David Von Pein

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?

Good point, Pat. But let's face reality here -- At one time or another, everybody who researches this case picks and chooses the stuff that tends to support their general viewpoint. It's inevitable. But doesn't it bother you (at all) that NO BULLETS were found inside JFK's body? Please tell me--logically--how that's even remotely possible if TWO separate bullets entered JFK's back and throat and yet both bullets failed to exit the other side?

This is just downright silly, Pat. Because the picture of Specter holding the metal rod in CE903 indicates that the back wound was in the back (not in the "neck"). And the WC published CE903, didn't they? And Specter HIMSELF even appears in that picture! Plus, we know that the autopsy report was published in the WCR (including the "14 cm. from mastoid" measurements), and we know that Dr. Humes' testimony about the "14 cm." measurements was also published in the WC volumes. And anybody who reads those measurements can easily perform a simple measurement from their own "mastoid" (or a friend's mastoid) and easily be able to determine on their own that the wound was located in the upper back, not in the "neck". So you have nowhere to go with this argument: "Specter was trying to conceal not only that the autopsy photos proved the back wound was on the back, inches below its location in the Rydberg drawings already entered into evidence, but that the measurements similarly proved the Rydberg drawings to have been inaccurate." -- P. Speer Face it, Pat: you're just looking desperately for an excuse to call Specter a xxxx. Even though we know (and can SEE, via CE903) that Specter was RIGHT about the placement of the upper-back wound.

True, Arlen Specter wasn't a doctor, but James Humes was. And so was Pierre Finck, and so was J. Boswell. And Humes, Finck, and Boswell said the bullet transited. And ALL NINE members of the HSCA's FPP said the bullet transited. That's TWELVE doctors right there who said the bullet went through JFK's body. They're ALL liars (or boobs)? ALL 12? Now, I've got a choice here: Believe some guy named Bob Prudhomme....or accept the conclusions of TWELVE professional pathologists (who certainly know a LITTLE something about anatomy). Now, Bob, if you were in my shoes -- who should I believe?

I can think of a pretty decent explanation, Pat. If, in fact, Specter looked at an autopsy photo to help determine the placement of the back wound on 5/24/64, then it's quite likely that that "under the table" and secretive look that Specter had of that autopsy picture would most certainly NOT have been a part of Thomas Kelley's testimony for the official WC volumes. The policy of the Commission, as you no doubt know, was to MAKE PUBLIC all of the Commission exhibits and testimony and evidence -- which the WC did (except for the stuff that the Natl. Archives, via their old "75 years" rule, locked up until the JFK Records Act freed them up in the 1990s). And since the autopsy pictures were obviously not going to be made "public" by the WC, any mention of Specter (or anyone) viewing the photos during a witness' official testimony would probably not be deemed proper by Earl Warren & Company--even if Specter DID see one of them. Therefore, Kelley said that the horribly inaccurate CE386 Rydberg drawing was really one of the sources for the re-enactment on May 24th, which I suppose it might have been, at least in part, but it seems clear to me that something ELSE was also utilized to determine the accuracy of the location of the wound. I have no proof of this, but I think it was probably a combination of things that actually determined where Specter was going to place that metal rod in that garage on the 24th of May. With that combination probably being: the "14 cm. from mastoid" measurement seen in the autopsy report (and testified to by Dr. Humes) and the autopsy photo of JFK's back. And why on Earth WOULDN'T Specter have utilized those "14 cm" measurements anyway? He knew where to look to get those detailed figures about the wounds. It makes no sense at all to utilize only CE386 and the jacket of the President (of all things!) to try and determine the true back-wound location, when all the while those autopsy photos AND the "14 cm" measurements were available to use. It would have been plain dumb to rely ONLY on the Rydberg drawings and the obviously-too-low hole in JFK's coat to try and determine the true wound location. Don't you agree, Pat? So, if you want to call Specter a dirty xxxx by merely making things clearer and more precise, then feel free to do so. Because I do, indeed, think he DID make things more precise and accurate in CE903. And it's obvious to me that Specter did NOT rely on the hole in the jacket either (despite Kelley's testimony). Relying on the jacket hole would have been, of course, just plain stupid.

That's just dumb, Pat. Why? Because we know that if the wound is placed way up in the "neck", it RUINS the SBT...it doesn't strengthen it. The bullet just does not need to enter the "neck" to make the SBT work. And CE903 proves it. Specter's rod isn't positioned in the "neck" in that photo. It's in the UPPER BACK. So--again--what's the beef? Merely the semantics between "neck" and "back"? All of your arguments on this subject are meaningless and hollow -- because the WC and Specter GOT IT RIGHT, regardless of what CE386 shows and regardless of where that chalk mark is located.

Oh, good Lord! There are STILL CTers, in the 21st century, who think the bullet had to make a "sharp right turn" after exiting Kennedy in order to hit Connally. Unbelievable. Welcome to the Dark Ages, Bob.

I couldn't care less about your diagram. Draw as many of those things as you want. I always ignore them. And that's because those diagrams can never change these words written in JFK's Official Autopsy Report in November 1963: "The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body." The above conclusion was arrived at by Dr. Humes after he talked with Dr. Perry, with Dr. Humes coming to the only logical conclusion he could possibly come to (while also considering the fact there were NO BULLETS in Kennedy's body at all). Yes, Dr. Humes made some mistakes. But should I think he was a totally incompetent boob about all of his bottom-line conclusions relating to his 3-hour-long autopsy on the body of the President? No, I don't think I should. Especially since he was the one who really got the "SBT" rolling with his perfectly logical and accurate determination about the bullet making "its exit through the anterior surface of the neck". I'll always admire Joseph Humes for putting those words in the autopsy report. Which really makes Dr. Humes one of the original authors of the SBT (at least the first half of the SBT, at any rate). And even Cyril "The SBT Is Impossible" Wecht thinks the bullet went clean through JFK's body. Imagine that. http://Bugliosi-Vs-Wecht.blogspot.com

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/josiah-thompson-interview-december-1967.html

Please note how Mr. Jeffries will completely overlook the posts made by the half-a-dozen (or so) other people in this thread (including an EF moderator). Those "other" people (except for Craig L.) aren't to be deemed "hijackers" though, because they aren't dirty rotten LNers like DVP. Only DVP is the "hijacker" here. The CTers get a pass. How surprising. In actuality, of course, this thread wasn't "hijacked" by anybody. It merely started to go down different paths (as almost every forum thread does eventually). It's the nature of the beast. I wonder if there's ever been a thread of more than 4 or 5 pages that HASN'T been "hijacked"? I doubt it.

Conspiracy theorists are just dying to call people "liars", aren't they? It never ends. And in this instance, it's even sillier than usual--a lot sillier--because the chalk mark that was placed on the stand-in's back is unquestionably closer to the true and accurate location of where the bullet entered JFK's back than are the Rydberg drawings. So, Pat, I have a difficult time labelling someone a xxxx who, in effect, is making something more accurate (even though you want to call it a "lie"). Plus, there's also this testimony about the coat of JFK to be considered [at 5 H 133]: ARLEN SPECTER -- "What marking, if any, was placed on the back of...the stand-in for President Kennedy?" THOMAS J. KELLEY -- "There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here." MR. SPECTER -- "And what did that chalk mark represent?" MR. KELLEY -- "That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President." MR. SPECTER -- "And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?" MR. KELLEY -- "That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians...and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time." Therefore, it would seem as if the chalk mark was also based (at least in part) on the hole in JFK's jacket, which IMO is just totally ridiculous, since we know that the hole in the coat is located well BELOW the hole in JFK's skin (due to the fact that Kennedy's coat was bunched up higher than normal when the shooting occurred). Which means that if the jacket on the JFK stand-in in the photo below were to be "bunched up" a little bit (and we can see it isn't bunched up at all in this photograph), it would make the chalk mark rise a little higher on the back of the stand-in, which would mean it would almost perfectly line up with where Arlen Specter is holding the metal rod in this picture: That "bunching up" of the jacket could very well be the answer as to why the chalk mark is located below the level of Specter's pointer. If we bunch up the jacket a little bit (like JFK's coat was bunched, per the Croft photo), it's a perfect alignment. Also: You don't deny, do you Pat, that the chalk mark on the JFK stand-in is more accurate in its placement than the obviously-inaccurate placement (particularly laterally) that we find in Rydberg's drawing? Therefore--again--what's there to gripe about here? In the final analysis, the WC got it right. But you'd rather call the people who got it right "liars" anyway. Right, Pat? That's a peculiar hobby you CTers have. Footnote---- I'll also add this important note: The picture we see in CE903 is based on merely the AVERAGE angle between Z-Film frames 210 and 225, which means in order for the CE903 angle to be PRECISELY accurate, it would mean that the SBT bullet hit JFK & Connally at exactly Z217.5 (which is the halfway point between Z210 and 225). But it's very unlikely and improbable that the WC managed to hit the SBT Z-frame squarely on the head at Z217.5. The bullet, IMO, is obviously striking the victims a little later than that--at Z224. So a tiny little bit of slack and margin-of-error needs to be given to Mr. Specter and the Commission and the angle seen in CE903. Because, let's face it, if Kennedy and Connally weren't hit at exactly Z217.5 (and they very likely were not hit at that precise moment), then the angle and other measurements are going to be just slightly off (which is something I also talk about HERE in one of my "CE903" articles). Based on the obvious truth about the angles that I just mentioned above, is there any chance that Pat Speer (or any other conspiracy theorist) would be willing to cut Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission just a tiny bit of slack when it comes to the Single-Bullet Theory? And if not....tell me why not?