David Von Pein

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").

Quote me saying that, Cliff. Because I sure as heck don't remember ever saying that. Kennedy's jacket was, of course, "bunched up" in the Croft picture. Anyone with one (bad) eye can easily see that. Did I say something years ago to you about the clothing not being bunched "much at all"? Is that the key phrase? Or are you misstating my quotes? (Just wondering.)

Yeah, and that's for a defective version. Some nut is trying to get $160+ for a copy of an early unfinished version of the book that should have never been printed in the first place. ~sigh~

UPDATE ON THE BOOK (12/10/2014): After a lengthy series of delays, problems, and glitches, it appears that the book "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is now ready to be released. I received my early copies of the book on December 9th, and everything looks good now.* The final page count is 471. The publisher is Strategic Media Books. The retail price is $18.95, and it should be available to order from online stores like Amazon in the next few days. * There is only one factual error that I noticed still being in the final version of the book--and it's a very minor error that appears in a caption attached to one of the pictures in the photo section of the book. (And, wouldn't you know it, that is the one and only section of the book that I was unable to proofread before it went to press.) The incorrect caption concerns the photograph taken by Jack Beers in the basement of the Dallas police station as Jack Ruby was shooting Lee Harvey Oswald. The inaccurate caption says that the photo is the prize-winning picture taken by Robert Jackson. But it's really the Beers image. (Hopefully, there won't be too many conspiracy theorists who want to crucify Mel Ayton or myself for this captioning mistake.) :-) David Von Pein December 9, 2014 ----------------------------- "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" Chapter List: PREFACE CHAPTER 1 -- A NATIONAL OBSESSION CHAPTER 2 -- GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS: THE WARREN COMMISSION AND THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS CHAPTER 3 -- DAMNING EVIDENCE CHAPTER 4 -- THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY, THE HEAD SHOT, AND THE GRASSY KNOLL CHAPTER 5 -- CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT CHAPTER 6 -- AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH PHOTO SECTION CHAPTER 7 -- THE USUAL SUSPECTS CHAPTER 8 -- THE CIA-DID-IT THEORY CHAPTER 9 -- THE NEW ORLEANS DEBACLE CHAPTER 10 -- OSWALD’S DEFENDERS CHAPTER 11 -- THE CASTRO CONNECTION CHAPTER 12 -- THE JFK ASSASSINATION LEGACY NOTES & SOURCES APPENDIX 1 -- Additional Controversial Issues Surrounding The JFK Assassination by David Von Pein APPENDIX 2 -- Replication Of The HSCA Weiss & Aschkenasy Acoustic Analysis by Michael O'Dell BIBLIOGRAPHY

Not to mention the loss of my lunch.

And, of course, your above comment means you have no choice but to believe that the Zapruder Film has been altered, too. Because the Z-Film is perfectly consistent with all of the autopsy photos and X-rays, as well as being perfectly in-sync and consistent with the observations of three of the closest witnesses on Elm Street who were just a few feet away from the RIGHT SIDE of President Kennedy's head when they saw his head burst open in front of their eyes. Try finding a first-day statement from any Dealey Plaza witness who said they saw the BACK of JFK's head blown out. I doubt you'll be able to find one. You'll be able to find plenty of Parkland Hospital witnesses who incorrectly placed the large exit wound in the rear of Kennedy's head, but you won't find any Dealey Plaza witnesses who said that. And the Zapruder Film, of course, is proving for all time where the large exit wound was located---it's just exactly where the autopsy pictures show it to be--in the right/front/top portion of the head....

I have to laugh heartily at Mr. Tidd's silly suggestion that Dr. Michael Baden "validated" the photographs and X-rays. (I guess Jon thinks Baden was part of the HSCA's Photographic Panel.) But Baden wasn't part of the 20+ people who authenticated the autopsy photographs and X-rays for the House Select Committee. Baden was part of the Forensic Pathology Panel. And I said nothing at all in my previous post about the "medical panel" (FPP). That's a whole other kettle of fish. But, conspiracy theorists will look for any excuse to bash Dr. Baden and Company. Right, Jon G. Tidd?

This is laughable. The autopsy photos and X-rays have most certainly not been "thoroughly discredited". Far from it, in fact. Unless you want to believe that all 20 or so members of the HSCA's Photographic Panel were complete idiots (or liars). Because that Panel said this.... "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 Volume 7; Page 41 http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm And why on Earth anyone would think the statements of James Sibert and Francis O'Neill could possibly trump the above conclusion of the HSCA's Photo Panel is anyone's guess. Sibert and O'Neill weren't photographic experts. They were FBI agents. Nothing they have said over the years invalidates these words.... "...the autopsy photographs and X-rays...had not been altered in any manner." Naturally, many conspiracy theorists think it's perfectly acceptable to take the above words and just toss them into the trash. But would a reasonable person do such a silly thing? BTW.... 2005 Interview With James W. Sibert 1979 Interview With Francis X. O'Neill

From a 2007 discussion re: "the cerebellum".... JOHN CANAL SAID: Furthermore, I would have appreciated your take (and Vince Bugliosi's) more if you had added not only the fact that 10 doctors and other eyewitnesses, including TWO neurosurgeons, not to mention Humes in his WC testimony, saw CEREBELLUM tissue exuding from the large defect, but also the fact that it would have been virtually impossible to see cerebellum exuding from a wound that was limited in its area to the top/right/front of his head. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: No cerebellum was seen by anybody. In fact, via Doctor Boswell's 1996 words on this subject (reprinted below), it would have been literally impossible for any cerebellum to have spilled out onto that stretcher at Parkland (or at Bethesda) on 11/22/63. .... (And we all know that Mr. Canal thinks Dr. Boswell's ARRB remarks are very, very solid and worthy of accepting.) And in this particular instance, since there's not a sign of ambiguity at all in this testimony, unlike Boswell's remarks concerning the BOH situation, I'm inclined to accept this as the final "Cerebellum" word: DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB Testimony) -- "In Dallas, they had said that the cerebellum was the part of the brain that was injured and exuding. But they were wrong because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort of compartment, and in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to cut the dura around, and then you--that's the only hard part about getting the brain out. And the manner in which we were doing it, both the cerebral hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was really very simple to take out." QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an opportunity to examine the cerebellum?" BOSWELL -- "Yes." QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you noticed during the time of the autopsy?" BOSWELL -- "No." QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum were intact?" BOSWELL -- "Yes." ~~~~~~~~ The "I Saw Cerebellum" comments made by the various witnesses are yet additional errors in a series of innocent observational errors made by the doctors. And some of the doctors who initially said they thought they saw cerebellum have since reversed themselves on that issue (Pepper Jenkins and Paul Peters on the 1988 NOVA program, to name two). [Although I must add, by way of footnote, that the on-camera comments made by four of the Parkland doctors for the 1988 PBS/NOVA program regarding the precise location of the large wound in President Kennedy's head are very strange comments indeed. So it's a very good idea to take everything uttered by those four physicians during that program with a large grain of salt by your side. See the link below.] THE ODD TALES OF THE PARKLAND DOCTORS ON PBS-TV IN 1988 JFK-ARCHIVES.blogspot.com/search site for "Boswell" & "Cerebellum" ---------------

No witness (or series of witnesses) can trump the autopsy pictures and X-rays. So, Bob P., tell us how you go about the daunting task of totally dismissing the best evidence available regarding the true locations of JFK's head wounds---i.e., the photographs below?