David Von Pein

........

JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:

It’s just a fact. If you can’t see somebody enter the theater, then you didn’t see him enter the theater. By the way, Brewer wasn’t watching the “funny-looking” man the entire time. He said he went back into the shoe store first and talked to the two “IBM men” who were hanging out there (?), and then walked down to the theater.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, John, I suppose you could conceivably be right, but the 1996 interview that contains that information about Johnny Brewer going back into his shoe store after going out to the sidewalk to watch Oswald needs a little bit of clarification if you ask me.

Because in that '96 interview that Brewer had with Ian Griggs, Brewer seems to be saying (or at least implying) that he left the immediate area in front of his Hardy's Shoe Store before he ever "went back" inside the shoe store. What I just said is, indeed, implied when Brewer told Griggs that his store was "locked" when he "came back" to the store. And according to Brewer's own chronology in that 1996 interview, that was before he went up the street to the theater to talk to Julia Postal.

Now it stands to reason that if Brewer was merely standing a few feet outside the front door to his shoe store, why in the world would there be any need to lock the door? It seems logical to me to conclude that the only reason there would have been to lock the door would be if Brewer had gone some distance away from his store down the street.

But if Brewer was merely standing right in front of his store the whole time (before going back inside), why would there be any need for either Brewer himself or the two IBM guys (who were in the store at the time) to physically lock up the property so that no more customers could enter?

The interview excerpts seen below, therefore, are telling me that Johnny Brewer might very well have gone up to the theater entrance a total of two different times. Hence, we find Brewer telling Ian Griggs that he "went back" and "came back". And when Brewer said those words, he was referring to a point in time that was BEFORE he ever went up to the theater to talk to Julia Postal.

If you, John Iacoletti, or anyone else reading this, has a better explanation for what we find in the interview excerpt seen below, please chime in and let me know what it is. But these remarks by Mr. Brewer sure make it sound as though Brewer walked up the street (i.e., some distance away from his shoe store) twice on 11/22/63.

ILG = Ian Griggs (interviewer);
JCB = Johnny Calvin Brewer:



The complete 1996 interview:




JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:

Are you suggesting that Brewer walked all the way down to the theater, but didn’t talk to Postal, then went all the way back to his store, told the IBM men that he was going to go check, and then went back down to the theater? That makes ZERO sense.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm suggesting he went at least part way down toward the theater initially. Otherwise, the chronology that Brewer himself laid out in his 1996 interview makes ZERO sense too. The key portions that make zero sense IF he really made only one trip up to (or near) the theater entrance are these two sentences: "When I came back, the store was locked. I said I'm going to check."

Obviously those two sentences, being in the order Brewer uttered them, would mean the store was locked BEFORE he went down to the theater to "check". That makes no sense, unless he left the area of his store initially, thereby making the locking of the shoe store a necessity.

But this whole sub-topic of "Did Brewer physically see Oswald go into the front doors of the Texas Theater?" is totally ridiculous, superfluous, and downright stupid in the first place.

Why?

Because we KNOW without a shred of doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald DID go into the Texas Theater on the afternoon of 11/22/63 and was apprehended by the Dallas Police Department at approximately 1:50 PM CST on that same afternoon while inside that same theater.

To deny my last statement is to deny a fact and to deny a physical reality.

And since everybody knows—even all conspiracy believers—that Oswald was inside the movie theater between the hours of 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM CST on November 22nd, then somebody please tell me what the odds are of Johnny Brewer somehow being wrong (or lying) when he said he saw Lee Oswald go into the theater between the those same hours of 1:00 and 2:00 PM on 11/22/63?

-------------------------

Source:

3 hours ago, Karl Hilliard said:

The shoe store guy [Johnny Brewer] stated that he saw Oswald ducking in near his store front window AFTER hearing on his transistor radio that a policeman had been shot only blocks away. A description followed [so he said] ---Oswald---matched the description and had lurked seemingly nervous and suspicious acting he claimed.... That is just total BS!... There was no such report broadcast until after Oswald was arrested. At 1:30 CST...all attention was devoted to the condition of the president. His death was announced 7-8 minutes later. I spent hours trying to isolate this phantom breaking news..that a cop was shot in Oak Cliff. Not until almost 2 PM was it ever mentioned.

I, too, spent hours trying to solve that mystery:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Johnny Brewer & The Tippit Shooting

15 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

That's BS. He had $ 13.87 cash. He could have taken a taxi or one of the three busses that travelled west on Jefferson between 1:22 and 1:42 ( FBI # 62-109060, Sec. 54, pg 134 ). Any guilty party who just killed a cop would have sought to flee the scene as soon as possible. But this guy decided to WALK down one of the busiest streets in Oak Cliff in spite of the fact that the police were looking for someone on foot.

Gimme a break.

Boy, talk about taking something OUT OF CONTEXT. Geez, this takes the cake, Gil!

When I said "He had nowhere else to go but into the theater", I was (of course!) talking about what Brewer was observing with Oswald's movements when we add up my #1 thru #4 items on my previous list. I certainly wasn't talking about what LHO's options were PRIOR to the time when Oswald was seen walking in front of the theater.

Gil, you knew  you were taking my "nowhere else to go" comment completely out of context, right?

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Typical Von Pein: long on comment, long on BS, short on evidence.

"...the very observant Johnny Brewer...", LOL you're kidding right ?

Three times Brewer said that the "man in the window" entered the theater.

"He went into the theater" ( Affidavit of 12/6/63 located in Dallas Police Box 2, Sec. 3.16, pg 73 )

"He walked into the entrance of the theater" ( CD 735, pg. 266 )

"He walked into the Texas Theater" ( testimony at 7 H 4 )

The only problem is that from his vantage point standing in front of his store 50 to 60 yards away, he couldn't see the doors of the theater because they were recessed.

Mr. "very observant" couldn't see the doors but saw the man enter the theater.

Yeah, right.

To throw your own words back at you --- You're kidding, right?!

You MUST be kidding here. Because nobody could possibly think Johnny Brewer was lying when he said Oswald went into the theater.

Why?

1.) Brewer, while standing on the sidewalk on Jefferson Boulevard in front of his Hardy's Shoe Store, sees Oswald approaching the Texas Theater.

2.) Brewer then sees Oswald turn right toward the front entrance to the theater.

3.) Brewer then walks toward the theater himself.

4.) After starting to walk toward the theater and after reaching the front of the theater, at no time did Brewer see Oswald come back out to the sidewalk on Jefferson.

5.) The logical conclusion that Johnny Brewer reached, therefore, was that the man who was acting "funny" and "scared" and "nervous" in front of his shoe store just a minute earlier (i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald) must have physically entered the Texas Theater because (similar to the logical reasoning that explains where Bullet CE399 went after it came out of John F. Kennedy's throat)---He had nowhere else to go but into the theater. (Unless you want to theorize that Oswald was able to cloak himself somehow and become invisible.)

1 hour ago, Charles Blackmon said:

[It's] kind of funny that Lone Nut adherents think they are experts at explaining what Oswald was thinking in all sorts of situations that day. Yet none can explain his thinking concerning why he went into the Texas Theater.

Oh yes they can, Charles. That's an easy one to figure out, in fact. Very easy....

Lee Harvey Oswald ducked inside the Texas Theater (without paying) shortly after he killed Police Officer J.D. Tippit because he figured that a nice dark movie theater would be a good place to hide out from the police---i.e., the police that Oswald knew would be searching the Oak Cliff area high and low for Tippit's killer.

And if it hadn't been for the very observant Johnny Brewer, Oswald might very well have succeeded in not being seen or detected while hiding out in the theater.

We can't know, of course, exactly how long Oswald would have stayed inside the movie theater if he hadn't been spotted by Brewer and then subsequently arrested just minutes later, but Oswald might have had it in his mind to stay in the theater until it got dark and then he could try to get away under the cloak of darkness.

That plan certainly makes sense to this "Lone Nut adherent" anyway.

17 minutes ago, John Iacoletti said:

See Markham Exhibit 1. What she said was that she was out there for 20 minutes before anybody showed up.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0305b.htm

Just goes to show how lousy some people are at calculating time. Most people are really terrible at it. Apparently Mrs. Markham was too.

17 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

I don't see what Clemmons had to gain from making anything up.

She didn't make anything up. Read the Myers article I linked. It explains how CTers like Mark Lane have twisted and mangled some of the things Clemons said.

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I must admit, that I didn't think Ms. Clemmon's account was very credible.

She stated a "kind of chunky fella with bushy hair" in her description of who she saw when she looked over at the killing scene.

She was the "only" witness stating that description.

No matter whether she got it right or not, her statements contradicted the official line.

I don't think it would have taken but one scary phone call threatening her after her Mark Lane interview for her to pack up her bags and "hit the road Jack" and move in with relatives far out of state and never come back.

I think black people in Dallas in those days were generally very afraid of the police and other authorities anyway as a matter of daily life reality.

Remember, there was a strong KKK sentiment in most all of our deep South cities ( in their police departments as well ) in those times, and colored people knew this and felt their presence. 

Joe, you really should read THIS BLOG ARTICLE written by Dale Myers in 2017. It's a very interesting piece, which reveals several things relating to Mrs. Acquilla Clemons that had never before surfaced or been discussed previously.

Here's an excerpt:

"Here, for the first time, we have Mrs. Clemons explaining that it’s not a cadre of faceless, nameless law enforcement officers harassing her to keep quiet (as everyone has been led to believe by Mark Lane and the conspirati), but rather, a strong suggestion by her employers – John and Cornelia Smotherman – who are no doubt sick and tired of the parade of “journalists” (remember, this is the third visit in as many weeks) who keep showing up at her home."

-- Dale K. Myers; November 1, 2017

------------------

I've culled what I think are the top highlights from that Myers' article at my own webpage below:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Acquilla Clemons & The Tippit Murder

"After reading all of Mr. Myers' excellent 11/1/17 blog article, there can be no doubt [that] Mrs. Acquilla Clemons, when her statements are not edited and trimmed and molded by conspiracy theorists such as the late Mark Lane, definitely was NOT the type of bombshell "conspiracy" witness that she has been portrayed to be by conspiracists for the last fifty-plus years." -- DVP; November 1, 2017

It's truly astonishing (and sad) that Bonar Menninger's absurd 1992 book "Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK" currently has a very nearly perfect rating at Amazon.com (4.8 stars out of 5 as of this writing on August 1, 2022, based on over 320 ratings, which includes both written reviews and other people who simply gave the book a "rating" of one to five stars).

That level of high praise for a publication that promotes such an obviously bogus theory only tends to prove the age-old adage: There's one born every minute.

Here are my thoughts about the notion that Secret Service agent George W. Hickey accidentally ended the life of the 35th U.S. President (the second link below includes my lengthy [text] debate in 2006 with an almost-forgotten conspiracy theorist who went by the name "Grizzlie Antagonist" in his online posts; anybody here remember him?)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/08/The Hickey Theory

http://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/Hickey Theory (Part 2)

--------------------------------------------

On 7/7/2022 at 2:49 AM, Tom Gram said:

The point is that Wade and the DPD have a known history of fabricating evidence and extracting false confessions. Does that not impugn the integrity of at least some of the evidence against Oswald?

Anyone interested in just how bad the DPD were under Wade should read this:

Ricky Dale Wyatt vs. City of Dallas et al

It’s a very interesting read: there’s fabricated evidence, blatant lying, bogus lineups… the whole nine yards. I think that some of the officers named in this suit were also involved in the JFK case.

There was also Randall Adams, made famous by Errol Morris in the Thin Blue Line, which is required viewing for anyone interested in the Dallas Police. 

A quick Google search shows that it’s still happening today: https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/police-lies-dont-shock-these-attorneys-anymore-12518408

I also stumbled on a case from 1979 where a Dallas cop was convicted of murder for trying to coerce a confession from a suspect by playing Russian roulette: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Santos_Rodriguez

Is it really rational to assume that the Dallas police were beyond reproach on the JFK case? I’m gonna have to go with no. 

My thanks to Tom Gram for the post above, plus some other good observations he has made since recently joining this forum on June 26.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

DVP: And, naturally, Pat Speer knows WAY more about these things than do the THREE professional pathologists who attended JFK's autopsy at Bethesda.

Let me remind you, Pat, what Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck concluded:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck."

Let me guess----all three doctors who signed off on the above conclusions were rotten l i a r s, right?

PS: No, I don't think they were necessarily lying on this point. They said the strap muscles were on the neck, which they are, and not the back of the neck. It was Specter who then told lie after lie indicating the strap muscles were on the back of the neck. The doctors, by their own admission, and in violation of standard autopsy protocol, failed to track the wound from the back wound to the throat wound. They essentially GUESSED that the bullet creating the back wound exited the throat. And they needed to make this GUESS because without making this anti-scientific leap of faith, they thought they would have to acknowledge Kennedy was hit by three bullets. And since the SBT had not yet been developed this would have meant Connally's wounds were caused by a fourth bullet. So they needed to subtract a bullet from the scenario, and voila! the back wound now connected to the throat wound. They may very well have believed this to be true. But what is undoubtedly true is that the first draft of the autopsy report was destroyed and that the finished product connecting the two wounds was created after Oswald had been fingered as the sole assassin. 

Your outrage over this point, moreover, is obviously for show. You yourself believe these men were  gross incompetents and mistakenly believed a bullet entrance at the top of the head near the midline was actually a bullet entrance low on the back of the head an inch from the midline.

And here's what the Clark Panel said five years later (more l i a r s here? Yes, I know you can't stand the Clark Panel either, but their conclusions are in black-&-white for all time anyway, whether you like it or not)....

"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. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."

Instant Replay....
"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..."

But CTers like Patrick Speer know WAY more than the four members of Ramsey Clark's panel. Right? (Phooey.)

PS: Thanks for posting this, because it helps make my point. The Clark Panel said there was a shadow on the x-rays that ended at the throat wound. This shadow represented the bullet's path. And I suspect they were right. Lattimer and Sturdivan have also mentioned this shadow. But here's the problem. This shadow BEGINS far up the neck, and not on the back. This was what led Lattimer to claim Kennedy was a hunchback. That the Clark Panel was bluffing when they said this shadow traced back to the back wound seems certain, moreover, because they simultaneously affirmed the measurements taken at autopsy, which presented the wound at the level of the shoulder tips, and not high up on the neck.That the HSCA FPP saw the folly of their thinking, and feared where it would lead, furthermore, is demonstrated by their treatment of this "emphysema". They said it did not represent a bullet track, but was simply air trapped in the neck when the hole in the president's throat got blocked off by his tie. 

 

It wasn't "recorded" at all, since Perry's trach obliterated all but a very small part of it. If by "recorded" you mean the testimony of Dr. Perry, et al, I guess you're convinced that when Perry told the WC that the throat wound could have been "either" an entry or an exit, he was being coerced or forced to do so? I, of course, would disagree. He was merely telling the truth as he saw it---i.e., that bullet hole could have a been either an entrance wound or an exit. No coercion necessary to tell a truth like that.

PS: Nope, I think it was an exit wound. A missile traveling at a low velocity will leave a small hole resembling an entrance wound. As far as Perry, he and others often specified that while the wound may have been an exit wound it was a small wound and was most certainly not what one would expect to be the exit of a high velocity bullet.

 

Is the "Official CIA Manual On How To Commit A Presidential Assassination" currently for sale at Amazon? I'd like to get a copy.

PS: I bought it years ago from a company that packaged up documents from the archives, and sold them on CD-Roms. The CIA Manual was written by someone involved in the training of the Guatemalans who overthrew Arbenz, quite possibly David Morales and/or Rip Robertson. Numerous articles have been written on it since the archives let it surface in the 90's. If you actually studied this case as opposed to regurgitating long-debunked arguments, you would know about it and have it in your collection. 

And your above comment isn't supposed to suggest that you, yourself, think that the Central Intelligence Agency might have had a hand in Mr. Kennedy's demise....is it Pat? Or is it?And the thought has occurred to me that most conspiracy theorists (including even you, Pat) suffer from an overabundance of imagination. (With the "discovery" of your make-believe entry wound in the back of JFK's head being a prime example of your very fertile imagination, plus your willingness to "see" things that simply aren't there.)

Get real (again), Pat!!

PS: I think the CIA may have had a hand, but consider it more likely that the assassins were CIA-trained. As far as my "make-believe wound," I don't know what you mean. You mean the one described in the autopsy report and confirmed by the doctors after reviewing the autopsy photos? Well, this wound is not a product of my imagination. It is the historical record your boy Bugliosi claimed to love. Do I really need to remind you that not one person who actually saw Kennedy's body said the wound was in the cowlick, and that the cowlick entry has been almost universally rejected by everyone (CT or LN) to view the autopsy materials over last 40 years?

You're nuts if you think it was Vincent Bugliosi who convinced me the SBT is true. I was thoroughly convinced that the SBT was correct years before Vince's book came out. And it wasn't Bugliosi's participation in the London mock trial that convinced me of the SBT either. In fact, as you know, Vince supported the silly Z190 SBT timeline at that television trial in 1986, which he later had to revise for his book because he knew, as did I, that Z190 was simply absurd because it's way too early.

PS: Yes, but that Z190 time was confirmed by the photography panel, working independently from the acoustics panel. And it's easy to see why. It's quite obvious the Kennedy jerks to his left before he goes behind the sign in the film. 

And calling Vincent Bugliosi "illogical" is akin to calling Donald J. Trump "sane".

PS: No. I say Bugliosi is illogical because was hellbent on proving Oswald the sole assassin and answering all the questions, but couldn't keep his story straight from chapter to chapter. As you know, he presented two different shooting scenarios, two different back wound locations, and two different versions of Kennedy's position within the limo at the time he was first shot.

Try this one. It's excellent. (I'm sure all CTers despise it, but it's very good nonetheless.)

PS: Yes, I've read and dissected Larry's book, but it's not an actual textbook, is it? It's propaganda, as demonstrated by his changing the loss of velocity associated with the various wounds from Olivier's 1964 testimony and even his own 1978 testimony. 

That must be why EVERY panel/commission that has looked into the JFK murder has endorsed the SBT. And the autopsy doctors started it off with the first two-thirds of the SBT by saying that one bullet definitely did pass through Kennedy's upper body. And that was a conclusion that was reached five days before Mr. Specter and the WC were ever tasked with their Warren Commission duties. (So why did Humes, et al, tell that big fat lie, Pat? Why did they want or NEED to do that? Please tell me.)

PS: As stated elsewhere, the HSCA FPP endorsed the SBT under the belief Guinn's NAA proved it (which it didn't) and under the belief it occurred after Kennedy had bent over while behind the sign in the Z-film. They had thereby most definitely NOT endorsed the SBT as proposed by the HSCA. As one of their leading lights (Wecht) was at that time and this time perhaps the greatest critic of the SBT, it is not exactly honest to claim they endorsed it. As far as why the doctors would say the bullet passed through the neck from back to front, its' really quite simple. They'd been told three shots were fired, and were trying to make it add up. 

I don't need Specter and I don't need Myers to help me decide whether to believe the SBT. The autopsy report, the Zapruder Film, and the basic knowledge about what a bullet can (and will) do when it is slowed down significantly are the main things needed for me to decide whether the SBT is a fact vs. being bullshit. Specter and Myers (and others) have helped solidify and firm up my pro-SBT opinions, yes. I don't deny that. But to quote Mr. Bugliosi --- "From the first moment that I heard that Specter had come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it."

PS: Have you actually looked at the velocity loss associated with the various wounds? Because if you did you would see that they have never added up, and that they actually suggested--strongly suggested--that the bullet creating these wounds was traveling at a subsonic velocity. As far as your last statement, yes, I know, Your hero Bugliosi routinely boasted that he was bit of a simpleton in that he liked things to be simple. Well, this should have disqualified him from engaging in a massive study of perhaps the most complex crime in U.S. history. But no, he sought to simplify the case not by doing the homework necessary, but by substituting what should have been serious analysis with hyperbole and vitriol. 

Pat,

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed posts today. As usual, you have put up a good fight for your side.

I, like Vince Bugliosi, also think the JFK case is basically a "simple case". Physical evidence-wise, I'd say it's quite simple. (And none of the physical evidence in the case has ever been proven to have been tampered with or planted.)

The rifle that killed the President is Oswald's....the bullets and bullet fragments connected with the case are all from Oswald's rifle....the prints are mostly Oswald's....and Oswald's very own movements and actions on both November 21st and November 22nd (including LHO's obvious guilt in the murder of policeman J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street) are about as incriminating as you could possibly get. Certainly not the movements and actions of a "patsy".

Author Mark Fuhrman made two very good observations in his 2006 book,
"A Simple Act Of Murder", when he said:

"There is no exculpatory evidence that outweighs the accumulated proof against him [Lee Harvey Oswald]."

And:

"A cloud hangs over [President Kennedy's] murder and our nation because we refuse to accept what is so clearly the truth---that his assassination was a simple act of murder, committed by a man [Oswald] who left evidence proving his guilt."

There's so much fantasy and anti-SBT garbage in Denny Zartman's last post, I'd need a bulldozer to get rid of it all.

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

1.) A bullet hole of entry in JFK's upper back. (That showed no signs of penetrating beyond the outer layer, which is unthinkable if this was high-velocity bullet, as pushed by the single-bullet HOAX.)

And, naturally, Pat Speer knows WAY more about these things than do the THREE professional pathologists who attended JFK's autopsy at Bethesda.

Let me remind you, Pat, what Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck concluded:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck."

Let me guess----all three doctors who signed off on the above conclusions were rotten l i a r s, right?

And here's what the Clark Panel said five years later (more l i a r s here? Yes, I know you can't stand the Clark Panel either, but their conclusions are in black-&-white for all time anyway, whether you like it or not)....

"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. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."

Instant Replay....

"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..."

But CTers like Patrick Speer know WAY more than the four members of Ramsey Clark's panel. Right? (Phooey.)

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

2.) A bullet hole in the very lowest part of JFK's neck/throat. (That was recorded as being too small to be the exit of a high-velocity bullet, particularly one that had been tumbling, as pushed by the single-bullet HOAX.)

It wasn't "recorded" at all, since Perry's trach obliterated all but a very small part of it. If by "recorded" you mean the testimony of Dr. Perry, et al, I guess you're convinced that when Perry told the WC that the throat wound could have been "either" an entry or an exit, he was being coerced or forced to do so? I, of course, would disagree. He was merely telling the truth as he saw it---i.e., that bullet hole could have a been either an entrance wound or an exit. No coercion necessary to tell a truth like that.

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

3.) Not a single bullet located in JFK's body. (No argument here.)

And this fourth item needs to be tacked on here as an extra bonus in the "common sense" department, which is something that nobody (not even a CTer) can possibly think is wrong):

4.) Anybody wanting to kill President Kennedy would have to be a complete moron/idiot to have fired two very low-powered, non-lethal bullets into Kennedy's throat and upper back, which would result in both of those bullets penetrating JFK's body only a few inches (each) and causing virtually no damage to the President's body whatsoever. Buit, hey, maybe the killers just wanted to give JFK a fighting chance to survive those TWO shots, huh? (Please get real!!)  (Yes, let's get real. This is a straw man argument. I never said the throat wound only penetrated a few inches, or even that it was an entrance. And you're also wrong. The CIA's Manual on Assassination recommended the use of subsonic ammunition in assassination attempts. Are you, David, Von Pein, telling me you don't think the CIA knows how to kill people?)

Is the "Official CIA Manual On How To Commit A Presidential Assassination" currently for sale at Amazon? I'd like to get a copy.

And your above comment isn't supposed to suggest that you, yourself, think that the Central Intelligence Agency might have had a hand in Mr. Kennedy's demise....is it Pat? Or is it?

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The thought occurs that you suffer from a lack of imagination.

And the thought has occurred to me that most conspiracy theorists (including even you, Pat) suffer from an overabundance of imagination. (With the "discovery" of your make-believe entry wound in the back of JFK's head* being a prime example of your very fertile imagination, plus your willingness to "see" things that simply aren't there.*)

* http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Head-Entry-Wound-According-To-Pat-Speer

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The SBT HOAX makes sense to you because you were told it was logical by a singularly illogical man, Bugliosi.

Get real (again), Pat!!

You're nuts if you think it was Vincent Bugliosi who convinced me the SBT is true. I was thoroughly convinced that the SBT was correct years before Vince's book came out. And it wasn't Bugliosi's participation in the London mock trial that convinced me of the SBT either. In fact, as you know, Vince supported the silly Z190 SBT timeline at that television trial in 1986, which he later had to revise for his book because he knew, as did I, that Z190 was simply absurd because it's way too early.

And calling Vincent Bugliosi "illogical" is akin to calling Donald J. Trump "sane".

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

But have you ever read a book on wound ballistics?

Try this one. It's excellent. (I'm sure all CTers despise it, but it's very good nonetheless.)

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Or gunshot wounds? Or anatomy? I suspect not. Because if you had, you would know that the trajectory of the bullet and the nature of the wounds outlined by the SBT HOAX make no sense, and that a better solution is required. 

That must be why EVERY panel/commission that has looked into the JFK murder has endorsed the SBT. And the autopsy doctors started it off with the first two-thirds of the SBT by saying that one bullet definitely did pass through Kennedy's upper body. And that was a conclusion that was reached five days before Mr. Specter and the WC were ever tasked with their Warren Commission duties. (So why did Humes, et al, tell that big fat lie, Pat? Why did they want or NEED to do that? Please tell me.)

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, I've always been open to a single-assassin solution, but the single-bullet theory is junk, propped up by deliberate deceptions regarding the nature of Kennedy's wounds, and the position of the men in the limousine. I have been waiting, for years now, for someone to come up with an SBT not reliant upon Specter's lies and deceptions and Myers' inaccurate animation. But, alas, none has been proposed. Instead we get the same ole arguments. And this has led me to believe that single-bullet theorists are a modern day Flat Earth Society, with an emotional attachment to nonsense.

I don't need Specter and I don't need Myers to help me decide whether to believe the SBT. The autopsy report, the Zapruder Film, and the basic knowledge about what a bullet can (and will) do when it is slowed down significantly are the main things needed for me to decide whether the SBT is a fact vs. being bullshit. Specter and Myers (and others) have helped solidify and firm up my pro-SBT opinions, yes. I don't deny that. But to quote Mr. Bugliosi --- "From the first moment that I heard that Specter had come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it."

57 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Until single-assassin theorists can acknowledge that massive deceptions were engaged to help sell the single-bullet theory, and the single-assassin conclusion, there is no single-bullet theory, let alone a single-bullet "fact", as purported by Specter and Myers. 

For Pete sake, what does common sense tell you about JFK's wounds, Pat?

1.) A bullet hole of entry in JFK's upper back.

2.) A bullet hole in JFK's neck/throat.

3.) Not a single bullet located in JFK's body.

And this fourth item below needs to be tacked on here as an extra bonus in the "common sense" department, which is something that nobody (not even a CTer) can possibly argue with:

4.) Anybody wanting to kill President Kennedy would have to be a complete moron/idiot to have fired two very low-powered, non-lethal bullets into Kennedy's throat and upper back, which would result in both of those bullets penetrating JFK's body only a few inches (each) and causing virtually no damage to the President's body whatsoever. (But, hey, maybe the killers just wanted to give JFK a fighting chance to survive those TWO shots, right?)

Please get real!!

Do you, Patrick J. Speer, really think that somebody (or a team of covert "somebodies") dug two bullets out of JFK's body prior to (or during) his autopsy on 11/22/63?

Lacking the above hunk of covert silliness to explain the lack of bullets left inside Kennedy, what else do you have to offer to reconcile that "No Bullets In Kennedy" fact? Did BOTH of the missiles just fall out on their own---never to be seen by anyone at either Parkland or Bethesda?

Please lay out your scenario, because I'm anxious to hear what it is. (Yes, you've probably said it all before--on your website or here at the EF--but please tell me again right now. Thanks.)

Quote

It is the single-bullet HOAX, pure and simple. 

You're too smart a fellow to believe that, Pat.

Because when just the tiniest bit of common sense and rational thought is applied to the known facts surrounding the double-man wounding of John Kennedy and John Connally on November 22, 1963, the Single-Bullet Theory is not only not  the "hoax" you say it is, but it is unquestionably the ONLY scenario that makes ANY sense at all when it comes to JFK's non-fatal wounds. (And Connally's too.)

"Mystery Deaths" Addendum....

Today I dug up one more newspaper—the Corpus Christi Times—which confirms that the death of Domingo Benavides' brother, Eddy, occurred in February of 1965, not in 1964. Click to enlarge:

Lots more "Benavides / Benavidez" Talk:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1059.html

5 minutes ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Roger Craig was one of the many people associated with the JFKA who died an unnatural death. 

Don't these tired myths ever die out? Sigh.

ARE THESE SO-CALLED "MYSTERY DEATHS" REALLY SO MYSTERIOUS?
 

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

I believe Roger Craig. There's support for his observations about the discovery of the Mauser.

Your trust is severely misplaced. Craig lied about the rifle, as proven HERE.

20 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Brewer wasn't a reliable witness and I doubt sincerely that he was the one who saw the man in the window. It's more likely that someone else saw him and told Brewer that he had a brown shirt because that's the only description Brewer had when he talked to Julia Postal and Burroughs.

I don't believe anything Brewer says up to the part where he confronts Postal. He went into the Texas Theater armed only with a description of a man with a brown shirt and when they turned on the house lights and he saw Oswald wearing a brown shirt, he was convinced Oswald was the man described to him.

A wild imagination is something that seems to be inherent amongst conspiracy theorists....as Gil J. Jesus once again proved with his ridiculous post above.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Edgar Lee Tippit told Joe about a talk he had with his son's widow, Marie. Of course, since--to my knowledge--no one talked to the father before, this was new information.  Since it is quite important to the TIppit case, let me quote the book:

"Tippit's father told me he had been informed by Marie Tippit, the officer's widow, that J. D. and another officer had been assigned by the police to hunt down Oswald in Oak Cliff.  According to Edgar Lee, 'They called J. D. and another policeman and said he [Oswald] was headed in that direction,  The other policeman told Marie." (p. 426, italics added)

And this is the kind of unverified and unsupportable mush that Jim DiEugenio actually thinks trumps Dale Myers' intense and decades-long research regarding the murder of J.D. Tippit?

Good Lord!

56 minutes ago, Karl Hilliard said:

Amend that to ...no bullets were found because perhaps no bullets were looked for.

You must be kidding. Of course they looked for bullets. ....

Mr. SPECTER - Did you search the body to determine if there was any bullet inside the body?

Dr. HUMES - Before the arrival of Colonel Finck we had made X-rays of the head, neck and torso of the President, and the upper portions of his major extremities, or both his upper and lower extremities. At Colonel Finck's suggestion, we then completed the X-ray examination by X-raying the President's body in toto, and those X-rays are available.

Mr. SPECTER - What did those X-rays disclose with respect to the possible presence of a missile in the President's body?

Dr. HUMES - They showed no evidence of a missile in the President's body at any point.

47 minutes ago, Richard Price said:

Kennedy was sitting calmly waving prior to the shot, therefore the "bunching" and upward movement of the mark/bullet would NOT have been present. 

That's not correct, Richard. There are several photos of JFK in the Dallas motorcade PRIOR to the shooting which depict Kennedy's suit coat bunched up, including the Robert Croft photo (below), which was taken just seconds prior to the first bullet striking JFK:

Here's another picture showing Kennedy's hiked-up suit jacket. This was taken by a bystander named Andre Leche on Main Street, just a few blocks east of Dealey Plaza: