David Von Pein

Robert, that is still the #1 head-scratcher for me in this whole case. It is by far this case's #1 "mystery", without doubt. And I don't have the precise answer. I have postulated a possible resolution to that mystery--and yes, it aligns with Vince Bugliosi's and Michael Baden's theory on this matter. But given what we see in the autopsy photos and X-rays--which are not fakes--this explanation makes the most sense to me (although it's still not 100% satisfying, I'll readily admit). Quoting from pages 407 and 408 of Bugliosi's book: "Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," [baden] told me. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." "

Now let me provide some of that "balance" I was talking about previously.... "It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- Via JFK's Autopsy Report http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm Plus: The next "best" evidence is, of course, the autopsy pictures, which the HSCA determined were "authentic and unaltered"..... "The committee did, however, subject the autopsy photographs and X-rays to scientific analysis. These examinations by the committee's consultants established the inaccuracy of the Parkland observations. The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy personnel and providing additional support for the conclusions of the medical consultants." -- HSCA Report; Volume VII Plus there's the fact that the person mentioned in Robert's last post -- Clint Hill -- has fully endorsed the WC's conclusion of Oswald (alone) shooting JFK. Hill doesn't support the SBT, but he has no doubt that Oswald shot the President. And the only shots Hill heard came from his "right rear" (i.e., from the direction of the Book Depository), which is also consistent with what we see in the James Altgens photograph. In that picture (depicted below), two of the Secret Service agents on the follow-up car are looking over their shoulders, toward the Depository. This fact is almost never mentioned by any of the conspiracy theorists. (Oops, I'm sorry--I should have said People who don't accept the findings of the Warren Commission, but hate being called "conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy advocates".)

Didn't I explain that already, Bobby? Even with the Govt. shutdown, I'm still chained to the Langley desk. I have no choice. The CIA Disinfo must continue to flow no matter what. ~sigh~ But, in reality ("CIA Disinfo" kidding aside), I like to post the actual facts and sources of information for at least a few interested people to see and read on conspiracy-oriented forums like this one. That way, the LN vs. CT playing field is leveled at least a tad bit. Somebody should provide SOME degree of balance in the arguments, don't you think? Why should the incredibly silly "OSWALD DIDN'T SHOOT ANYBODY" debaters win by default?

Oh, for Pete sake. Does this semantics silliness have an end? Or is today "Let's Nitpick Everything To Death" day here at the Simkin forum?

Only someone bent on arguing over trivial things could possibly gripe about someone calling a JFK conspiracy advocate a "conspiracy theorist". Hilarious.

I disagree. Such a belief is not "reasonable", IMO. The reason the FBI could find no print (even though Lt. Day told the FBI they probably could still find one on the barrel) is simply because Carl Day of the DPD had already lifted the print off of the underside of the Carcano barrel. And Day talks all about this in his WC testimony: LT. 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." http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm 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.] But the "Mauser" thing has been fully explained. The two Deputy Sheriffs who first saw the rifle behind the boxes in the TSBD have BOTH said (on television) that they were mistaken about originally calling the gun a "Mauser". Both of them. And neither one of them was a member of the "DPD".... Seymour Weitzman in 1967 (at 26:45 of Part 1): http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report-1967.html And Eugene Boone in 1986:

I suppose you'd also object if I called you a "man" or "an Education Forum member"? But for some reason, addressing a conspiracy believer as a "conspiracy theorist" seems to be way out of bounds. I can only shrug my shoulders and look bewildered when trying to figure that one out. DVP's Potpourri / The Colonel On TV Game Show In 1963 (Right After The JFK Assassination)

Oh really? That must be a brand-new rule here at the Edu. Forum. Is it on the TOS page now? Bull. And you surely have to know what you just said is pure BS, Pat. CTers do nothing BUT toss aside inconvenient evidence--day and night, 24/7. That's how the CTers get to pretend Oswald was snow-white innocent when the evidence indicates precisely the opposite. LNers rarely throw away HARD evidence. (I mean verifiable evidence. I don't mean speculative stuff, which is the kind of stuff the CT foundation of mush is built on--and has been built on since 1963.) You're right there. That's not my story. In fact, I hate the political labels people hang on other people -- liberal, conservative, right-wing, left-wing. I hate those labels. And I truly think that most of the time such labels don't even really apply to most people. And even in Lee Oswald's case, the term "left-wing" might not explain his entire political philosophy. Because even Oswald disliked a lot of things about the Russian ("Leftist") way of life. And he said so in his own diary. I'm an open book. No hidden mysteries or agendas at all. If some CTers want to believe otherwise, I can't control that. In fact, Vince Palamara asked me just two days ago (on Facebook) a similar question. Here's what I told him: VINCE PALAMARA SAID: Dave, I am curious (and I do NOT mean this in a jerky way--honest): why are you interested in the case? If the official story is correct, wouldn't this be a big yawn after a while? To make an analogy: I am 100 percent convinced (since day one) John Hinckley acted alone. I couldn't get into conspiracy newsgroups (etc) on that subject. Why are you interested? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Vince, the best answer I can come up with to your very good question is --- It's engrained in me. My interest in JFK and his assassination has been with me for more than 3 decades now, and that interest has not waned. It's just there....even though I firmly believe the case was solved in 1963 by the DPD. And the audio/video aspects of the coverage of the assassination has been of great interest to me too. So that's another aspect of it. And, as Vince Bugliosi said (and I totally concur): "The JFK case is the most fascinating story ever told" -- and it continues to get told (and re-told) every day. And some of those "tellings" of the story also keep me interested, as I want to debunk the lunacy of most of the conspiracy theories. And even you, Vince, must agree that if there was a plot, only ONE conspiracy theory can possibly be correct. So that means 99% of the stuff being written about this case (from the POV of specific "conspiracy theories") is dead wrong. It has to be. But the evidence isn't lying to us, Vince. And back in 2007, you thought the evidence was telling the true story--Oswald did it--and did it alone. Too bad the Doug Hornes and Jim Douglasses and Jesse Venturas of the world have tainted your 2007 reasoned thinking. But the evidence IS the truth. And that's telling us who killed JFK---and it sure wasn't George H.W. Bush or Mac Wallace or Jimmy Files.

Oh my. How clever.

It's not an indefensible position in the slightest, Pat. There is photographic evidence to back up my position. Yes, the HSCA says something different about the relative locations of JFK's back and throat wounds. But you'd think an LNer like me would score at least a couple of bonus points with the CTers on this particular issue, since my position on this most certainly indicates that an LNer (me) won't accept every single thing being uttered by an official Government entity as the Gospel truth all the time. I'm always being told by the conspiracists: "Think for yourself. Think outside the box. Don't always accept what the Government shills are feeding you." Well, in this instance, I'm not accepting the Government's conclusions. But I still easily COULD accept the HSCA's position on this issue and still endorse the SBT at the same time. But I have not done so, because I think the HSCA's "version" of the SBT is not entirely accurate. 1.) The HSCA places the SBT shot at Zapruder Frame 190. I disagree. 2.) The HSCA says Governor Connally is already reacting (with his body "stiffening") at Z222. I disagree. 3.) The HSCA says JFK's throat wound was located anatomically higher on his body than the wound in his upper back. I firmly disagree with that assessment, and I think Chad Zimmerman's on-camera experiment in the 2004 program "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet", plus the autopsy photos shown below, make it quite clear that the HSCA was incorrect on that point. So, should I get any credit at all for "thinking outside the proverbial box"? Or should I now be scolded for not believing what the HSCA has told me with respect to the above-mentioned three points, even though I disagree with all three? Looks like an LNer like me can't win with conspiracy theorists--no matter which "box" he's currently thinking in.

That myth has been pretty much debunked. At the very least, the postmark on Oswald's envelope very likely does not mean what the CTers think it means. More .... The Postmark On CE773

Of course the WC used that evidence. Why wouldn't they use the evidence collected at the crime scenes? But, again, the WC didn't invent the evidence. It was collected mostly by the Dallas Police. Was the DPD supposedly part of the plot too? Even to frame Oswald for Policeman Tippit's murder too? In short, the evidence is what it is. And it all points to Oswald--and to no one else. So does that response mean you think the DPD manufactured the evidence which enabled them to officially charge Lee Oswald with two murders before midnight on 11/22/63? Quite obviously, the DPD felt they had enough evidence to charge Oswald with Tippit's and Kennedy's murders. Should I disbelieve the DPD and disbelieve the evidence they collected? If so, why? Apples and oranges. Why do I have to believe the HSCA's conclusions, even though I just talked about how that Dictabelt evidence is seriously flawed? Why should seriously flawed evidence be treated the same as evidence that has not been proven to be seriously flawed? That's correct. IMO, nothing positive or constructive (or true) has come from ANY of the conspiracy researchers or their books. Nothing. In fact, just the opposite. People like Mark Lane and David Lifton and Jim Garrison and Doug Horne have done far more harm than good when it comes to arriving at the truth regarding JFK's murder. How can that fact even be questioned? I don't necessarily "connect" the JFK case to any "corruption" that might exist in the Government since 1963. I think too many people try to trace all the evils and the wrongs of the world back to the events of 11/22/63. It's a convenient excuse is all it is. (IMHO.) >>> "Do you think LBJ was a criminal?" <<< Of course not. Why on Earth would any sensible person even begin to think such an outrageous thing? >>> "That J E Hoover was being manipulated by organized crime?" <<< I have no idea. But even if he was, IMO that's apples and oranges too (as far as the JFK case is concerned). Oswald killed Kennedy. Not organized crime. >>> "That foreign policy was being dictated outside the White House and Congress by the CIA?" <<< I have no idea. But--again--what has that got to do with whether or not a loner named Oswald took his own rifle to work on November 22nd and shot the President? (And any "CIA" connections to Oswald are very dubious ones--at best. Even Harold Weisberg could find no connection there.) >>> "That like minded individuals haven't since prospered by taking their cue's since this momentous event?" <<< This, again, has nothing to do with Kennedy's murder. Not EVERYTHING in history is connected to the way John Kennedy met his demise. >>> "The assassination is important because it marked a sea change in the way government was run and those who aspired to be a politician. Do you not see a connection with what occurred in '63, to what has happened since?" <<< See my last reply. Regards, DVP

Dear David, The Warren Commission didn't collect any of the physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases. The DPD collected most of it. And I still haven't heard a single response from any conspiracist to this question I asked recently: "If there is absolutely no evidence against Oswald (as many conspiracy theorists seem to think), then what made the Dallas Police Department decide to charge Lee Harvey Oswald with two murders before midnight on November 22, 1963? Do people usually get officially charged with TWO murders by the police department if there is absolutely no evidence against them whatsoever?" So I don't really need the Warren Commission at all in order to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion in this case. Yes, I think the WC did a darn good job in the 9 or 10 months they had to investigate the case. But they merely evaluated the already-collected evidence. The WC didn't just MAKE UP the evidence (such as the bullets, the guns, Oswald's prints all over the place, the paper bag, etc.). Why would anyone in their right mind have any desire at all to continue to defend the acoustics evidence after it has been shown to be in extreme doubt? But it's just like a conspiracy theorist to want someone to cling to a position even when it's been totally discredited. The CTers are known for such stubborn behavior. They exhibit it all the time. They adhere themselves to a theory (aka: myth) and they wouldn't let go of it if their life hung in the balance. Examples: The "Motorcade route was changed at the last minute" myth .... and the "Mauser" myth .... and the myth about the WC saying that Oswald positively had no more than "5.6 seconds" to accomplish the assassination .... and the myth about Oswald being a "lousy shot" .... and the myth about the "Secret Service standdown" at Love Field .... among dozens of other myths believed to be the Gospel truth in this case by many conspiracy advocates, but which no conspiracy theorist could possibly back up with hard evidence in a thousand years. Back to the Dictabelt for a minute -- The shortcomings in the "4th shot" Dictabelt evidence are immense. Surely you're aware of those problems and shortcomings, are you not David Redemer? I can debunk the HSCA's acoustics theory in about two minutes--by just taking a good look at Robert Hughes' film. Just watch it and see: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html The National Academy of Sciences effectively UNverified those acoustics findings. (Surely you know all this, don't you David R.?) http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics_5.htm And, as I just said, the Hughes Film all by itself throws a monkey wrench into the HSCA's Dictabelt findings. There is no way around this fact (unless you'd like to claim that the HSCA was dead wrong when it said the stuck-open microphone definitely HAD to be located at the corner of Elm & Houston at the time of the first shot). It's interesting, isn't it, that every time a "new" (i.e., "better/more complete") investigation is done to look into various aspects of the JFK case, the results (invariably) always favor the notion that the Warren Commission was right after all. From the Clark Panel to the Rockefeller panel to the HSCA (not counting their 11th-hour Dictabelt farce, which must be discarded for the reasons previously mentioned). There's been nothing substantial in any of those investigations that would undermine or tear apart the WC's lone-asssassin determination. Now, why do you suppose that is? There are two probable reasons for that: 1.) All of the subsequent investigations were cover-up operations, with just one goal at hand -- to rubber-stamp the Warren Commission's lone-gunman conclusion. Or: 2.) Lee Harvey Oswald really was the lone assassin. Which of those options is likely the correct one? As you said in the title of this thread, David (and I totally agree with you on this) -- "Time to be real." Good day, sir.

There is no "secret recipe" for Crispy, you silly willy. Anyway, here are instructions for Healy: Place cursor over blue underlined text (that's called a "link"). Then click mouse. (More detailed instructions available upon request. Just send $9.95 to CIA Disinfo HQ; Langley, VA. 22101)

JFK Archives / HOWARD BRENNAN (PART 2)

I don't think I've ever made that specific claim (based on JUST isolating the Carcano rifle by itself). But that rifle WAS Oswald's rifle, so yes, it's a darn good starting point for sure. And btw, the rifle wasn't found "in the sniper's nest". It was found in the northwest corner of the sixth floor near the stairway. But the things that WERE found in the Sniper's Nest, coupled with that rifle that was found on the other side of the sixth floor, present a very strong case for Lee Oswald being the assassin of JFK. Plus there's Howard Brennan's testimony too, which is testimony that almost all CTers will totally dismiss without even giving mild consideration as to whether Brennan told the truth when he told the WC that he saw Oswald firing a gun at the President. So, it's the sum total of facts and evidence and Oswald's very own actions that lead me to believe Lee Oswald killed both President Kennedy and Officer J.D. Tippit. And Oswald's movements and actions cannot be dismissed and just tossed aside (although many conspiracists seem to want to do that very thing). Let's face it -- Oswald acted like a guilty person just after JFK and Tippit were shot. How can anyone deny that fact when we have the fight in the theater staring us in the face each day? Does an innocent person pull a gun on the police? Would an innocent "patsy" exclaim "It's all over now" just before pulling out a gun and fighting wildly with police officers? And I want to ask this question again, because I don't think it's asked very often: If Lee Harvey Oswald had been the totally innocent patsy that so many conspiracy believers think he was, then why did the Dallas Police Department charge him with TWO separate murders prior to midnight on November 22, 1963? Do the cops normally officially charge people with DOUBLE MURDER if they have absolutely no evidence against the person being charged? And yet we have this very early statement made by Chief Curry to the press on live television on November 23rd, 1963: "I think this is the man that killed the President." JESSE CURRY STATEMENT TO THE PRESS (11/23/63) SIX INTERVIEWS WITH CHIEF CURRY Now, Curry certainly must have had some pretty good reason (i.e., evidence) to make the above statement on national TV just 24 hours after JFK was murdered. Wouldn't you think? Such a "Dr. Pepper bottle" discovery would actually be really good for the "lone assassin" believers such as myself, because it would prove even more that Lee Oswald was a xxxx when he said to FBI agents Hosty and Bookhout that he went to the second floor specifically to buy a Coca-Cola from the vending machine in the lunchroom [WR; Page 613]. So any "Dr. Pepper" bottle that could be conclusively linked to Oswald would tend to bolster the "LN" story, not make it crumble. Because I do not think the second-floor soda machine dispensed Dr. Pepper. That's why there was another machine on the first floor marked "Dr. Pepper".

Nah, not really. Just keep it under your bed (alongside Wallace's Mauser).

Let me guess -- you've got Mac Wallace's 7.65 Mauser hidden under your bed? Why haven't you come forward with this bombshell earlier?! A book deal with Skyhorse Conspiracy Publishing awaits!!

I haven't the slightest idea what you're babbling about here. But, anyway, I prefer baseball, Bob.

Nobody that I know of. But so what? Does that have to mean Oswald couldn't have obtained the ammo? Obviously not. And who purchases a rifle and a revolver and then never buys any bullets to go into those weapons?

And Oswald couldn't possibly have thrown out the empty box of ammo at some point in time before 11/22/63, could he?

Same here.

Huh? What are you talking about, Ray? No "morphing" is needed there at all. Both of those descriptions are very similar. No major differences at all. (Except that one of them has a weight estimate, while the other doesn't mention weight at all.) "Young man about 25 to 35 years old" = "Approximately 30". "Average height, not over six feet" = "5-feet-10". What's the gripe? Both of those descriptions are perfectly consistent with each other. Although it does appear that Mr. Brennan decided to change around the age bracket for Oswald when he wrote his book. Because AFAIK, Brennan never placed Oswald's age in the "20s" at all. It was always "early 30s" or "about 30". But maybe I'm incorrect about that point. It could be that there is some FBI or Secret Service report somewhere in the files that has Brennan describing the sixth-floor sniper as being "25 to 35 years of age", but I don't recall ever seeing such a document. But even with a slight change in the age bracketing for his book, Brennan's "early 30s" description is still a nice match, with 30 falling right smack-dab in the middle of Brennan's 25 to 35 range (which I assume is, indeed, in his book, as quoted by Ray Mitcham above). So, again, what's the big deal? jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Howard L. Brennan

And it's also sensible from the standpoint of a guilty assassin (Oswald) wanting everything to appear normal and routine after having just shot the President. Plus, the Coke helps Oswald establish an alibi for the time of the shooting. He can say: "I just went to the second floor to get a Coke" -- which is precisely what he did try to use as his alibi. And the Bill Kellys of the world have fallen for Oswald's Coca-Cola lie. But the evidence Oswald left behind on the sixth floor is telling a different story, isn't it? (Not to mention Howard Brennan's testimony.) How do the "Oswald Was Just A Patsy" conspiracy promoters possibly get around that empty brown paper bag found on the sixth floor? I don't think they logically can. Here's what I said about that bag a few years ago--and it still applies today: "I wonder what the odds are of Lee Harvey Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor? The odds must be close to "O.J. DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22nd, 1963 AD). I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable "conspiracy" explanation that will answer the question of why that 38-inch brown paper sack (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination -- the Sniper's Nest -- and yet still NOT have Oswald present at the SN window on November 22nd, 1963. I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald's Innocent" explanation for that bag being where it was found after the shooting, and with Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints on it." -- DVP; May 2005

Translation --- Unlike many conspiracy theorists, DVP has a hard time pretending the bullet shells were in a condition that is not supported by the witness testimony. You really do have trouble following simple testimony, don't you Bob? Try this on for size (again): Mr. BALL - You think that the cartridges are in the same position as when you saw them in this picture 510? Mr. MOONEY - As far as my knowledge, they are; pretty close to right. Let me guess -- Luke Mooney is a xxxx. Right, Bobby? You seem to be implying that he is. Any particular reason?