David Von Pein

You're wrong, Sandy. The "gaping hole" in #1 doesn't extend to the BACK of the head at all. What you evidently think is part of the "gaping hole" is merely blood and brain adhering to JFK's hair at the TOP of his head. But the HOLE is nowhere near the BACK of the head (i.e., "occipital" or "posterior").

That's quite alright, Chris. And thank you for admitting you were mistaken. That's a refreshing thing to see here once in a while. 😁

Calling other members (whoever they might be) "Disinformation operatives" is most definitely against this forum's rules. (Isn't it? It certainly should be anyway.)

And I never said McClelland capitulated. In fact, that was kind of my whole point---the fact that he didn't reverse his opinion regarding the location of JFK's head wound even after seeing this autopsy photo at the National Archives: And then, after seeing the above photo at the Archives, McClelland comes up with his "Scalp Pulled Up Over The Wound" theory, which is completely ridiculous and impossible given the wholly undamaged condition of JFK's scalp in the photo above. Dr. McClelland was, of course, trying his best to have it both ways concerning President Kennedy's head wound. But when logic and common sense enter the equation, it's quite clear that having it both ways is just not possible in this instance. Please inform me as to how and where I have engaged in "a complete misrepresentation of McClelland". I look forward to seeing that. I think you must be referring to other Lone Assassin believers who have stated in the past that McClelland completely reversed his position regarding JFK's head wounds in the 1988 NOVA special [see link below]. Because I have never said any such thing about Dr. Robert N. McClelland. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Odd Tales Of The Parkland Doctors On PBS-TV In 1988

Oh stop! Please! Nothing was "blackened out" in the Zapruder Film or in the autopsy photographs (as discussed below): http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Was The Back Of JFK's Head "Blacked Out"?

More fakery, eh Sandy? How much stuff do you think was faked in the JFK/Tippit cases anyway? All of it? Or just 97.75%?

Is it okay if I reverse the tables on you, Richard, and refer to you (a believer in a JFK conspiracy, I assume) as a "rock" too? If this turning of the tables is not fair or acceptable, can you tell me why it isn't? Yeah, I can see why regurgitating the documented facts about the JFK murder case would be rather annoying to most conspiracy theorists. They enjoy unsupported theories much better.

A 2021 E-MAIL EXCHANGE: Subject: Robert N. McClelland, MD--JFK Date: July 1, 2021 (4:17 P.M. EDT) From: Alison McClelland To: David Von Pein ------------------------------ Good afternoon, I am Bob McClelland's daughter. I have two questions that I hope you will be willing to answer, and a comment or two that I hope will enlighten you. I'd appreciate your reply. 1. Do you still 'believe' Warren and Bugliosi? If so, on what hard, factual grounds? 2. What are your specific credentials that allow you to feel yourself more able to draw educated conclusions about the injuries to JFK than those of my father? (who was an award-winning surgeon and teacher who 1) is and was known for his measured, insightful, precise actions and 2) was at the head of the gurney, 12 inches from JFK's head wound). 3. On the website I saw from 2012 I believe, SO much of what you say is taken out of context or flat out inaccurate: Dad has as much right to consider possibilities as any citizen. He went through a period where the Mafia theory was interesting to him. He never stated it was 'true' and his interest had NOTHING to do with his medical testimony. FYI -- Please don't cite anything said or claimed by Dr. MT Jenkins. He essentially 'flunked out' of his Southwestern Medical College surgical residency and was allowed to 'save face' by becoming an anesthesiologist instead. He has proven himself time and time again to be a shameless self-promoter who overstates his knowledge and involvement to a comical degree. In closing, if you still back the same claims as you did in 2011-2012, I will be happy to on a point by point basis correct your misconceptions. With hard, corroborated, fully-objective, correctly stated evidence. Thank you. Alison McClelland ----------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: RN McClelland, MD--JFK Date: July 1, 2021 (8:53 P.M. EDT) From: David Von Pein To: Alison McClelland ------------------------------ Hi Alison, Thanks very much for your e-mail today. The answer to your first question is --- Yes, I do still "believe" Earl Warren and Vincent Bugliosi. (That is to say, I still believe the bottom-line conclusions that were reached by both Mr. Warren and Mr. Bugliosi relating to John F. Kennedy's death—i.e., assassin Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK twice from behind and there was no conspiracy involved in the assassination.) The "hard, factual grounds" for why I believe that Oswald acted alone have been posted many times on my websites since 2007. Here's a good overview of those "hard, factual grounds": http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com If I have seemed a little hard on your father in my online comments over the last several years, I apologize for that (on a personal level, that is, because I really liked to hear your father speak in the interviews he did). But given the things your dad said in interviews since 1963 and on the 1988 PBS-TV NOVA program, I have no choice (given my bottom-line "No Conspiracy" beliefs) but to be critical of some of the things the late Dr. Robert N. McClelland has said concerning President Kennedy's head wounds. And that's because Dr. McClelland's comments and observations simply do not match the things we can see in the official autopsy photographs and X-rays taken of JFK's cranium on 11/22/63. My 2011 online post linked below provides, in brief capsule form, the things that have made me think that Dr. McClelland's observations are not exactly entirely accurate (or reliable): http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/head-wounds.html#McClelland Now, since I'm a person who doesn't believe for one second that any of the autopsy photos or X-rays have been faked or manipulated in the JFK murder case, then you can see why I have difficulty with some of your father's statements concerning President Kennedy's head wounds. Is it possible that perhaps the #3 item on my 5-item list in my post above is inaccurate? My #3 item is: 3.) McClelland does not think the autopsy photos are fakes. Did your father ever say anything to you about the autopsy pictures and X-rays possibly be phony? As far as I know, he never expressed any such belief at any point in his life. In the final analysis, I can't see how your father's statements about JFK's head wounds can be reconciled without Dr. McClelland believing that the autopsy photographs and X-rays had been faked. Thanks again for writing. Best regards, David R. Von Pein ----------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: RN McClelland, MD--JFK Date: July 2, 2021 (4:02 P.M. EDT) From: Alison McClelland To: David Von Pein ------------------------------ Hi David, I truly appreciate your response. Thank you for including your blogspot link. However, I’ve read your website closely which is what prompted me to contact you. ——While I don’t want to sound combative, providing me a link to your blog rather than giving me a direct response is a bit like some witnesses who in later years knew they were wrong and so rather than admitting so, deflected people by telling them to read their earlier testimony. I’m not asking you what you’ve written. I’m asking you to tell me what hard medical and ballistics evidence remains that allows you to now—today—believe the lone gunman theory. ——I notice you didn’t respond to my request for your credentials, training, experience. That’s a fair question that I do hope you will provide that to me. ——It fascinates me how you seem to completely ignore the enormous amount of credible, corroborated, widely accepted evidence, etc that has surfaced discrediting or disproving Warren. I’m truly curious as to on what grounds you choose to do so? I’ve taught argument, rhetoric, and logic my entire career and in general these are errors in ‘argument 101’ I’ve noticed that so many lone-gunman/Warren supporters make: ——Ignoring evidence that does not jive with your argument automatically weakens the strength of your own. ——Resorting to ad hominem attacks when you can’t disprove another’s argument is wrong on every single level. ——Over-generalization is logical fallacy. ——The pro-Warren holdouts continued insistence on lumping together everyone who disagrees with you as a ‘nut’ or paranoid is ridiculous. ——Much of what you write about Dad on your blog is either you yourself quoting Dad out of context or reveals that you chose to believe at face value some other source doing so. As I am on a family vacation for the weekend, it will be early next week before I can continue our dialogue. I do hope you will do so with an open mind and objective stance. ----------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: RN McClelland, MD--JFK Date: July 3, 2021 (4:38 A.M. EDT) From: David Von Pein To: Alison McClelland ------------------------------ Alison said: "I notice you didn’t respond to my request for your credentials, training, experience." I have no "credentials" at all to speak of. I did help Mel Ayton write this 2014 book about the JFK case, but that was decades after I had already reached the conclusion (based on a wealth of evidence) that Lee Oswald was the lone killer of President Kennedy. But I'm just a nobody in Indiana who has had a keen interest in JFK and his assassination since about 1981. And when I got a computer, I decided to start writing a lot of stuff on the Internet about Kennedy and Oswald and the assassination. Alison said: "I’m asking you to tell me what hard medical and ballistics evidence remains that allows you to now—today—believe the lone gunman theory." It's rather hard to believe that you could even ask such a question while limiting the areas of your inquiry to the "hard medical and ballistics evidence" in the JFK case. Because the fact of the matter is (and always has been) that the "hard medical and ballistics evidence" in this case leaves little to no doubt that John F. Kennedy was shot twice from above and behind, which is perfectly consistent with Oswald doing all the shooting from the sixth floor of the Book Depository. Can you provide me with one piece of "hard medical" or "ballistics" evidence that proves a conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63? I doubt that you can. Alison wrote: "It fascinates me how you seem to completely ignore the enormous amount of credible, corroborated, widely accepted evidence, etc that has surfaced discrediting or disproving Warren. I’m truly curious as to on what grounds you choose to do so?" Well, you see, Alison, the problem with a statement like the one you just made is that the things you are calling "credible" and "corroborated" are things that I would argue are far from being credible and/or corroborated. With the biggest example of this, I suppose, being the observations of the President's head wounds made by people like your own father at Parkland Hospital on November 22nd. The observations of those witnesses who said that JFK had a massive hole in the back of his head are simply not "credible" or "corroborated" as fact. How can I say such a thing, you might ask? Simple. Because the authenticated-as-genuine (by the HSCA) autopsy photos and X-rays of the President's body simply do not support the observations of those Parkland witnesses, including Dr. Robert N. McClelland. And that's why I asked you specifically in my last mail if you had ever heard your father mention whether or not he was of the opinion that the autopsy pictures and X-rays had been forged or faked in some manner. Also, the "widely accepted evidence" that you're talking about (which you are claiming "discredits" or "disproves" the Warren Commission's conclusions) are things that can no doubt be disputed by a Lone Assassin believer like myself. An excellent example of this would be the "widely accepted" theory that Lee Harvey Oswald never received any rifle by mail-order in March of 1963. There are thousands of conspiracy theorists out there today who will argue that Oswald never even ordered the Mannlicher-Carcano murder weapon from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. But that "widely accepted" myth is just that—it's a myth. And it's a myth that can easily be debunked and destroyed by merely properly and fairly evaluating the evidence and the facts pertaining to Oswald's rifle purchase. (Which I've done here.) And there are so many other things in this case that have been "widely accepted" by conspiracy believers (and labelled as "facts" by them), but when scrutinized carefully, those supposed conspiracy-favoring "facts" crumble into dust very quickly. Another popular one being: The Warren Commission said that Oswald had only 5.6 seconds to accomplish the assassination -- which is just a flat-out lie that continues to be told by thousands of conspiracy theorists every year. In reality, the Warren Commission fully acknowledged that Oswald's shooting feat could have taken as long as 7.9 seconds (WCR, p.117). Another reason I believe that Oswald acted alone is due to Oswald's own actions on November 21st and 22nd of 1963. If anyone objectively studies everything Lee Oswald did on those two days, it becomes virtually impossible to arrive at the popular "LHO Was Merely An Innocent Patsy" conclusion that so many conspiracy believers seem to currently favor. In short, Oswald's own actions and movements go a long way toward proving that he was a double-murderer who was acting on his own in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. Alison said: "Much of what you write about Dad on your blog is either you yourself quoting Dad out of context or reveals that you chose to believe at face value some other source doing so." Please provide some specific examples of this. I look forward to seeing how I am constantly quoting Dr. McClelland "out of context". Thank you. DVP [DVP Note --- I haven't heard anything further from Ms. McClelland since the above 2021 e-mail exchange.]

A "painted frame"??? Care to elaborate on what you mean by this?

That's absolute nonsense, Sandy. Obviously. The X-ray I posted clearly shows that the fracture lines in the right-rear don't even meet up with one another to form any potential fragments that could have come loose in that right-rear area. Therefore, no bone was blasted out at all from the right-rear of Kennedy's head. And that X-ray proves it. Let me post this important reminder (again).... "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." -- 7 HSCA 41

And just whose head do you think this is, Sandy? Groucho Marx's maybe? .... Reminder..... "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." -- 7 HSCA 41 And what about this X-ray, Sandy? See any hole in the right-rear of the head here? Or don't you think this X-ray is really of John Kennedy's cranium either?.... And what about the Zapruder Film? Why don't we see any right-rear head damage whatsoever here, Sandy?.... In short..... There isn't a single piece of photographic evidence to support the notion that JFK had a great big hole in the right-rear of his head. Instead, every single piece of photographic evidence (autopsy photos, autopsy X-rays, and the Z-Film) supports the fact that there was NO large "BOH" wound at all.

You're oh so correct about this point, Pat. And even Dr. McClelland himself, during his 1988 NOVA/PBS television appearance, has totally contradicted his ridiculous "Huge Hole In The Back Of The Head" sketch. In a 2012 discussion, I imparted this.... "Here's another way to try and get my point across about the absurdity of Dr. McClelland's stance on this subject of JFK's head wounds: At some point after the assassination, someone created a drawing that depicted the large exit wound in JFK's head according to the way Dr. McClelland said the wound looked to him. This is that drawing: Now, given the fact that Robert McClelland generally agrees with the information depicted in the above drawing, let me ask this: How can that drawing be accurate when even Dr. McClelland agrees that the right-rear scalp of President Kennedy remained completely undamaged and unfazed by the assassin's bullet? In other words, how can the two things depicted in the composite photo below possibly co-exist on the very same head at the end of the day on November 22, 1963? I firmly believe that those two things shown in the above composite picture cannot co-exist on JFK's head...and, therefore, Dr. Robert N. McClelland was mistaken about the location of the large hole in the President's skull." David Von Pein January 26, 2012

Oh really?! Says you. Forgive me, Pat, if I heartily disagree with your bold statement above.

Bulls**t. Dale Myers' computer model is locked in to the Zapruder Film itself. https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/kframe.htm But CTers just can't help calling Myers a big fat li@r. (Vomits in mouth.)

The Clark Panel found a "track" between JFK's back and throat wounds, Pat. But, naturally, those Clark boys were merely telling more lies, right? .... "There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report." -- Via the 1968 Clark Panel Report

Yes. Check the Fackler Bullet. (Let me guess....more fakery, right Pat?) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1140.html Yes. Definitely. (And also see my NEXT POST.) Yes. Connally's back wound was somewhat "elliptical", according to one of Connally's surgeons, Dr. Robert Shaw: "The wound of entrance...was about a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter, roughly elliptical in shape." -- Dr. Robert R. Shaw [WC Volume 4, Pgs. 107-108] I'd say yes. But keep in mind that in this instance we're discussing here (the "SBT"), the "high-velocity bullet" hit no bones at all inside JFK's body. The bullet only did "bony" damage to John Connally's body---and that damage was sustained only after the bullet had been slowed significantly by passing through Kennedy's body. And a slowed-down bullet (which CE399 most certainly was once it got to John Connally) is, of course, going to do much less damage to the things it then hits. Yes. Most definitely. And I can't understand why you think otherwise. Actually, it ALL "adds up". It adds up to the only logical and sensible conclusion that a person can reach---and that conclusion is: The Single-Bullet Theory is true. And the SBT conclusion becomes even more crystalized in reality after asking yourself the #1 key question that must be asked relating to John F. Kennedy's wounds: Why were no bullets found in JFK's body? Where did the bullet(s) go? Nonsense. Since the SBT was so obviously the truth of the matter, there was no need to tell any lies about it. And at what point will conspiracy theorists begin to realize that their anti-SBT theories are far more ludicrous, unsupportable, and untenable than is the single-bullet conclusion endorsed by both the Warren Commission and the HSCA? Yikes indeed!

You must be kidding by asking me this question! There was no "shallow wound" in JFK's back. That's part of the CTer version of events. It's certainly NOT what I believe and it's certainly NOT what the autopsy doctors concluded: "The other missile...made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." -- Page 6 of JFK's Autopsy Report [Warren Report, Page 543]

I wasn't talking about the number of people who believe in a conspiracy, Cory. I was only talking about the SBT. And the CTer anti-SBT versions of the shooting are---unquestionably---an embarrassment. That's a fact. What's your version of the shooting that replaces the SBT, Cory? Can you avoid the embarrassing and absurd bullet-vanishing scenarios of your predecessors? Good luck.

"Finally found someone who agrees..." ?? Yeah, right, Allen. There's only several million people who believe the SBT is true. And yet you seem to think that I'm in a minority of one. Much the same way Jim DiEugenio holds the wacky belief that Vince Bugliosi's book has been endorsed by just two people in the whole world---myself and Tom Hanks: "The only person who believed it ['Reclaiming History'] was Tom Hanks." -- James DiEugenio [4/15/2010]

JFK phone calls during the University of Mississippi (James Meredith) crisis in late September and early October 1962: Footnote.... As of today (9/2/2022), James H. Meredith is still with us. He'll be 90 next June: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Meredith

LIFE with John F. Kennedy: http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2015/09/kennedy-gallery-420.html

And he's right about that too (of course). Almost sixty years later, all anti-SBT scenarios that have been placed on the table by conspiracy theorists have been embarrassing failures. And the reason for that is quite simple: It's because the SBT is so obviously the correct solution to explain the double-man wounding of Kennedy and Connally on 11/22/63. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Single-Bullet Theory In Action http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Ultimate In SBT Denial ------------------------------- "Coming up with a believable and reasonable conspiracy-endorsing alternative to the Warren Commission's single-bullet conclusion is something that simply cannot be done. And that's mainly because the SBT is obviously the truth. And when you try to dismantle the truth and replace it with some kind of half-baked, incoherent "alternative theory" (such as the "TWO BULLETS WENT INTO JFK AND NEVER EXITED AND THEN DISAPPEARED" claptrap), you're not likely to find the alternative to be nearly as compelling (or reasonable) as the truth." -- David Von Pein; September 1, 2010 ------------------------------- "Isn't it rather remarkable that the person sitting in front of JFK also had a bullet wound in his upper back? Plus the added facts of JFK having a bullet hole in his throat and JFK having no bullets in his body. Conspiracy theorists who hate the Single-Bullet Theory never seem bothered in the least by those last observations I just mentioned. They'll simply add yet another bullet to the mix to account for John Connally's back wound. The SBT will never be defeated by conspiracists. And that's because the SBT will always make more sense than any anti-SBT theory. The truth usually does make the most sense, of course." -- David Von Pein; December 14, 2013 -------------------------------

On December 18, 2019, I found something on YouTube that I had never seen before---pre-1963 motion picture film footage taken in Dallas' Dealey Plaza. This footage (starting at 4:04 in the video below) is from late May of 1960, more than three years before Dealey Plaza became widely known. Video Source: The G. William Jones Collection at SMU. Official permission for DVP to re-upload verified HERE.