David Von Pein

Yes, I realize that, Chris. I was just tossing in my $0.02 on my YouTube experiences regarding quality loss.

Keep pretending that the evidence is worthless, Blair. I, however, choose not to live in that fantasy world you live in.

I agree with you to an extent, Chris. The YouTube processing and converting of the videos does dilute the PQ to a degree. But in my experience, it's never been a major loss in quality (in either video or audio). Of course, I normally upload really old stuff from the 1960s, which often isn't exactly Blu-ray quality to begin with, so the "loss" factor in the PQ is negligible in those instances.

Dr. Wecht didn't clean anybody's clock. Wecht is just flat-out wrong about several things, including the large fib he told about Governor Connally going to his grave with bullet fragments in his chest, which is dead wrong..... ARLEN SPECTER -- "Was any metallic substance from the bullet left in the thoracic cage as a result of the passage of the bullet through the Governor's body?" DR. ROBERT SHAW -- "No. We saw no evidence of any metallic material in the X-ray that we had of the chest, and we found none during the operation." TOO MANY CE399 BULLET FRAGMENTS IN JOHN CONNALLY? HARDLY! And Dr. Wecht continues to make the absurd claim about the Warren Commission's test bullets that were fired into goat ribs and a human wrist. Wecht HAS to know full well that those bullets did not in any way mimic the flight path of the SBT bullet, because those WC/Edgewood Arsenal bullets did not travel through TWO bodies before smashing into the goats and the human wrist bone. And yet Wecht, in his passionate arguments, continues to make it seem as if the WC test bullets were an exact duplication of what CE399 is said to have done. That has always been one of Wecht's dumbest arguments. It was dumb in 1986 when he said it at the Bugliosi/Spence mock trial; it was dumb when he brought up those Warren Commission test bullets in 2007 during a radio debate against Vince Bugliosi; and it's just as dumb here in late 2013 as well. Wecht Vs. Posner on Anderson Cooper 360 (November 22, 2013) (MP3 audio version): http://app.box.com/s/2b1fgrct3k1ivjjmz8qo

I have no idea who "Davis Von Pain" is, but I'm right here.

Looks like Blair's new profile picture is quite appropriate, huh? Scary.

Sounds more like the conspiracy theorists' M.O. to me. And 'round and 'round we go. If you prefer Bugliosi, McAdams, Reitzes, Myers, Nizer, Bill Buckley, or Jim Moore -- I've got plenty from those people too. Just more silly LN "blowhards", right Blair?

Somehow, supporting and propping up the facts in the JFK case means that the MSM has become "desperate" (in the mind of a conspiracy advocate). Kinda sad.

When somebody finds out what the heck the above quote is supposed to mean, please drop me a line and let me know.

You mean you're willing to settle for just DVD?! Why not a high-def Blu-ray set, complete with behind-the-scenes footage of Kennedy's "practice" conferences prior to each live TV news conference? Let's go the whole nine yards.

Looks like a hat trick for Pat, as he ignores the question asked in Post #22 for a third time now. Nice.

FYI / BTW, In the newest batch of "never before seen" photos that has just been unearthed in TIME Magazine and on the TIME website, we find yet another photo of JFK's jacket all bunched up shortly before he was shot. This picture was taken a little earlier in the motorcade, near Turtle Creek, prior to the President's car entering the heaviest downtown crowds:

I'll try asking this for the third time (never got Pat to answer the previous two times): Why is the ruler in the red spot autopsy picture situated right next to the red spot (very similar in nature to the ruler we find in the photo showing JFK's upper-back wound)? What were they "measuring"? Why is a ruler needed in that photo if the red spot (which is right next to the ruler) isn't really a bullet hole at all?

But the "red spot" autopsy photo debunks that theory. Simple as that. Plus, the Clark panel found a bevelled-in place on the X-ray that was 100mm. above the EOP, which perfectly aligns with the location of the red-spot entry hole. There is also the testimony of the HSCA/FPP doctors (plus Charles Petty's testimony at the '86 mock trial) which fully supports the higher entry point, due to the fact that the lower part of the brain did not sustain the kind of damage to support a low/EOP entry. To my mind, all of that stuff is called corroboration for the high cowlick entry. And it's photographic corroboration, which is (I would think) the best kind.

Yes, Dave, even though during the "Cold Case" program they showed on camera this autopsy photo, which couldn't be any clearer as to the location of the entry wound in JFK's head---and it sure isn't "low" on the head.... I guess the PBS/NOVA people must think that Kennedy's scalp was, indeed, s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d four inches when that picture was taken. But even so, it still doesn't help explain how a "stretched" hole which started out down around the EOP can be penetrating what clearly appears to be the "cowlick" area of JFK's head. ~large-sized shrug needed here~

Pat, You know as well as I that just one bullet passed through Kennedy's body. If it didn't, then we'd have two bullets lodged in Kennedy's body. And, instead, there's ZERO. Why not just face the obvious fact that one bullet went clean through the President? And once you've admitted that obvious fact--the rest is easy....because that bullet that just exited John Kennedy's throat is now travelling straight toward a man who (just coincidentally?) also just happened to be hit with a bullet--in his back--during those 8 seconds in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63. A first-grader who flunked study hall and lunch period could figure this out. Why can't any conspiracy theorists manage to do it? ADDENDUM: Do you contend, Pat, that the location of the back wound in the "Cold Case" computer simulation shown below is significantly off when compared to the autopsy photo on the left? I don't see a large difference in the location of the wound. Plus, it appears as if the "Cold Case" simulation has JFK leaning a little bit backward in his seat, which I do not think is altogether accurate:

Vince P., I'm ashamed of you! How can you possibly not have seen my website where I've archived all 64 of JFK's press conferences in their entirety? My press conference site has been online since early 2011. These are in audio form (MP3) only, except for 4 conferences that are also available in video format, including the first conference on 1/25/61. Audio quality is excellent too. I've even tweaked the audio for some of the conferences, because the files made available in 2011 through the JFK Library website were (on occasion) a bit low in volume. So I turned it up a bit before saving them to my site. Here's the link: All of the conferences are also available on my YouTube channel at the link below (click the "Play All" button and you're good to go for 33 straight hours):

Hi Don, I, too, wonder why in the world Josiah Thompson participated in the "Cold Case JFK" broadcast? None of his commentary did anything at all to advance his conspiratorial beliefs. I wonder if half his stuff was cut out? Overall, the "Cold Case" program was pretty good, IMO. And I always find it interesting to take note of the fact that whenever one of these "forensic" type of analytical shows is done about the JFK case, the end result is always the same: The science always ends up supporting and buttressing the Single-Bullet Theory and the general idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could most certainly have pulled off the assassination by himself with that "crummy" $21 mail-order Mannlicher-Carcano. The same results were obtained in the very similar program aired in 2004, "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet". In short, science and forensics supports the "Lone Nut" and "Single-Bullet Theory" scenarios. Always has. Always will. Probably because if someone were to do that--while trying to stick to the facts of the case--their cartoon would end up looking as silly and unreasonable as a Road Runner cartoon. And I'm wondering why it is, Robert, that you aren't bothered at all (it would seem) by the complete lack of bullets in John Kennedy's body. Why is that? Am I supposed to just ignore the fact that President Kennedy had ZERO bullets in his body, which is a fact that destroys any theory that has JFK being struck in both the throat and upper back by separate bullets? Tell me why I should just assume that somebody dug some bullets out of Kennedy's body as a part of some "cover-up" after the assassination?

The video below shows some rather interesting color film footage of JFK's visit to San Antonio, Texas, on November 21, 1963, taken from the 2013 National Geographic program "JFK: The Final Hours". I think this San Antonio footage was the most fascinating part of the documentary. Except for the clips from Tom Atkins' film, I don't think I've seen most of this footage before. And it's in excellent shape too. It looks like it was filmed yesterday. And here's JFK's complete San Antonio speech: DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com / JFK's Speech In San Antonio (11/21/63)

But the four Parkland doctors who went to the National Archives in 1988 certainly did no such thing. Because not one of them said anything like this after viewing the autopsy photos at the National Archives --- "I must have been wrong when I just earlier today told this PBS-TV audience that JFK had a big hole in the back of his head. Because after looking at those autopsy pictures, which do not show any large exit wound in the back of the head at all, I can see that the President's large head wound was more toward the front and the right side of his head--not in the back. Therefore, I'll have to admit that my original evaluation of the location of the large head wound has to be in error." Instead, we got these quotes from the Parkland doctors after they had just taken up to one full hour to examine the autopsy photos of President Kennedy: "I would have to say, honestly, in looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time." -- Dr. Paul Peters [emphasis added by DVP] "I don't see evidence of any alteration of his wound in these pictures from what I saw in the emergency room." -- Dr. Richard Dulany "I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly." -- Dr. Robert McClelland Which, of course, could only mean that Dr. McClelland must have seen a big hole in the back of JFK's head in the autopsy photographs. But we know he saw no such wound in the BACK of JFK's head in those photos. ~big shrug~ BTW, I'm not even sure the doctors saw the X-rays during their trip to the National Archives in 1988. It's not made clear via the NOVA/PBS program whether they saw just the photos or whether it was photos and X-rays too. But, of course, any of those doctors could have easily seen the X-rays in the HSCA volumes, which were published for the public to see nearly ten years earlier. And the X-rays don't show any large hole in the back part of Kennedy's head at all. More --- THE ODD TALES OF THE PARKLAND DOCTORS ON PBS-TV IN 1988

So now we've got an interesting situation involving Lt. J.C. Day of the DPD: He lifted Oswald's palmprint (CE637) off of the rifle (on 11/22/63, two days before Oswald was ever in the Dallas city morgue) -- but no conspiracy theorist believes that Lt. Day lifted any print off of the gun. And now some super sleuth examining pictures of the very rusty and deteriorated bullet shell casings claims that Oswald's right palmprint is on one of the shells -- but Lt. Day said he "did not find fingerprints" on any of the three shells. So, Day found something that CTers positively say WASN'T there at all. But he didn't find a print that WAS there? I find this quite humorous. 4 H 253 -----> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0131a.htm There is also this from Lieutenant Day [at 4 H 257]..... DAVID W. BELIN -- "Could you tell us what exactly you did in testing those hulls for fingerprints?" LT. J.C. DAY -- "I used fingerprint powder, dusted them with the powder, a dark powder. No legible prints were found."

Lt. Carl Day of the DPD said this: "I processed these three hulls for fingerprints, using a powder. Mr. Sims picked them up by the ends and handed them to me. I processed each of the three; did not find fingerprints."

My hat goes off to Barry Krusch -- for actually being able to persuade someone at the Natl. Archives to photograph the 3 Sniper's Nest bullet shells for him [see above video]. Can just any Tom, Dick, or Barry pull that off and have the NA do something like that? That seems quite amazing to me. Anyway, from those recent pictures [seen in Barry's YouTube video], those shells look to be in mighty bad shape (i.e., rusty looking and all scratched to hell). I'm wondering also if some of the initials which are certainly on those shells just might be located on the INSIDE lip of each shell--much the same way some of the initials are located on the 4 Tippit murder shells (see Dale Myers' "With Malice", beginning on page 262 for photos of those)? Granted, the rifle shells look a bit narrow at the top, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of room to squeeze some writing on the inside--but I felt it worth mentioning. Plus, I'm wondering if the deterioration of the shells (which is quite obvious in Barry's NA pics) might be a reason for not being able to make out the markings which most certainly MUST be there. Do CTers think the cops went around switching evidence and then were just too damn lazy to scratch some letters into the "fake" shells? But most of the officers went ahead and testified anyway that they DID put their initials on those shells? Talk about dumb! Or lazy! That must take the cake. And that same argument applies to CE399 and Elmer Todd's initials too. Most CTers think Todd's initials are not on CE399 at all, even though Todd wrote up a report on 11/22/63 stating both he and Bob Frazier scratched their initials into the "nose of the bullet" on the night of Nov. 22 at the FBI lab. It's a "fake" bullet, per the CTers, but the goofs at the FBI couldn't manage to put their proper markings on it--even though they said they did? Crazy. Todd's initials are on that bullet as sure as anything. And I think all the proper markings are SOMEWHERE on those three SN shells too. To believe otherwise is to believe is mass fakery of the evidence in a Presidential murder case (which I do not believe for a second). And, as mentioned, we'd also have to believe that the FBI and/or DPD were the biggest boobs to ever come down Elm Street with a fake bullet shell -- by not simply scratching some initials into the "fake" shells when they easily could have done so in order to firm up that chain of custody they would certainly want those fake shells to have. BULLET SHELL ADDENDUM ---- This is from J.C. Day's affidavit about the shells (dated June 23, 1964)--- "Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light disclosed that my name "Day" was on all three hulls, at the small end. Also GD for Captain George Doughty was on two of them. Commission numbers 543 and 544 were the first two sent to Washington on November 22, 1963. They have Doughty's initials where he marked the hulls as they were released to Vince Drain at 11:45 P.M. on November 22, 1963 by Doughty and Day. The third hull, commission number 545, does not have Doughty's mark, but is plainly marked "Day". In Washington, I had numbers 543 and 545 switched because I didn't find my name on number 543. I can identify commission numbers 543, 544, and 545 from my name on them, as the three hulls found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963." /s/ J.C. Day; 6/23/64 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day2.htm David Von Pein October 20-21, 2013

http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy