David Von Pein

Why don't YOU do it, Cliff? It's your pet theory that a shirt can't bunch up in unison with a person's suit coat. Looks to me like the burden of proving THAT theory is yours. Which, of course, you can never do, because JFK's "shirt bunching" situation is entirely unique to JFK's body, his clothes, and November 22, 1963. It's similar to a conspiracy theorist asking an LNer to "prove" for all time the workability of the SBT via on-site rifle tests (which WAS done, fairly well, in Oct. 2004 by the Discovery Channel people in Australia). But an EXACT to-the-millimeter reconstruction of the SBT is virtually impossible, due to the inherent "We Can't Know" nature surrounding the exact location of the two victims in the car at the precise moment when Oswald's Bullet 399 slammed into both men. But the SBT is true nonetheless--because it makes by far the most sense when examining the totality of the evidence in this case. ALL other theories fall miles short of the SBT, particularly the theory of THREE bullets mimicking a nice-looking SBT event on Elm Street (i.e., 2 bullets going into Kennedy and not exiting [but getting lost anyway], and yet another bullet hitting Connally in--amazingly--the UPPER BACK, so that it, too, can work its way into the SBT model). Doesn't that type of "3 Bullet" SBT coincidence seem a little strange--even to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy crowd?

You can't be serious with all of this crap, can you Cliff? That Towner photo is a crappy picture compared to the nearly razor-sharp Croft picture. It's difficult to discern the "fold" in Towner, due to the lousy nature of the picture. I have no idea where you're really going with these arguments anyway, Cliff, because there can be no doubt at all that President Kennedy's jacket IS BUNCHED UP at a point in time that equates to Z161 of the Zapruder Film (via the Croft photo), which is, indeed, a point in time AFTER the Towner image.

You can't possibly declare there's no bunching of the jacket via that Altgens picture. His jacket might well be bunched up (and probably is). The picture isn't definitive either way. But I will say that the coat seems to be "riding high" on the President's back, as we can't see any of his white shirt collar in that particular photograph.

I can see what could be considered JFK's cowlick tuft, yes. (Looks kind of like a cowlick tuft to me anyway. But please don't take me to court to try and prove it, because I can't.)

It's visible in a post-Towner photo--Robert Croft's picture:

Yes. They look about the same to me. Basically, both items are "bunched up" -- his shirt in one instance and his jacket in the Jefferies example. You mean you think there's a huge difference in the "bunching" there, Clifford? Doesn't look like a big difference to me. Of course, your argument about Kennedy's shirt is (and always has been) an unprovable one since we can't see the back of JFK's shirt in any of the motorcade photos. Therefore, you cannot possibly prove that it's "impossible" for his shirt to have been bunched-up in unison with his suit coat.

Many times he didn't have a choice. The cowlick was just there, and stuck out a lot of times. I've seen numerous pictures of JFK with the cowlick sort of sticking up (or sticking straight out), such as this picture taken on 11/22/63: And here's a good "bunching up" photo from the George Jefferies film: http://Kennedy-Photos.blogspot.com

The more an LNer proves Varnell wrong, the more proof Varnell requires. If we had a series of photos and films of CE399 slicing through JFK's body, Cliff will insist that LNers provide additional SBT proof.

I'm not saying that a full "sectioning" (bread loaf type) of the brain was done. I know that was not done. All I'm saying is that SOME "sectioning" was done (i.e., some portions or "sections" of the brain were removed from JFK's brain at a later time), and the autopsy report (WR; p.544) says that seven different "sections" of the brain were "taken" for examination. And Dr. Humes says that very thing in his ARRB session. And this quote comes in his testimony when the question of "sectioning the brain" is brought up by the ARRB questioner: HUMES -- "We did take certain sections a day or two later." There's also this from Dr. Boswell's ARRB testimony: "Now, this is the way we examine the brain, and had we sectioned it, we would lay it just like this and then start slicing it here. And I think from the microscopic description of the brain--we have microscopic sections of the transected cord. .... Oh, and also we did take some sections of the right parietal lobe, corpus callosum, that was right in here someplace. Anterior portion, frontal lobe, frontal parietal cortex. So there are a lot of sections of brain."

Sure thing, Cliff. Happy to oblige: NOTE/CREDIT: The above photo (which was taken by Jacques Lowe and depicts JFK wearing a dress shirt that is bunched up significantly around the area of the collar) comes courtesy of Jean Davison, author of the magnificent 1983 book "Oswald's Game". Jean e-mailed me that photograph on June 20, 2011. Thank you, Jean.

Oh, brother. Horne's got you hogtied and brainwashed. Doug Horne's Silliness (Part 1)

Main point being: DiEugenio is dead wrong .... the brain WAS partially sectioned. What do think the words "section" and "taken" mean here?: "The following sections are taken for microscopic examination." And why on Earth do you think a brain cannot be "partially" sectioned? Of course it can be. And it was. And Dr. Humes says so in his ARRB testimony I quoted earlier. Let's see it again (and have DiEugenio ignore it again, as usual): Dr. J.J. Humes -- "We did take certain sections a day or two later..."

"...some very limited sectioning [of JFK's brain] was done..." -- Page 383 of Reclaiming History And Page 544 of the WR confirms this. Right there in the autopsy report, which DiEugenio will always ignore. Also: Via Dr. Humes' ARRB testimony: Question -- "Were any sections taken at all from the brain?" Dr. Humes -- "Not at that time. Some place else I showed you, the report you showed, we did take certain sections a day or two later, whatever it was, from the location--we didn't divide the brain like we often do. You know, we often make a so-called bread loaf-type incision. Some people do it fore and aft. Some people do it different ways. But we didn't do that with this brain, because the next thing you know George Burkley wanted it. We might have gone on to do that, but when he came and said that they wanted the brain, fine, you know. I'm not going to argue about it."

RE: brain sectioning: From the supplementary autopsy report: "The following sections [of JFK's brain] are taken for microscopic examination..." Seven specific "sections" of the brain are then listed on Page 544 (a thru g). If this isn't a partial sectioning of the brain, then what is?

"And the bullet went through the coat way below where this would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the way I know this best is my memory of the fact that-- see, we probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything..." -- Dr. Boswell

No, it doesn't. He was talking about probing the back wound, not the throat wound. Better read this again: "When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was--if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the coat had been--was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the way I know this best is my memory of the fact that-- see, we probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it." -- Dr. Boswell

It's in the Supplementary Autopsy Report (WR; Pg 544): "In the interest of preserving the specimen, coronal sections are not made. The following sections are taken for microscopic examination..." http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284b.htm

You think that Boswell is talking about probing the FRONT-OF-THE-NECK wound in the quote below? You're kidding. He's talking about the UPPER-BACK wound being probed, not the throat wound, even though he uses the word "neck" here; which many people did, because the wound was near the junction of the upper back and lower neck: "When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was--if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the coat had been--was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the way I know this best is my memory of the fact that-- see, we probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it." -- Dr. Boswell It's obvious that Boswell is talking about the BACK wound with the "small hole" and JFK's "big and strong" BACK muscles. You think he's talking about the muscles in the front of JFK's throat there, Jim?

So you want to throw away the SBT based on the fact that the neck wasn't dissected? Can I then feel free to toss aside the ludicrous "Two Bullets Went Into JFK & Got Themselves Lost" theory, due to the fact there are no bullets to prove that theory at all?

No, it didn't make any sense at all. That's why I revised my opinion on that point -- because those people who believe Oswald was involved in some way in the assassination but think he fired no shots DO have an opinion about whether Oswald fired shots, which is the only thing that ABC question was asking. So to answer "no opinion" to that question is inaccurate for those particular respondents. It's worded clearly enough (for people who have any sense). It couldn't be more obvious that ALL portions of the question refer to GUNMAN in the assassination. Only conspiracy theorists have to struggle with this. I sure don't.

You probably won't believe this, but I hardly ever discuss the JFK case with anyone outside of this computer. I cannot remember the last time I asked anyone, outside the Internet, their opinion on the subject. It just never comes up. I see your point here, Pat. But, then too, we'd have to know how many of those 1,031 people in the poll had seen Stone's fantasy flick. We can never know that stat.

There are several discrepancies between the WC and HSCA re the SBT, to be sure. But there are a whole bunch of discrepancies between the conspiracy theories re the SBT and/or its alternatives too. Who should we believe? IMO, it's not even a close call (even with the cockeyed analysis of the HSCA on some things). The SBT stands erect, and always shall, IMO. The bottom-line conclusions are identical, however, between the WC's SBT and the HSCA's SBT -- one bullet (CE399) passed through both JFK and JBC. The HSCA was half-drunk (I guess) when it concluded these crazy assertions: 1.) JFK was leaning forward 11 degrees at the time of the SBT shot. 2.) JFK's throat wound was located above his back wound (anatomically). 3.) The SBT occurred at circa Z190. And #4 (bonus) -- A fourth shot was fired at JFK's car. Those four things are totally nuts, yes. And I've always said they were nuts. And I'll just have to live with my disagreements with the HSCA on these points. But I happen to agree with the HSCA on the big-ticket conclusions they reached: 1.) Oswald killed Kennedy. 2.) Oswald killed Tippit. 3.) Oswald shot at General Walker. 4.) Only two bullets struck JFK and JBC. 5.) The SBT is correct.

Jim, The brain WAS partially sectioned. Why are you insisting it wasn't sectioned at all. And there WERE probes used by Drs. Humes and Boswell in an effort to track the back/neck wounds, but as Dr. Boswell said to the ARRB in 1996: "We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it." You think the neck should have been torn open to dissect the wound, right Jim? Well, they didn't do that (for whatever reason, probably the wishes of the Kennedy family to not have certain portions of JFK's body mutilated at the autopsy). So, we're left to guess as to if there was an actual visible "track" through JFK's back & neck or not. But the doctors most certainly attempted to probe the wounds.

Pat, I think you're again merging together the silly beliefs of the "Internet" conspiracy crowd with the beliefs of the "general population". There almost certainly IS a difference there. But, no, I haven't performed any detailed study or poll to confirm what I just said. But, IMO, the 2003 ABC poll is proving my point, because 32% of the people in that poll said Oswald shot Kennedy BY HIMSELF, which is a much, much higher pct. than believe such a thing on the Internet. And when you factor in the other 51% who said Oswald was a shooter (along with at least one other "gunman"), then the pct. of "Oswald Was A Shooter" respondents goes even further above the pct. of such believers at Internet forums like this. Plus, the "Oswald Was A Patsy" believers can also believe Oswald was a shooter. And many do. They think Oswald was a shooter in a scenario that had multiple shooters, with Oswald then having the rug pulled out from under him and he was used as the lone scapegoat. Surely, even you know that some CTers possess that POV. Unless a large pct. of those respondents in that ABC poll totally misunderstood the "gunman" question, or unless they just deliberately answered with a response that reflected Oswald as a GUNMAN, then 83% of those people in that poll truly were of the belief that LHO was firing a gun at JFK in Dallas. Also, since that particular question (to my knowledge) has not been asked in the various polls in the past (the question, that is, about "gunmen" specifically), then it's really not something we can compare to any other poll sample. It's kind of a one-of-a-kind question. At least I don't recall seeing any question worded that way about "gunmen" before. Have you? Let me ask you, Pat: If you were among the people in the world who truly believed that Oswald didn't fire a shot that day (and you aren't, are you?), how would you yourself have answered that question when the phone rang and you talked with that pollster from ABC News? Would you have really not understood that the question was SEPARATE from the issue of conspiracy (which, per the order of the questions on the Polling.com website, was asked PRIOR to the "gunman" question)? And would you have really not understood that the ABC people were asking whether you thought Oswald was a GUNMAN or not? Plus, if you DID misunderstand the question, wouldn't you have ASKED the person on the phone to clarify it for you? I'm not sure if the pollster would have actually re-worded the question or not; but wouldn't you have ASKED anyway if you were confused? And it makes me wonder if some of those 1,031 people DID ask to have it clarified for them. And if it was clarified, then it only makes those poll results stronger and more ironclad.