David Von Pein

You must have used the "quote" feature more than five times in a post. This forum software is very annoying at times, in that it won't accept more than 5 "quote blocks" in a single post (which isn't neaerly enough for many longer responses that forum members have). And it won't accept more than 5 photos in a single post either, which can also be an aggravating limitation on occasion.

There is no doubt about where the one and only entry hole was located in John Kennedy's head -- it was high on the head, near the cowlick, 100 millimeters above the EOP -- verified by both the Clark Panel in 1968 and the HSCA ten years later. Conspiracy buffs, of course, don't like these words (below) written by the four-member Clark Panel. The CTers prefer to totally ignore this determination (just as the CTers ignore all of the other hard physical evidence that all points towards the guilt of Mr. Oswald): "On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance." -- The Clark Panel Report

Do you think CE567/569 were planted, Robert? From Lattimer's book: "Combinations of human skull tops and melons were tested, and, again, all fell backward off the stand toward the shooter. No melon or skull combination ever fell AWAY from the shooter. Human skulls were then packed with solid melon contents and taped and sewed tightly together with strong tape and thread to simulate the scalp. We fired into these at the same point and at the same angle as the President was struck. The skull wounds produced were strikingly similar to Kennedy's. Again, the skulls fell or jumped off the stand toward the shooter, and large fragments of the top of the skulls flew upward and forward for distances of forty feet or more, just as fragments of Kennedy's skull can be seen to have done in frames 313 through 318 of the Zapruder movie." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 251; "Kennedy And Lincoln" "This bullet [a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano missile like CE399] can penetrate four feet of solid wood or three pine telephone poles side by side and come out looking completely undeformed. On the other hand, if it is fired into the thick bone of the back of a human skull, the jacket and core of the bullet will separate, releasing a myriad of additional fragments of many different sizes." -- J. Lattimer; Page 277 "All of the metal fragments [visible in JFK's head via X-rays] were confined to the right side of the brain area and all the fragments were above an imaginary line drawn from the wound of entry through the top of the frontal sinus. Their configuration was in keeping with the track of a bullet entering at the rear of the right side of the skull, near the midline, disrupting and exiting from the front of the head on the right. It was compatible with no other direction. There were no bullet fragments in the left side of the skull to indicate a transverse bullet wound, as from the front right." -- J. Lattimer; Page 214

Oh, for Pete sake.

Why should I ignore the tests that were done with the exact same ammunition as CE567/569? Corroboration usually indicates verification. But for some reason in this case, corroboration means "something's fishy". A weird set of rules you conspiracy theorists have.

There was nothing unusual or impossible about the way the head-shot bullet behaved after crashing through President Kennedy's skull. Tests were done by Drs. Olivier and Lattimer that show very similar damage done to a 6.5mm MC/WCC bullet (just like Oswald's). Shouldn't corroboration like what is seen in the photos below (from John Lattimer's 1980 book) make people LESS suspicious about CE567/569, rather than MORE suspicious? Or are we supposed to believe that BOTH Olivier's Edgewood Arsenal tests in 1964 AND Dr. Lattimer's independent bullet tests many years later are fake and phony too? http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html

"The tracheostomy incision, which was shown on several of the photographs that I examined, looks exactly the same size and the same configuration as it did when Dr. Perry and I did that incision." -- Robert McClelland; 1988* http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/who-shot-president-kennedy-1988-nova.html * = Of course, given Dr. McClelland's incredibly idiotic theory about JFK's head wounds, I would have to take anything he says with a large grain of salt. But the above quote did come out of McClelland's mouth nonetheless on PBS-TV in 1988. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

That is always possible, I suppose. But if he had done so, do you really think that such an RFK-approved Commission/Committee would have found the "key" or "smoking gun" that would have unlocked a conspiracy in JFK's murder? IOW -- What would RFK's Commission have uncovered that wasn't investigated and explored by the HSCA in the 1970s? Do you, James, believe the HSCA was corrupt? Or completely incompetent? Or were they honestly trying to figure out who murdered John Kennedy? And does anyone really think that an "RFK Commission" would have come within a country mile of supporting the beliefs and theories that are endorsed by many conspiracy theorists here in the 21st century (the "Oswald Never Fired A Shot" theorists, that is)? Can anyone truly believe that a proposed RFK investigation would have come to the following bottom-line conclusions regarding the events of 1963?: We, the Commission impaneled to examine the assassination of John F. Kennedy at the request of President Robert F. Kennedy, have concluded that accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire any of the shots that resulted in JFK's death. Moreover, the Commission further finds that Oswald was framed for JFK's murder and was also framed for the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit as well. Oswald did not kill Tippit. The Commission has also concluded that Oswald was wrongly identified as the person who shot at Retired Major General Edwin A. Walker on April 10, 1963. The Warren Commission's investigation of these events was woefully inept and its conclusions entirely inaccurate. This (RFK) Commission has further concluded that many members of law enforcement at both the local (Dallas) and federal (FBI and Secret Service) levels were very likely involved in planting and/or manufacturing false evidence in order to frame Mr. Oswald for the murders of John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit. It's kind of hard to believe, but the above simulated "RFK Commission" conclusions are just exactly what many, many conspiracy theorists think DID happen in 1963. Therefore, per those conspiracists, if the "whole truth" were to ever be written up in an official U.S. Government report, we would have to see the above words written in such a report (or words to that effect at any rate). Now, can you begin to imagine any Government committee reaching ANY of those far-fetched and utterly insane conclusions (let alone ALL of them!) after examining all of the evidence in the JFK, Tippit, and Walker cases? It's laughable beyond belief. And always has been. In short, an "RFK Commission" would have reached the very same conclusion that the Warren Commission and the HSCA reached -- Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and J.D. Tippit. And that's because the evidence doesn't even begin to suggest any other rational conclusion. David Von Pein June 10, 2013 http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com ------------------------------------ BONUS VIDEO: Defending The Warren Commission Report (1966) Three Warren Commission counsel members (Joseph Ball, Wesley Liebeler, and Albert Jenner) can be heard in this radio program as they answer questions from several callers relating to the Commission's investigation of the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Originally aired on KCBS-Radio in San Francisco, California, on November 7, 1966: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKleU5-9LjA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LOYX4tlUVU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdImiKokt8k

Paul, I'm not quite sure what to make of RFK Jr's comments. They are interesting, indeed. And it's difficult to just summarily dismiss a person like Robert Kennedy Jr. But I do know that the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is still there and in place and (IMO) as valid and "legit" today as it was on 11/22/63. I realize that a whole lot of people vehemently disagree with my last statement, but I think it's a true statement nonetheless (with or without the recent RFK/RFK Jr. development).

Here are a few JFK-related videos from my video archives (some of them recently added). I thought some people here might be interested in them. And if anybody has any requests for video or audio material they'd like to see in this thread, please let me know. If I've got the requested item, I'll post it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NciQMpL6h3Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJxekjh81I4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHl68Y8-jQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2-g0TymA_E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC0LC_gLRwg

Take it to another thread, Bob. (I'm sorry I got him wound up.)

Pot meets Kettle. Talk about a huge leap of faith. Geesh. So Rockefeller is now a prime suspect in Morrow's conspiracy world. Morrow's got no evidence against him (of course). Nothing. Just a gut feeling. But that's enough for Bob Morrow. Pathetic. (Sorry for the off-topic post here, but I felt the above junk about Nelson Rockefeller deserved to be addressed, if only slightly.)

The year 2013 is the 50th anniversary year of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, who still ranks as one of the top five presidents in every major annual survey. To commemorate the man and his time in office, the New York Times has authorized a book, edited by Richard Reeves, based on its unsurpassed coverage of the tumultuous Kennedy era. The Civil Rights Movement, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, the space program, the Berlin Wall—all are covered in articles by the era’s top reporters, among them David Halberstam, Russell Baker, and James Reston. Also included are new essays by leading historians such as Robert Dallek and Terry Golway, and by Times journalists, including Sam Tanenhaus, Scott Shane, Alessandra Stanley, and Roger Cohen. With more than 125 color and black-and-white photos, this is the ultimate volume on one of history’s most fascinating figures. Hardcover 400 pages Publisher: Abrams Release date: October 22, 2013

...........

Re-release in paperback (first released in November 2012):

That's okay, Tony. I'm accustomed to people disagreeing with me (vehemently).

That's because Tony's got the URL formatted as an e-mail address. Here's the right URL: http://JFKTheFrontShot.blogspot.com

I rarely feel the need to continue to respond to your constant posts about the clothing holes, et al. Silliness deserves to be ignored. Just ask Ralph Cinque.

Oh, yeah! You're right! For the last two days, Pat Speer and I (along with my CIA-sponsored imposter in Australia) have been discussing the benefits of modern farm implements for today's farmers. Sorry for the derailment.

There's some inconsistency and some definite inaccuracy with respect to the testimony of Secret Service Inspector Thomas J. Kelley. And there's certainly plenty of reason for everybody (CTers and LNers alike) to gripe about the horrible Rydberg drawings. No doubt about that. But Kelley also said that the chalk was based on the hole in the President's coat. Now, how can we possibly even begin to reconcile this mess? Kelley is telling us that the ONE and only chalk mark was being based on BOTH CE386 AND on the hole in JFK's jacket--which is a hole that is located well BELOW the place where the bullet hole appears in CE386. So, quite obviously, that chalk mark could not POSSIBLY have been based on BOTH of those things in tandem. (Otherwise, there would have been TWO chalk marks of entry on the back of the JFK stand-in.) And--again--the reader of this testimony can easily figure this out too. Just look at the coat (which was also published as a Commission exhibit--CE393), and compare the hole in the coat with the Rydberg drawing in CE386. So there's obviously something inaccurate with at least ONE of these items that Kelley says the chalk mark was based on. But my main point is still a good and valid one (at least IMO) -- In the final analysis (i.e., in CE903), the WC and Specter got things RIGHT. (Bearing in mind the "margin of error" that necessarily needs to be included in the WC's trajectory work on the SBT, due to the "bracketing" of frames the WC worked with--Z210 to Z225.) Want to dance some more on this, Pat? Or would you like to sit the next one out?