David Von Pein

1 hour ago, Robert Burrows said:

The title of the post ["Did the Plotters View RFK's Murder of Marilyn Monroe as Justification for Killing JFK?" ] states, as a fact, that RFK murdered MM. .... Sir, have you no shame?

The title of this thread is indeed pathetic and ridiculous.

It's almost as ridiculous as believing that Oswald was innocent of killing JFK and J.D. Tippit. (Almost.)

7 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Plus, you ignored the large fragment seen by Custer, the bullet that Landis found, and the bullet found by two Navy corpsmen and seen by Dr. Young. The WC scenario simply cannot explain all of these bullets and fragments. No way. No how.

No sensible person could possibly truly believe the stories told by all of the various people who have come forward over the years to say they saw bullets all over the place. It's absurd.

I don't think even very many CTers believe all of the "I Saw A Bullet" stories.

Even if the "6.5 mm. object" on the X-ray is, indeed, a bullet fragment, that still wouldn't make the total weight of the head-shot bullet greater than 160 grains. No way. No how.

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

How, how, how can you say that the one Landis fragment that you're willing to acknowledge, which was found in the back seat, can be explained by the lone-gunman theory?

You can't possibly be serious.

You really believe that these two fragments taken from JFK's head (CE843), which weighed 1.8 grains, plus the fragments seen in this X-ray plus these three small fragments recovered from under Nellie Connally's seat in the limo (which were said by Robert Frazier to weigh a total of 2.3 grains) plus the 65.6 grains of total weight that exists in the two large front-seat bullet fragments (21.0 grains for one of the fragments and 44.6 grains for the other, per Robert Frazier's Warren Commission testimony)....you want to believe that all of those fragments, when added together, weighed more than approximately 160 grains (which is the average weight of a Carcano bullet)?

Let's add them up.....

1.8 + 2.3 + 65.6 = 69.7 grains.

Weight of Oswald's unfired bullet = Approx. 160 grains (but some people have said it's as high as 161).

Unaccounted for weight = 90.3 grains (which would include the fragments left in JFK's skull, which were never weighed, of course).

But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that those bullet fragments that were left in JFK's head weighed a total of 90 grains (which is, of course, a ridiculously high weight estimate for such tiny little fragments), that would still leave 0.3 grains unaccounted for (or 1.3 grains if you want to go with a pre-fired bullet weight of 161 instead of 160).

I guess perhaps you want to theorize that the one "Paul Landis" bullet fragment (which I have acknowledged) was a really, really big one, is that it? We'll never know the weight of any Landis Fragment, of course, since the person that Landis said he gave that fragment to apparently did a disappearing act and never placed the fragment into evidence. But you can always guess as to the weight. But you'd better guess pretty high, because that's the only way you're ever going to get the total weight of the head-shot bullet to exceed 160 grains.

As I said before --- you can't be serious. (Can you?)

27 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

And, again, even the one back-seat fragment that you're willing to acknowledge destroys the lone-gunman theory.

No, it doesn't. Not even close. A single "fragment" being found by Paul Landis in the back of the limousine doesn't do the Lone Gunman scenario a bit of harm. As I said before, over HALF of the head-shot bullet was never recovered at all. So why would it be surprising to have some small fragments from the head shot left in the limo where President Kennedy was located?

It's certainly not a matter of there being too many head-shot fragments seen and/or recovered (despite what Michael Griffith said in a prior post), because not even close to the entire head-shot bullet was ever seen or recovered.

The best the CTers can possibly do regarding this matter of "fragments" being found in the BACK SEAT of the limo is to gripe about the fact that whoever did see and/or pick up any such small head-shot fragments didn't bother to place those fragments into the official record of the JFK case (for some unknown reason).

24 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

I must be missing something about this story. He puts the bullet on a stretcher instead of giving it to proper authorities?

Correct. That is indeed Paul Landis' new 2023 story. (Really believable, huh?)

14 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

So, according to you, Landis is just lying when he says that he purposely did not mention the bullet earlier and that he is revealing it now because he believes its existence should be known.

The lone-gunman theory cannot even explain the one back-seat fragment that you are willing to acknowledge. The nose and tail of the head-shot bullet were found on the floor in the front seat. Two more fragments were acknowledged as having been removed from JFK's head during the autopsy, and the autopsy x-rays show a snowstorm of dozens of tiny fragments in the right-front part of the skull. Plus, HSCA radiologic experts detected another fragment in the back of the skull, near the 6.5 mm object that was added to the x-rays after the autopsy.

And shall we mention the deformed bullet that two Navy petty officers found in the rear of the limo and that Dr. Young saw before it was handed to Dr. Humes? 

Just admit it: More than one gunman fired at JFK.

VINCE PALAMARA SAID:

David, what do you think Landis' motive is? To sell books? My enthusiasm over his book is in the toilet and it isn't even released yet! What a difference a few days makes.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Vince, I really haven't the slightest idea what Landis' motive might be.

Mr. Landis certainly gives the appearance of being a very forthright and truthful person. And I certainly don't relish the notion of calling him an outright teller of deliberate falsehoods. But the fact remains: He changed his story significantly over these last 40 years. I don't think there can be any question about that fact after you take a look at the two newspaper clippings I have posted.

Perhaps his advanced age has taken its toll on his memory and his ability to be able to recall things clearly and correctly. But when we've got TWO different interviews from the 1980s (when Mr. Landis was a much younger man) which are verifying BOTH of the key elements of his "bullet" story --- i.e., it was a bullet "fragment" he saw/handled and "gave to somebody" --- then it seems pretty clear what the truth really is when it comes to Mr. Landis' 11/22/63 involvement with any type of "bullets" or "fragments" in the limo.

Mr. Landis, IMO, needs to be confronted with BOTH of the newspaper articles in question at the same time, which each say the very same thing concerning the matter of the "bullet fragment".

I'd be interested to know if Landis thinks he was misquoted in both of those articles, five years apart.

I suppose that Paul Landis could, if he wanted to, now start saying that he did indeed retrieve a bullet "fragment" from the limo and "gave it to somebody", but he ALSO saw and picked up a "whole bullet" on the back seat and took it into the hospital. And the reason he never told a single soul about the "whole bullet" ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION was because.....well.....uh.....um.....[fill in your own choice of reasons here, because I can't think of a single good one myself].

But I think that even that opportunity may have passed Mr. Landis by, because I read a few days back that Landis has, indeed, claimed he was "misquoted" in one of the earlier newspaper articles.

So he now needs to have BOTH the 1983 and the 1988 articles shoved before his eyes at the same time while a live microphone awaits his response.

 

15 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Even Landis's account of the two back-seat bullet fragments is problematic for the lone-gunman theory, because the only two fragments in the official record, CE 567 and CE 569, were found on the floor in the front of the limousine.

So whether Landis saw a whole bullet or two fragments in the back seat, he saw ballistics evidence that the lone-gunman scenario cannot explain. 

Are WC apologists going to claim that Landis saw neither a bullet nor two fragments? That he imagined or made up all of his accounts? One way or another, they will find excuses to dismiss this historic evidence.

Allow me to re-post something I said five days ago.....

[Quote On:]

"FWIW....

Here's what I think happened....

Paul Landis really did see and pick up a bullet fragment (not a whole bullet) off of the back seat of the Presidential limousine at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963. He then might very well have given that fragment to someone else nearby, with that person never being identified.

And, it would seem, that particular bullet fragment which Mr. Landis handled never came to light as evidence either. But we must keep in mind that a lot of tiny fragments from the fatal head shot that were probably scattered all over the car and in Dealey Plaza were never introduced as official evidence either. After all, more than half of the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the head was never found or recovered at all.

But now, in 2023, for some unknown reason, that bullet fragment (which he gave to someone else at Parkland on 11/22/63) has now been embellished by Mr. Landis and has morphed into a whole bullet (the CE399 "stretcher bullet" or so-called "magic bullet"), with Landis embellishing things further by also now saying he took that whole bullet into the hospital himself and placed it on JFK's stretcher in the emergency room.

So, in my opinion, Mr. Landis' current story probably does contain a layer of truth in it, which is very common among witnesses who have, shall we say, enhanced or added things to their assassination stories over the years (with Jean Hill, Roger Craig, and Buell Wesley Frazier coming to mind as three such examples).

I think Paul Landis probably did see (and perhaps also pick up) a small bullet fragment in the limousine. That's the "layer of truth" that exists in his account. And the two newspaper articles from the 1980s cited HERE tend to confirm that "layer of truth". But the remainder of Landis' current 2023 story just simply cannot be believed, in my opinion."

-- DVP; September 13, 2023

1 hour ago, Paul Bacon said:

I'm incorrect that Landis identified the bullet as CE-399.  That was just CNN repeatedly showing pictures of that bullet.  We still don't know if Landis would describe the bullet as a rounded tip or a pointy tip.

In some of Mr. Landis' recent spate of interviews, he has definitely implied that it's his opinion that the whole bullet he allegedly found in the limo was, indeed, Bullet CE399. He says as much in the interview below from four days ago (Sept. 14th). In this interview, at the 4:50 mark, Landis says that the whole bullet found by Darrell Tomlinson is "my bullet; that's the bullet I found".

So, based on those remarks, Mr. Landis certainly seems to be of the opinion that the whole bullet he (allegedly) found was CE399.

38 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

He does say that he placed the bullet at JFK's feet on an "exam" table, not gurney.  

But it's really CNN host Jake Tapper who identifies it (incorrectly) as an "exam table". Landis just seems to follow Tapper's incorrect lead, for some reason. *

* It's incorrect because we know that JFK was never put on any "exam table" in Trauma Room One, a fact confirmed by various Parkland witnesses, including Dr. Robert McClelland, as I discuss at another forum here.

In various other interviews, Landis unquestionably says he put the bullet on JFK's stretcher, right next to Kennedy's feet.

Here's a newspaper clipping that appeared in the Dallas Morning News on November 15, 1963, exactly one week before the assassination:

--------------------------------------------

Related Newspaper Articles:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Newspaper Articles About JFK's Texas Trip (Sept.-Nov. 1963)

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Furthermore, he [Landis] found a whole bullet on top of the seat (where one's butt sits).

Did you mean for the above sentence to be in red (as "speculative"), Sandy? Because if not, then you've got it wrong, because Landis is definitely NOT saying he found the whole bullet on the back seat itself (i.e., where a passenger actually sits). He's claiming the whole bullet he found was up on TOP of the back seat "where the cushioning meets the trunk of the car" (direct quote from Landis in his recent NBC interview, below).

On 9/14/2023 at 11:26 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

Didn’t Humes eventually claim the bullet transited?

You mean you've never even read the autopsy report (which was written BY HUMES himself)?

Geez.

25 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I do wonder if it's possible that the 1988 reporter got some material from the 1983 interview.

But then there's also the excerpt supplied by Vince Palamara above from the 2010 book that Landis was a part of ("The Kennedy Detail"), in which Landis seems to be confirming the part about finding only a FRAGMENT, with that fragment being located "in the back where the top would be secured".

So there are TWO things there (in the 2010 book) that perfectly match what Landis was saying in 1983 -- "fragment" and the "top" of the back seat (vs. just the "back seat").

But now, in 2023, that "fragment" found on the TOP of the back seat has been changed by Mr. Landis into a WHOLE BULLET that he found on the TOP of the back seat.

So the location of the found bullet item has remained the same in Landis' accounts from 1983 to 2023, but the size of that item has grown quite a bit indeed.

BTW / FWIW....

Here's another 1983 newspaper (pictured below) featuring the same article about Paul Landis that I've already linked to previously, except that in this 11/22/83 paper from Greenfield, Ohio, the author of the article is also shown ("Tim Curran, Associated Press Writer").

Click to enlarge:

I suppose that Paul Landis could, if he wanted to, now start saying that he did indeed retrieve a bullet "fragment" from the limo and "gave it to somebody", but he ALSO saw and picked up a "whole bullet" on the back seat and took it into the hospital. And the reason he never told a single soul about the "whole bullet" ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION was because.....well.....uh.....um.....[fill in your own choice of reasons here, because I can't think of a single good one myself].

But I think that even that opportunity may have passed Mr. Landis by, because I read a few days back that Landis has, indeed, claimed he was "misquoted" in one of the earlier newspaper articles.

So he now needs to have BOTH the '83 and the '88 articles shoved before his eyes at the same time while a live microphone awaits his response.

2 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

David, what do you think Landis' motive is? To sell books?

I really haven't the slightest idea, Vince.

Mr. Landis certainly gives the appearance of being a very forthright and truthful person. And I certainly don't relish the notion of calling him an outright teller of deliberate falsehoods. But the fact remains: He changed his story significantly over these last 40 years. I don't think there can be any question about that fact after you take a look at the two newspaper clippings I again provided above in my last post.

Perhaps his advanced age has taken its toll on his memory and his ability to be able to recall things clearly and correctly. But when we've got TWO different interviews from the 1980s (when Mr. Landis was a much younger man) which are verifying BOTH of the key elements of his "bullet" story --- i.e., it was a bullet "fragment" he saw/handled and "gave to somebody" --- then it seems pretty clear what the truth really is when it comes to Mr. Landis' 11/22/63 involvement with any type of "bullets" or "fragments" in the limo.

Mr. Landis, IMO, needs to be confronted with BOTH of the above newspaper articles at the same time, which each say the very same thing concerning the matter of the "bullet fragment".

I'd be interested to know if Landis thinks he was misquoted in both of those articles, five years apart.

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I wonder if the 1983 interview is incorrectly reported. Maybe the reporter just assumed that the bullet was a fragment.

Nope. That's not possible (unless you want to believe the very same TWO mistakes/assumptions about the "bullet fragment" and "gave to somebody" occurred in both 1983 and again in 1988), because in November 1988, five years after his '83 interview, a different reporter quoted  Landis saying this:

"I distinctly remember there was a bullet fragment on the seat which I picked up and handed to somebody."

1983:

1988:

Oh my. What a load of pure nonsense there.

Curtin's biggest hunk of silliness might be this excerpt:

"You will immediately realize that these recent revelations are a
continuation of the coverup."  -- Edward J. Curtin, Jr.; Sep. 14, 2023

13 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Despite well made for the eye, this video is nothing but a rather boring repetition of the Warren Commission Report...

Actually, the video in question is extremely good and informative, as I discussed here in July....

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22174-kennedy-videos/?do=findComment&comment=509119

6 hours ago, Peter Fokes said:

You asked “Is he?”

Yes he [Landis] is [aware of the bullet wound in JFK's throat]. He mentions it. 

Ah, OK. I see what your "point" was now. Sorry, I didn't understand at first what you were referring to.

Hello back, Peter!

Seeing you posting JFK stuff again takes me back to the "aaj" (alt.assassination.jfk) days when everybody's newsgroup posts had to be approved by the moderators before going live. And you were one such moderator as I recall.

I only wish THIS AAJ NEWSGROUP could be revived again. But after Mr. McAdams' death in April 2021, the aaj forum just stopped operating entirely (due to the fact that John, at that point in 2021, was the only moderator for the forum).

Too bad that you, Peter, weren't still part of the moderation force in '21. If you had been, maybe that forum would still be going strong.

A lighter moment with Paul Landis. (This is a very funny story.) ....

7 minutes ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

The 2 copper or brass halves of a Carcano slug jacket were the result of the ricochet (offa the overhead signals) of Oswald's shot-1 at about pseudo Z103.

The Landis slug was the magic bullet, ie Oswald's shot-2 at Z218, which might have bounced out of Connally & offa the back of the front seat & then to almost anywhere in the limo.

The Landis slug duznt necessarily change anything re the SBT.

The headshot at Z312 was the last shot of Hickey's autoburst of say 4 or 5 shots of his AR15 at about Z305 to Z312. Young probly saw the remnant slug, after it exited JFK's head, after it cracked the windshield.

Wow. Mr. Rynkiewicz's embellishments make Mr. Landis' seem like nothing.

When reading Marjan's latest fantasy above, it's rather difficult to locate even that "layer of truth" I was talking about in my previous post. (But, however, Marjan does seem to endorse the SBT. So I guess that's certainly some "layer of truth". Good job there, Marjan.)