David Von Pein

Replaying my earlier comment and request from yesterday (maybe Pat didn't see it).... -------------------- Please post something verifying that John Connally ever said such a thing about the first shot that was fired. Because I never once heard him say (or even vaguely imply) any such thing. Connally always said he heard the impact of Kennedy getting hit with the head shot, yes. But shot #1? I don't think so. I think you're mixing up your "heard the impact" shots, Pat.

I would guess that when given a choice of which political figure to take a shot at (Kennedy or Nixon) during those days in late November of 1963, Lee Oswald had his "sights" set a little higher than Mr. Nixon (plus there's also the important additional fact that one of those political figures was going to be driving slowly past the front door of Oswald's very own workplace). So I don't imagine the choice was too difficult. Or are you suggesting that Oswald could have killed two birds with one Carcano in Dallas in Nov. '63? I suppose he could have bagged Nixon at his Pepsi convention on November 21st and then while Lee was at work on Nov. 22, he could get himself a second politician in JFK. And he could have gone for the Hat Trick by also taking out Lyndon Johnson while his car was also on Elm Street on 11/22. 😁 BTW, speaking of Oswald wanting to take a shot at Nixon, I've added this page to my website: http://DVP's JFK Archives.blogspot.com / Oswald And The Nixon Incident

John Connally was highly influenced by his wife's opinion. You surely don't deny that, do you? And, somehow, he came to this "impression" without even seeing the President at any time during this critical period. Therefore, IMO, such "impressions" aren't worth very much. Please post something verifying that John Connally ever said such a thing about the first shot that was fired. Because I never once heard him say (or even vaguely imply) any such thing. Connally always said he heard the impact of Kennedy getting hit with the head shot, yes. But shot #1? I don't think so. I think you're mixing up your "heard the impact" shots, Pat.

John Connally's never-wavering statements regarding the sequence of the shots and which shot hit him are fully supportive of the SBT. Those are the statements I was talking about. Not his misguided belief that the SBT is wrong. (Which is a belief we all know he inherited from his wife, because it's certainly not based on anything JBC himself saw or heard.)

Yeah, the more I think about it, I think you're probably right. (I'd better go remove those extra Ds.) 😄

I don't really see much difference, Mark. I think the two words can probably be used interchangeably. It's similar to the words "full-size" and "full-sized". I'm never quite sure which one to use when I write out that word. I usually opt to put the D on the end. I think the D in there makes it more "fully accurate". But I could be wrong about that. 🙂

I disagree (in this instance). Because the three things I put in ALL CAPS are absolute FACTS that (for some mysterious reason) almost all CTers just glide right past and ignore entirely.....as if John Connally HAD actually SEEN the President at the proper "SBT" timeframe and did KNOW FOR CERTAIN that the SBT was pure bunk. But neither of those things are true, and never were true. So why do CTers continue to use John Connally as the perfect anti-SBT witness when he's really just the opposite?

Huh?? What's your complaint this time? Don't like those particular words for some reason?

IMO, Oswald's "Assassination Plan" (if we can call it that) has all the earmarks of being a virtually last-minute plan with no advanced thought at all of any escape plan. I think that's obvious by just examining the things he did on both Nov. 21 and 22. I also think that Oswald himself truly felt (on Friday morning) that he very likely would have no real opportunity to pull off a successful assassination from anyplace within the Book Depository. So many things could have interrupted his plan to shoot from any of the windows within the TSBD. But luck was certainly with him that day, no doubt about it, when Bonnie Ray Williams elected to vacate the sixth floor just in time for Oswald to accomplish his task on an empty 6th floor. If only Bonnie Ray had decided to finish his chicken-on-the-bone sandwich on Floor #6. If he had done so, would tragedy have been averted? I think so. (Apart from Bonnie Ray's tragic dental bill, that is.)

Thanks, John. I thought it was probably that video that was being talked about. But we must keep in mind that Jack Ruby's mental state was not exactly A-1 at the time of that video. Nor was Ruby's mental condition what you would consider "normal" in June of 1964 when he said this to Chief Justice Warren: Mr. RUBY -- "I want to say this to you. The Jewish people are being exterminated at this moment. Consequently, a whole new form of government is going to take over our country, and I know I won't live to see you another time. Do I sound sort of screwy--in telling you these things?"

Post that video please.

Which, of course, totally contradicts these words spoken by the same Jack Ruby during his WC testimony: MR. RUBY -- "All I want to do is tell the truth, and that is all. There was no conspiracy." [5 H 212] And he said it again at 14 H 543: "There was no conspiracy." -- Jack Ruby

Is this the "Martino" that you're talking about, Allen? (Excerpt from Vince Bugliosi's book regarding a "John Martino". Click to enlarge....)

You don't think a nice dark movie theater would be a good place for a double-murderer who's on the run from the cops to hide for at least a little while? Why in the world not?

Even with the wife and son being totally honest people (which I have no reason to doubt; they probably were being honest), you actually think that that honesty somehow PROVES that Martino DID have advanced KNOWLEDGE of a JFK hit? That's a silly belief.

Yes. That's correct. This "Brain Weight" topic has been hashed out here at EF multiple times in the past....including just last month: ------------------ DVP SAID: The answer to the oft-asked question of "Why did JFK's brain weigh so much?" can likely be found right there in the supplementary autopsy report (on Page 544 of the Warren Report). The very first words of that supplementary report are: "Following formalin fixation the brain weighs 1500 gms." So it would seem as if JFK's brain was only weighed AFTER it had been fixed in the liquid (formalin) solution. So that's probably the answer right there---the brain absorbed much of the formalin solution, which added a certain amount of weight to the brain. Why the brain wasn't weighed prior to its being soaked in the watery solution is anyone's guess. Also see Vincent Bugliosi's book, Reclaiming History (on Pages 282 to 285 of Endnotes), for some interesting information regarding the topic of "Brain Weights". (I've culled some excerpts from those pages below. Click for a bigger view.) David Von Pein January 2, 2023

And I still wonder WHY CTers refuse to admit this fact: John Connally HIMSELF could not possibly have KNOWN FOR CERTAIN whether he was hit by the same bullet that struck JFK due to the fact that Gov. Connally DID NOT SEE John Kennedy at the point in time when Kennedy was first struck. Therefore, based on his own personal observations, how can John Connally KNOW that the SBT is untrue. He can't. He couldn't. And he didn't. I don't yet recall speaking to a single conspiracy advocate who will admit to the fact I just outlined in the above paragraph. Why is that? ~strokes chin in bewilderment~ Another Fact: Governor John B. Connally's anti-SBT stance was derived almost totally from his wife Nellie's adamant anti-SBT opinions. And I don't see how anyone can possibly argue otherwise. No it doesn't.

You're dead wrong here, Pat. As I said, JBC was THE WORST eyewitness in DP. He himself (sans his wife) cannot say which shot hit Kennedy. No way. No how. And he's always said he was not hit himself by Shot 1 and he was hit by Shot 2. Perfectly consistent with the SBT. IMO, 99% of his anti-SBT stance over the years came from his wife and his unwillingness to go against Nellie's account. And, of course, we know via the Z-Film that Nellie herself was certainly not turned in such a way at the proper time to see whether JFK was hit by Shot #1 or not. So she's not really a very good EYEwitness either (with respect to the validity of the SBT).

Well, here are three (from just a quick glance at Matt Douthit's review / hit piece).... 1.) Fred Litwin never implied that O.P. Wright gave CE399 to SS Agent Richard Johnsen at 7:30 PM. That's absurd. The 7:30 time comes from Johnsen's memo that he wrote after he returned to the White House on 11/22. Johnsen wrote that memo at 7:30. That's the "7:30" that Fred Litwin is referring to in his book. And Bob Frazier would have no doubt seen Johnsen's "7:30 note", which was still stapled to the envelope containing CE399 when Todd delivered the bullet to Frazier. 2.) And Fred is certainly correct when he says that John Connally's account of the shooting generally supports the SBT. And that's mainly because all reasonable people know that John Connally is just about the WORST EYEwitness in Dealey Plaza when it comes to the question of: Did the first shot hit JFK? John B. Connally could not possibly have answered that question knowledgeably....because he never saw JFK during the operative timeframe. Why CTers ignore that basic fact is beyond me. 3.) Then, of course, there's the ridiculous assertion made by Douthit (and other CTers, such as DiEugenio) that Fred Litwin's book ("Oliver Stone's Film-Flam") isn't really a book at all---simply because much (or most) of the contents of the book started out in blog form on Fred's website. But....so what? I'm sure that many books have been published that started out in different non-book forms. But once they're compiled and completed and edited (with sources added), etc., they become books. (Duh.) This repeated "It's not really a book" refrain is nothing but an additional excuse used by conspiracy theorists to trash and disregard the well-sourced contents of Fred's book. In short, it's a pathetic (and totally absurd) complaint.

.......

Where? I see no face here....

http://DVP's JFK Archives/2014/11/Faking The Dillard Photo All-too-obviously fake.

Good for you. But sincerity doesn't equal "fact", does it? Most conspiracy theorists are sincere in their beliefs that a conspiracy took place on 11/22/63, but that's a far cry from proving such beliefs are facts.