David Von Pein

Oh brother. You're a piece of work, Clifford. If anyone wants to see how I destroyed Cliff Varnell's paper-thin and extremely lousy argument concerning the "little bit" topic, go here: https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html

It always comes back to the clothing for Clifford. Nothing else matters. Incredible.

And just keep pretending that the very next exchange between Belin and Brennan doesn't even exist....

Just pretend the Warren Commission testimony in my last post doesn't exist, Cliff. I've grown accustomed to such denial.

Dead wrong (as usual). Howard Brennan told the Warren Commission this [at 3 H 148].... DAVID BELIN -- "Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot positively identify the man you saw on [sic] the sixth floor window as the same man that you saw in the police station?" HOWARD BRENNAN -- "I could at that time--I could, with all sincerity, identify him as being the same man."

Repeating the evidence that hangs Oswald, you mean. That's what's being repeated. And it should be repeated--daily. Because this evidence isn't going to suddenly disappear.

Both of those things (age & looks) are, of course, purely subjective observations. The overall evidence indicates, without much doubt, that Brennan saw Lee H. Oswald in the 6th-floor window.

CTer pretending, in essence, that Howard L. Brennan never even existed. As usual.

Dead wrong (of course).

Yes, and that's why I was very careful and precise about the words I used in my post above, saying the gunmen in question (Oswald/Crooks) had been "left completely alone for a number of minutes prior to firing their rifles", implying that after a certain "number of minutes", one of those shooters (Crooks) was, indeed, interrupted.

Well, having a vivid imagination about Lee Oswald's activities certainly aids the conspiracy theorists, that's for sure.

In his post above, Gerry Down has listed some very interesting comparisons and parallels between Thomas Matthew Crooks and Lee Harvey Oswald. Another such parallel that can be made is this one: Each of those gunmen chose a high perch from which to carry out their attempted assassinations. And both shooters were lucky enough to find themselves being left completely alone for a number of minutes prior to firing their rifles, with no witnesses or bystanders or police officers directly interfering in any way with their preparations as they each got into position to shoot at their respective political targets. History certainly does have a habit of repeating itself.

Yes, it does (if you want to believe that the witnesses at Parkland did, in fact, actually see a large gaping wound in the back of JFK's head). Because there's no huge hole in JFK's SCALP in this photo either: And the Parkland witnesses insist there was a huge BLOW-OUT in the rear of the head, which would (of course) have no choice but to include a SCALP "blow-out" too. Unless you want to postulate that Kennedy's perfectly-intact scalp was reflected backward while he lay on his stretcher in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland -- and his scalp got that way on its own, without any doctors' assistance. Such a notion regarding the scalp of the President is, of course, preposterous.

Abe Zapruder, Gayle Newman, and Bill Newman.

Johnny, The bottom-line choice is, of course, this: 1. Believe that a lot of people made a rather significant (but innocent and unintentional) error regarding the location of the large wound in JFK's head. Or: 2. Believe that the various autopsy photographs and X-rays have been falsified and altered to make it appear that JFK had no large wound at all in the back of his head....PLUS....believe that all (or certainly most) of the (20?) members of the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel deliberately lied in HSCA Volume 7 when they concluded (as a unit) that all of the autopsy photos/X-rays were genuine and had not been altered in any manner (even though, per CTers, they had to have known that that conclusion was nothing but a big fat falsehood)....PLUS....believe that the Zapruder Film has also been faked/altered so that it can (falsely) show no large wound of any kind in the rear portion of Kennedy's cranium....PLUS....believe that all three autopsy surgeons lied their heads off in their autopsy report and in all of the official sworn testimony they would ever provide for the rest of their lives. Now, which choice do you think is the most likely to be accurate? For most conspiracy theorists, it's #2 (naturally). For every LNer who has ever walked the Earth, #1 wins the day. Stalemate....as always.

Excerpt from a 2011 Internet discussion..... JOHN KING SAID: Ok, once again, I ask you one of the most important questions of all. Please do not reply to my article without answering this very specifically. It is crucial that you answer this, because without this answer you cannot present a plausible argument: IF THE HOLE IN [JOHN F. KENNEDY'S] HEAD WASN'T WHERE THEY [THE PARKLAND WITNESSES] SAID IT WAS, THEN WHERE ON HIS HEAD WAS THE HOLE THEY SAW? Unless you're going to dismiss these witnesses even further and claim that not only were they mistaken about where the hole was, they were mistaken about there being ANY hole (in which case I'll never take you seriously again), you realize that you or anyone else doubting what they said absolutely MUST answer this question plausibly to produce an even remotely plausible argument. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Well, since there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever (via the best evidence in the case, which is the autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the autopsy report and the testimony of Humes, Boswell, and Finck) that the major wound of exit in President John F. Kennedy's head was NOT in the "occipital" (right-rear) region of his head, there's no way that I can legitimately think that the majority of Parkland witnesses REALLY DID see a wound in the occipital area of his head. And, yes, I realize that Humes' autopsy report does say that the large wound in JFK's head extended "somewhat" into the "occipital" region of his head. But that "somewhat" is a far cry from placing the major portion of that wound in a place where virtually everyone at Parkland placed it. This leaves the REAL wound of exit in Mr. Kennedy's head for the Parkland witnesses to ACTUALLY see, quite obviously. But, since I've already stated that it's my belief that it is highly likely that the REAL wound of exit (or at least the major portion of that wound) in the right-front of the head was "closed up" by Jackie Kennedy during the high-speed drive to Parkland Hospital, I'm going to actually have to suggest to you a theory that is probably going to cause you to lose all respect for me entirely and, hence, you will never take me seriously again (as you just said): I'm going to suggest to you, via the previously discussed "pooling" theory, that the Parkland witnesses actually saw NO PART of the major exit wound that existed in John F. Kennedy's head on 11/22/63. I had never really thought about this issue from this particular point-of-view prior to today, but that theory I just laid on the table is also almost CERTAINLY the exact theory that people like Dr. Michael Baden and Vincent Bugliosi must believe as well. Otherwise, we would have Baden and Bugliosi "pulling a Jim Moore" on us and suggesting that the Parkland witnesses actually DID see the one and only large right-frontal wound in John Kennedy's head, but (somehow) they all became disoriented as to the real location of that wound, due to Kennedy's supine posture while in the emergency room. But Baden and Bugliosi are NOT suggesting such a ludicrous thing at all. Instead, they are saying what I have said in the past as well -- that the Parkland people DID know JFK's "front" from his "back", but they interpreted a lot of blood and brain tissue adhering to the right-rear of Kennedy's head as being an actual/physical WOUND residing in the location of all that blood and tissue. But since we know that a large wound was NOT located in that right-rear-occipital area (and Baden and Bugliosi don't think ANY sort of wound resided in that location either), this must, therefore, indicate that both Baden and Bugliosi must legitimately believe that most of the Parkland witnesses saw NO REAL WOUND in President Kennedy's head. And, stopping to think about this scenario a tad longer, that theory of the Parkland people seeing no large wound at all DOES make some sense indeed, due to the fact that Jackie Kennedy, in effect, CONCEALED that large exit wound from the view of the Parkland witnesses before JFK's limousine reached the hospital. So, what "real" wound WOULD there have been to see at Parkland under these conditions (and via the "pooling blood" theory I've spoken of)? But we must also realize that the Parkland people were not there to perform an autopsy on President Kennedy's body. They were there to try and save his life if they could. They did not closely inspect or examine ANY of the President's wounds. Nor was it their job to do any such extensive examination. Once the President was pronounced dead, Trauma Room 1 cleared out quickly, and very few people even saw the President's body after that point at Parkland. So, while it might be hard to believe that the massive wound in JFK's head could go completely unnoticed by many, many trained doctors and nurses at a major U.S. hospital, given the circumstances and conditions outlined above concerning Mrs. Kennedy's probable handling of her husband's head before the car got to Parkland (and even you, yourself, say that you believe it's true that Jackie most certainly DID close up the open flaps on JFK's head), such a theory about the Parkland personnel not being able to see any of the actual wounds in the President's head seems quite possible and palatable, in my opinion. JOHN KING SAID: Where do you think on JFK's head the hole was that they saw? Do you see any hole in his head in that autopsy photo with him laying on his back? I sure don't. And in that photo the area where they said there WAS a hole is completely covered by his hair. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: You have just confirmed the point I made above. I.E., You just admitted (inadvertently) that a situation could, indeed, exist whereby the head of President Kennedy (after he had been shot) could appear to a witness to have NO HOLES IN IT WHATSOEVER (via the autopsy picture you mentioned [which is shown below]). So, via the "pooling blood" theory that I still maintain is likely the correct theory (even though I cannot reconcile that theory with ALL of the Parkland/Bethesda witnesses, and probably will never be able to do that), why would it be considered so outlandish to postulate that the Parkland witnesses saw the President's body in approximately the same condition in which it appears in this autopsy photo?: Hence, those Parkland witnesses could have seen NO HOLES in his head, and erroneously thought the pooling blood/brain at the right-rear was the only physical "hole" in his head. David Von Pein July 17, 2011

Mr. Cairns, Your #2 choice above is, of course, totally absurd. I have never once said or even vaguely implied that any of the "back-of-the-head" witnesses were part of an "elaborate conspiracy" to "conceal" the true nature of the President's head wounds. For reasons we'll probably never know with any certainty, those witnesses who thought they saw a large wound in the back part of President Kennedy's head at Parkland Hospital were (simply) wrong -- i.e., they were innocently mistaken -- i.e., they were incorrect in their individual assessments regarding the actual location of the large wound in the President's head. But they certainly weren't part of some cover-up scheme. It might seem incredible to some people (and downright impossible to others) that so many medical professionals could all be mistaken about the location of the President's head wound. But, in my opinion, such a mass mistake did, indeed, occur on November 22, 1963. More of my thoughts about how such a multi-person error could have happened can be found HERE and HERE.

Johnny C., In short, the things illustrated below, in tandem, trump and supercede any and all "Back-of-the-Head Wound" witnesses. They always have. They always will....

And how would you go about PROVING that all of the various pieces of evidence that incriminate Oswald are "fraudulent"? Thus far in 60 years, not a single person on Earth has PROVEN that ANY of the evidence is fraudulent, let alone all of it. Good luck to you.

Yes, of course. Why would I argue anything else (given the photographic record PLUS the testimony that I'd be getting from the three autopsy surgeons, who each would swear under oath that there was no huge hole in the back part of the President's head)? Would you argue that this conclusion reached by the HSCA's Photographic Panel was just a big pack of lies?....

I am claiming that there was no large "blowout" type of wound in the back of JFK's head. And the autopsy photos (authenticated by the HSCA as unaltered in any way) bear out such a "no blowout" conclusion, without a doubt. And the Zapruder Film supports that same conclusion as well. There are certainly fractures and cracks in the back of the head, that's for sure. But the kind of massive damage (including MISSING SKULL & SCALP) described by the Parkland witnesses simply does not exist, and the photos and X-rays prove it....

It's not me that makes Lee Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder so blatantly obvious. It's the bullet shells and the witnesses and Oswald's own guilty-like actions that are telling us who the guilty party is. I just refuse to join the "All The Evidence Against Oswald Has Been Faked AND All The Eyewitnesses Who Positively Identified Oswald At Or Near The Tippit Murder Scene Were Wrong Or Lying" club. And let's face facts: a conspiracy theorist has no choice but to be a member of the above-mentioned fraternity in order to believe Oswald did not shoot J.D. Tippit. And it wasn't just the members of the Warren Commission who concluded Oswald killed Tippit. The HSCA came to that same conclusion as well (which many conspiracy advocates seem to forget—or ignore): Therefore.....

Joseph McBride said (via YouTube): An absurd statement there, to be sure. Oswald cannot possibly be innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit. And anyone who knows anything about the evidence should, of course, know why this is true.

OK. Whatever.