Re: JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 119)

On 22 Dec., 12:31, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-jim%20die...
>
> Conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio was interviewed by Jim Fetzer on
> December 16, 2009 (the program is linked above). During the last few
> minutes of the interview, the subject of the backyard photos came up,
> with both DiEugenio and Fetzer (predictably) claiming that the
> pictures are frauds, and claiming that the recent study done by a
> Dartmouth professor is all wet.
>
> It just makes me wonder HOW MUCH PROOF OF AUTHENTICITY it takes for
> these conspiracy clowns to finally admit that the backyard pictures of
> Lee Harvey Oswald are genuine, unaltered photographs?
>
> Firstly, of course, there was the investigation of this matter done
> way back in 1964 by the Warren Commission (see Warren Report;
> beginning at page 592, linked below):
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0308b.htm
>
> During his work for the Warren Commission, photographic expert Lyndal
> Shaneyfelt of the FBI concluded beyond all doubt that the negative to
> the backyard photo known as CE133-B (which is a negative that was
> recovered from Ruth Paine's garage along with two of the backyard
> photos themselves, CE133-A and CE133-B) was positively a negative that
> came from Lee Oswald's very own Imperial-Reflex camera to the
> exclusion of all other cameras ever made.
>
> Therefore, CE133-B is NOT A FAKE/FORGE/FRAUDULENT/COMPOSITE
> PHOTOGRAPH. Period.
>
> And if CE133-B is not a fake or a composite photo (and it certainly
> isn't), then NONE of the other backyard photos showing Lee Oswald is a
> very similar pose with a rifle and a revolver and two newspapers are
> certainly NOT FAKES EITHER. (Or do some conspiracists actually want to
> believe that only SOME of the existing backyard pics are forgeries,
> while one is the real deal and genuine? Such a strange belief, of
> course, is just downright silly.)
>
> In addition to Shaneyfelt's determination regarding the negative to
> CE133-B having positively been taken with Oswald's very own camera,
> there is, of course, the testimony of the person who admitted to
> having taken the backyard photos--Marina Oswald. Marina has said on
> multiple occasions that she positively remembers taking pictures of
> her husband, Lee, while Lee was dressed all in black and was holding a
> rifle and some newspapers. Marina, as recently as November 2000, told
> a researcher (Vincent Bugliosi) that she had, indeed, taken the
> backyard photos herself.
>
> Plus, there is the re-creation of the backyard photos that was done by
> CBS-TV in 1967 for the June '67 CBS four-part special "A CBS NEWS
> INQUIRY: THE WARREN REPORT". CBS had a man go to the location where
> Marina Oswald took the backyard pictures (214 Neely Street in Dallas)
> to see if an exact replica of the original photos could be achieved.
>
> On March 31, 1967, at approximately noontime (luckily it was a sunny
> day on 3/31/67, as it was on the day when Marina took the pictures of
> LHO, which was 3/31/63), a man was photographed in the Nelly Street
> backyard. The end result was that the shadows were EXACTLY THE SAME as
> they appear in the 1963 Oswald backyard photographs. Absolutely
> identical, right down to the ANGLED body shadow and the STRAIGHT nose
> shadow.
>
> That 3/31/67 photo reconstruction, which was an actual AT-THE-SITE
> test (not just a test done on paper or on a computer), verifies beyond
> all possible doubt that the shadow patterns exhibited in the 1963
> Oswald backyard photos are perfectly consistent with shadows that were
> exhibited in a photo that was taken in 1967 for comparison purposes.
>
> Do conspiracy theorists now want to believe that the 1967 CBS photo
> with the exact same shadow pattern as the LHO photos is a fake and a
> fraud too? If not, then how can the CTers continue to cry "foul" when
> it comes to one of their favorite gripes--the so-called "shadow
> problems" with the LHO backyard photos?
>
> Mr. DiEugenio and Prof. Fetzer should watch the video linked below. It
> forever debunks the conspiracists who continue to insist that the
> backyard pictures are phonies based on any kind of "shadow" anomalies
> or discrepancies.
>
> I apologize for the poor quality of this 1967 video excerpt, but my
> only source material for this CBS program is not very good. But even
> though the picture quality of this clip is fuzzy, the conclusions
> about the backyard photos that are revealed in this video segment are
> quite clear and persuasive:
>
> http://www.DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/oswald-backyard-photos....
>
> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/045b.+BACKYARD+PHOTO+O...
>
> IN SUMMARY:
>
> In light of all the rock-solid evidence (such as the evidence
> mentioned above) that indicates beyond all reasonable doubt that the
> "backyard photographs" of Lee Harvey Oswald have not been tampered
> with, conspiracy promoters who continue to want to peddle the theory
> that the photos are fakes are merely living in a dream world....a
> world where their conspiracy-filled fantasies have somehow been able
> to trump the known facts.
>
> David Von Pein
> December 22, 2009
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/abf2ea54c9dddca4
>
> http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com/2009/10/jfk-assassination-lone-g...

NB! Scans of the backyard photos are also available online as part of
the "John F Kennedy, Dallas Police Department Collection" hosted by
the Portal to Texas History:

http://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKDP/

[CE 133 "C"]
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49536/m1/1/sizes/xl/

[CE 133 B, A]
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49669/m1/1/sizes/xl/

Herbert Blenner

unread,

Dec 22, 2009, 9:02:29 AM12/22/09

to

I thank you for the links to higher quality backyard photographs. They
are just the things I need to complete an online optical comparator.

http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/comparator.htm

I have postponed writing the instruction manual until finding better
quality photographs. Now I intend to complete the project.

Thanks again, Herbert

mucher1

unread,

Dec 22, 2009, 5:03:48 PM12/22/09

to

You're welcome, Herbert. I look forward to see the result of your
efforts.

Chuck Schuyler

unread,

Dec 22, 2009, 7:36:06 PM12/22/09

to

On Dec 22, 8:02 am, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:

> I thank you for the links to higher quality backyard photographs. They
> are just the things I need to complete an online optical comparator.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/comparator.htm
>
> I have postponed writing the instruction manual until finding better
> quality photographs. Now I intend to complete the project.
>
> Thanks again, Herbert

Go get 'em, Dr. Frankenstein.

Herbert Blenner

unread,

Dec 23, 2009, 12:52:38 AM12/23/09

to

Relax Chuck. The comparator page is going to be a tool for study and
devoid of analysis, comments or opinions. The format of this page
resembles the page that I posted on using the overlay method to study
frames of the Zapruder film.

http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/overlay.htm

I intend to continue my policy of keeping general purpose tools
separate from my analysis.

Herbert

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Dec 23, 2009, 1:54:15 AM12/23/09

to

>>> "The "bunching theory" spewed forth by most single-assassin theorists, including Mr. Von Pein, is total hoo-ha, an absolute con-job." <<<

Apparently Mr. Speer wants to merely ignore the Croft photo....

http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/031.+CROFT+PHOTO?gda=FAGifEIAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQSa4q5vJzVPTAGUuIyQOjY0HiDOKFpt85In-Nkpi71WxV4u3aa4iAIyYQIqbG9naPgh6o8ccLBvP6Chud5KMzIQ&gsc=ri3aWiEAAAAa5hKjOb1IOHM83kiUGED98VcLspV546kD2dcrG72S20zfKN-m9S9niuHrq-IEXAE

The Robert Croft photograph was taken at the equivalent of
approximately Zapruder Film frame #161, and it's a picture that
undeniably shows JFK's coat "bunched up" just seconds before he was
hit by the SBT bullet.

Plus, the newly-found (in 2007) George Jefferies film gives us a very
good view of the "bunching" of JFK's coat about 90 seconds before the
shooting:

http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/027a.+FRAME+FROM+THE+JEFFERIES+FILM?gda=KuFJSlUAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQqxe-xWPGXU_W_wXjDUTzOXZXcCZ3_kH1kfQIxtmXLu5NW6OX8ZOdNqGvDSrbeZ3hLPnWZDZjql3t-qsoAdY9uxrtYix3qocOGWUY90Yyf_g&gsc=ri3aWiEAAAAa5hKjOb1IOHM83kiUGED98VcLspV546kD2dcrG72S20zfKN-m9S9niuHrq-IEXAE

Here's the complete Jefferies Film:

http://jfk.org/go/collections/item-detail?fedoraid=sfm:2006.039.0001

Of course, the whole "bunching" theory is merely corroborative of the
PHYSICAL evidence that can be found on President Kennedy's coat and
shirt (and his BODY/UPPER BACK).

Because even without any kind of "bunching" theory at all, the
physical evidence that proves that JFK was shot in the UPPER BACK by
ONE bullet from behind will still be there forever.

1.) ONE bullet hole in JFK's UPPER BACK (located "14 cm. below tip of
right mastoid process", per the autopsy surgeons).

2.) ONE bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt.

3.) ONE bullet hole in the back of JFK's suit coat.

Performing the math here isn't exactly college-level stuff, Pat Speer.

Do some conspiracy theorists think that JFK was shot in the back by
MORE than just one single bullet? Because lacking such a silly belief,
I can't really see why the conspiracy theorists of the world devote so
much time and effort in attempting to debunk the "bunching" theory.*

* = Oh, wait! That's right! This autopsy photo below must be a fake!
Right, Pat?:

http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=rBpqjEgAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQC-VtTShWRfTDnTsvFwDkMQoUxDqPr3a3rJhy6a6rzuSDH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=ri3aWiEAAAAa5hKjOb1IOHM83kiUGED98VcLspV546kD2dcrG72S20zfKN-m9S9niuHrq-IEXAE

Funny, though, isn't it, that the plotters could fake all of the
autopsy pictures and X-rays (and even Kennedy's BODY by rearranging
all of the bullet wounds, according to kooks like David S. Lifton and
Douglas P. Horne), but they couldn't seem to go that extra step and
fake/forge/rearrange the bullet holes in President Kennedy's shirt and
suit jacket.

Remind me to never rely on any of those stupid and clumsy "Patsy
Framers" in the future. Those crooks have lost all of my respect after
discovering all of the various silly errors they made while trying to
frame poor schnook Lee Oswald in 1963.

Maybe next time when the Government goes about the task of framing a
"lone patsy" for the murder of the President of the United States, the
architects of the assassination should hire some people to do their
evil work for them who aren't all severely retarded.

Ya think?

http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Dec 23, 2009, 5:17:35 AM12/23/09

to

>>> "You know that I [Patrick Speer] believe the autopsy photos are legit." <<<

Then the degree of jacket/shirt "bunching" is totally
irrelevant....regardless of Dr. John K. Lattimer's analysis.

The one bullet had no choice but to go through ALL THREE holes
mentioned earlier:

The hole in Kennedy's upper back.
The shirt.
The coat.

And the best evidence is, of course, the hole in President Kennedy's
upper back (not the other two items), and you know it.

And you also admit the autopsy photo of JFK's back is not a fake. And
you also know exactly where the wound was located on JFK's upper
back--14 centimeters below the mastoid process, which is most
certainly in a location that places it ABOVE the level of the throat
wound, with this picture proving that fact:

http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/009.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=Tj5kvUgAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQpa3FMCO3ObEH2GCL3Y618HVHd7P92WQT_OogFubXGiaDH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg

But, naturally, "HIGHER" equals "LOWER" to a person who lives in
Conspiracytown.

(And, yes, the HSCA was wrong when it comes to this "higher vs. lower"
topic too.)

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Dec 23, 2009, 5:46:13 AM12/23/09

to

Only a piece of shit could swallow the bunching theory...Laz

David Von Pein

unread,

Dec 23, 2009, 5:58:26 AM12/23/09

to

There's no need to swallow any theory re. "bunching", as I just
explained in my last post.

Only an idiot would deny the irresistible simplicity (and truth) that
resides within my last post.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2010, 10:26:25 PM1/5/10

to

>>> "The medical evidence indicates NO DAMAGE to the brain in the area where it MUST have been had that bullet entered down near the EOP." <<<

Exactly.

And John Fiorentino's above words are almost verbatim to the words
spoken by Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA's FPP during Petty's testimony
at the 1986 TV docu-trial in London.

Defense lawyer Gerry Spence was apparently completely clueless when he
read aloud to the London jury a portion of Dr. Petty's official HSCA
statement regarding President Kennedy's brain damage being totally
inconsistent with such a low entry wound in the head.

Let's have a look:

http://YouTube.com/watch?v=h6SwWGBBGI0

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-1986.html

aeffects

unread,

Jan 6, 2010, 3:40:36 AM1/6/10

to

On Jan 5, 7:26 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

no advertising shithead.....

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 15, 2010, 4:59:37 AM1/15/10

to

"If you were put in charge of framing your lone patsy on
11/22/63, would you have placed three gunmen all throughout Dealey
Plaza? Or would you have fired from ONLY the Sniper's Nest in the TSBD
using only your patsy's gun?

"And would you allow your patsy to wander around in the
lunchroom at 12:30, where he's quite likely to be seen by people AT
LUNCHTIME?

"What if Oswald had called in sick on November 22nd? What then?
Would the plotters have re-routed the motorcade to have it pass by
Ruth Paine's home in Irving?" -- David Von Pein; April 2007

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 15, 2010, 4:52:45 PM1/15/10

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/8d574a1560e551dc/28cd588c641160fa?#28cd588c641160fa

JOHN McADAMS SAID:

>>> "You [Pat Speer] think you are free to "debunk" this or that analysis, and never have to ask what the alternative theory is." <<<

DVP SAYS:

Exactly. All anti-SBTers do this, every day.

The conspiracy theorists think they're home free by nitpicking every
last centimeter on JFK's back, or by using the old dodge: 'No bullet
in history has ever emerged in this near-pristine condition..', blah-
blah. (And, of course, they completely ignore Dr. Martin Fackler's
1992 test with a WC/MCC bullet which emerged in perfect shape after
breaking a human wrist at 1100fps, seen below.)....

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg

But I'm still waiting for some CTer (somewhere) to reasonably answer
the basic $64K questions regarding the SBT:

1.) If TWO separate bullets entered President Kennedy's back and
throat and neither bullet exited out the other side of JFK's body (as
nearly all conspiracy theorists seem to believe, at least on the
forums I've visited), then WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE TWO BULLETS? Where
did they go? And where's the internal damage to JFK's innards that
would prompt anyone (the autopsists or anybody else) to conclude that
TWO bullets went into Kennedy and then just STOPPED their forward
progress altogether?

2.) If only ONE bullet passed through JFK's upper back and exited his
throat, and if that missile did NOT go on to hit Governor Connally,
then WHERE DID THE BULLET GO? And HOW did that bullet end up missing
Connally AND the whole limousine?

The Single-Bullet Theory is as true today as it was 40+ years ago.
It's even "truer" in a sense, due to the very good re-creations
supporting the theory that have been done in recent years by The
Discovery Channel and Dale Myers. (And also by Dr. John Lattimer in
the 1970s, too.)

Every Government panel that has studied the JFK case supports the SBT
(i.e., the WC and the HSCA both supported the conclusion that ONE
bullet--CE399--passed through both JFK and JBC).

But for conspiracy theorists who are determined to avoid the obvious
truth that is the SBT, apparently a DOUBLE stamp of endorsement from
both the Warren boys and House Select Committee means absolutely
NOTHING.

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

============================================

"You call it the theory; I call it the conclusion; it was a
theory until we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the
Single-Bullet Conclusion." -- Arlen Specter; 1967

----------

"Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult to believe
the Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe the other theories is even
MORE difficult. If the Governor's wounds were caused by a separate
bullet, then we must believe that a bullet passed through the
President's neck, emerged at high velocity on a course that was taking
it directly into the middle of the automobile, and then vanished
without a trace.

"Or, we can complicate matters even further--as some do--by
adding a second assassin, who fires almost simultaneously with Oswald
and whose bullet travels miraculously a trajectory identical with
Oswald's and that second assassin, too, vanishes without a trace.

"Difficult to believe as the Single-Bullet Theory may be, it
seems to be the LEAST difficult of all those that are available.

"In the end, like the Commission, we are persuaded that a single
bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally." --
Walter Cronkite; "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report" (1967)

----------

"It's a straight line....it [the Single-Bullet Theory] is the
only way it COULD have happened." -- Dale Myers; 2004

----------

"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the
"single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient
stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is
now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible
mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet
that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did
not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages
489-490 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

----------

"As can be seen in Warren Commission Exhibit #903 [pictured
below; captioned by DVP], the "Single-Bullet Theory" trajectory works
just fine. In fact, it works absolutely perfectly. Which would be
virtually impossible if MULTIPLE bullets had actually done the damage
to the two victims (JFK and John Connally) that the Warren Commission
said was very likely caused by only one single bullet (CE399).

"And the pointer/rod in Exhibit 903 is just where the autopsy
photo of John Kennedy's back shows the wound to be located, with the
exit wound exactly at the tie knot, just exactly where JFK sustained
damage from the flight of a bullet. .... In short: CE903 = S.B.T.
PERFECTION!" -- David Von Pein; March 26, 2007

http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/119.+CE903?gda=eaRfaDwAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQtWYJHJICPrVbkDAuJqmkkyl61k0AMZJieNRhY9YK56_9Wm-ajmzVoAFUlE7c_fAt

============================================

aeffects

unread,

Jan 15, 2010, 5:00:32 PM1/15/10

to

On Jan 15, 1:52 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

>
> JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>
> >>> "You [Pat Speer] think you are free to "debunk" this or that analysis, and never have to ask what the alternative theory is." <<<
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> Exactly. All anti-SBTers do this, every day.

hon, your conviction rings a tad hollow, in fact, you sound not only
ridiculous but full of fear.

> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/119.+CE903?gda=eaRfaDw...
>
> ============================================

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 15, 2010, 8:43:18 PM1/15/10

to

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1636.msg24732.html#msg24732

Tony Fratini,

I'm just going by THE EVIDENCE (which CE3131 certainly represents).
And CE3131 says that all prints lifted off of the TSBD boxes were
identified EXCEPT FOR ONE PALMPRINT, which the FBI was still trying to
identify as of the date of the letter to the WC which is seen in
CE3131 (and that date was Sept. 18, 1964).

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0418a.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0423a.htm

Anybody can CLAIM anything they want.

Who was it who first claimed that an "unidentified" print in the
National Archives belonged to Malcolm Wallace anyway? Do you know?

I would say that the reason for any prints still being marked
"unidentified" in the National Archives is due to the fact that there
was a large gap in time between the time the TSBD box prints were
photographed and the time the FBI finally got around to acquiring
comparison prints of the various DPD officers. The FBI didn't get
those DPD prints until August and September of '64 -- nine months
after the assassination.

So it wasn't until AUGUST and SEPTEMBER that the "unidentified" prints
on the TSBD boxes could be compared with the people to whom almost all
of them actually belonged--members of the Dallas Police Department.
And that's why fingerprint expert Arthur Mandella had to tell the
Warren Commission on April 2, 1964 (4 to 5 months before most of the
prints [save one palmprint] were positively identified), that he just
simply did not know whose prints those "unidentified" prints belonged
to. How could he have known as of 4/2/64? Nobody had even compared the
prints with all the Dallas cops who touched the boxes until months
after Mandella's testimony.

Why the delay? I have no idea.

But, regardless of the reason for that delay, CE3131 STILL EXISTS and
is still the BEST EVIDENCE to this day regarding the prints on the
Depository boxes.

If you want to believe that CE3131 is nothing but a con job--feel
free. It won't be the first time (or the last) that a conspiracy
theorist is willing to throw out the official evidence in the JFK case
in favor of conjecture and unsupportable theories.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 16, 2010, 2:23:48 AM1/16/10

to

In article <7a7cca20-e506-4fba...@g25g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

>
>On Jan 15, 1:52=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>>
>> JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>>

>> >>> "You [Pat Speer] think you are free to "debunk" this or that analysis=

>, and never have to ask what the alternative theory is." <<<
>>
>> DVP SAYS:
>>
>> Exactly. All anti-SBTers do this, every day.
>
>hon, your conviction rings a tad hollow, in fact, you sound not only
>ridiculous but full of fear.

DVP never was able to answer simple questions. But no-one doubts his prodigious
output of words.

>> The conspiracy theorists think they're home free by nitpicking every
>> last centimeter on JFK's back, or by using the old dodge: 'No bullet
>> in history has ever emerged in this near-pristine condition..',

That's merely a fact.

>> blah-
>> blah. (And, of course, they completely ignore Dr. Martin Fackler's
>> 1992 test with a WC/MCC bullet which emerged in perfect shape after
>> breaking a human wrist at 1100fps, seen below.)....
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg

Sounds like hogwash to me.

>> But I'm still waiting for some CTer (somewhere) to reasonably answer
>> the basic $64K questions regarding the SBT:

Are you willing to take on the 45 Questions?

>> 1.) If TWO separate bullets entered President Kennedy's back and
>> throat and neither bullet exited out the other side of JFK's body (as
>> nearly all conspiracy theorists seem to believe, at least on the
>> forums I've visited), then WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE TWO BULLETS?

Back bullet fell out. Evidence of non-transit is overwhelming.

Bullet that entered the neck ranged downward, causing respiratory problems noted
by Parkland, which is why they suspected exactly this. Removed before autopsy,
evidence: the greatly expanded tracheotomy wound.

Simple.

>> Where
>> did they go? And where's the internal damage to JFK's innards that
>> would prompt anyone (the autopsists or anybody else) to conclude that
>> TWO bullets went into Kennedy and then just STOPPED their forward
>> progress altogether?

Parkland *DID* believe that the neck bullet ranged downward, and they based that
on JFK's physical condition.

The autopsy DID note that the back wound only went in a short distance. The
probe could be seen poking at the unbroken pleural lining.

>> 2.) If only ONE bullet passed through JFK's upper back and exited his
>> throat,

If your parents had had any children who lived...

Why speculate on things with no medical evidence?

Transit is a theory based on speculation formed after the autopsy was over,
according to Dr. Humes.

Since transit is only a theory, you have to *start* by proving that first.

>> and if that missile did NOT go on to hit Governor Connally,
>> then WHERE DID THE BULLET GO? And HOW did that bullet end up missing
>> Connally AND the whole limousine?
>>
>> The Single-Bullet Theory is as true today as it was 40+ years ago.

The Warren Commission couldn't even allow all of their own ballistics experts to
testify.

>> It's even "truer" in a sense, due to the very good re-creations
>> supporting the theory that have been done in recent years by The
>> Discovery Channel and Dale Myers. (And also by Dr. John Lattimer in
>> the 1970s, too.)

G.I.G.O.

>> Every Government panel that has studied the JFK case supports the SBT
>> (i.e., the WC and the HSCA both supported the conclusion that ONE
>> bullet--CE399--passed through both JFK and JBC).

When you have fraudulent evidence, and a government willing to lie...

Tell us troll, why did the HSCA simply lie about the medical evidence?

See 45 Questions, #25 - coming soon, for documentation.

>> But for conspiracy theorists who are determined to avoid the obvious
>> truth that is the SBT, apparently a DOUBLE stamp of endorsement from
>> both the Warren boys and House Select Committee means absolutely
>> NOTHING.

Lies can be repeated any number of times... they still won't be believed.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 16, 2010, 7:51:53 AM1/16/10

to

>>> "Parkland *DID* believe that the neck bullet ranged downward, and they based that on JFK's physical condition." <<<

Oh sure. That must be why Dr. Perry and Dr. Clark went on TV on
11/22/63 and theorized about the bullet entering JFK's throat and then
moving UP to cause a huge hole in his head....right Holmes?

Ben's an idiot.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 28, 2010, 9:58:05 AM1/28/10

to

http://Amazon.com/review/R2MY5BP9W41FRW

http://Amazon.com/review/R2MY5BP9W41FRW/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=4&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxZKOKUOD1TD7Y#MxZKOKUOD1TD7Y

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/1963-secret-service-film.html

>>> "DVP's description was an interesting explanation of the [Secret Service] film [linked above] in terms of an accurate technical review and information about its availability. In my opinion, the film provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever of LHO's possible guilt or involvement, but does give very interesting views of Dealey Plaza, the roadways, motorcade route and the 6th floor of the TSBD. .... The most important sequence, in my opinion, is the telescopic head-on view of JFK as [his] car approaches the TSBD, clearly showing an unobstructed shooter's view of the target." <<<

But the car being filmed at that moment is not a car that was equipped
with "jump seats" in the middle of the vehicle. The car that is seen
in the 1963 Secret Service reconstruction film is a standard Lincoln
Continental convertible, not a specially-built limousine with jump
seats to carry extra passengers.

Whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald would have had an unobstructed view
of President Kennedy from the sixth-floor sniper's perch on November
22, 1963, while JFK's car was on Houston Street, has never been proven
(as far as I am aware). It's quite possible that a portion of Governor
Connally's body might have blocked Oswald's view of Kennedy when the
car was moving north on Houston Street.

And any scenes of that nature that are in Oliver Stone's 1991 movie
are scenes that I believe were filmed from the SEVENTH FLOOR of the
Book Depository, not the sixth floor. So, any such re-creations
through a rifle scope that are seen in that motion picture cannot be
looked upon as a perfect reconstruction of Lee Oswald's precise view
of the President's car, because Stone filmed any such scenes from one
flight above Oswald's Sniper's Nest.

http://The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 30, 2010, 5:20:01 AM1/30/10

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b62942174eaf7da5

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/david-belin-march-1992.html

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Please, whatever you do, don't dare to watch Belin in a TV interview where he complains about the fact that the CIA withheld so much vital information from the Warren Commission. Keep your blinders on tightly." <<<

DVP SAYS:

Well, I know one thing, Tony -- the CIA couldn't possibly have
"withheld vital information" concerning the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that
proves Lee Harvey Oswald to be the murderer of both JFK and Officer
Tippit.

And I also know that any CIA information that might have been
"withheld" from the Warren Commission couldn't possibly change the
facts and circumstances regarding Jack Ruby's LAST-MINUTE entry into
the police basement just before he shot Oswald.

As David Belin says in the March 1992 video linked above, in order for
ANY conspiracy to exist in the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald at the
hands of Jack Ruby, Postal Inspector Harry Holmes MUST have been a key
element of that conspiracy.

Because without Holmes asking Oswald additional questions on the
morning of November 24th (delaying LHO's transfer to the County Jail
for possibly up to 30 extra minutes), there would have been no
possible way for Ruby to have shot Oswald, because LHO would have been
long gone from City Hall by the time Ruby got downtown.

Plus: 20-year-old stripper Karen Carlin almost certainly must be
considered an integral part of the plot, if conspiracy theorists want
to believe that Oswald was rubbed out by Ruby as part of a conspiracy.

In short, the CIA had no "control" over the events in Texas on
November 21-24, 1963. And the spontaneous way things happened during
those days proves that the CIA was not controlling the destiny of men
named Kennedy, Tippit, Oswald, and Ruby.

Or do conspiracy theorists now want to believe that the Central
Intelligence Agency was in the habit of employing 19-year-old Book
Depository workers (like Buell Wesley Frazier) and postal inspectors
(like Harry Holmes) and ordinary housewives in Irving, Texas (like
Linnie Mae Randle and Ruth Paine) and 20-year-old exotic dancers (like
Karen Carlin, who had no money to pay her rent in November 1963)?

Plus, as Vincent Bugliosi said, it's very likely that the CIA had a
desire to internally safeguard a lot of their documents and
information, even when there was absolutely no "conspiratorial" reason
for them to do so:

"The CIA had nothing to hide in thousands of previous documents
the agency initially refused to release voluntarily but ultimately did
release under court order. The CIA specializes in always acting
guilty, even when it is not, and always being, from a public relations
standpoint, its own worst enemy."

[...]

"It's as if these [conspiracy] authors believe there's no need
to connect Oswald to the CIA or the mob, or show that they got him to
kill Kennedy for them. If...they can prove that one of these groups
had a motive to kill Kennedy, then, IF Oswald was the assassin, he
MUST have killed Kennedy FOR them. This crazy, incredibly childlike
reasoning is the mentality that has driven and informed virtually all
of the pro-conspiracy sentiment in the Kennedy assassination from the
very beginning." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Via "Reclaiming History" (c.
2007)

http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

http://The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com