The "Bunching Theory" And JFK's Upper-Back Wound

19 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 2:29:22 PM12/23/09
to

AT IMDB.COM, PATRICK J. SPEER SAID:

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


DVP SAID:

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

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/031.+CROFT+PHOTO?gda=cEdgrkIAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQVhJQCJR3yCP3h28tFVH-EkHiDOKFpt85In-Nkpi71WxV4u3aa4iAIyYQIqbG9naPgh6o8ccLBvP6Chud5KMzIQ&gsc=BKOI5iEAAAAwgbEwz8ibXKQny5Cax0HD8VcLspV546kD2dcrG72S20zfKN-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=Rlm3UlUAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQMfHj5wL9CsjO_l4rLQl1unZXcCZ3_kH1kfQIxtmXLu5NW6OX8ZOdNqGvDSrbeZ3hLPnWZDZjql3t-qsoAdY9uxrtYix3qocOGWUY90Yyf_g&gsc=BKOI5iEAAAAwgbEwz8ibXKQny5Cax0HD8VcLspV546kD2dcrG72S20zfKN-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=1LvDRUgAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQ6o9XjTyBJ1YEOTJercCKpwoUxDqPr3a3rJhy6a6rzuSDH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=BKOI5iEAAAAwgbEwz8ibXKQny5Cax0HD8VcLspV546kD2dcrG72S20zfKN-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 weren't all severely retarded.

Ya think?

http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

Papa Andy

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 5:53:42 PM12/23/09
to
I looked at those pics
How many inches, millimeters or what have are supposed to be 'bunched
up' in those views?
I'm not really seeing it

A

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 5:57:38 PM12/23/09
to
On Dec 23, 11:29 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> AT IMDB.COM, PATRICK J. SPEER SAID:
>
> >>> "The "bunching theory" spewed forth by most single-assassin theorists, including Mr. Von Pein, is total hoo-ha, an absolute con-job." <<<
>
> DVP SAID:
>
> Apparently Mr. Speer wants to merely ignore the Croft photo....
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/031.+CROFT+PHOTO?gda=c...

>
> 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+J...

>
> 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...

>
> 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 weren't all severely retarded.
>
> Ya think?
>
> http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

I have written a few responses to Mr. Von Pein's silly rant. Here is a
combination of two of them.

David, what a bunch of nonsense. You know that I believe the autopsy
photos are legit. You know that I accept that some bunching of Kennedy's
clothing occurred. But the amount of bunching necessary to get 5 inches of
shirt and jacket ABOVE the bullet hole you think hit on the back of
Kennedy's neck around the level of his chin is never apparent in the
films. Not even close. What bunching there was lifted the jacket entrance
to around T-1, the level the HSCA claimed for the bullet entry, and no
higher.

I mean, just look at Lattimer's drawing. He has Kennedy's shirt and jacket
magically bunched up along the back of his head, obscuring the back of his
head to those filming him from behind. He has the bullet entering at the
level of JFK's chin. This means 5 inches of Kennedy's clothing would have
to have been bunched up ABOVE the chin. The films you cite for bunching
prove this to be nonsense! So...will you at least admit that Lattimer was
a kook?

http://www.patspeer.com/realitycheck2.jpg


Everyone who has ever measured 14 cm from the bottom tip of the right
mastoid process has realized that this a back wound, around T-1. This
includes the HSCA Pathology Panel, which thought the wound was only 13 1/2
cm below the mastoid, but nevertheless TWO INCHES--5 cm--below where you
think the bullet entered.

The entrance you propose is what I call the Artwohl entrance. On the slide
below I prove this entrance to be totally incompatible with the 14 cm
measurement of the doctors. I also prove the drawings created by the
doctors for the Warren Commission to be incompatible with their own
measurements. The`artist creating these drawings would later admit they
were incompatible, and insist that he was not provided the measurements
when creating the drawings.

http://www.patspeer.com/doityourself.jpg

This slide in which I challenge John McAdams--he refuses to admit the
Artwohl entrance is at odds with the findings of the HSCA pathology
panel--further demonstrates the silliness of your position.

http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg

And then there's this slide, which demonstrates that your belief the back
wound was above the throat wound comes from your bizarre refusal to
acknowledge that a photo with a man with his head tilted back distorts the
relationship between his head and his back.

http://www.patspeer.com/keepingtheM.jpg

And finally there's this one, which reveals the utter dishonesty of
single-assassin theorists, and how they love to move the back wound up
above its actual location, to help sell their ridiculous single-bullet
myth.

http://www.patspeer.com/location3.jpg

This last point is further demonstrated here:

http://www.patspeer.com/sbtredux.jpg

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 6:36:23 PM12/23/09
to
On 12/23/2009 2:29 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> AT IMDB.COM, PATRICK J. SPEER SAID:
>

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

>
>
> DVP SAID:
>
> Apparently Mr. Speer wants to merely ignore the Croft photo....
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/031.+CROFT+PHOTO?gda=cEdgrkIAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQVhJQCJR3yCP3h28tFVH-EkHiDOKFpt85In-Nkpi71WxV4u3aa4iAIyYQIqbG9naPgh6o8ccLBvP6Chud5KMzIQ&gsc=BKOI5iEAAAAwgbEwz8ibXKQny5Cax0HD8VcLspV546kD2dcrG72S20zfKN-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=Rlm3UlUAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQMfHj5wL9CsjO_l4rLQl1unZXcCZ3_kH1kfQIxtmXLu5NW6OX8ZOdNqGvDSrbeZ3hLPnWZDZjql3t-qsoAdY9uxrtYix3qocOGWUY90Yyf_g&gsc=BKOI5iEAAAAwgbEwz8ibXKQny5Cax0HD8VcLspV546kD2dcrG72S20zfKN-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.
>

That's right, UPPER BACK, not neck as they lied about.

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

Inexact.

> 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.*
>

Because you guys invented the bunching theory to try to prop up your
bogus SBT.

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

Oh yeah? Well then let's claim that YOUR bunching photos are all fakes.
The autopsy photos disprove the SBT. That's why you think they are all
fakes.

> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=1LvDRUgAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQ6o9XjTyBJ1YEOTJercCKpwoUxDqPr3a3rJhy6a6rzuSDH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=BKOI5iEAAAAwgbEwz8ibXKQny5Cax0HD8VcLspV546kD2dcrG72S20zfKN-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.
>

Funny how the cover-up hid the autopsy pictures and X-rays for 35 years
and then a whistleblower leaked them and now you guys are running scared.

> 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 weren't all severely retarded.
>

Most cover-ups fall apart eventually, no matter how hard you work to
continue them.

> Ya think?
>
> http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>


David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 10:46:47 PM12/23/09
to

If you can't see the obvious bunching of Kennedy's jacket in both the
Croft picture and the Jefferies Film, you'd better insert new and better
orbs in your sockets, Papa Andy.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 10:47:06 PM12/23/09
to

There's nothing more pitiful (and silly, and humorous) than watching
an anti-SBTer at work attempting to deny the obviousness of the Single-
Bullet Conclusion.

bigdog

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 11:03:47 PM12/23/09
to

Damn, Tony, we agree again. So when do you think the JFK cover-up will
fall apart. It's only been 46 years. I guess this one will be falling
apart any day now. Which decade are you betting on?

One other question. Are most of the guys who did the original cover-up now
dead? If so, how is the cover-up continued? Is the responsibility for
maintaining the cover up handed down from father to son? Any daughters
involved? Seems like there should be. Male chauvanism was acceptable in
1963 but it's politically incorrect now. I certainly hope the cover-uppers
aren't engaged in gender bias as well.

John Blubaugh

unread,
Dec 24, 2009, 9:57:42 AM12/24/09
to

Except perhaps a WC shill who buys this nonsense. The SBT is a sham
and it has been thoroughly debunked.

JB


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 24, 2009, 9:59:39 AM12/24/09
to
On 12/23/2009 11:03 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Dec 23, 6:36 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/23/2009 2:29 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>> 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 weren't all severely retarded.
>>
>> Most cover-ups fall apart eventually, no matter how hard you work to
>> continue them.
>>
>
> Damn, Tony, we agree again. So when do you think the JFK cover-up will
> fall apart. It's only been 46 years. I guess this one will be falling
> apart any day now. Which decade are you betting on?
>

I have great faith in 3035.

> One other question. Are most of the guys who did the original cover-up now
> dead? If so, how is the cover-up continued? Is the responsibility for

Most, but underlings at the agencies still cover up stuff from WWII out
of habit.

John Blubaugh

unread,
Dec 24, 2009, 11:44:19 AM12/24/09
to

It will fall apart when the government finally decides to come clean and
release all of the files. It will fall apart when the body is exhumed and
it is finally determined where the damage to the head was and where the
entrance wounds in the skull were. It will fall apart when WC defenders
fade from the scene and there is no one left to prop of this absurd excuse
for a record.

JB

John McAdams

unread,
Dec 24, 2009, 11:48:55 AM12/24/09
to
On 24 Dec 2009 11:44:19 -0500, John Blubaugh <jblu...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Dec 23, 11:03�pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 6:36�pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Damn, Tony, we agree again. So when do you think the JFK cover-up will
>> fall apart. It's only been 46 years. I guess this one will be falling
>> apart any day now. Which decade are you betting on?
>>
>> One other question. Are most of the guys who did the original cover-up now
>> dead? If so, how is the cover-up continued? Is the responsibility for
>> maintaining the cover up handed down from father to son? Any daughters
>> involved? Seems like there should be. Male chauvanism was acceptable in
>> 1963 but it's politically incorrect now. I certainly hope the cover-uppers
>> aren't engaged in gender bias as well.
>
>It will fall apart when the government finally decides to come clean and
>release all of the files.

But the government released the vast majority of the files in the
1990s.

And what did you guys go? You blew it off.

I posted a released document that said the CIA never used Ferrie in
any way, and you folks refused to accept it.


>It will fall apart when the body is exhumed and
>it is finally determined where the damage to the head was and where the
>entrance wounds in the skull were.

Uh . . . no.

You guys were demanding that the autopsy photos and x-rays be examined
to determine the nature of the wounds.

Well, that happened. And you refuse to accept the results.

It's the Kennedy family, by the way, that stands in the way of an
exhumation.


>It will fall apart when WC defenders
>fade from the scene and there is no one left to prop of this absurd excuse
>for a record.
>

But people are always going to be around who will go with the hard
evidence and solid logic. And people like you will always accuse them
of a "cover up."

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 24, 2009, 4:26:06 PM12/24/09
to
On 12/24/2009 11:48 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2009 11:44:19 -0500, John Blubaugh<jblu...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 23, 11:03 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 23, 6:36 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Damn, Tony, we agree again. So when do you think the JFK cover-up will
>>> fall apart. It's only been 46 years. I guess this one will be falling
>>> apart any day now. Which decade are you betting on?
>>>
>>> One other question. Are most of the guys who did the original cover-up now
>>> dead? If so, how is the cover-up continued? Is the responsibility for
>>> maintaining the cover up handed down from father to son? Any daughters
>>> involved? Seems like there should be. Male chauvanism was acceptable in
>>> 1963 but it's politically incorrect now. I certainly hope the cover-uppers
>>> aren't engaged in gender bias as well.
>>
>> It will fall apart when the government finally decides to come clean and
>> release all of the files.
>
> But the government released the vast majority of the files in the
> 1990s.
>
> And what did you guys go? You blew it off.
>
> I posted a released document that said the CIA never used Ferrie in
> any way, and you folks refused to accept it.
>

It doesn't matter how many CIA lies you post, we are not obligated to
believe them.

>
>> It will fall apart when the body is exhumed and
>> it is finally determined where the damage to the head was and where the
>> entrance wounds in the skull were.
>
> Uh . . . no.
>
> You guys were demanding that the autopsy photos and x-rays be examined
> to determine the nature of the wounds.
>

More than that. Made public so that even the layperson can see the
entrance wound.

> Well, that happened. And you refuse to accept the results.
>

Results? Again we are not obligated to accept government lies. Boswell
looked at the autopsy photos and reported back that the back wound was
ABOVE the top of the shoulders. Lattimer examined the autopsy photos and
reported back that the back wound was ABOVE the top of the shoulders. NOW
we can see the autopsy photos for ourselves and know that they were liars.
Why would they need to lie about that? Because the back wound being below
the top of the shoulders does not fit in with the SBT.

> It's the Kennedy family, by the way, that stands in the way of an
> exhumation.
>
>

You mean the entire Kennedy family gets together every year and votes on
it? Which Kennedy family member is left who has the authority to make that
decision?

>> It will fall apart when WC defenders
>> fade from the scene and there is no one left to prop of this absurd excuse
>> for a record.
>>
>
> But people are always going to be around who will go with the hard
> evidence and solid logic. And people like you will always accuse them
> of a "cover up."
>

Can you explain why Humes and Lattimer would lie about the location of the
back wound without saying that naughty word "cover-up."

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm


John Blubaugh

unread,
Dec 24, 2009, 4:45:47 PM12/24/09
to
On Dec 24, 11:48 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2009 11:44:19 -0500, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com>


The majority is a lone way from "ALL".

JB

jbarge

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 12:18:57 AM12/25/09
to

What happened to FBI evidence Q9 then?
There's a photo of it in Jesse Curry's book but that fragment is not
the one (aka CE 842, the size of a pinhead) shown to Audrey Bell by
the HSCA.
Dr. Charles Gregory of course said to Spector about the wrist
fragments he personally removed, "the major one or ones now being
missing," in his Warren Commission testimony, a rather startling
statement that was met with deafening silence from Arlen.
Of course there are others skeptical that CE-399 smashed Connally's
wrist - people like Humes, for example.
But he's pathetic, I do agree.
Of course the FBI had no problem originally ascribing CE 399 to JFK,
though how if it was on Connally's stretcher this means an objective
investigation - it would be evidence of an investigation manipulated
to get the wanted results instead of "truth".
Then there's Burkley's death certificate as well, though as the only
medical professional in both Parkland & Bethesda why should the Warren
Commission ask him any questions?
Pititful indeed.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 6:50:51 PM12/25/09
to

Any person with one-eighth of a brain cell can easily figure out that
CE399 went through Kennedy and Connally.


CTers also know that the only explanation that makes the least bit of
sense is that 399 was fired by Rifle CE139 from the TSBD, went through
JFK & JBC, and ended up on JBC's stretcher. But no CTer dare admit
that reality. They're too enamoured with their fantasies instead.

Of course, as always, CTers ignore the Fackler test bullet that broke
a human wrist. Fackler's a liar too, right?


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 7:05:06 PM12/25/09
to
On 12/25/2009 12:18 AM, jbarge wrote:
> On Dec 23, 10:47 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> There's nothing more pitiful (and silly, and humorous) than watching
>> an anti-SBTer at work attempting to deny the obviousness of the Single-
>> Bullet Conclusion.
>
> What happened to FBI evidence Q9 then?
> There's a photo of it in Jesse Curry's book but that fragment is not
> the one (aka CE 842, the size of a pinhead) shown to Audrey Bell by
> the HSCA.
> Dr. Charles Gregory of course said to Spector about the wrist
> fragments he personally removed, "the major one or ones now being
> missing," in his Warren Commission testimony, a rather startling
> statement that was met with deafening silence from Arlen.

Things have a habit of going missing while in the government's hands. The
government claims it has no files on my father. Not even from WWII. And
yet it had millions of files on Liberace?

> Of course there are others skeptical that CE-399 smashed Connally's
> wrist - people like Humes, for example.
> But he's pathetic, I do agree.
> Of course the FBI had no problem originally ascribing CE 399 to JFK,
> though how if it was on Connally's stretcher this means an objective
> investigation - it would be evidence of an investigation manipulated
> to get the wanted results instead of "truth".
> Then there's Burkley's death certificate as well, though as the only

> medical professional in both Parkland& Bethesda why should the Warren

Thalia

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 9:58:24 AM12/26/09
to

> Then there's Burkley's death certificate as well, though as the only
> medical professional in both Parkland & Bethesda why should the Warren
> Commission ask him any questions?
> Pititful indeed.

This is a slam dunk when it comes to proving a cover-up, but you know,
there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 10:41:23 AM12/26/09
to
On 12/25/2009 6:50 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Any person with one-eighth of a brain cell can easily figure out that
> CE399 went through Kennedy and Connally.
>

What is this, the old Poisoning the Well argument. Can I play too?
Only a traitor would say it's not a conspiracy.

>
> CTers also know that the only explanation that makes the least bit of
> sense is that 399 was fired by Rifle CE139 from the TSBD, went through

> JFK& JBC, and ended up on JBC's stretcher. But no CTer dare admit


> that reality. They're too enamoured with their fantasies instead.
>

More nonsense. I have said thousands of times that CE 399 was fired by
Oswald's rifle and leave open the possibility that it is genuine. But it
doesn't have to do everything that YOU dream up from your imagination.

> Of course, as always, CTers ignore the Fackler test bullet that broke
> a human wrist. Fackler's a liar too, right?
>
>

Why don't you SHOW everyone what Fackler's bullet looked like when ONLY
hitting one bone?


jbarge

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 1:02:03 PM12/26/09
to
On Dec 23, 11:03 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thankfully the NY Times just published a FRONT page article this
September 2009 about the CIA cover up with their relationship to
Oswald.
Ha ha - that kind of makes your point moot.
Yep, it's been a long time coming.but even in 2009 this case is front
page news in the NY Times.
You can go back to sleep now.

jbarge

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 1:02:26 PM12/26/09
to
On Dec 25, 6:50 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Any person with one-eighth of a brain cell can easily figure out that
> CE399 went through Kennedy and Connally.
>
> CTers also know that the only explanation that makes the least bit of
> sense is that 399 was fired by Rifle CE139 from the TSBD, went through
> JFK & JBC, and ended up on JBC's stretcher. But no CTer dare admit
> that reality. They're too enamoured with their fantasies instead.


Then why didn't the FBI first assign it to Connally?
Why did they assign it to JFK?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 9:37:54 PM12/26/09
to
On 12/26/2009 1:02 PM, jbarge wrote:
> On Dec 25, 6:50 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Any person with one-eighth of a brain cell can easily figure out that
>> CE399 went through Kennedy and Connally.
>>
>> CTers also know that the only explanation that makes the least bit of
>> sense is that 399 was fired by Rifle CE139 from the TSBD, went through
>> JFK& JBC, and ended up on JBC's stretcher. But no CTer dare admit

>> that reality. They're too enamoured with their fantasies instead.
>
>
> Then why didn't the FBI first assign it to Connally?
> Why did they assign it to JFK?
>
>
>


Assign? The FBI didn't assign anything to anyone.


r2bz...@sbcglobal.net

unread,
Dec 27, 2009, 12:58:03 AM12/27/09
to


***There was a claim that Oswald's body was not buried in Oswald's grave.
The grave was exhumed. It turned out that it was Oswald buried in
Oswald's grave.

***Ron Judge


bigdog

unread,
Dec 27, 2009, 3:45:54 PM12/27/09
to
On Dec 26, 1:02 pm, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Thankfully the NY Times just published a FRONT page article this
> September 2009 about the CIA cover up with their relationship to
> Oswald.
> Ha ha - that kind of makes your point moot.
> Yep, it's been a long time coming.but even in 2009 this case is front
> page news in the NY Times.

> You can go back to sleep now.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And just what was that relationship?

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 27, 2009, 9:28:26 PM12/27/09
to

David, Artwohl's proposed entrance and any related claims that the jacket
was bunched up far enough to lift the hole on the clothes to the level of
his proposed entrance have been thoroughly debunked. As a result, anyone
continuing to push this myth does so at a cost to the credibility of the
Oswald-did-it scenario. You might as well become a CT and start claiming
Kennedy was shot by a midget hiding in the gutter if you're gonna peddle
such nonsense

http://www.patspeer.com/endoftheline2.jpg

jbarge

unread,
Dec 27, 2009, 9:28:45 PM12/27/09
to

Something worth covering up.

jbarge

unread,
Dec 27, 2009, 9:29:08 PM12/27/09
to

Hmmmm - okay, I will look into that one.

jas

unread,
Dec 28, 2009, 11:52:23 PM12/28/09
to
On Dec 24, 9:44 am, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 11:03 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 6:36 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 12/23/2009 2:29 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > > > 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 weren't all severely retarded.
>
> > > Most cover-ups fall apart eventually, no matter how hard you work to
> > > continue them.
>
> > Damn, Tony, we agree again. So when do you think the JFK cover-up will
> > fall apart. It's only been 46 years. I guess this one will be falling
> > apart any day now. Which decade are you betting on?
>
> > One other question. Are most of the guys who did the original cover-up now
> > dead? If so, how is the cover-up continued? Is the responsibility for
> > maintaining the cover up handed down from father to son? Any daughters
> > involved? Seems like there should be. Male chauvanism was acceptable in
> > 1963 but it's politically incorrect now. I certainly hope the cover-uppers
> > aren't engaged in gender bias as well.
>
> It will fall apart when the government finally decides to come clean and
> release all of the files.

Yeah, and in those files it's going to tell us who/what was behind the
plot, and what the next week's lottery numbers will be.


>It will fall apart when the body is exhumed and
> it is finally determined where the damage to the head was and where the
> entrance wounds in the skull were.

The body won't be exhumed because the Kennedy family won't allow it, and
there exists no legal reason necessitating its forensic reexamination.

Besides, even if by some slim chance it was ever exhumed, it wouldn't
matter. CTers would still find something to argue, like calling the modern
forensic pathologists liars and part of the cover-up.

Meantime, you can keep doing what you do best -- speculate, and ignore the
evidence.


It will fall apart when WC defenders
> fade from the scene and there is no one left to prop of this absurd excuse
> for a record.

Sorry, that won't happen. The WC record will always be there.

tomnln

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 10:42:11 PM12/29/09
to
NOT very well read are you jas ! ! !

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20OPEN.htm

Hoover/Helms Disagree with you ! ! !


"jas" <lle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f862292-6dbb-48b9...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 10:49:54 PM12/29/09
to
On 12/28/2009 11:52 PM, jas wrote:
> On Dec 24, 9:44 am, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 11:03 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 23, 6:36 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 12/23/2009 2:29 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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 weren't all severely retarded.
>>
>>>> Most cover-ups fall apart eventually, no matter how hard you work to
>>>> continue them.
>>
>>> Damn, Tony, we agree again. So when do you think the JFK cover-up will
>>> fall apart. It's only been 46 years. I guess this one will be falling
>>> apart any day now. Which decade are you betting on?
>>
>>> One other question. Are most of the guys who did the original cover-up now
>>> dead? If so, how is the cover-up continued? Is the responsibility for
>>> maintaining the cover up handed down from father to son? Any daughters
>>> involved? Seems like there should be. Male chauvanism was acceptable in
>>> 1963 but it's politically incorrect now. I certainly hope the cover-uppers
>>> aren't engaged in gender bias as well.
>>
>> It will fall apart when the government finally decides to come clean and
>> release all of the files.
>
> Yeah, and in those files it's going to tell us who/what was behind the
> plot, and what the next week's lottery numbers will be.
>
>

The release of files sometimes ends a controversy by providing the proof
that the CIA covered up for 40-50 years. Just recently they finally
released the document which proves that the DCI authorized the Castro
assassination plots. So Helms felt that he was just following the orders
from his Director.


> >It will fall apart when the body is exhumed and
>> it is finally determined where the damage to the head was and where the
>> entrance wounds in the skull were.
>
> The body won't be exhumed because the Kennedy family won't allow it, and
> there exists no legal reason necessitating its forensic reexamination.
>

An exhumation is not necessary to examine the body. The grave is under the
jurisdiction of the Army.

> Besides, even if by some slim chance it was ever exhumed, it wouldn't
> matter. CTers would still find something to argue, like calling the modern
> forensic pathologists liars and part of the cover-up.
>

Yeah, like the bullet wound being 4 inches higher? But we can count on
certain cover-up artists here to claim that it doesn't make any
difference.

> Meantime, you can keep doing what you do best -- speculate, and ignore the
> evidence.
>

You refuse to look at the evidence.

>
> It will fall apart when WC defenders
>> fade from the scene and there is no one left to prop of this absurd excuse
>> for a record.
>
> Sorry, that won't happen. The WC record will always be there.
>

The HSCA results contradict the WC record.

jas

unread,
Dec 30, 2009, 9:14:08 AM12/30/09
to

Huh? How do you propose the body would be reexamined? Teleportation?

The Army only takes care of the operation and maintenance of
Arlington.

And I have some news for you-- the Kennedy family would have the final
word on anything pertaining to JFK's body, NOT the Army.

>
> > Besides, even if by some slim chance it was ever exhumed, it wouldn't
> > matter. CTers would still find something to argue, like calling the modern
> > forensic pathologists liars and part of the cover-up.
>
> Yeah, like the bullet wound being 4 inches higher? But we can count on
> certain cover-up artists here to claim that it doesn't make any
> difference.
>
> > Meantime, you can keep doing what you do best -- speculate, and ignore the
> > evidence.
>
> You refuse to look at the evidence.

I already said that.


>
>
>
> > It will fall apart when WC defenders
> >> fade from the scene and there is no one left to prop of this absurd excuse
> >> for a record.
>
> > Sorry, that won't happen. The WC record will always be there.
>
> The HSCA results contradict the WC record.

Sure it does, just like your mantra that there is damage to the left
side of Kennedy's brain.

John Blubaugh

unread,
Dec 30, 2009, 11:39:55 AM12/30/09
to
> You can go back to sleep now.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Jas doesn't read anything unless it supports LN theory. He can't see
left (but I'll bet his vision to the right is 20-20). He just yammers
and won't admit any errors by the WC. The rest of the world sees the
truth.

JB

jas

unread,
Dec 30, 2009, 7:34:59 PM12/30/09
to
On Dec 30, 9:39 am, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Jas doesn't read anything unless it supports LN theory. He can't see
> left (but I'll bet his vision to the right is 20-20). He just yammers
> and won't admit any errors by the WC. The rest of the world sees the
> truth.
>

Yes I do, with both eyes I read comic books. They have so much more
insight and intellect than CT books.

markmark

unread,
Dec 30, 2009, 9:07:58 PM12/30/09
to


The WR said LHO, and he alone, shot JFK. So did the HSCA. The WR, and
the HSCA, both said two shots, both from behind, hit JFK. Hardly a
contradiction.

Mark


jas

unread,
Dec 30, 2009, 9:21:13 PM12/30/09
to

That was a Marsh-ism about the WC/HSCA contradiction, not Jas.

tomnln

unread,
Dec 30, 2009, 11:01:44 PM12/30/09
to

"jas" <lle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:77d041ec-d254-48dc...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

Comic books weren't "Thrown Outta" a U S Court Room.

The Warren report "WAS" Thrown Outta a U S Court Room ! ! !


tomnln

unread,
Dec 31, 2009, 12:46:14 AM12/31/09
to

"jas" <lle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:77d041ec-d254-48dc...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

Comic books weren't "Thrown Outta" a U S Court Room.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 31, 2009, 2:38:44 AM12/31/09
to

Exactly the same way that the graves in St. Mary's were examined without
disturbing them. Gamma radiography. Or better yet neutrino radiography.
It take about 3 inches on each side for the equipment.

> The Army only takes care of the operation and maintenance of
> Arlington.
>

Yes, that's what I am talking about. The physical facility.

> And I have some news for you-- the Kennedy family would have the final
> word on anything pertaining to JFK's body, NOT the Army.
>

No need to touch the body.

>
>
>>
>>> Besides, even if by some slim chance it was ever exhumed, it wouldn't
>>> matter. CTers would still find something to argue, like calling the modern
>>> forensic pathologists liars and part of the cover-up.
>>
>> Yeah, like the bullet wound being 4 inches higher? But we can count on
>> certain cover-up artists here to claim that it doesn't make any
>> difference.
>>
>>> Meantime, you can keep doing what you do best -- speculate, and ignore the
>>> evidence.
>>
>> You refuse to look at the evidence.
>
> I already said that.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It will fall apart when WC defenders
>>>> fade from the scene and there is no one left to prop of this absurd excuse
>>>> for a record.
>>
>>> Sorry, that won't happen. The WC record will always be there.
>>
>> The HSCA results contradict the WC record.
>
> Sure it does, just like your mantra that there is damage to the left
> side of Kennedy's brain.
>

Again you think you can win any argument simply by misrepresenting what
your opponent said. I did not say BRAIN. I said SKULL. They are not the
same thing.

yeuhd

unread,
Dec 31, 2009, 10:19:47 AM12/31/09
to
On Dec 26, 12:02 pm, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thankfully the NY Times just published a FRONT page article this
> September 2009 about the CIA cover up with their relationship to
> Oswald.
> Ha ha - that kind of makes your point moot.

moot (adj.): subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty.

yeuhd

unread,
Dec 31, 2009, 10:20:23 AM12/31/09
to
On Dec 29, 9:49 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > The body won't be exhumed because the Kennedy family won't allow it, and
> > there exists no legal reason necessitating its forensic reexamination.
>
> An exhumation is not necessary to examine the body. The grave is under the
> jurisdiction of the Army.

How is the body examined without it being exhumed? That sounds like a
neat trick. Do thy dig a hole, break into the casket, and do the
autopsy underground?

yeuhd

unread,
Dec 31, 2009, 10:21:07 AM12/31/09
to
On Dec 30, 10:01 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> The Warren report "WAS" Thrown Outta a U S Court Room ! ! !

No, it was not. And this has been explained to you many times, but you
apparently never learn. It is standard rule of evidence in ANY court
in the U.S. that testimony given in one forum cannot be entered into
evidence in a second forum if the same witness is available to testify
in the second forum, because to do so would deprive the opposing
counsel of the right to cross examine the witness. During the Clay
Shaw trial, there was an attempt to enter into evidence one person's
WC testimony (NOT "The Warren Report" as you keep claiming). Not at
all unexpectedly, the judge ruled against the motion for the reason
given above. It had nothing to do with the probative nature of the
testimony itself.

But if you claim otherwise, I've asked you many times to quote the
judge's ruling from the "official record", and you keep running away.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 31, 2009, 12:49:34 PM12/31/09
to

This seems somewhat appropriate at this point:

Vince Bugliosi on CE399's admissibility:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/letter-from-vincent-bugliosi.html

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 31, 2009, 4:45:14 PM12/31/09
to


It is a neat trick. They used it to examine the coffin without
disturbing them in place. It's like an X-ray only using different
wavelengths.


jbarge

unread,
Jan 3, 2010, 12:17:59 AM1/3/10
to

Yes - I dispute his point.
?

jbarge

unread,
Jan 3, 2010, 12:19:16 AM1/3/10
to

Isn't Frazier's testimony that LHO said the package was curtain rods
hearsay and thus inadmissable in court?

yeuhd

unread,
Jan 3, 2010, 12:08:39 PM1/3/10
to
On Jan 2, 11:19 pm, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't Frazier's testimony that LHO said the package was curtain rods
> hearsay and thus inadmissable in court?

No, because the prosecution would not be trying to prove the truth of
Oswald's statement, i.e., the prosecution would not be trying to prove
that the package contained curtain rods.

Texas Rule of Evidence 801(d):
"Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the
truth of the matter asserted.

http://www.courts.state.tx.us/rules/tre/tre-all-010107.htm#RULE801

bigdog

unread,
Jan 3, 2010, 2:46:33 PM1/3/10
to
> hearsay and thus inadmissable in court?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No, because Frazier would be testifying under oath to something he heard
directly. Hearsay would be if someone had told Frazier that Oswald had
said that the package contained curtain rods. The person who told Frazier
that was not under oath at the time so that's why the hearsay would be
inadmissable.

jbarge

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 4:02:00 PM1/7/10
to
> inadmissable.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Apparently you are incorrect.


"Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the
truth of the matter asserted.

For example:
Prosecutor: Mr. Frazier, what did the accused tell you was in the
package?
Frazier: He said it was --
Defense Attorney: Objection. Hearsay. A statement made by someone
other than the witness in an attempt to prove "the truth of the matter
asserted", i.e. what was in the package.
Judge: Sustained.

It doesn't appear to matter if the defense or the prosecution is
attempting to paint the contents of the bag good or evil, as soon as
they try to ascertain "the truth of the matter" only witnesses can
speak for themselves.
After all, how can they prove Oswald misled the police about what was
in the bag without attempting to "prove the truth of the matter
asserted", i.e. either what was said or what was in the bag.
It appears a simple matter to me but I'm sure we are going to argue
this one until doomsday.
In pondering it, I suppose if Oswald took the stand that would get it
into the public domain.

jbarge

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 5:52:26 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 3, 12:08 pm, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 11:19 pm, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Isn't Frazier's testimony that LHO said the package was curtain rods
> > hearsay and thus inadmissable in court?
>
> No, because the prosecution would not be trying to prove the truth of
> Oswald's statement, i.e., the prosecution would not be trying to prove
> that the package contained curtain rods.

But what would the defense be trying to prove?

>
> Texas Rule of Evidence 801(d):
> "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while
> testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the
> truth of the matter asserted.

Defense Attorney: So Mr. Frazier what did Oswald tell you was in the
package?
Proscecution: Objectiion. Hearsay. This a statement made by someone
other than the witness to prove the truth of the matter, i.e. what was


in the package.
Judge: Sustained.

Looks water tight to me, but then I'm no lawyer.

>
> http://www.courts.state.tx.us/rules/tre/tre-all-010107.htm#RULE801

John McAdams

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 6:26:50 PM1/7/10
to
On 7 Jan 2010 17:52:26 -0500, jbarge <anjb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 3, 12:08=A0pm, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:


>> On Jan 2, 11:19=A0pm, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Isn't Frazier's testimony that LHO said the package was curtain rods
>> > hearsay and thus inadmissable in court?
>>
>> No, because the prosecution would not be trying to prove the truth of
>> Oswald's statement, i.e., the prosecution would not be trying to prove
>> that the package contained curtain rods.
>
>But what would the defense be trying to prove?
>
>>
>> Texas Rule of Evidence 801(d):
>> "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while
>> testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the
>> truth of the matter asserted.
>
>Defense Attorney: So Mr. Frazier what did Oswald tell you was in the
>package?
>Proscecution: Objectiion. Hearsay. This a statement made by someone
>other than the witness to prove the truth of the matter, i.e. what was
>in the package.
>Judge: Sustained.
>
>Looks water tight to me, but then I'm no lawyer.
>

You are no lawyer.

The prosecution is allowed to prove the defendant lied about some
important matter.

That indicates "guilty knowledge."

The defendent is not required to repeat the lie in court.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

bigdog

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 12:16:06 AM1/8/10
to
> into the public domain.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

First of all neither of us is a lawyer. However, having sat on several
juries, I can tell you that witnesses can testify to what they see and
hear directly if it is deemed relevant. Frazier could testify to what
Oswald told him but could not testify to what someone else told him Oswald
had said. Had Oswald not said that to Frazier but instead told Truly what
was in the bag and Truly later told Frazier what Oswald had said, Frazier
could not relate that in his testimony. Truly would have to be called to
testify as to establish what Oswald had said to him.

yeuhd

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 12:45:15 AM1/8/10
to
On Jan 7, 4:52 pm, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks water tight to me, but then I'm no lawyer.

I noticed.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages