David Von Pein

Well, something has got to be right if the SBT is so wrong. Those two men (JFK & JBC) were both hit in their respective upper backs with a rifle bullet at just about the very same time on Nov. 22. And Governor Connally was seated in the perfect spot (or very close) to be hit by the same bullet that would have exited from JFK's throat. And we know that no bullets were found inside JFK's body. The dots seem pretty simple to connect. (Unless you're a conspiracy theorist, I guess.)

Okay, Pat: If the SBT isn't correct, then tell us what the most reasonable explanation is to explain the wounds in both JFK & JBC, and the total lack of bullets in the body of President Kennedy? Key words: "Most reasonable explanation". I'd like to see if your explanation is more "reasonable" than the SBT.

A quick checklist of SBT facts: 1.) The upper lobe of JFK's right lung was bruised by the passage of a bullet. That's a concrete fact. But the lung was not penetrated. Nor was the pleura cavity. It was only bruised by the passage of the missile as well. What caused the bruising of these areas in JFK's body if it wasn't the passage of ONE single high-speed bullet traversing the tissues of his upper body? 2.) JFK had a bullet entry hole in his upper back (with an abrasion collar) located 14 cm. below the tip of his right mastoid process. 3.) JFK had a bullet hole of exit in the lower portion of his throat (per the autopsy report and per Dr. Humes, a point on which he never wavered, as far as I am aware). 4.) No bullets were found in JFK's body at his autopsy. 5.) John Connally had a wound of entry in the upper-right part of his back. 6.) The Zapruder Film shows JFK and JBC reacting at virtually an identical time to external stimulus (as indicated nicely by the toggling Z-Film clip below). What is causing the distressed look on John Connally's face at Z225-Z226 if he hasn't yet been hit by a bullet? And, even more importantly, what is causing Connally's right arm to fly up into the air at exactly the same time JFK's right arm is heading northward at Z226 if it wasn't a rifle bullet? Given the above facts, tell me again how the SBT is an impossibility. The Single-Bullet Theory is by far the most logical scenario to explain the victims' wounds. Any other scenario raises far more questions and leaves many more things unresolved than does the SBT -- beginning with the $64,000 question that no conspiracist has ever been able to logically answer (and they never will) -- If JFK was really hit by separate bullets in the back AND throat, then where did those two bullets go after entering (but never exiting) his body? Arlen Specter would like a reasonable answer to that last question too. I fear he'll never get it. Because no such reasonable answer exists. http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

Something that conspiracy zealots like DiEugenio always totally ignore when discussing the issue of the Single-Bullet Theory is Warren Commission Exhibit 903, which is a photo that proves for all time that the Warren Commission (including Mr. Ford) did not need JFK's upper-back wound to be "moved" up into the neck of the President. And the above statement is a fact regardless of any changing of the wording associated with the location of the back wound that was done by Gerald Ford. CE903 has the wound in the UPPER BACK, not the "neck". And, furthermore, any "raising" of the wound up into the neck wouldn't have strengthened the WC's SBT, it would have destroyed it. I wonder why more CTers haven't figured this one out yet? I guess they're still too much in love with the idea that Gerry Ford did something sinister and underhanded, even though by taking just one quick glance at CE903, we can see that the SBT works perfectly with the wound just where it is in the autopsy photo -- the upper back, not the neck. And, yes, I have seen the "opposite angle" pictures of Specter holding his pointer too, and have commented on those pictures HERE. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

Thank you, Chris Bennett, for posting the motorcade photo above. I noted it's a higher-resolution version than the one I had on my Kennedy Photos site. So I've replaced the old one with the better-quality one. Much obliged. And for the anti-SBTers, please note the "inboard" status of Governor Connally in the photo:

In 2011, Gary Mack provided this information regarding the picture: "I receive a phone call or email at least once a month from someone else who has that picture and claims they or a relative took it. The picture was actually shot by the house photographer of the Adolphus Hotel from their Main Street balcony. His name, which was stamped on the back of original prints, was Francis, if I remember correctly. Many copies were sold by the hotel and others and the original negative's whereabouts is unknown, even to the hotel (which is under different ownership now)." -- Gary Mack

Clint Hill is on the bumper. The photo was taken in front of the Adolphus Hotel on Main Street. More info: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/da2cf9d569af4176 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/limo_motorcade.htm

The above statement by Don Jeffries is nearly as absurd as this one by the late conspiracy icon Mr. Weisberg. This question that I posed yesterday is worth repeating again today -- Why do so many conspiracy theorists fight the "Oswald Did It" evidence so vigorously? The only possible way to make Oswald an "innocent patsy" is to either totally ignore the evidence against him (for two murders, not just one)...or for the CTers to fall back on the lame claim of "All the evidence is fake". Because the only way that Oswald can be innocent of killing both JFK & Tippit is for all of the evidence to be manufactured. And just exactly how likely is that (even in a CTer dream world)?

Don, Why not just accept the obvious fact that Oswald killed Kennedy? The looming question that I'd like to have answered is this one -- Why do so many conspiracy theorists fight the "Oswald Did It" evidence so vigorously? The only possible way to make Oswald an "innocent patsy" is to either totally ignore the evidence against him (for two murders, not just one)...or for the CTers to fall back on the lame claim of "All the evidence is fake". Because the only way that Oswald can be innocent of killing both JFK & Tippit is for all of the evidence to be manufactured. And just exactly how likely is that (even in a CTer dream world)?

Bill, The Dallas conference I linked to took place at SMU, not the TSBD.

DVP Video-Audio Archive / Journalists Remember 11-22-63

JFK Archives/Mystery Deaths Also see Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History", pages 1012-1020. "The vast majority of the witnesses on the various mysterious-death lists of the conspiracy theorists (e.g., Jim Marrs's book Crossfire lists 104 witnesses) weren't connected with the case in any known way whatsoever, and had absolutely nothing of any known value to say about the case. .... But of those who did have a connection -- such as Roger Craig, Earlene Roberts, Lee Bowers, and Buddy Walthers -- all of them, without exception, had already told their story, most of them on the public record, so what could possibly be achieved by killing them?" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1018 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

I agree.

....

As if accepting Barry's "JFK Challenge" is required to convict Oswald. I guess if I don't take Barry's "challenge", then all of the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald (which was firmly established long before I was three years old) will completely cease to exist. Somebody better check on Barry....because I doubt he's able to leave his house anymore. His inflated head won't fit through the front door.

Yes, I agree. He was very likely "working" throughout most of 11/22, although I feel it's important to also point out the fact that there were multiple unfilled orders on Oswald's clipboard (which was found very near the location where LHO hid his rifle near the staircase). BTW, Pat, would you mind telling me which LNers have purported that Oswald was "hiding out" on the upper TSBD floors "the bulk of the morning of 11-22"? I cannot recall ever hearing that specific theory re Oswald before.

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID: There are now so many questions about these three [Williams, Jarman, and Norman] that people wonder just what the heck they were doing and where they actually were at the time of the shooting. DVP SAYS: Incredible. Jimbo actually wonders WHERE Harold Norman, James Jarman, and Bonnie Ray Williams were "at the time of the shooting"?? Even with Tom Dillard's photos staring him in the face, DiEugenio still can't quite figure out WHERE those three guys were located "at the time of the shooting". Are Norman, Williams, and Jarman being impersonated by imposters in these pictures, Jim?.... Jim, you're hilarious. Footnote -- Jimbo gave us this bladder-buster earlier: "I actually am beginning to think those [Dillard] photos were reenactments." Great! More fake stuff! DiEugenio wants Jarman, Norman, & Williams to be somewhere other than the fifth floor at 12:30 PM, so what does Jimbo do (even with the above Dillard pictures staring back at him) -- Jimbo will pretend that the Dillard pictures are "re-enactment" photos. Lovely. As we can all easily see, for conspiracy theorists like DiEugenio, it doesn't matter how much stuff has to be deemed "fake" and "phony" in order to avoid the obvious conclusion of Lee Oswald's guilt. However much NEEDS to be fake and phony, IS fake and phony (per the conspiracy clowns). Take Fetzer's latest "fake" revelation -- he thinks Lovelady was inserted into the news film showing Oswald being taken into the DPD. There is NO END to the fakery in the JFK case (if you're a fringe CTer--like DiEugenio and Fetzer). You guys are truly hysterical.

For some silly reason, DiEugenio (the leader of the "Anybody But Oswald" pack around these parts) thinks that it would have been unusual (and totally impossible) for Lee Harvey Oswald to have gone up and down from the first floor to the sixth floor a few times on 11/22/63. Why was that type of up and down activity unusual for Oswald on Nov. 22nd, Jimbo? You never did say.

This really isn't a bombshell revelation regarding James Jarman at all, because Jarman essentially told the Warren Commission the same thing in 1964 (except he didn't say anything about sending Oswald upstairs to correct a book order "shortly before lunch"): Mr. BALL - Did you talk to Oswald that morning? Mr. JARMAN - I did. Mr. BALL - When? Mr. JARMAN - I had him to correct an order. I don't know exactly what time it was. Mr. BALL - Oh, approximately. Nine, ten? Mr. JARMAN - It was around, it was between eight and nine, I would say. Mr. BALL - Between 8 and 9? Mr. JARMAN - Between 5 minutes after 8 and 9. Mr. BALL - You had him correct an order? Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir. http://mcadams.posc....russ/jarman.htm But even if Jarman did send Oswald back upstairs to correct an order "shortly before lunch" (in addition to having him correct a different order between 8 and 9 AM, as he told the WC), that doesn't prove much of anything, and certainly doesn't negate any of the evidence that indicates Oswald was on an upper floor of the TSBD shortly before noon. Oswald might have been sent upstairs to correct a dozen orders "shortly before lunch". But so what? All of the times that witnesses gave for certain events (like when they saw Oswald, etc.) are only estimates and are very loose and approximated timelines. There's no fixed times for these things and everybody knows it. Oswald could still have had plenty of time to correct a few orders upstairs "shortly before lunch", then come back downstairs, and then go back upstairs again....all within just a very few minutes. He did it all the time, every day. That was his job--to go upstairs and then come back downstairs again--repeatedly.

Just what I thought---Barry won't admit he made an error in his book concerning his "Which one?" question re the boxes....which is a question that was fully answered in 1964. Therefore, Barry will continue to promote yet another of the hundreds of already-debunked CT myths associated with this case, as he continues to ask "Which one?", even though he already knows the answer. Nice.

Not unless your arbitrator is a robot (i.e., someone who has never been exposed to any of the various myths and distortions about the evidence in the JFK case). But since any arbitrator is going to be human, and since more than 75% of all humans with any opinion about the JFK case favor the idea of conspiracy, and since virtually all of that opinion has been based on nothing but silly myths and conjecture (such as the still-favored myth about Oswald being a terrible shot and the myth about how the Warren Commission insisted that the shooting took place in only 5.6 seconds and the myth about how the WC had no choice but to "move" JFK's back wound up into his neck in order to make the SBT viable)....then I don't think I'd be willing to risk any cash on such a venture.* And that's because, all too often, I've run into people who claim to be totally unbiased about this case, only to hear the very same tired, worn-out conspiracy myths coming from their lips--over and over again. * = Or does the person accepting your challenge actually risk any cash at all in this venture? Or are you the only one who pays out the dough if you lose? But if your arbitrator is made out of metal and microchips (with its "CT Myths" mode set to the "Off" position), then I'd be more than willing to argue the case in front of such an unbiased machine.

You've still got a major error there, Barry...and that's because your basic question of "Which one?" was answered in 1964...by Bob Studebaker....which is why I asked if you even read his testimony. Because if you had, you wouldn't need to ask "Which one?", because Studebaker answered it for you in '64. The box confusion is really only confusing if you decide not to read through Bob Studebaker's testimony at all (which, granted, I imagine very few people have likely done). But as I pointed out in my WC excerpts, there is no doubt about which photo (CE733 or CE509) represents the configuration of the boxes prior to them being moved--it's 733, just like Studebaker said (although that picture, too, is a "re-creation" photo, taken after the boxes were moved; but it perfectly matches CE1301, which I think was taken before the boxes were moved). The whole "box" thing is a silly argument to begin with, IMO. Just because a few boxes might have been moved by the police doesn't undo all the other evidence against Oswald. And there definitely were pictures taken of the SN prior to any of the boxes being moved.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007TBWQ3W?ie=UTF8&tag=dvsre-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B007TBWQ3W Upon looking at the free sample of text from Barry Krusch's book "Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald: Volume One", I can already see a pretty major error (regarding the TSBD boxes that Barry points out in the book's Foreword). Barry asks: "Why are these boxes in different positions [in Commission Exhibits 733 and 509]? Did anyone at the Warren Commission notice?" Well, the answer is: Yes, of course somebody at the WC noticed, and all of the information about the movement of those boxes fully comes out in the Warren Commission testimony of the DPD's Robert Studebaker (beginning at 7 H 141): http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0075a.htm Mr. BALL. Now, I will show you another picture which we will mark as "Exhibit D," [which is the same exact picture that is seen in CE509] was that taken by you? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes. Mr. BALL. Does that show the position of the boxes before or after they were moved? Mr. STUDEBAKER. That's after they were dusted - there's fingerprint dust on every box. Mr. BALL. And they were not in that position then when you first saw them? Mr. STUDEBAKER. No. --------------- So, neither the Warren Commission nor the DPD (Studebaker) were trying to pass off CE509 (aka Studebaker Exhibit D) as a photo depicting the Sniper's Nest boxes as they were first found by the police on 11/22/63. Quite the contrary, in fact. Studebaker was very honest and forthright about the photos that were taken after the boxes had been moved, and he openly told the WC that CE509/Studebaker D is a picture that was taken after the boxes had been moved and that that photo did not represent the configuration of the boxes when they were first discovered by police, with Studebaker also noting the fingerprint dust all over the boxes. Now, I haven't the slightest idea why the DPD felt it was necessary to photograph the boxes in different positions after they had been dusted and moved around. I'm still scratching my head about why those photos were needed at all, but the fact is they were taken--and the DPD told the truth about them. They didn't hide the fact that some pictures were taken after the boxes had been moved and dusted for prints. And when looking at the photo of CE509, it couldn't be more obvious that the DPD wasn't even attempting to perfectly re-create the position of the boxes in the Sniper's Nest, because they didn't even place a box back on the window ledge for CE509. Instead, they stacked the "windowsill" box on top of the other two boxes. And, btw, the other picture that Barry pointed out (CE733; aka Studebaker Exhibit J) is ALSO a picture that was taken after the boxes were moved--and that fact also comes out in Studebaker's WC testimony, at 7 H 147: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0078a.htm Mr. BALL. The picture of the boxes; this is after they were moved? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; they were moved there. This is exactly the position they were in. Mr. BALL. It is? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes - not - this was after they were moved, but I put them in the same exact position. Mr. BALL. Were they that close - that was about the position? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes. Mr. BALL. Let's take one of these pictures and mark it the next number, which will be "Exhibit J." Mr. BALL. After the boxes of Rolling Readers had been moved, you put them in the same position? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes. Mr. BALL. And took a picture? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And this is Exhibit J, is it, is that right? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Exhibit J, yes, sir. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0337a.htm http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0268a.htm ------------------ So I'm wondering why any conspiracist would look at CE509 and CE733 and still think the DPD was trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes--particularly with Studebaker's very own truthful testimony about those boxes staring them in the face at 7 H 141 and 7 H 147? Didn't you bother to even read Bob Studebaker's WC testimony, Barry? Apparently you didn't, otherwise you would have never written these words in your book: "Why are these boxes in different positions? Did anyone at the Warren Commission notice?" MORE ABOUT THE BOXES AND STUDEBAKER: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/did-police-fake-evidence.html

Barry, Congrats on publishing Volume 1 of your book. I've just added it to my Kennedy Catalog website: http://Kennedy-Books-Videos.blogspot.com/2011/03/kennedy-catalog.html#I You are, of course, dead wrong about Lee Oswald, but I still commend you for getting your book published and made available on Amazon. (I like the cover too. Looks nice.) Two Things That Prove Oswald's Guilt

DVP's JFK Archives / David Mantik On John McAdams