David Von Pein

Pat, I was thinking mainly of Blakey and his pet Mafia theory. And with Groden as a consultant--need more be said there?

ALL FOUR of them, Daniel? Come now. That would be an especially silly notion given the fact that the HSCA was looking desperately for ANY conspiracy they could get ahold of (and they found a bogus one--via the Dictabelt nonsense). But even they had the sense to say that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit.

Oh, come now, Pat. You know darn well that many, many people think the CIA was involved in JFK's death. In fact, as you point out above, the Gallup Poll of 2003 indicates that 34% of the people polled thought the CIA was involved (second only to the Mafia, at 37%). So, yes, a lot of people must, indeed, believe that Oswald was a triggerman for the CIA. And many people also think Oswald was WORKING FOR THE CIA. So, what's so spectacular about my thinking that a lot of conspiracy theorists believe that LHO pulled the trigger for the CIA? In fact, I'd have to be loopy to NOT believe that many CTers feel that way. Let's do the simple math: 1. Oswald was a CIA agent (per many conspiracy believers). 2. 34% of the people (per Gallup) think the CIA had Kennedy killed. 3. Ergo, Oswald likely was a triggerman for the CIA. What's the strain here? Now, if the 1,000+ people who answered that ABC News question about Oswald being a "gunman" were just too dumb to know HOW to answer that question, well I cannot help that. You must actually think that a large number of those people WERE too stupid to answer the question according to their own personal beliefs. I'm sorry, but I'll have to differ with you on that one. I was simply providing the raw data from that poll. If you think it was ABC's way to deceive the public, fine. I don't.

But, Tom, don't Oswald's own incriminating actions lead you down the path to that truth you seek? You surely must admit that Oswald shot Officer Tippit, right? That fact is even more obvious than his guilt in JFK's murder. And Oswald's other actions on Nov. 21 and 22 certainly add up to his guilt too (and his planning to commit some kind of illegal act on the 22nd, based on the provable lie he told Buell Frazier about the "curtain rods"). Lee Harvey Oswald, on both Nov. 21 and 22, signed his name to the murders of John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit. Conspiracy theorists are treating this double-murder case as some kind of unknowable, unsolvable game of "Clue". But the evidence is quite clear: It was Oswald with C2766 from the Depository. No other scenario comes close to matching the evidence, coupled with (again) Oswald's own very incriminating actions and movements on both Nov. 21 and 22. And if Oswald's own actions were somehow "fake", then we might as well be living in some alternate universe where Topsy-Turvy is the norm. http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

The work done by the many, many people who actually investigated (in depth) the murders of JFK and Officer Tippit supports me. You have no choice but to believe that EVERY official investigative team that looked into the JFK assassination totally botched up everything -- from the DPD, to the FBI, to the Warren Commission, to the HSCA, to the Clark Panel, to the Rockefeller panel. I've got all of the above. You've got Stone, Garrison, Armstrong, Fetzer, Lane, and Lifton. Sad. And pathetic. And btw, according to the 1,031 people polled by ABC News in Nov. 2003, only 7% of those people think that Oswald did not fire any shots at President Kennedy. Not exactly an overwhelming majority, is it? http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

Gee, what a surprise. A conspiracist is ignoring the hard, physical evidence in the JFK murder case. Will wonders never cease? And Tom Wilson, naturally, will continue to deny that C2766 was Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, even with Waldman Exhibit No. 7 staring him in the face, plus the order form for the rifle in Oswald's own writing, plus the backyard photos (wherein the characteristics of Rifle #C2766 were identified by the photo panel of the HSCA -- in other words, Oswald is holding the TSBD rifle in those backyard pictures). All "fake" stuff, eh Tom? Sad. That fact was proven on the day the assassination occurred, Tom. I'm surprised you're not aware of that fact. Just listen to D.A. Henry Wade, on the evening of 11/24/63, run down the laundry list of stuff that proves Oswald's guilt. It would make any prosecutor's mouth water: DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/henry-wade-press-conference-11-24-63.html Dead wrong. There's CE637 (never proven to be planted there); and there are the oft-overlooked trigger guard fingerprints which were positively Oswald's, per print expert Vincent Scalice. He's a xxxx too? But that paper bag (with Oswald's own prints on it, of course) was tied to the blanket that we know held that rifle in Ruth Paine's garage. (The fiber experts were liars too, Tom?) I always get a kick out of conspiracy theorists like Tom Wilson here. They'll go to the ends of the Earth, it seems, to avoid the obvious implications of ALL of the Oswald-did-it evidence -- from the rifle, to the paper bag, to the bullet shells by the window, to the two large bullet fragments FIRED FROM OSWALD'S GUN that were found in the President's car, to CE399, to the fibers, to the Tippit evidence (I'm not sure if the Tippit stuff applies to Tom Wilson or not, but it sure applies to a lot of other Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists on the Internet these days), and to the fingerprints on the boxes too. Just how much evidence is necessary to have a guilty Lee Oswald in this case? For conspiracy theorists, it would appear the answer to my last inquiry is: There can never be enough. Sad. And those fingerprints and palmprints of Oswald's on those boxes deep inside that Sniper's Nest should not just be tossed aside (as all CTers want to do), as discussed here: JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-was-in-snipers-nest.html

Tom Wilson is 100% wrong on all three counts. LHO most certainly had the Motive, Means, and Opportunity to kill President Kennedy (particularly the last two--means and opportunity). Does Tom Wilson really want to deny that Oswald had ready access to his own rifle in November 1963? (Does Tom wish to pretend that Rifle C2766 was planted?) And does Tom W. also want to deny that Oswald was working in the TSBD Building on 11/22/63, and that LHO even admitted to being INSIDE that building at 12:30 when JFK was being killed? (I wonder how Oswald's prints got on two of the boxes that were located in the exact same very tiny area of the southeast corner of the 6th Floor where an assassin was located on Nov. 22nd? Did the patsy-framers just get LUCKY by choosing two boxes that Oswald just happened to touch on Nov. 21 or 22?) JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswalds-motive.html JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Lee-Harvey-Oswald

Speaking of '60s cartoons...this fun series from 1964 shouldn't be overlooked: http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/jonny-quest.html

It wasn't cereal, James. It was a soup bowl. But, we all make mistakes sometimes. Unless, perhaps (just perhaps) the film of that episode--entitled "In The Soup"--was altered at Hawkeyeworks in Rochester shortly after it was filmed at Universal in Hollywood, in order to turn a Wheat Chex cereal bowl into a Zesto soup bowl. That's something for inquiring minds to ponder indeed. http://Leave-It-To-Beaver-On-DVD.blogspot.com

I had a lot of fun recently talking with a fellow by the name of Mitchell Hadley, who maintains multiple blogs and websites pertaining to television and American culture. Mitchell interviewed me about my collection of TV coverage on the JFK assassination, plus some other stuff. So, I thought I'd share the link to the article: http://www.ItsAboutTV.com/2011/06/its-about-tv-interview-jfk.html

~stretch~

yawn

Just one bullet to the head, Bill?

Bill Kelly, Do think JFK's head is physically moving forward a little bit between Z312 and 313 here? Or do you think this movement is merely an illusion? ....

No. Now, answer a question of mine, Jimbo: Do you think ITEK Corp. lied in 1975 when they concluded that there was 2.3 inches of measurable movement forward of JFK's head between frames 312 and 313 of Mr. Zapruder's home movie?

IMO, that is a ridiculous argument, and for this reason: Frame 312, which is just an instant before the bullet hits JFK in the head, is probably the clearest frame in Mr. Zapruder's whole film (it's certainly one of the very clearest and non-blurred frames in the whole 26-second home movie, at any rate). So, to believe that the forward head movement between Z312 and Z313 is caused by the film being "blurred" or "smudged" (smudged? WTF?), we'd have to believe that this blurring occurred immediately after one of the very clearest of all frames in the entire Zapruder film had just been exposed through Mr. Z's camera. Now, I'm no photography expert, and I suppose such blurring is possible under the right circumstances, but I think a key to knowing that the "blurring" theory at Z313 is not valid is by looking at Z312, which is a beautiful frame, with no blurring whatsoever. It would seem to me, therefore, that BOTH Z312 and Z313 would need to contain some degree of substantial blurring in order for any such theory to be plausible concerning the forward head movement being caused by merely blurring of the film frames. Also: What do you suppose the odds are of such a theory being accurate? I.E., a separate "blurring" event occurs on the film at the exact instant when President Kennedy just happens to get struck in the head by a bullet and his head appears to be moving forward slightly. It appears to me that certain conspiracy theorists will do anything and propose virtually any alternate theory in order to deny the obvious fact that President John F. Kennedy was struck in the head by just one bullet--which was a bullet that came from behind.

HENRY RYBKA, DON LAWTON, AND SECRET SERVICE CONFUSION AT LOVE FIELD: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-service.html

Bull. The Warren Commission and all the rest had the same data and the same witnesses you have had since you started your absurd body-alteration odyssey in 1966. They knew about the contradictory statements made by the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses (even the WC back in '64).* They just had a little more common sense than some authors had when it comes to alleging things that the WC, et al, knew were simply impossible occurrences from the get-go -- such as stealing the President's body and whisking it away to Walter Reed without a single non-conspirator noticing. That type of activity just could not have happened. Therefore, there IS another explanation to explain the contradictory witness statements. Your explanation is the most extraordinary (I think even you, yourself, DSL, will agree with that). While all other explanations are far less extraordinary. * = Just one example of the WC knowing about the contradictory witnesses is this WC testimony supplied by Dr. Robert McClellend: Dr. McCLELLAND -- "The initial impression that we had was that perhaps the wound in the neck, the anterior part of the neck, was an entrance wound and that it had perhaps taken a trajectory off the anterior vertebral body and again into the skull itself, exiting out the back, to produce the massive injury in the head." Haven't you ever asked yourself this one very pertinent question when assembling your body-altering theory, Mr. Lifton: Why on Earth would any conspirators have even WANTED to do things the way you think they did them on 11/22/63 -- i.e., having to steal the body of the victim so that they can rearrange the wounds? In other words, haven't you ever wondered WHY these goofy and overworked plotters didn't just SHOOT JFK FROM THE REAR TO BEGIN WITH, in order to avoid all the cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus that you say was required of them later in the day? If that basic, fundamental question about the plot to murder the President hasn't crossed your mind since 1966, I have to wonder why it hasn't.

Daniel, What makes you so sure the red-spot photo was taken at the onset of the autopsy? John Canal, among others, insist that picture was taken later on--after the brain was removed from JFK's head. (And please don't tell me you think there was no brain in JFK's head at all when he arrived at Bethesda at 8 PM.)

Well, Jim, since I think the ONE and ONLY wound of entry in President Kennedy's head was, indeed, in the cowlick area....then, yes, the doctors at Bethesda HAD NO CHOICE but to have seen the bullet hole in the cowlick area (regardless of their differing testimony which places that wound elsewhere on JFK's head). This opinion of mine really isn't all that surprising to you, is it James? In fact, this same opinion about the bullet hole being in the cowlick is not JUST my opinion--it's an opinion shared by many, many "LNers", including the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, the four members of the Clark Panel, plus Vincent Bugliosi, Dale Myers, John McAdams, and many others. So why are you so shocked? In the final analysis (as the HSCA determined at 7 HSCA 41, which is a page of the HSCA volumes that you will continue to disregard until you breathe your last conspiracy-tinged breath), the red-spot photo isn't lying to us. The wound IS where that autopsy photo shows it to be -- in the cowlick. And that's where the beveled wound in the skull is located, too. And you cannot prove that photo is a fake. Nor can any other conspiracist. Period.

One of the biggest mistakes made by the autopsists, in addition to the silly mistake of not calling up Parkland while JFK was still on the autopsy table to ask somebody in Dallas if the trach covered a bullet hole, was when they decided not to measure the entry wound's "north/south" distance from the EOP. They put in a detailed lateral measurement (2.5 cm.), but then they decided to merely say "slightly above" when talking about the other measurement. Crazy. I'm also of the opinion that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were always hesitant to admit they made an (obvious) 4-inch error with respect to the location of the entry wound. Much like the four Parkland doctors were very hesitant to admit their errors in front of the PBS-TV cameras in 1988. And Dr. McClelland's theory about the President's scalp is just loony as all get out. I've also always wondered how McClelland, who was situated at the head of the ER table at Parkland, could have possibly been LOOKING STRAIGHT DOWN at JFK's face and yet still claim he was STARING DOWN into a great-big hole at the BACK of JFK's head. That's simply....impossible. More: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html McClelland in 2009 (80-minute in-depth interview; very, very good too): http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/robert-mcclelland.html

I believe the autopsy picture. It's the best evidence for the location of the wound. Plus there's the fact that the HSCA's FPP [via the audio file linked below] said the cowlick wound lines up perfectly with the beveled entry wound in the skull (i.e., 100mm. above the EOP). http://www.box.net/shared/n4n1j7meua

Many people think the red-spot picture was taken late in the autopsy, after JFK's brain had been removed. I, for one, have no idea exactly when it was taken.

Funny, isn't it, Mr. Lifton, that the HSCA and the WC and the Rockefeller Commission and the Clark Panel "ignored" the very same evidence that has led you down the "body alteration" path? Now, who should I go with -- the FOUR above-mentioned official Government panels who were assigned the task of looking at the JFK murder case (or various peripheral aspects of it at least)? Or should I go with David S. Lifton, a person who thinks that all the shots came from the FRONT of JFK in Dealey Plaza, and who also thinks the President's body was altered with lightning-like swiftness and efficiency, even though the stealing of JFK's body was literally impossible to do, given the timeframe and the witnesses surrounding the alleged "interception" of the body? Call me goofy -- but that's not really a very tough choice, DSL.