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository. And Craig also later told another whopper of a lie when he said that the three shell casings found in the Sniper's Nest were all situated in a neat little row, facing the same direction, and were no more than "an inch apart" from one another when they were first discovered by the police. (This is hilarious silliness on the part of the plotters who supposedly planted this evidence, isn't it? I guess they WANTED people like Craig to immediately think the shells were planted, so they arranged them in a nice, neat little row.) So, who (or what) should a reasonable person believe? Commission Exhibit No. 510 below? Or Roger "Big Fat xxxx" Craig? Not a tough choice really. But guess who many conspiracy theorists are going to believe? That's not tough to figure out either. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JbkbBN6KJKE/TZEOJYRVCNI/AAAAAAAATcc/D0i89sUs91Y/s1600/CE510--Three-Bullet-Shells-On-The-Floor.jpg JERRY CRAIG SAID: All of you have to understan[d] that Bill Decker had control of every aspect of the investigation... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Huh? WTF? Decker was the SHERIFF. The Sheriff's office had NO CONTROL over the evidence in the case on Nov. 22 or Nov. 23. None. The DPD (Fritz, Curry) had the case and had the evidence. Not the Sheriff's office. Why are you making up this crap, Jerry? JERRY CRAIG SAID [JERRY'S HORRID SPELLING AND GRAMMAR HAS BEEN CORRECTED BY DVP]: I'm not making up anything, but you wouldn't know anything about Decker and the corruption in the DSO [Dallas Sheriff's] office in '63. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Yeah, sure, Jerry. Whatever you say. JERRY CRAIG SAID: ...and you all will find out soon... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Yeah, why would 46-and-a-half years be enough time for "the truth" to leak out? Will it be another 46.5 years before this famous "truth" is finally unveiled? Is Jimmy Files' milkman going to write a tell-all book that will FINALLY reveal "the truth" about how JFK died? JERRY CRAIG SAID: I don't care what you say. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Then why join a public forum at all? JERRY CRAIG SAID: You've got to realize, I'm 46.5 years old. My family has been in this since the beginning. I might have been born on Nov. 23, 1963, but I asked questions and listened to my uncle. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: So? David Von Pein April 13, 2010 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-922.html

That is totally irrelevant to the point I was making in my thread-starting post. That point once again is.... This memo totally destroys the theory that Lieutenant J.C. Day of the DPD did not find any prints on Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle PRIOR to the rifle going to the FBI on the night of 11/22/63. What difference does it make "how old" the print was, Jon? The point is that CTers have been pushing a PROVABLY WRONG myth for decades about how Lieutenant Carl Day never found ANY kind of a print on Carcano Rifle #C2766 on 11/22/63. And the document above should forever silence any conspiracy theorist who has ever made such a false claim.

DEBUNKING CONSPIRACY MYTHS: Gerald Ford's "Move".... One of the best JFK researchers/experts in the world, Jean Davison, has said some interesting things on the Internet in recent years which are things that I doubt too many people (either LNers or conspiracy advocates) had really thought about before. .... "I doubt that Ford knew the exact location of the back/neck wound. I think he recognized that the sentence as written couldn't possibly be right since there's nothing "in the back slightly above the shoulders." By definition, above the shoulders is "neck." Ford tried to correct it [see the document below] and made matters worse. One thing I feel certain of is that there was no rational motive for anyone to "raise" the back wound. Moving it to the neck doesn't support the SBT, no matter what suspicion may tell you. An entry in the neck would destroy the SBT trajectory. .... Imo, it often seems that CTs don't allow for human error or Murphy's law or Hanlon's razor ("Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity [or incompetence].")" -- Jean Davison; December 5, 2014 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/xirbG0iyQkY/ubWonTdehPQJ -------------- Now, conspiracy theorists can try and knock down the logic and common sense that exists within Jean Davison's above remarks concerning the topic of Gerald Ford allegedly "moving" the upper-back wound of President Kennedy in order to better accommodate the Single-Bullet Theory. But I doubt those conspiracists will get very far in their arguments. And that's because Jean is right. There is also this discussion.... "Both Morningstar and Kurtz claim that the entry wound HAD to be raised to the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren Commission's single bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't supported, it's simply a claim. Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to raise the wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC illustration of the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903: Whether one agrees with it or not, that IS the WC's trajectory for the single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry in "the back of the neck". I respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue. My question is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision in order to support the SBT?" -- Jean Davison; December 31, 2006 ~~~~~~ "To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the back wound up to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT trajectory, not strengthen it. Again I'll refer you to CE 903. Although Specter didn't drill a hole in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done so, the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18 degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound under JFK's Adam's apple. .... The claim that Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not true. If I haven't made my point by now, I give up." -- Jean Davison; January 2, 2007 ---------------------------------- 2014 DISCUSSION: JEAN DAVISON SAID: The downward trajectory of the bullet exiting below Kennedy's Adam's apple was approximately 18 degrees according to surveyors' calculations for the HSCA and WC. Going backward from the exit (at the knot in his tie), 18 degrees puts the entry somewhere in his upper back. Moving the entry up to the neck would make the bullet's angle too steep to have hit Connally where it did, imo. I think this can be seen in almost any side view of JFK: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hunt/croft-love.jpg http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/croft.jpg The angle from [the] nape of his neck to the tie knot looks closer to 45 degrees, imo. Where could that shot have come from, a helicopter? Ford didn't need to move the back wound up. And in fact he didn't, since the phrase he revised put the wound on "his back at a point slightly above the shoulder." It can't be above the shoulder and still be in the back. (Except maybe in conspiracyland where apparently anything is possible.) DAVID VON PEIN SAID: And just one quick look at CE903 tells us that the WC did not "move" the wound up into Kennedy's "neck". Specter's pointer in CE903 places the wound just where the autopsy photo has it--in the upper back--which works perfectly for the SBT bullet, moving downward at an angle of 17.72 degrees, to exit right at the tie knot.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html JEAN DAVISON SAID: I've said repeatedly that the wound was in the upper back, below the shoulders. It doesn't matter where the Rydberg drawing put it, or where Ford put it, or where the hole in the jacket was. Kennedy wasn't wounded in any of those places. The entry wound is where it's shown in the autopsy photos, in his UPPER BACK. PAT SPEER SAID: So WHY did members of the Warren Commission's staff claim the wound was in the neck, after viewing photos proving it to have been in the back? And WHY did the Johnson Justice Dept., after viewing the photos and knowing full well the wound was in the back, pressure the autopsy doctors into telling the media and the country they'd reviewed the autopsy photos and that this review had proved the wound was where it is shown in the Rydberg drawings, in the neck? It's one thing to suspect Oswald acted alone, but it's another thing entirely to pretend there was no deliberate deception regarding the location of the back wound. [...] When you study the history of the back wound, Jean, it's 100% clear to anyone not named Pollyanna that a number of people, from Humes and Boswell to Specter and Lattimer, have lied about the back wound location. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: What you call "lies", I would classify as merely semantics. And I truly believe that, too. Why? Because there was simply no reason for anyone to want to start telling a bunch of lies regarding the true location of John F. Kennedy's upper-back wound. And CE903, once again, proves my point. Exhibit 903, like it or not, does NOT show the wound of entry to be in the "neck" of JFK. It is positively in the UPPER BACK. And as such, any future references made by people such as Arlen Specter or Gerald Ford (or anyone else) to a wound in the "neck" are merely careless misstatements when attempting to describe the location of where the wound was. It's a semantics problem, in my opinion, and nothing more. We see it over and over again in the Warren Commission volumes and in the Warren Report itself---references to a wound in the "neck" of President Kennedy.... "During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was observed near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck..." -- WR; Page 87 "The position of President Kennedy's car when he was struck in the neck..." -- WR; Page 97 "A surveyor then placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of entry on the back of the President's neck..." -- WR; Page 106 And it's fairly obvious that those references to "neck" in the Warren Report that I just cited above are references that were put on paper by the Commission AFTER the assassination reconstruction was performed in a Dallas garage on May 24, 1964, that resulted in Lyndal Shaneyfelt taking the picture seen in Commission Exhibit 903. And since that photograph in CE903 does not indicate that there was a bullet wound of entrance in the "neck" of John Kennedy, where does that really leave any of the conspiracy theorists who want to still insist that the Warren Commission (and other people) "lied" about the true location of JFK's upper-back wound? Do those conspiracists think Arlen Specter, et al, had a strong desire to look like idiots when they continued to refer to the "back" wound as a "neck" wound in various places within the WCR, even though Specter knows that CE903 is ALSO going to be part of the public record, which clearly shows the wound to be in the BACK of the JFK stand-in? In other words, why would Specter (et al) lie when Commission Exhibit 903 proves forever and for always that there was absolutely NO NEED to lie about this matter at all? It seems to me as if some of the people describing the location of that wound, including the person or persons who were responsible for writing the words we find on those three pages of the final Warren Commission Report that I quoted above, were in a bit of a quandary about how to precisely describe the part of the body where the bullet entered due to the fact that it entered at a place on JFK's body where the "neck" and the "back" are merging. So we sometimes got differing descriptions. But it's pretty clear that even though CE903 is providing solid VISUAL confirmation that the bullet entered in the upper BACK of JFK, the people in charge of writing up the 888-page Warren Report still, for the most part, favored the use of the word "neck" instead. (Go figure.) JEAN DAVISON SAID: Pat [speer], In my opinion, Oswald was not only guilty, he was obviously guilty, but I wouldn't tell anyone, "One can only avoid that conclusion by refusing to look at the evidence." If you don't see it, you don't see it. I don't interpret the evidence the same way you do. When you end up with a large number of people "lying" for no apparent reason, that's a red flag, imo. I'm no Pollyanna, I'm a Doubting Thomas. Can you show me a SBT trajectory of c. 18 degrees that works when the wound is raised to the neck -- specifically, a trajectory from the SN [sniper's Nest] exiting at the tie knot and hitting Connally where it did? Without that, there's no motive for anyone to lie about the wound's location. As I recall, Boswell told a Baltimore newspaper that the wound was where the autopsy measurements placed it: c. 5 1/2 inches below the mastoid process. Isn't that in the upper back? I think a part of the confusion came from "semantics," as David suggests. The bullet entered the upper back but since the throat extends below the shoulders on the front of the body, the bullet also passed through and exited a part of the neck. It was a "back/neck wound," literally. IMO, the "Pollyanna" view of the assassination is thinking that Kennedy was killed by his political enemies. This gives his death significance and makes it understandable. It suggests an orderly universe where things happen for a reason. But if you're stuck with believing as I do that the assassination was a senseless random event with JFK and LHO arriving on Elm St. on the same day entirely by chance, that's a very bleak view. Pollyanna would curl up and die. ================================== ALSO SEE: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html

DEBUNKING CONSPIRACY MYTHS: DPD Lieutenant J.C. Day And The Print Found On The Carcano Rifle.... The FBI document shown below is one I became aware of in late 2013. And I'm just wondering how conspiracy theorists can continue to endorse the following theory in light of the existence of the Nat Pinkston/FBI document pictured below? The theory that this document debunks is this theory: Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department never said anything to anybody about finding ANY fingerprints or palmprints on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (No. C2766) until AFTER the rifle had been returned to the DPD by the FBI on November 24, 1963. The document below, however, completely destroys the oft-heard conspiracy myth about how Lieutenant Day lied through his teeth when he said he found Lee Harvey Oswald's palmprint (or at the very least, SOME print) on the Carcano rifle ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION ITSELF (11/22/63). This document, which has a stamp on it marked "NOV. 22, 1963; FBI--Dallas", clearly indicates that J.C. Day told Nat A. Pinkston of the FBI on November 22, 1963, that he (Day) "...had processed a rifle recovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository...for fingerprints or palm prints, and had been successful in raising a partial latent print." Larger View -----> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s1600/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg Also see the NBC-TV video clip on the webpage below, which is a clip that aired on the night of the assassination, in which NBC reporter Robert MacNeil talks about a "print" being found on the rifle: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-740.html ---------------------- ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION.... JOHN McADAMS SAID: The image [linked below] was found by Jean Davison. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s1600/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg It shows that, on 11/22/63, J.C. Day told an FBI agent that he "had been successful in raising a latent print" which he was going to "both photograph and raise." Apparently the Dallas FBI office failed to tell the people in Washington about this. This appears to be the palm print that conspiracists have claimed never existed until the rifle was pressed into Oswald's dead hand on Monday. JEAN DAVISON SAID: Thanks for posting that document for me, John. Using some of the words in it as search terms, I've found a shorter version on the Mary Ferrell site: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=693594 Like the first document it says that on 11/22 Day had found (raised) a latent print and that he planned to "photograph and lift" it. The only print Day "lifted" (with a piece of tape) was the palm print. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thanks, Jean and John. The key item in that memo regarding Lt. Day finding the latent print on the rifle is the DATE of the memorandum -- 11/23/63 -- which is a day when Oswald was still alive and well in Dallas Police custody. And the memorandum also states that "Lt. Carl Day...advised on 11/22/63" .... which tells us that Lt. Day did, in fact, find the print on the rifle ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION ITSELF -- which (obviously) had to have been PRIOR to the Dallas Police Department turning over the rifle to the FBI at about 11:45 PM CST on the night of November 22nd. This memo totally destroys the theory that Lieutenant J.C. Day of the DPD did not find any prints on Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle PRIOR to the rifle going to the FBI on the night of 11/22/63. Or maybe some conspiracists will now contend that this memorandum is a "fake" too: Memo Dated 11/23/63 Regarding Lt. Day Finding Print On Rifle DVP November 30, 2013 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LdZ9zBal7vo/u5tIiObGvIwJ

"If there is a suspicious fire, the [conspiracy] kooks would investigate the firemen who respond, and ignore the guy with the wicked grin that smells of gasoline." -- Bud; November 22, 2007 [via the aaj/acj newsgroups] Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com ------------

And we all know how that has worked out for the HSCA since 1979, don't we Paul? jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html In light of the 1982 NAS study debunking the acoustics evidence put forth by the HSCA, why in the world would anyone--even a hardline "CTer"--continue to sing the praises of the House Select Committee's claim of "probable conspiracy"? ~~huge shrug~~

Okay, Jon. Whatever.

And somehow you can say that despite the fact that all of the physical evidence points directly to that conclusion --- i.e., a Lone Nut named Oswald. Most curious. But, you can always look forward to that big bombshell "proof" coming in October of 2017. Right? But I'm still waiting to see the "bombshell" type documents that Jim DiEugenio insists were released by the ARRB in the '90s that Jimmy keeps claiming prove the conspiracy to kill JFK. To date, I've seen none. Hey, Jim. I know you're lurking out there. Can you post a link at DPF to those key "bombshell" documents released through the ARRB that you love so dearly? I've been anxious to see them. Thanks. Regards, --DVP

Choose to believe silly things if you wish, Paul. But don't expect everybody to fall at the feet of people spouting conspiracy nonsense 24/7. Also .... If Earl Warren's "Not in your lifetime" remark was being uttered by a person who KNEW he was engaging in a massive cover-up from Day 1 of the Warren Commission's existence, do you REALLY think he would have been, in effect, ADVERTISING the cover-up for all the public to hear on Feb. 3, 1964? Or was the Chief Justice just throwing the conspiracy theorists a little bread crumb of "the truth" on 2/3/64, and he was hoping against hope that the CTers were as dumb as a box of rocks? Similar to the autopsy surgeons, who apparently tossed out just a tiny little crumb of "truth" for the CTers in their autopsy report (a report that is completely phony, according to many conspiracists) when Dr. Humes put the words "somewhat into the occipital" in the report. Maybe it's time for CTers to stop believing in silly things. Don't you think, Paul?

Here's what really happened with respect to those "Grassy Knoll" witnesses (almost as assuredly as grass is green): The "Knoll" earwitnesses quite obviously heard the ONLY shots that were really fired in the Plaza on 11/22/63--which were the three that came from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle on the sixth floor of the Book Depository--but the acoustics in the Plaza played some tricks on those witnesses' ears, and they thought that ALL of the shots (from the TSBD) had come from a point FURTHER WEST in Dealey Plaza, nearer the Grassy Knoll. But the KEY is that only FIVE out of 104 witnesses thought shots came from MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS. And please note that there wasn't a single witness in the Plaza (that I am aware of anyway) who said they thought shots came from THREE different places, which is really what you would expect at least A FEW of the witnesses to hear if Oliver Stone's "triangulation of crossfire" THREE-SHOOTER assassination plot had really taken place on November 22nd. And even if you want to think John McAdams has deliberately chosen only the witnesses who might help his "Lone Nut" conclusions in the pie charts [on his website], there are other very similar earwitness charts available to study, such as the ones [referenced] below: The HSCA's witness tabulation reveals that a mere 4.0% of the witnesses thought they heard shots coming from more than one location. And Stewart Galanor, a conspiracy theorist(!), put together an interesting "witness" study. Although Galanor inflates the number of "Knoll" earwitnesses to a larger percentage than it probably is (as did Josiah Thompson in his study), the key to his chart (once again) is the amazingly low percentage of people who claimed to hear shots coming from "TWO DIRECTIONS". Galanor has a mere 4.6% of the witnesses occupying the "Two Directions" section of his pie chart (and please note, again, there's not even a slice of this pie reserved for "Three Directions" at all; so, once again, Oliver Stone's three-gunmen theory seems to be having a difficult time taking hold). And Josiah Thompson, another conspiracy believer, only has 6.3% of the witnesses falling into the "Two Directions" category. More here (including graphics, pie charts, and source links): jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html ----------------