David Von Pein

The evidence against Oswald in the Walker murder attempt is, indeed, circumstantial in nature. I'm not denying that fact. Of course it's circumstantial. But it's also fairly solid circumstantial evidence, in my view. And in some ways it is the best kind of circumstantial evidence you could get, because Commission Exhibit No. 1 (the note Lee left behind for Marina on the night of 4/10/63) was written by Lee Harvey Oswald himself. It wasn't written by somebody else. It was written by Lee Oswald. So Lee is telling us, in his own words, that something's not quite normal on the night of April 10th, 1963. Jon, why do you think Lee Oswald wrote the note we find in CE1? If it wasn't written just prior to Lee taking a potshot at General Walker, then why did Lee write such a strange "If I am alive and taken prisoner" note to his wife? He must have been planning something pretty serious in order to use those words. Right, Jon? http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0013a.htm

Two good questions off the top of my head.... 1. Did Lee Harvey Oswald lie (repeatedly) to the authorities after his arrest on 11/22/63? 2. Did Lee Harvey Oswald take a shot at General Edwin A. Walker on April 10, 1963? -------------- I believe the answer to both of the above inquiries is a resounding (and provable) Yes. And if we can all agree that Question #2 should be answered in the affirmative, then a very important fact about Lee Oswald emerges in the process -- the fact that he was willing, seven months before JFK's trip to Texas, to attempt to kill a human being by shooting him with a gun. That's an important thing to know about Lee Harvey Oswald, in my opinion.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/yXt025gjMfk/NhH4NLmTgF4J --------------

More silliness from DiEugenio. Plots; CIA agents everywhere you look; hidden "agendas" around every corner. Paranoia at its finest.... jfk-archives / dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-96 --------------

VINCENT MICHAEL PALAMARA SAID: GEORGE H.W. BUSH TO WRITE FOREWORD TO CLINT HILL BOOK. .... An inside source who wishes to remain anonymous told me that Poppy Bush is writing the Foreword to Clint Hill's new book coming out in late 2015. DAVID ROBERT VON PEIN SAID: That will make FOUR books authored (or co-authored) by Clint Hill since 2010. My gosh, what can Clint possibly have left to say in book #4? I guess Clint is making up for lost time. He was as quiet as a mouse until 2010, and now--four books inside of five years. That's rather remarkable. I wonder if Lisa McCubbin is working on this latest one too? (Do you know, Vince?) I've always liked and admired Clinton J. Hill. And I wish him the best. CLINT HILL INTERVIEWS: JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/12/kennedy-detail.html -------------

The story made FOX News. FOX interview with John McAdams -----> Facebook.com/steve.barber/posts/10205442055361593 -----------------

That's all very nice, Cliff. But I will remind you of what that very same HSCA concluded about those very same autopsy photographs and X-rays..... "From the reports of the experts' analyses of the autopsy photographs and X-rays, 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." -- HSCA Vol. 7, p.41 http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm If you, Cliff, want to continue to pretend that this photo of President Kennedy is a fake, or alternatively, that the wound seen in this picture is really much lower on JFK's back than it appears to be in this photo....well, you're free to speculate about such things I guess. But in my opinion, neither option is a reasonable one....

Cliff, When you have to resort to claims of so much fakery and dishonesty on the part of God knows how many people to make your case, I know I've won the battle. Every single thing you just said in your last post is pure fantasy....and even you must know it. Bye.

The verifiable PROOF that Cliff Varnell is dead wrong regarding the bullet holes in JFK's clothing exists in the fact that we KNOW beyond all doubt that ONE single bullet had to have passed through all three bullet holes in question --- the hole in JFK's jacket, the hole in JFK's shirt, and the hole that existed in JFK's upper back (which is located 14 centimeters below his right mastoid process, just like the autopsy doctors said). Cliff can talk all day long (and he will) about how it's impossible for John Kennedy's clothes to have bunched up to a certain level on JFK's body. But the absolute irrefutable PROOF that the clothing DID, indeed, bunch up to that level on JFK's back exists in this autopsy picture, which has been proven to be genuine (i.e., not faked) by many experts who examined the autopsy photos for the HSCA: The bullet hole in the above picture is perfectly consistent with the Single-Bullet Theory and is also perfectly consistent with the autopsy report and with Commission Exhibit No. 903 as well. And since we know where the bullet entered the BODY of President Kennedy, then the shirt and jacket HAD to have been elevated to the very same level where we find the body/skin wound in the upper back of the President. The above fact couldn't be any more obvious, of course. But, for some reason, certain conspiracy theorists are still struggling to figure out this elementary math that any third-grader would have no trouble resolving.

I've never specified the EXACT amount of jacket bunching that can be seen in the photos. Why on Earth would anyone do something like that? It's an impossible thing to know. I can't tell precisely how much "bunching" there is in the Croft picture. And neither can you. We can only GUESS. You, Cliff, are attempting to fine-tune the "bunching" to levels of exactitude that cannot be achieved. But it is nice to see Cliff admit that at least SOME bunching of JFK's jacket is seen in the Dealey Plaza photographs. (With a shocking admission like that one, perhaps Cliff isn't too far away from becoming an LNer after all.) And who said a "significant" amount of bunching is needed in order to meet the requirements for the Single-Bullet Theory? Just because YOU say so? "Significant" is a relative term. Once again, Cliff V. is pretending to KNOW with exact accuracy the degree of "bunching" that is occurring with respect to both JFK's jacket AND shirt via the photos we have to examine. (And the shirt can't even be seen at all, of course, since the jacket is covering his shirt.) But such pinpoint precision concerning the bunching cannot be obtained by just looking at the photos. It can only be GUESSED at. But apparently Cliff thinks he can measure to the millimeter the amount of bunched-up fabric that is seen in the photos. Such silliness the likes which Mr. Varnell is constantly engaging in regarding President Kennedy's clothing ought to scoffed at by any and all reasonable people examining the JFK case. Bottom Line --- Cliff Varnell is pretending to know things that are just simply unknowable.

There's some material in the book that I don't think has been published in "book" form in the past. E.G., Stuff about the ridiculous "Secret Service Standdown" myth and the true identity of the "shrugging" SS agent at Love Field [pages 429-434 of "BRD"]. (Don Lawton's identity WAS, indeed, revealed in the Gerald Blaine/Clint Hill book "The Kennedy Detail" in 2010, but I don't think the "standdown" topic was discussed in that book. But I'm not positive about that.) And there's some "new" material (thanks to Gary Mack's e-mails to me) regarding Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's [pages 64-67]. Plus, the book's main author, Mel Ayton, has contacted some sources down in Florida regarding the "Castro/Cuba/Oswald" angle that I believe can be classified as "new" [Chapter 11, "The Castro Connection"; pages 313-343]. But as far as being "new" to people like Mark Knight or Pat Speer or John Simkin or Mark Lane, et al ... the answer to your question, Mark, would be, for the most part, no. Because I doubt that there's much of anything brand-new in the book that you guys haven't seen before. (Sorry, Mark, neither Mel nor I discovered another bullet or a new "bombshell witness". Instead, we have had to mostly rely on that same evidence collected by the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/63. Like it or not, that evidence IS the evidence in this case. And it all points in one irresistible direction.) But for people who don't visit JFK online forums every day of their lives and who don't obsess about the JFK case the way I do or the way "Internet CTers" do, then I'd say, Yes, there are several "new" items of interest sprinkled throughout "Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Warren Report And Lee Harvey Oswald's Guilt And Motive 50 Years On". And why in heck the "Add To Cart" button hasn't returned to the book's Amazon page is ticking me off greatly. It should be there by now, but it isn't (as of 1:00 AM EST on 12/15/2014). The ability to purchase it through the "Shopping Cart" at Amazon should definitely occur within the next few days. If it doesn't, does someone have a Mannlicher-Carcano I can borrow so I can shoot somebody? (Thank you. And I apologize for my part in detouring this thread "off topic". But everybody should be accustomed to that happening at all JFK forums by now. It's as inevitable as Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.) -----------------

Brilliant. Yeah, no kidding. It's difficult to prove something for which there's no evidence at all. Good luck. Not a lick of evidence to support that claim. Nor does mine. But you didn't even come close to answering my previous question, which concerned only the SBT. I'll try again.... "Then what's your alternative theory that replaces the SBT, Ray? And does your version really fit the evidence better than the SBT does? Don't be shy. Let's hear it." ------------

Then what's your alternative theory that replaces the SBT, Ray? And does your version really fit the evidence better than the SBT does? Don't be shy. Let's hear it.

What's not to love about a conspiracy buff with a pet theory to push? Pure entertainment. Cliff Varnell's dogged refrain, year after year after year, concerning the clothing of JFK is even better than Jack Benny for laughs. The bottom line is ---- There is no reasonable alternative to the Single-Bullet Theory (Cliff's constant whining about the clothing notwithstanding) -- and even Cliff must surely realize that fact. So, to use Cliff's own verbiage, maybe it's time for "you [CT] people to put up or shut up" when it comes to demonstrating just exactly how President Kennedy was shot via an anti-SBT theory. Of course that won't happen---because it CAN'T happen. And that's because the Single-Bullet Theory is rooted in solid ground (and a real bullet too--CE399, which is something the anti-SBT CTers lack completely).

Oh, good. Bob has decided to be cute. (He thinks he's setting a cunning little trap for that stupid ol' LNer from the Hoosier State named Davey V.P., doesn't he? How clever that boy is.)

That seems to be about right when looking at the autopsy photo. But to be perfectly technical and spot-on accurate, I'd insist upon the precise language of the autopsy surgeons and the detailed measurements they made. Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck said.... "Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process." -- Warren Report; Page 540 http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0282b.htm

Then what's your point, Ray? You readily acknowledge that ONE bullet must have passed through the two holes in the clothing. So aren't you therefore saying the exact same thing I am saying here -- i.e., that the two articles of clothing (the shirt and the jacket) WERE, indeed, elevated to the same level when the bullet struck John Kennedy in the back? Otherwise, how could the one bullet have managed to travel through both of those clothing holes on November 22, 1963? Please elaborate on how your position ("Obviously one bullet caused both holes") is any different from mine ("There's only ONE bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only ONE hole in the jacket. So, then, ONE bullet had no choice but to pass through both of those holes."). We are BOTH stating the obvious--that one bullet went through both clothing holes. Therefore, in order for that basic fact to be true, the two items of clothing had no choice but to be "lined up" in such a manner on JFK's back to allow the one bullet to pass successfully through both of those garments. Correct? And since everybody (including Mr. Ray Mitcham) can easily see that JFK's jacket WAS definitely "bunched up" when the shooting occurred (as confirmed by Robert Croft's photograph seen below), then where can you possibly go with your argument that the shirt couldn't have been bunched up to the same level as the jacket? What am I missing here? Please tell me. Because I truly don't think your position on this is any different from my own.

As far as the SKIN wound in JFK's body, the bullet went into his body just slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders. (At least it looks that way to me.) But it certainly didn't enter way up in the "NECK", and there was no need whatever for Gerald Ford, or any other person connected with the Warren Commission, to want to start "moving" the wound way up into the neck, because, as CE903 demonstrates, a wound way up there in the "neck" of JFK would ruin the SBT trajectory entirely. As far as the bullet hole in the coat, that hole was located quite a bit down from the collar (due to the bunching of the jacket when the shooting occurred). So, quite obviously, the "collar" isn't involved when discussing the hole in the jacket either. jfk-archives.blogspot.com / jfk-back-wound-location

Robert P., The simple answer to your first two inquiries above is that JFK's clothes on 11/22/63 were not "bunched" to an extreme degree where "folds" or overlapping of the fabric come into play in the precise locations in the shirt and coat where the bullet penetrated. Because if such folding of the clothing had occurred at the exact spots where the bullet entered, then--like you suggested--we would have multiple holes in each item (the coat and the shirt). But we've got only ONE hole in each article of clothing. Ergo, no "folding" and no overlapping of fabric. Also see....

Of course they bunched up the same amount. Why not? You actually think such a thing is a total impossibility? (Geesh.) The alternative is to believe that this autopsy photo is a fake. And, IMO, that notion is absurd and preposterous (especially in light of what we find at 7 HSCA 41).... President Kennedy's suit coat is unquestionably hiked up on his back in the Croft picture at circa Z161. That's not even debatable. Now, given that undeniable FACT (unless someone wants to pretend that Robert Croft's picture has been faked too), it means the suit coat is going to have a hole in it that is lower than the wound in JFK's skin. Correct? And since there's only one bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only one bullet hole in the upper back (skin) of John F. Kennedy's body too---well, it's pretty obvious to see where I'm going with this, right? And, to reiterate -- Why on Earth do CTers think it would be an impossible feat to have somebody's shirt and jacket bunched up IN UNISON on a person's back? But to hear CTers like Cliff Varnell tell it, that "double bunching" thing is more improbable than flying to the moon in a Cessna. ~big shrug~ It only goes to show--once again--the lengths that some conspiracy hounds will go to in order to inject suspicion and doubt and alleged "conspiracy" into every nook and cranny of the JFK murder case---even though there's no need to inject such things into this particular sub-topic regarding the President's clothing whatsoever. And btw, a picture was produced by Jean Davison a few years ago (the one below) showing JFK wearing a shirt that is "bunched up" near his neck. But according to some CTers, I guess maybe this is merely an illusion I'm seeing here.... And Cliff Varnell and other Education Forum members know about the above picture, too. It was discussed right here in this thread. Naturally, Cliff doesn't think it has any relevance at all. But I think Cliff is all wet, and I set him straight here. FYI / BTW / FWIW.... Here's another photo, culled from Andre Leche's film (which was discovered in late 2013), showing a pretty significant bunching of JFK's jacket on Main Street....

Davey "Zapruder Never Filmed The Assassination At All" Healy actually seems to think we will be selling the book to the general public for the outlandish price of $160. As usual, David H. doesn't disappoint. He gets something else wrong. Gee, what a surprise.

The following two webpages might prove helpful to some people here....

This stuff about the clothing is so incredibly silly, Ray. There's only ONE bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only ONE hole in the jacket. So, then, ONE bullet had no choice but to pass through both of those holes. What's the alternative? Please enlighten me on that one. Did one bullet pass through the shirt and then a different bullet went through the suit coat? Nobody could possibly argue such a nutty theory. Or do you think the clothing was faked too?

Oh, brother. Cliff Varnell thinks those previous comments I made somehow mean I can no longer believe (or in any way support) the SBT. Cliff's middle initial must be D (for "Desperation").