David Von Pein

....which only exists in the fevered imaginations of conspiracy theorists like you, Jimmy. The autopsy report proves there was no "blow out at the rear of the skull". The testimony and post-1963 interviews of ALL THREE AUTOPSY DOCTORS prove there was no "blow out at the rear of the skull". The autopsy photos and X-rays prove (for all time) that there was no "blow out at the rear of the skull". And--the Zapruder Film proves for all time that there was no "blow out at the rear of the skull". Jimmy "Everybody's A xxxx And I Can Prove It" DiEugenio thinks he has defeated ALL of the above. Jimmy, of course, is currently residing in Conspiracy Fantasyland, with the ghost of Jim Garrison serving as Fantasy President and Grand Poobah. To reiterate Jimbo's previous closing salvo -- "What a sorry spectacle."

I just now looked back on the post that John Kelin thinks I have not worded correctly. John's wrong, I worded it perfectly (check between the parentheses): "...Mary Moorman's belief that the FIRST shot (of 3 or 4 total that she said she heard) hit JFK in the head." -- DVP

No, of course not. No shots came from the front, at all. And the photos and X-rays aren't "phony", at all. (The HSCA's photo panel was full of idiots and/or cover-up artists, right David Josephs?) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html

To David Lifton, Yes, I know you still believe in the impossible -- i.e., the "impossible" notion that (in a very brief period of time) President Kennedy's wounds were altered and/or rearranged in order to eliminate all evidence of supposed frontal gunshots (all without a single witness ever coming forward--in 47 years--to say that he or she witnessed any such covert surgery on the President of the United States). And, yes, I know you still believe in the Impossible #2 -- i.e., the incredibly silly notion that ALL of the shots in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 came from the FRONT of the President's vehicle. I just happen to vigorously disagree with your interpretation of the evidence, Mr. Lifton. And I strongly disagree with your theories, DESPITE the opinions and observations of the several Parkland and Bethesda witnesses you interviewed on film in 1980. You will say I'm ignoring those Parkland and Bethesda witnesses, such as Dennis David, Jerrol Custer, Paul O'Connor, Aubrey Rike, et al. But, the truth is, I'd rather disagree with people like Paul "No Brains In The Head" O'Connor if the alternative option is to place a single ounce of faith in the outlandish theory that you, Mr. Lifton, have been peddling since 1966. Can I ask you a straightforward question, Mr. Lifton? Do you REALLY and TRULY believe that such "body alteration" on the President's head COULD have been accomplished in such a short period of time on the evening of 11/22/63? Could such perfect head-altering surgery have been performed so that ALL THREE of JFK's autopsy surgeons at the Bethesda autopsy were totally fooled by the covert surgery? Do you really and truly, deep down, today, believe such amazing behind-the-scenes patchwork surgery on JFK's head/body could have resulted in the autopsy report we now find on Pages 538-546 of the Warren Commission Report? I'm virtually certain what your answer will be to my last question, but I thought I'd ask it anyway (for the record). http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com ------------------------- DR. HUMES' COMPLETE 1967 CBS-TV INTERVIEW WITH DAN RATHER: http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/dr-james-humes.html

True. But that doesn't change the points I was making in my previous post re Mary Ann hearing multiple shots after the head shot.

Here are some random thoughts regarding Mary Moorman's belief that the FIRST shot (of 3 or 4 total that she said she heard) hit JFK in the head: If the first shot had been the head shot, then (logically) it would not make very much sense for there to have been any more shots AFTER the fatal blow to the President's head--let alone MULTIPLE additional shots being fired into the car. And here's another point to be made on this (probably even a better logical point than the one I just made above) -- As we can see via the Zapruder Film, right after JFK was struck in the head, his head is moving around violently (which, it would seem to me, would have presented a difficult situation for any gunman at that exact point in time, because his head would have been very difficult to keep in the gunman's sights because of its violent movement backward after Z313). And we can also see in the Z-Film that JFK crumples OUT OF SIGHT of ANY gunman in Dealey Plaza within just seconds of the Z313 head shot. So my next logical question for Ms. Moorman (or anyone else who contends that gunmen were still popping away at President Kennedy by firing MULTIPLE SHOTS after Z313) -- What were those gunmen shooting at at that point in time? Jackie? Kellerman? James Tague? Because if it was more than just a second or two after Z313, and shots were still being fired in Dealey Plaza, then those gunmen were certainly not going to have a very clear shot of John F. Kennedy. That's for sure. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/mary-moorman-interview.html

So Jim just totally ignores the autopsy report, which verifies (for all time) that JFK had just ONE entry wound in his head--in the REAR. I wonder how photo/film analysis can get around this irrevocable fact?: "It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- Page 6 of John F. Kennedy's Official Autopsy Report http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/head-wounds.html -------------- And then there are Dr. Humes' comments on CBS in 1967 (which Mr. DiEugenio is forced to either ignore or pretend Humes is a rotten xxxx): DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?" DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes, sir." RATHER -- "And that was where?" DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the right of the mid-line posteriorly." RATHER -- "And the exit wound?" DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?" DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from behind and passed forward through the President's skull." RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?" DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is." RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the President's head was the entry wound?" DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir." http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report.html BTW, ITEK Corp., in 1975, physically MEASURED the forward movement of JFK's head that occurs between frames 312 and 313. It's a MEASURABLE movement forward. Or is ITEK full of rotten liars (or incompetent boobs) too?

In the Bronson slide (above), I've been wondering recently who the two women in black dresses are who are located to the left (east) of the Newman family? Anybody know?

Beats me. That's a mystery indeed. Anyway, in her 5/24/11 interview with Gary Stover, she did say that she stepped into the street TWICE prior to the President's car arriving in Dealey Plaza. She took pictures of two different motorcycle police officers prior to JFK's car getting into the Plaza....and she said that she was IN the street when she took both of those pictures. Mary also made a specific point in her May 24 interview to say that the second motorcycle policeman she snapped a photo of was in the CENTER LANE of Elm Street, thereby allowing her to step into the street without risking getting run over. Obviously, such was not the case when she took her famous picture of President Kennedy at the time of the fatal head shot. There were motorcycles taking up the left (south) lane. No way she'd be in the street at that point. Mary Moorman has given very few interviews since '63. She gave at least two on 11/22/63 and was part of the CBS-TV program "November 22nd And The Warren Report" in 1964 -- see my webpage on Moorman and Jean Hill HERE to see or hear all of those interviews. In the KRLD-Radio interview linked above, Moorman does, indeed, say she had "stepped out in the street, we were right at the car" at the time of the fatal shot. Why she would use those exact words "in the street" is a mystery, because it couldn't be more obvious from the Zapruder Film that she was not "in the street" at all. She was very CLOSE to the street, yes. But she certainly wasn't "in the street". Perhaps she meant to say she was "at the curb of the street", instead of using the word "in". ~shrug~

We don't need Mary's recollection to verify (beyond all doubt) where she was standing when she took her famous Polaroid picture. The Zapruder Film answers that question for all time -- she was not standing out in the street; she was standing on the grass (as was companion Jean Hill). Moreover, as the Altgens Z255 picture confirms, it would have been virtually impossible for Moorman or Hill to have been physically IN THE STREET at the approximate time of the head shot, because they probably would have been run over by the outboard motorcyclist on the south side of the limousine. There's no way that either woman would have even WANTED to step into the street at that moment (unless they had a curious desire to be struck by a motorcycle at that moment in time). MARY MOORMAN'S 5/24/2011 INTERVIEW (IN MP3 FORMAT): http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/mary-moorman-interview.html

Well, Lee, since the HSCA was desperately LOOKING FOR A CONSPIRACY in the Kennedy case (and they "found" a bogus one too, via the acoustics charade), I'd expect them to say exactly what YOU guys have been saying for years about CE399 & the SBT--if such things were true and could be backed up with something other than sheer CTer speculation and wishful thinking. That's what I would expect the HSCA to say re these matters. Unfortunately, however, for the CTers who think the SBT is a fraud and that CE399 was planted/subbed, the HSCA came to the same conclusion (generally) about 399 and the SBT that the WC came to -- i.e., the HSCA agreed with the WC that one bullet wounded both limo victims and that that ONE BULLET was Warren Commission Exhibit No. Three-Niner-Niner. So, Lee Farley, I guess you'll just have to live with the undeniable fact that BOTH of the official committees who were assigned to thoroughly investigate John Kennedy's murder came to the very same conclusion regarding these two important questions: 1.) Is the Single-Bullet Theory a valid theory? WC answer: Yes. HSCA answer: Yes. and 2.) Was CE399 the bullet that wounded both JFK and John Connally on 11/22/63? WC answer: Yes. HSCA answer: Yes. Maybe a third official investigation will be the charm for the anti-SBT conspiracy mongers. Ya think? Or do you think that a third panel would be just as corrupt and dishonest as the first two were?

Whoopee for Jimmy! But every Govt. committee/Commission to examine the JFK case HAS found the SBT to be "credible". And those committees each found CE399 to be the exact bullet to have accomplished the SBT. Send your next complaint to Louis Stokes and Co. They must have blown it too, huh? Or were they all liars and cover-uppers too?

Delusional DiEugenio strikes again. Everybody's a "xxxx" in DiEugenio's crazy world of conspiracy....even me. Unbelievable. Maybe Jimbo should take another look at my "Points 1 thru 6" in my previous post re the SBT, and then try to tell a reasonable person that the SBT is an imaginary crock of xxxx invented by Arlen Specter. BTW, neither DiEugenio nor anybody else has ever "proven" that CE399 is a fake bullet. They haven't even come close to "proving" any such vile accusation. And, yes, it IS a vile and irresponsible accusation. Not to mention an extraordinary one, which requires an equal amount of extraordinary proof to back it up. And the Tomlinson/Wright business isn't even close to proving 399 is not the stretcher bullet. And the time discrepancies re Bob Frazier and Elmer Todd (the 7:30 vs. 8:50 discrepancy) isn't proof either. And DiEugenio should know why -- because the FBI wasn't even in possession of Oswald's rifle until several hours AFTER either one of those times. Plus, if the FBI was monkeying around with all of the evidence and the associated paperwork (which is what DiEugenio believes is the case), then why wouldn't they simply fake some of the documents to make the Frazier/Todd times MATCH re the bullet? Ever wonder about that, Jimbo?

Who cares? Are you now going to suggest that there was a bullet hole in JFK's coat collar? Of course, Bob Frazier explained the existence of that "defect". It wasn't a bullet hole. The defect was made by the FBI.

Nice dodge, Lee boy. You know, of course, that no reasonable person can get around the logic laid out in points #1 thru #6 listed above. So, you did exactly what you accused me of doing in your previous post -- you "ignore everything". Lovely. Sure: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswalds-motive.html

The SBT is so obviously true, only hard-headed anti-SBTers have to wrestle with it. 1.) JFK hit in UPPER BACK with a bullet. 2.) JBC hit in UPPER BACK with a bullet. 3.) JBC is sitting directly in front of JFK ("directly", that is, from Oswald's slightly "right-to-left" perspective of the victims as Oswald was shooting the victims from the TSBD's 6th floor). 4.) Both victims are reacting at precisely the same time in the Z-Film (despite the constant protestations from the CT crowd). 5.) No bullets in JFK. 6.) No substantial damage in JFK's neck/back to account for a FMJ bullet suddenly stopping dead in its tracks--let alone TWO such missiles, which is the ridiculous scenario that CTers like Farley are forced to swallow. And, somehow, when adding up #1 thru #6 above, the SBT is a scenario that is not only improbable according to the CT brigade--it's TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. The anti-SBT crowd is off the rails of reality.

Utter nonsense from DiEugenio (as usual). Of course CE399 is the exact same bullet found by Tomlinson at Parkland. And there are several reasons (based on common sense alone) to know that CE399 was not "planted" or "switched", as discussed below: http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399

Two-part SBT series from 2008: http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dale-myers-and-sbt.html http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dale-myers-and-sbt-part-2.html ----------------------------------------------- More SBT: http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory ----------------------------------------------- Complete (new) "JFK Archives" website index:

Thank you, Gil.

Citation please. What page number of the HSCA Final Report can this info be found regarding Ruby having "help entering the basement"? Thank you.

LOL. What the hell? Where did that ridiculous rumor come from? No such application form exists and everybody knows it.

Oh, come now, Pat. You're splitting a mighty thin hair here. Her name is "Beverly" in the film. And everyone knows that she is supposed to be Beverly Oliver, who surfaced in 1970 with her (probably) false story about being the Babushka Lady. Stone inserted "Beverly" into the film to add yet another "conspiracy" witness to his film full of distortions, and for no other reason (quite obviously).

JIM GARRISON & OLIVER STONE E-Mail From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein Date: 4/6/2011 3:09:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time ------------------------ Hello Dave, What now? Ruby should have been noticed because he didn’t have a camera, according to Gil in [an Education Forum] post [linked here]????????? Gee, none of the newspaper reporters held cameras, nor did any of the radio or TV reporters. In fact, there were only three photographers in that basement: Bob Jackson, Jack Beers and Frank Johnston. Just three cameras out of what, 30 reporters and technicians? Why would Ruby stand out for extra scrutiny? For that matter, what would be accomplished by a “nighttime transfer” in an enclosed basement lit by artificial light vs. a daytime transfer? And how would an armored car have helped since Oswald was shot before he reached where the vehicle would have been parked? Gary ================================== DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Yeah, Gary. Gil Jesus is a [deleted, so I don't get kicked off The Edu. Forum] when it comes to anything about the JFK case--just like DiEugenio The Great. These people are just [deleted]. Let's face it. There is no hope for them. Particularly when they've peddled two conspiracy books in the past, as DiEugenio has. He wouldn't turn against Garrison now if he suddenly found a tape recording made while Garrison was on his deathbed telling the world "I had no case against Shaw; I'm a fraud". Regards, DVP ================================== GARY MACK SAID: Here’s what I don’t understand. Virtually every conspiracy researcher who worked with/for Garrison bailed out because they knew he had no case whatsoever. I’ve heard that directly from Harold Weisberg and Mary Ferrell. Mary admitted that in an interview about Garrison’s death that ran at the local TV station I worked for at the time. Lifton walked out, Meagher, and many many more. Mark Lane laughed at him in his PBS/Oswald’s Ghost interview. Weisberg was so offended at Oliver Stone’s plans he leaked an early JFK script to George Lardner of the Washington Post to expose Garrison’s failures to the world. (Harold and I were very good friends from the mid-80s until he died; he told me the story, though not who sent him the script.) So why are these folks so delusional about Garrison? So what if Shaw had dealings with CIA that he wouldn’t admit to during the trial days? Such an action isn’t, in and of itself, suspicious unless….unless….the CIA is connected to the assassination. Despite so many people trying, no one has been able to do that. By all accounts, Clay Shaw was a decent resident of New Orleans filled with community pride and integrity. Any city would appreciate having a man like that. But the kooks overlook all of Garrison’s faults because of Clay Shaw? Why? I don’t get it. There is absolutely nothing about Shaw that is sinister in any way. Gary ================================== DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I don't get it either. I really think that, to a large degree, Oliver Stone's movie brainwashed Jim DiEugenio (and others like him). I, myself, was even bowled over at first by the "scope" and "grandeur" (for lack of better terms) of Stone's slick Hollywood film. But when a person examines the sheer number of distortions, misrepresentations, omissions, and outright lies that are placed on the screen in Mr. Stone's movie, it should make any sensible and reasonable person sit up and say -- 'Hey, that's not right.' Stone's distortions regarding J.D. Tippit's murder are laughable, with Stone in one scene suggesting that Oswald wasn't even at the Tippit murder scene. Although, to cut Oliver Stone some slack here, Jim Garrison too claimed that Oswald didn't shoot Tippit, which is a ridiculous notion as we all know. But since Stone was essentially filming GARRISON'S kooky account of JFK's murder and its aftermath, I guess I can't rake Stone over the hot coals too much for some of the silliness that he put in his film. But what's truly surprising is that Stone would choose GARRISON, of all people, to prop up and glorify. Surely Stone must have known, deep down, that Garrison was an empty vessel when it came to his JFK assassination investigation and that Garrison had prosecuted an innocent man in New Orleans in 1969. I guess Oliver just didn't care about that little detail at all. ~shrug~ And one of the biggest distortions and misrepresentations in Stone's movie is when Stone decided to put Beverly Oliver in a scene, supposedly having a conversation with Jim Garrison in the late '60s, even though Beverly didn't pop up out of the woodwork with her phony baloney story about being the Babushka Lady until a year AFTER the Shaw trial ended! How's that for deliberate time-warping deception? Footnote -- In March 1992, David Belin of the Warren Commission made an appearance at the National Press Club (see video HERE), and he did a nice job of setting the record straight about Stone and his distortion-filled movie. DVP ================================== GARY MACK SAID: Believe it or not, David, Stone left out a lot of stupid stuff. Jane Rusconi was his research coordinator. She’s the one who spoke to all of us in town looking for assistance. Some--Dave Perry and I plus a few others--wanted no part of it. But we soon realized we were the ones who could at least help get some of it right. So we all helped, and Jane confirmed many things were dropped because of things we passed on to her. Dave and I weren’t paid, by the way, and we didn’t want anything. We received two passes to the Dallas premier and we went. I stood in line right behind Jim Bowles, whom I hadn’t met face to face but we had spoken on the phone many times. I understand Stone’s need to use Garrison, for there simply is no other person in that long story who could even play the part of hero AND who was a public figure. It’s basic story-telling. I met Stone briefly, but we didn’t talk. He really does believe most of the major conspiracy tales and needed a hero to provide focus for all of them. Garrison was it, by default. Gary ================================== DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Gary, Do you have any idea why Oliver Stone decided to include Beverly Oliver in his movie (an actress portraying Beverly, that is)? Stone obviously wanted to place yet another "conspiracy" witness in his film. But Beverly Oliver never talked to Jim Garrison prior to the Clay Shaw trial. She wasn't "discovered" until 1970. DVP ================================== GARY MACK SAID: Sorry, I don’t. She [beverly Oliver] was hired as an advisor [on Stone's film "JFK"] and that probably made sense for some of the club scenes, though she was never a stripper. And of course there was no meeting with Ruby, Jada and Oswald. She did, of course, talk with Gary Shaw and Dick Sprague, both of whom knew Garrison. Does that count? Gary ================================== DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Not unless she talked with them prior to March 1, 1969, which is the day when Oliver Stone's movie ends. But even then, Stone would still be guilty of trying to pull the wool over his audience's eyes--because Stone has Beverly Oliver sitting down and talking with Garrison PERSONALLY in circa 1968. I'm surprised Stone didn't toss in a scene with Gordon Arnold too. DVP [My thanks go out to Gary Mack for taking the time to write me four very interesting e-mails on April 6, 2011, on the topics of Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone's JFK movie, and Jack Ruby.]

I love it when Delusional DiEugenio gets all riled up. It's incredibly fun (and funny). And this statement by Jimbo is totally distorted: "Now what is the venue? Anton Batey's show!" I did suggest that IF Len Osanic wouldn't host the debate on his Anybody But Oswald Radio Network in Vancouver, I might be able to get Anton Batey to agree to host the debate on his WHPR-FM station in Highland Park, Michigan. It was an ALTERNATIVE, Jim. Not a first choice. And, btw, before you ask -- No, I do not "KNOW" Anton Batey personally. I've never once met him in person. I only "know of him" via his YouTube channel and a few personal messages he has sent me (mostly through the YouTube PM service). Now, call me a xxxx again, Jimbo, regarding what I just said about not personally knowing Mr. Anton Batey. I love it when you stick your foot in your mouth when it comes to talking about people whom you think I personally "know" (e.g., Batey, Reitzes, McAdams, Carlier -- none of whom I have ever met in my life).

JIM GARRISON & OLIVER STONE