David Von Pein

It's difficult to put a specific timestamp on those interviews. But I can tell that it's pretty late in the day on 11/22/63, because WFAA has had time to create and set up the nameplates which were placed in front of the reporters at the WFAA news desk. In the Jean Hill interview, the reporter (Bill Lord) says that "it's several hours later" [after the assassination].... JEAN HILL INTERVIEW MARY MOORMAN INTERVIEW

No.

It's all a matter of POINT OF VIEW and BELIEFS. DSL believes that there's a ton of "falsified evidence" in this case. (Despite the fact that he's got no definitive PROOF that even ONE PIECE of evidence against Oswald was "falsified".) DVP does not share DSL's belief. And the JFK Assassination merry-go-round continues to perpetually spin....

Well, David, I think I'm relying on just a tad bit more than just the rifle. Or had you forgotten about all of this other "Oswald Did It" evidence? (You're not going to totally ignore all of this stuff too, are you DSL?)....

Another brilliant say-nothing retort by the King Of Say-Nothing Retorts. ~yawn~

In addition to this previously-mentioned 2009 comment by Dr. Robert McClelland.... "Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." ....there are also these 1992 remarks concerning the size of the tracheotomy wound by four other Parkland Hospital doctors.... Dr. Charles Baxter said: "I was right there, and the tracheostomy I observed and the autopsy photos look the same—very compatible." Dr. Marion Jenkins (comparing the autopsy pictures with the trach wound he saw at Parkland): "They're the same." Dr. Charles J. Carrico: "I've seen the autopsy photos and they are very compatible to the actual tracheostomy." Dr. Malcolm Perry: "Of course, tissues sag and stretch after death, but any suggestion that this wound was intentionally enlarged is wrong." Source for the above four quotes: The Journal Of The American Medical Association; May 27, 1992; Page 2805 So, David Lifton, do you still stand by this statement of yours from last year?.... "Dr. Perry never made an incision." -- David S. Lifton; February 27, 2018

That's extremely weak, David. It's embarrassingly weak for you. Especially after reviewing the comments made later by both James Sibert and Dr. Humes. You are desperately searching for justification so that you can continue to believe in the "surgery" that never happened. Don't you think it's about time for you to STOP relying on bad information? Bonus Quotes.... http://history-matters.com / Complete 1992 Interview With Dr. James J. Humes

Not surprisingly, I see that David Lifton is still desperately clinging to really bad information with respect to the "surgery of the head area" remark that appears on Page 3 of the 11/22/63 Sibert & O'Neill Report. Mr. Lifton, however, knows full well that the co-author of that 1963 report—James W. Sibert—also made the following statement to the HSCA in 1978: "When the body was first observed on the autopsy table, it was thought by the doctors that surgery had possibly been performed in the head area and such was reflected in my notes at the time. However, this was determined not to be correct following a detailed inspection." -- James Sibert; October 24, 1978 So, Mr. Lifton, what about that 1978 statement by Jim Sibert? Was he lying when he made those comments to the House Select Committee? I guess you must think he was. I'll also add this excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book: "In a 1999 telephone conversation from his retirement home in Fort Myers, Florida, Sibert told me that when the casket was opened in the autopsy room, "The president was wrapped in two sheets, one around his body, another sheet around his head." He said the sheet around the head was "soaked in blood," and when it was removed, Dr. Humes "almost immediately upon seeing the president's head—this was before the autopsy—remarked that the president had a tracheotomy and surgery of the head area." When I asked Sibert what Humes was referring to when he used the word surgery, he said, "He was referring to the large portion of the president's skull that was missing." When I asked him why he was so sure of this, he replied, "Well, if you were there, it couldn't have been more clear that that's what he was talking about. He said this as soon as he saw the president's head. He hadn't looked close-up for any evidence of surgery to the head when he said this. I'm positive that's what he was referring to."" -- Page 1060 of "Reclaiming History" And after I utilized the above Bugliosi quote at a JFK forum in May 2013, I followed up the quote with these remarks: "Why conspiracy theorists continue to cling to inaccurate information is anyone's guess--but they do it--all the time. Sibert and O'Neill merely wrote down what Dr. Humes said at the start of the autopsy. And that information was proven to be wrong. And even most CTers know and think it was wrong--because there are very few CTers who are idiotic enough to actually believe David Lifton's theory about there being "surgery" done to JFK's body before the autopsy." -- DVP; May 5, 2013 That's not true at all. You posted once earlier this year; and you posted dozens of times in 2018. Well, David L., you'll have to forgive me if I choose not to follow you down your "Body Alteration" and "Body-centric Plot" roads. (And I doubt there are more than a couple of conspiracy theorists at this forum who buy into your fantastically impossible version of events either.) And what is truly "comical" is that Mr. Lifton seems to be implying that it's only me who believes in Lee Oswald's lone guilt....and it's only me who thinks the evidence is legitimate throughout the JFK case. When, in reality, there are millions of "Lone Assassin believers" in the world. I'm certainly not in the LN boat all by myself. And, YES!, of course I'm going to "cite the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD as evidence that Oswald was JFK’s assassin". What Lone Assassin believer wouldn't be citing that Carcano rifle as one of the most important pieces of evidence in the whole case (if not THE most important)? Get real, David L.! Here's a rifle-related question I have repeatedly asked conspiracy believers over the last several years: "At ANY given point in time after Lee Oswald acquired his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle via mail-order in March 1963, WHO IS MORE LIKELY to have used it -- on ANY day, including November 22, 1963 -- than its owner, LEE HARVEY OSWALD? .... For, if rifle-owner OSWALD didn't use OSWALD'S own rifle on November 22nd, then WHO DID use OSWALD'S VERY OWN RIFLE to fire bullets from it at John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza? On the basis of OWNERSHIP ALONE, Lee Harvey Oswald is very, very likely to have been the man squeezing the trigger of Rifle C2766 on November 22 (or any other day of the year). If conspiracy theorists think it's MORE likely for Malcolm Wallace (or anyone else) to have been up on that sixth floor using Oswald's gun on 11/22/63, they've got a huge hurdle to overcome. And that hurdle is -- NOBODY OWNED THAT RIFLE EXCEPT FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD." -- DVP; November 18, 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~ "Who is more likely to have used Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 on 11/22/63 (or any other day of the year)? The owner of the gun (Lee Harvey Oswald)? Or some stranger who didn't purchase the weapon? Based on those "odds", alone, the Anybody But Oswald kooks are cooked. And when we start adding in all the other stuff that incriminates Sweet Lee, it's Katie, bar the door (e.g., Oswald leaving the building immediately; Oswald killing Tippit; Oswald's actions and statements within the Texas Theater, which practically amount to Oswald confessing to some horrible act; plus those fingerprints on the rifle's trigger guard, identified as being Oswald's prints by Vincent Scalice in 1993). This case is a prosecutor's wet dream." -- DVP; September 18, 2012 ALSO SEE: And, yes, I'm also going to cite the two large bullet fragments recovered from the limousine (which came from OSWALD'S rifle) as strong evidence that is was, indeed, OSWALD who was firing that rifle at President Kennedy on November 22nd. Again, what LNer wouldn't be citing such incredibly incriminating physical evidence of Oswald's guilt? You, David S. Lifton, actually seem to think it's surprising that a person (like me) who strongly believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK would dare to assert that the various pieces of ballistics evidence associated with JFK's murder are actually legitimate (i.e., non-phony) pieces of evidence in this case—such as the C2766 Carcano rifle and the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the President's car. And despite the popular trend among JFK conspiracists to believe that virtually all of the physical evidence in the Kennedy and Tippit murder cases is fake and worthless, there hasn't been a speck of PROOF to substantiate that ANY of that evidence was actually manufactured, planted, or fraudulent (including the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and the two front-seat bullet fragments). And the last time I checked, the massive amount of SPECULATION and ACCUSATIONS and WISHFUL THINKING being done by JFK conspiracy theorists does not come close to rising to the level of PROOF. Get real, DSL! You're the one beating the dead horse. Not me.

Precisely. 😁

.........

I recently found the following two 1983 interviews at Jim Feliciano's "Motor City Radio Flashbacks" website:

I've provided my opinion on it----which will never be an acceptable explanation to any conspiracist, of course. But that's par for the course. .... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-970.html

I would say that it's the CTers who are doing most of the "reaching" (as always).

Fragments from the Head Shot bullet caused the damage to the limo's windshield and the chrome topping. And such a conclusion is a perfectly logical and reasonable one, given the sum total of physical (bullet) evidence in the JFK case. After striking the President's head from behind, the bullet fragmented and continued its FORWARD course toward the front of the limousine --- which is perfectly consistent with the "Oswald Did It" scenario. The two front-seat bullet fragments had no overlapping areas, with one of the fragments being a NOSE section of a bullet, while the other fragment was the BASE section of a bullet. The fragments were, therefore, very likely part of the same bullet. One thing that even most conspiracy theorists should be sure of is this ---- Those two large front-seat bullet fragments most certainly were NOT fired from the FRONT of President Kennedy's vehicle. Therefore, among other obvious things (such as Governor Connally's BACK wound and JFK's BACK wound), the existence of those two fragments in the front seat of the Presidential limousine pretty much destroy David Lifton's crazy "All Shots Came From The Front" theory. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/The Head Shot & The Bullet Fragments http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/CE567 And CE569

Don Thomas (at the link below) says that Curry made his famous statement in an interview that appeared in the November 6, 1969, edition of The Dallas Morning News. https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html

I like this quote of Curry's better.... "I THINK THIS IS THE MAN THAT KILLED THE PRESIDENT." -- Jesse E. Curry; 11/23/63 Chief Curry, in the above quote, was referring, of course, to every conspiracy theorist's favorite "Patsy", Lee H. Oswald. ________________________________________________________________

Probably just more of Manchurian Sirhan's handiwork.

No, I haven't. My guess would be that Maddox's alleged sighting of a bullet can be put in the same category as that of the alleged sighting of a Dealey Plaza bullet by Maddox's partner, Buddy Walthers --- and that category is: Bogus. More.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/Buddy Walthers And The Alleged "Extra Bullet" ----------------------------- Related book excerpt.... "Though [Buddy] Walthers couldn’t have been clearer that he found no bullet in the turf, many conspiracy theorists to this day maintain he did. In the book "Brush with History", author Eric R. Tagg writes that “Buddy Walthers told his partner Alvin Maddox, Jr., Deputy Roger Craig, his wife Dorothy, Inspector Sawyer, and some reporters that a .45 caliber slug was found at that time . . . After a lecture from Sheriff Bill Decker, Walthers later denied to the Warren Commission that a bullet was found” (Tagg, "Brush with History", pp.10–11). So Walthers told a considerable number of people, but Decker got him to lie and change his story. On its face this is a preposterous story, with people as prominent as Sheriff Decker and Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer of the Dallas Police Department in a conspiracy to cover up the facts of the assassination. And there is no corroboration of Tagg’s assertion, for which he offers no citations. Both Craig and Sawyer testified before the Warren Commission, and neither indicated any knowledge of a fourth bullet being found. Craig merely said that ten or twelve minutes after the shooting “Lemmy Lewis or Buddy Walthers” told him in Dealey Plaza “that one of the bullets had ricocheted off the south curb of Elm Street,” not that any bullet was found. (6 H 265, WCT Roger D. Craig) And this was way before Sheriff Bill Decker would have had any chance to tell Walthers to say he hadn’t found a bullet." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 310 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

YouTube's got a bunch of stuff (naturally).... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Chappaquiddick Edit ------ Hugo, I'm glad you brought up the topic of Chappaquiddick, because it prompted me today to add something about that event to my video archive [I added the A&E documentary below, which is quite good]. Heretofore, I had nothing about Chappaquiddick in my collection. So, thanks for the inadvertent "nudge", Hugo. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FbYD9LdwGClai8EsiFJescheeiiRQB05/view

Just for Stephanie.... Thousands of additional things....