David Von Pein

Obviously, Harris totally ignored CD5 and CE1425, which is the report of Brehm's interview with the FBI on NOVEMBER 24, 1963, just TWO DAYS after the assassination, which was about 20 years before he ever heard of Steve Barber. You don't consider a November 24, 1963, interview to be an early enough statement from Brehm, Bob? I did. And it's the 11/24/63 FBI report, where Brehm stated to two FBI agents that it was "quite apparent" that the shots he heard had come from the corner of Elm & Houston. Please cite the interview which has Brehm saying that.

First of all, Charles Brehm never was able to positively identify the object that he saw fall into the curb near his position on Elm Street as a piece of JFK's skull/head. And he made that fact quite plain in his 1966 filmed interview with Mark Lane (see video below). Secondly, even if the object Brehm saw was a chunk of President Kennedy's head (which it probably was), the fact that it was thrown to the rear of JFK doesn't mean that the bullet which caused the head damage came from the front. And I cannot see why more people refuse to recognize this fact. I.E., Since we all know that Kennedy's head was tossed violently to the rear (after being driven forward initially by the force of Lee Oswald's bullet coming from the Book Depository), then I don't see anything unusual or miraculous about a piece of loose brain tissue or skull bone being thrown to the rear of his head. The violent movement of JFK's head backward might very well have resulted in some skull and/or brain being tossed toward the rear and trunk of the car, which can also easily explain the actions that most conspiracists think Jackie Kennedy undertook right after the head shot (with most CTers believing Jackie went to the trunk to retrieve a piece of her husband's skull). Thirdly, Charles Brehm has always been quite clear as to the origin of the gunshots that he heard. In an interview with FBI agents Joseph J. Hanley and William O. Johnson on November 24, 1963, Brehm told the agents that he thoughts the shots had been fired from the area of the Elm/Houston intersection. Quoting directly from the FBI report: "Brehm...also stated that it seemed quite apparent to him that the shots came from one of two buildings back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets." -- Via the Hanley/Johnson FBI report of 11/24/63, which was dictated on 11/25/63 [see Commission Document #5, pp.28-29; also see CE1425] In 1986 at the TV Docu-Trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"), Brehm also repeated the exact same thing about hearing the shots coming from either the TSBD or the Dal-Tex Building. Brehm never said a word about hearing any shots at all coming from the direction of the Grassy Knoll in either his 11/24/63 FBI interview or in his testimony at the televised mock trial in London in 1986. Nor did he say a single word about hearing any shots coming from the front (Grassy Knoll) during his filmed interview with Mark Lane in 1966. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/The Kennedy Detail

Don Adams doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about. E.G.: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0536023a54b7a374 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d4da38fc82fc6d21

No, it's not a fake. It's a picture from 1991, Jim.

Thank you, Steve Duffy, for your last post. I appreciate your candor. One question (re Myers' book "With Malice"): Can you provide for me one or two things that you think Myers has gotten completely wrong regarding the evidence in the Tippit shooting? And what has Myers LEFT OUT of his book that make you think he was hiding something (or just simply wasn't telling "the whole story" regarding the Tippit murder)? Thanks.

Jimbo is wrong (again).

The evidence clearly shows Oswald to be guilty of killing J.D. Tippit. Simple as that. Steve, do you really believe Oswald didn't shoot Tippit? Really?

An absolutely incredible statement. And absolutely silly, too. Myers makes Oswald's guilt so obvious, a 2-year-old could have convicted the bum. http://With--Malice.blogspot.com

My apologies (yet again) to John Wilson for going off topic in my last post. (The devil made me do it, though. I was merely a manchurian candidate -- similar to Oswald in Dallas.)

Well, it's good to hear a CTer say this: "LNs, in my opinion, are right about most of the details." That's something I sure don't hear out of many conspiracy advocates. In fact, I've never heard it from any CTer heretofore. Congrats, Pat, you're the first. I've said this before, and I'll reiterate it again: I have more respect for Patrick J. Speer than I do for most other conspiracists I have encountered over the years. You, Pat, are dead wrong about several things you currently believe in (such as your belief that the SBT is incorrect), but your articles and posts re the JFK case are definitely more coherent and sensible (for the most part) than virtually any other CTer's work I've ever come across up to this point in late 2010. I just wish more conspiracy believers could approach the Single-Bullet Theory with more logic and reason. Because to believe, as most CTers do (not counting Pat Speer, who rightly thinks all shots came from the rear), that TWO separate bullets lodged in JFK's throat and upper back is a belief that is just not a sensible or reasonable belief. (IMHO.) And then to have BOTH of those bullets disappear immediately after the shooting?? That, frankly, is just nutty.

Yeah, sure Pat. LNers are always wrong about everything, aren't they? Anyway, we've derailed this Ollie Stone thread long enough. (Sorry.) And to makes amends and get the thread back on track a little bit, let's talk about this Stone lie (which partially segues into the P&T topic above): http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oliver-stone-blunder.html

Recent additions to my JFK Video/Audio Channel: John F. Kennedy's first press conference as President-Elect (on November 10, 1960); and JFK's speech on November 2, 1959, at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Los Angeles, with Frank Sinatra providing some comedy too: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6355626CE7F94DCE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLOdCgawJQE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBMo_xUwnzA ==================================================

Well, just like with VB on Ventura's show, Jim Marrs should have known better than to appear on P&T's program. Marrs and Vince both should have had better sense. Penn & Teller's show on the assassination, btw, is a program that totally destroys two longstanding conspiracy myths in just 3 minutes' air time: http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/debunking-jfk-conspiracy-myths.html

Yes. And that's probably how Vince got suckered into appearing on a kooky conspiracy-oriented show in the first place. Maybe Jesse made Vince believe he'd come off looking okay. Beats me. But I'm still surprised Vince would appear on a program that he surely had to know would be attempting to make all lone-assassin advocates look like idiots.

Not as far as the JFK case is concerned. And I think VB has changed his tune about the RFK "conspiracy", too. I'm not positive about that, however, since Vince never once mentioned the RFK case (and his involvement in it in the 1970s) during his hundreds of radio and TV appearances in 2007 while promoting "Reclaiming History". And I don't recall him talking about it to any extent in "RH" either. But I don't understand the thinking of CTers regarding Bugliosi. It's obvious that if Vince thinks something is a conspiracy, he'll come out and say so (such as with the RFK case in the '70s). So why isn't that a GOOD thing and a feather in VB's cap (from a CTer's POV)? ~shrug~

What I don't understand is why Vince Bugliosi let that conspiracy-happy kook (Jesse Ventura) in his house to film an interview with him in the first place? Unbelievably stupid on Vincent's part. Vince surely had to know that everything of an evidentiary nature that he'd be telling Ventura about Oswald's lone guilt was going to end up on the cutting-room floor. (And it did--of course.) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/jesse-ventura.html

No, he doesn't. He thinks all of the evidence against Oswald is fake and/or planted. He has to think that. Otherwise, his precious patsy is so obviously guilty. If "dealing" with the evidence is attempting to prove that 100% of it has been faked and/or manipulated (a la the O.J. Simpson Scheme Team), then I think I'll jump off Jimbo's ship right now. Because it's sinking. And common sense (alone) sinks that ship.

"You know, Davey Boy, it's bad enough when you deny the evidence." -- Jim "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody" DiEugenio Is there anybody else out there who is enjoying the pot-kettle nature of the above ridiculous comment as much as I am?

They weren't tied to a 5.6-second shooting interval (or even 6 seconds). And the Warren Report makes that very clear on page 117 (which you apparently want to totally ignore): And according to an expert for the HSCA, Lee Oswald's target was essentially a "stationary target" too, Jim. You like to ignore the fact that when Oswald killed President Kennedy, he was shooting at him from behind, when LHO's target was on virtually a straight line from the barrel of his Mannlicher-Carcano on Elm Street (as we can see from the Secret Service photos in Commission Exhibit No. 875; example below): The conspiracy theorists like Jesse Ventura (and many others) who love to go around declaring that Oswald's shooting performance was "xxxxing impossible" [Ventura quote] just do not know what the hell they are talking about. Period. Maybe Jesse should take a good look at the many photos from Oswald's Sniper's Nest that can be found in CE875. It might do him good. (But I doubt it.) The simple (and obvious) answer to that is: Oswald squeezed off one (missed) shot prior to the President's car going behind the oak tree. And the Warren Commission fully recognized and acknowledged that possibility on Page 111 of the Warren Report: "If the first shot missed, the assassin perhaps missed in an effort to fire a hurried shot before the President passed under the oak tree." On the same WCR page, however, the Commission covered the other side of the coin: "On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile." So, as we can see, the Warren Commission was covering ALL the bases. They weren't saying which one of Oswald's three shots definitely missed the limousine. They were laying all of the possibilities on the table for the readers of the Warren Report to consider. You'd think that the conspiracy theorists would be willing to give the Commission at least a little bit of credit for NOT trying to definitively state which shot missed. Shouldn't such "covering all the bases" be looked upon as a GOOD thing, instead of a "cover-up" by conspiracists? Such as, for example, when the Commission said this on Page 111: "The evidence is inconclusive as to whether it was the first, second, or third shot which missed." -- WR; Page 111 Now it is YOU, Jim, who is not considering alternate possibilities for James Tague's cheek wound and the Main Street curb damage. You are placing too much definitive emphasis on the missed shot having to be the shot that caused Tague's slight wound. But that's not the case at all (although I, myself, do, indeed, think that Oswald's first missed shot did cause Tague's injury). But there are other possibilities, which the Warren Commission also presented (on Page 117 of the WCR), with the Commission once again being shown to be flexible in its scenarios, allowing for the possibility that the Main Street damage (and, hence, Tague's cheek injury) "might have come from the bullet which hit the President's head, or it might have been a product of the fragmentation of the missed shot upon hitting some other object in the area." So, as we can easily see from just those two excellent Warren Commission pages (pages 111 and 117), which are pages that apparently very few conspiracy theorists have ever read or paid any attention to whatsoever, Earl Warren's Commission was considering various possibilities regarding the shooting timeline and the missed shot. Yes, the Commission was pretty definite on what they felt was the total number of shots fired in Dealey Plaza -- three. But there were plenty of reasons for the Commission to accept a definitive "Three Shots Were Fired" shooting scenario, including the presence of the THREE bullet shells being found in the Sniper's Nest right after the assassination, plus the vast number of witnesses who said they heard exactly THREE shots being fired. But as far as the Commission boxing itself into a corner regarding a "5.6 second" shooting timeline or which shot missed the limousine, that is simply untrue. Such talk is merely another one of the hundreds of myths about the JFK case that have been spread by conspiracy mongers over the last 47 years. And it's easy to prove that it's only a myth by taking just one quick look at pages 111 and 117 of the Warren Commission's Final Report.

DiEugenio will believe virtually anything--as long as it leads down Conspiracy Avenue, including the ultra-stupid notion that Oswald had NO BAG AT ALL with him when he drove to work with Buell Frazier on Nov. 22. Prediction -- Within the next year, DiEugenio will be fully supporting the silly conspiracists who advocate "Zapruder Film Fakery". It's bound to happen. Because DiEugenio is just the type of person who WANTS to believe in still MORE conspiracy nonsense concerning the JFK case. Aren't you, Jimbo? (That fact is obvious by Jim's treatment of Frazier and Randle [and Ruth Paine and Marrion Baker and Roy Truly, et al] in the last year or so.) Wait and see.

The feeling is (definitely) mutual. I feel the precise same way about Jimmy "Oswald Had No Bag At All On Nov. 22" DiEugenio. (Definitely. And then some.) What in the world is that supposed to mean? I know! It must mean that the girlfriend got tired of her boyfriend making up BS about the JFK case and decided to dump the bum! Did I come close, Jimbo?

Only in the super-strange world of conspiracy theorists could an AUTHENTICATED-AS-UNALTERED autopsy photograph [7 HSCA 41] be considered "desperation" and a "fabricated" argument. You, James H. Fetzer, are mind-boggling. Naturally, you must also think that the 20+ photographic experts on the HSCA's Photo Panel were full of BS when they said this on p.41 of HSCA vol. 7: "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." All lies, right JHF?

A "left rear" blow-out?? LOL. You're all alone on that one, Jim. Even amongst your CT friends. So, this picture's another fake, I guess. Not a hint of damage at the "left rear" of the head: