David Von Pein

Let me try the simple approach yet again (maybe Cliff will suddenly have a "Eureka" moment)....

ONE hole in the shirt.

ONE hole in the jacket.

ONE hole in JFK's upper back (which we know was located 14 centimeters below the tip of JFK's right mastoid process).

--equals--

ONE bullet travelled through all 3 of the above holes.

What's your alternative solution, Cliff? I want to hear it?

If the SAME bullet didn't go through both clothing holes and the only skin wound in JFK's upper back, then what do YOU think happened?

I'm going to guess that you believe this photo below is a fake, right? And you think the "real" wound was located much lower on Kennedy's back, right? (You might have answered those inquiries previously in a discussion(s) that I have archived at my site, but I haven't memorized all of your fantasy-filled posts, so I can't currently remember.)

Battling Varnell (again and again)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-589.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/DVP Vs. Cliff Varnell

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

"Bottom Line --- Cliff Varnell is pretending to know things that are just simply unknowable." -- DVP; December 16, 2014

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The notations were written on the autopsy face sheet in pen -- a violation of autopsy protocol.

Humes used a cranial landmark for a thoracic wound -- a violation of autopsy protocol.

Humes used 2 moveable landmarks -- a double violation of autopsy protocol.

When do you plan on defending this bold and incorrect statement of yours?....

"Those measurements were not taken at the time of the autopsy."

Not a single thing you said above about "protocol" proves that the "14cm. from mastoid" measurement wasn't taken at the time of the autopsy.

Try again, Mr. Fantasist. Because your last effort was quite lame.

49 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

False.  Those measurements were not taken at the time of the autopsy.

I haven't the slightest idea why the conspiracy fantasist named Varnell uttered the above crap. Dr. Humes testified as follows to the Warren Commission (emphasis is my own) [at 2 H 361]....

"We ascertained physical measurement at the time of autopsy that this wound was 14 cm. from the tip of the mastoid process and 14 cm. from the acromion."

But I guess Cliff must think the above statement made by Humes was nothing but a lie.

And I guess Cliff thinks Dr. Humes continued to peddle that same lie three years later in this 1967 CBS-TV interview....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOb3Z2UU9VUkdiSU0/view

In addition, the HSCA in the late 1970s examined the original autopsy photographs depicting President Kennedy's upper-back wound and concluded that the "midpoint" of the entry wound in JFK's back was located "13.5 centimeters below the right mastoid process" (7 HSCA 85), which is within one-half centimeter of Humes' 1963 measurement. (One possible explanation for that difference could be that the autopsy surgeons measured the distance to the bottom margin of the wound, vs. measuring it only to the wound's "midpoint".)

12 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You claim to "see" the shirt is wadded up multiple inches entirely above the base of the neck even though the jacket collar wasn't elevated at all.

ONE hole in the shirt.

ONE hole in the jacket.

ONE hole in JFK's upper back (which we know was located 14 centimeters below the tip of JFK's right mastoid process).

Surely there must be some small children in your neighborhood who can explain this easy math to you, Cliff.

9 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Don't ya love it when a nutter can't do the math -- 4 and 1/8 minus 4 equals 1/8.

Once again, we're treated to Cliff's extraordinary X-ray vision. He can SEE that JFK's shirt is not bunched-up at all. Not even a fraction of an inch.

The level of Varnell's arrogance is close to becoming legendary.

3 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The jacket was bunched up 1/8".

Don't ya love it when a JFK conspiracy fantasist just makes up things that he cannot possibly know with such "one-eighth of an inch" precision?

47 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

What do we call someone actively promoting an obvious fraud?

A JFK conspiracy theorist.

48 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

JFK's jacket collar was in [its] normal position in the Croft photo...

Who cares? We know (and can easily see) that another part of that same jacket WAS definitely "bunched up" on JFK's back.

Don't ya love Cliff Varnell's amazing supernatural ability to be able to see right through JFK's jacket in the Croft picture?

How did you manage to do that, Cliff? Please tell us your secret for seeing through solid objects in order to promote a theory that you know you can never prove if your life hung in the balance.

I anxiously await Cliff's spectacularly inept reply.

9 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

But a billowy cotton dress shirt will indeed bunch up to an extent beneath the jacket.

Indeed. Such as this photo below (which is the photo that Cliff loves to hate)....

Interestingly enough, Dr. Henry Lee was born on November 22 (in 1938).

Here is all of his (lengthy) testimony during the O.J. Simpson murder trial in 1995:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM0S2Fsr5Xp8UhNGRSFKC2Q/search?query=Henry+Lee+Testimony

On 8/7/2019 at 11:29 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Paul Baker is the DVP from across the pond.  Except in some respects he is even worse.  He says he is a scientist yet he will not admit that the CBLA test has been completely vitiated and can never be used forensically again.  He actually said he saw merits on both sides!!

"What do you think the chances are that a multi-gun conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza, with bullets from more than just a single rifle striking the victims in President Kennedy's car....and yet, after the bullets stopped flying and the fragments and/or whole bullets were examined, NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-Oswald gun turned out to be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle as the source for ALL of the bullets and fragments that hit any of the victims on Elm Street? Short of conspiracy theorists coming right out and calling Vincent Guinn a bald-faced l-i-a-r when he revealed his NAA results in 1978 (and even taking into account the newer NAA studies that have been done since '78 that have cast doubt on the exactitude of Guinn's determinations), I cannot see how the conspiracists of the world can fight the above-mentioned "odds" problem." -- DVP; September 5, 2007

58 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is incredible. Davey is saying that both Perry and McClelland were lying.

Dead wrong. I've never once said that Dr. Perry or Dr. McClelland were lying. And I'm certainly not saying (or even implying) such a thing now.

Perry was simply wrong about the throat wound being a wound of entry. And McClelland was wrong about some things too. But I've never called either one of those doctors a l-i-a-r.

Quote

But that is how desperate these loons get.  Notice he does not say any of it is wrong.  Because it's not. 

BTW, in Sylvia Meagher's classic destruction of the WR, where does she say that anything was faked?

Answer: nowhere. You don't need any of that to wreck something that is a mess to begin with.

Well, since we know that Ms. Meagher was, indeed, in the "Oswald Was Innocent" camp (which we can hear her admit in her own voice in the 1967 interview found here [fast forward to 17:07], where she says that "Oswald was entirely innocent" of not only killing President Kennedy, but she also says she thinks LHO was also innocent of J.D. Tippit's murder and the Walker shooting attempt as well), then by mere implication she pretty much had no choice but to believe that a large amount of the physical evidence against Oswald was faked, manufactured, or manipulated in some manner ---- otherwise Oswald is guilty. Simple as that.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

These are all facts. None of them need to be faked. They are damning in and of themselves.

It only damning in the mind of a rabid conspiracy theorist who will always look at everything with an eye toward a conceived conspiracy. (Know anybody who fits that bill around here?)

And this assertion below by Jim D. should convince him that he's not being at all reasonable or realistic about the topic of Malcolm Perry and the throat wound....

"...someone knew within about 90 minutes what the story was going to be..."

But Jim couldn't care less about a realistic approach to the evidence; he's too invested in promoting conspiracy, no matter how silly he sounds while doing it.

10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Unlike incompetent lawyers[ , ] I grasp the significance of physical evidence found with the body in a murder case.

It's interesting to take note of which pieces of physical evidence that most Internet conspiracy theorists consider to be not fake or manufactured to frame a guy named Oswald. Since the clothing holes in JFK's shirt and suit coat are situated lower than the actual bullet hole in the skin of President Kennedy's upper back, conspiracists like Cliff Varnell feel free to travel down the "Something Here Doesn't Look Right" road of conspiracy.

But if many of the CTers are right when they claim that virtually all other pieces of physical evidence in this case have been faked and falsely manufactured in order to frame a guy named Oswald, then I'm just wondering why those crackerjack Patsy Framers didn't fake JFK's shirt and suit jacket too. It would seem that nothing was beyond the capabilities of those ace evidence manipulators, e.g.: per most CTers, the unseen "they" were able to get into the TSBD and up to the sixth floor to rearrange all the ballistics evidence up there so it would perfectly fit the Oswald-Did-It narrative; they were able to break into Ruth Paine's garage and plant some backyard photos depicting the Patsy with the same rifle they managed to plant on the sixth floor; they managed to plant two identifiable bullet fragments in JFK's limousine that traced back to that same rifle they planted in the TSBD; and on and on.

But they forgot about faking the clothing evidence. ~~~slaps forehead~~~

But, then too, nobody's perfect all the time, right? Not even Presidential assassins and cover-uppers. So I guess Cliff is willing to cut the otherwise super-efficient evidence manipulators a little slack when it comes to the shirt and coat. Right, Cliff?

End result (per many conspiracy theorists): JFK's shirt and coat were just about the only pieces of physical evidence in this case that weren't tampered with in some way by the authorities. (Plus, there are the Oswald fingerprints on the boxes inside the Sniper's Nest. Most CTers don't think those prints were planted, but only because they feel comfortable utilizing the "He Worked There" cop-out of an excuse to explain why Lee Harvey Oswald's prints were the only ones found on those boxes, excluding the prints of policemen.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/John F. Kennedy's Clothing

10 hours ago, Len Colby said:

To not bow down to bigotry[.]

But the Secret Service has to look at things in a different way. They have to consider (in advance, if at all possible) how a particular action (or invitation) might impact the President's security and safety.

2 hours ago, Len Colby said:

Well[,] hopefully if the local PDs could have dealt with the furor[,] the USG could [have] done so as well[.]

Sure, but why do it when it can so easily be avoided by simply not mailing out one invitation?

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

...lawyers know that although its [sic] not necessary to prove motive--you only have to prove intent...

You don't really have to prove "intent" either. The prosecuting lawyer's only burden of proof is to prove that the defendant committed the crime he was charged with committing. And Vincent Bugliosi most certainly met his burden of proof (with plenty of room to spare) when it comes to proving the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald in the 2007 book "Reclaiming History". And only an outer-fringe conspiracy theorist who is hell-bent on pretending Oswald was innocent could possibly argue otherwise.

22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

2,700 pages on an Open and Shut case?

The only reason Vince's book is that long is because of the conspiracy theorists that VB was responding to.

(As if Jim didn't know that.)

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

...the route took him under a bridge which had no security on it...

Not true. (If you're referring to the Triple Underpass bridge, that is.) Because that bridge on Elm Street had two Dallas policemen on it when JFK's car drove underneath it on 11/22/63.

30 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

Putting contrary information in notes or appendices is a common tactic to downplay, dismiss, discredit, or simply to bury the information that undercuts a book's thesis. The WC did that with its 26 volumes. Dale Myers did it with his Tippit book.

But there was really no good reason for Vince Bugliosi to want to "bury" the rifle-length discrepancy. And that's because the solution to the "discrepancy" is a very obvious and non-conspiratorial one. Klein's simply ran out of 36-inch Italian rifles shortly before they received Oswald's order in the mail, and therefore they shipped him a 40-inch model instead. Simple as that.

And that is a very reasonable and logical explanation, especially when considering the fact that in the very next ad that Klein's ran in American Rifleman (on page 55 of the April '63 issue; there was no Klein's ad at all in the March issue), the length of the rifle had changed from 36 inches to 40.

More here....

James DiEugenio said:

Typical DVP. Which is why I swore him off.

Note where this is located: it's in the end notes. Now if the End Notes were in the book, that is one thing.

In RH, they are not in the book. They are on a CD that goes with the book. In other words, the reader has to take it out, insert it into the computer and then read another thousand or so pages of sources and further material.

So, Jim, since I proved in 2016 (via the above Endnotes quotation) that Vincent Bugliosi positively did "tell the reader" about the "36-inch" vs. "40-inch" rifle discrepancy, can we at least agree that you chose your words poorly when you asked the following two questions in 2016 and 2019?....

"Please show us where in VB's 2646-page opus he tells the reader that the rifle the Dallas Police offered into evidence is not the same rifle that Oswald allegedly ordered?" -- Jim D.; August 2016

"What does one make of a lawyer who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER IT'S THE WRONG RIFLE?!" -- Jim D.; August 2019
 

James DiEugenio said:

I would like to ask a question: How many people on this forum read all 1518 textual pages of RH?

Now, let me ask this: How many people read all of the CD?

(Sound of crickets in the night.)

Well, I have certainly read every page of the "Reclaiming History" endnotes. So your crickets in the night have just been forever silenced. 😉

And I continue to reference various parts of Vince Bugliosi's book on a regular basis (both the physical hardcover volume and the 1,000+ pages of CD-ROM endnotes). The book—including the very important endnotes—is an invaluable source of factual information concerning the events of November 22, 1963 (despite the conspiracy theorists' condemnation of it).
 

James DiEugenio said:

The obvious question is: why did VB not include this in the text?

I can tell you why since I analyzed the book. Vince did not want to include anything that he thought could give him a serious problem in the text of the book. So he put it on the CD. So he could more easily dismiss it. And this is what he usually did.

But he even got worse with things he knew he could not handle, on those issues he just left it out, e.g. the FBI rigging Ruby's polygraph. This is why it's a dishonest book. He says at the outset he will not do that. He did. And there is no denying that it was deliberate. Because the information was right there in his end notes sources, he just ignored it.

BTW, David Belin knew it was the wrong rifle also. The WR does not bring the issue up.

The Warren Commission undoubtedly didn't feel the need to bring up the 36-inch/40-inch rifle-length discrepancy because they knew beyond all doubt that Klein's had definitely shipped the Kennedy murder weapon to Lee Oswald in March of '63. Waldman Exhibit No. 7 proves that fact for all time. The key to knowing this fact, of course, is the rifle's serial number—C2766—which is a number that appears on both Waldman #7 and the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the National Archives today.

Plus, when we examine the Klein's Catalog Numbers on the two pertinent rifle-purchasing documents in this case—Waldman #7 and CE773—we can see that the catalog numbers are identical —— C20-T750.

And it's also important to take note of the fact that even after Klein's Sporting Goods changed their magazine ads from the 36-inch rifle to the 40-inch model, the internal Klein's catalog number remained the same for at least a few months after Oswald purchased his gun, with the two Klein's advertisements pictured below proving that fact. Both of these Klein's ads depict a catalog number of C20-T750 for the $19.95 Rifle + Scope package that Oswald ordered in March 1963. The top ad is from the February '63 American Rifleman magazine (which was the source for Oswald's purchase), while the bottom ad (which is advertising a 40-inch Italian carbine) comes from later in 1963....

Reprise.....

What does one make of a lawyer who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER [IT'S] THE WRONG RIFLE[?]!

Jim has apparently conveniently forgotten about this discussion we had on August 22, 2016....

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

What does one make of a lawyer who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER [IT'S] THE WRONG RIFLE[?]!

The above comment by DiEugenio concerning the rifle is just one more example (among hundreds) that illustrates DiEugenio's complete inability to properly evaluate the totality of evidence connected to John F. Kennedy's assassination. If there's ever been a person who has gotten more things wrong about the JFK case than Jim DiEugenio has, I'd love to know who that person is.

DiEugenio knows full well that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle but was shipped a 40-inch model. But Jim won't admit it---ever. And that's because he's totally enamored with the really dumb idea that Lee Harvey Oswald never took possession of Rifle C2766 at all in 1963. Even a picture of Oswald holding that exact rifle doesn't convince Jimmy that LHO ever had that weapon in his hands.

HERE'S the reasonable explanation regarding the rifle that DiEugenio will continue to pretend is not reasonable at all.

More rifle talk (and other miscellany) below....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=DiEugenio Insists It's The Wrong Rifle