JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1233)


MICHAEL CLARK SAID:

[I'm kind] of surprised that the information and issues haven't changed much.

[Michael then posted the video embedded below.]




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Actually Michael they have. They have changed a lot.

The difference is you will not see anyone on our side the equivalent of Lane today on TV with any kind of reach against a TV star.

What you saw back then, would be today someone like say Gary Aguilar debating say Bill O'Reilly or Chris Mathews [sic].

With what we know today, it would be a massacre. So they won't let it happen.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But, Jim, Michael was talking specifically about how the "information" and the "issues" (i.e., the major talking points pertaining to JFK's death) haven't changed very much since Mark Lane's appearance on William Buckley's "Firing Line" television program in 1966. And Michael is absolutely right too.

Some "new" things have come up since 1966, of course. But not a single one of them has been significant at all*, and not one of them has undermined or undercut the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone killer of both John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.*

The Warren Commission's work and conclusions will stand the test of time and will continue to be the definitive word on the JFK assassination for all people who have the ability to properly and reasonably and dispassionately evaluate and assess the sum total of the evidence associated with the murders of JFK and Officer Tippit.*

* IMO.

For a few illustrative examples which tend to indicate that Michael Clark is 100% correct when he said what he said above ("the information and issues haven't changed much"), go to the webpages below. In those linked discussions, CTers and I argue about some of the very same already-debunked JFK conspiracy theories that were also the subject of debate and argument way back when
Mark Lane was appearing on TV shows and college campuses in the 1960s.
Only the year has changed. Same debates, different millennium:

jfk-archives/2013/06/the-conspiracy-myths-continue

jfk-archives/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle

jfk-archives/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt

jfk-archives/2014/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-804

jfk-archives/2017/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1227


MICHAEL CLARK SAID:

What I am surprised about, but was not very clear about, is that, so soon after the assassination and the release of the WC report, the lies, inconsistencies, deliberate shortcomings and fraud of the official report were so well known and quite thoroughly laid out, by investigators, researchers and scholars.

If Mr. Lane, and others like him, were given hours to go over his findings, on national TV, without being interrupted by the perp-tool-stooge, William Buckley, I think the people of the US would have had much greater ability and courage to set the record and direction of America back on its proper course.

Cheers,

Michael


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh. So THAT'S what you meant. (Figures. You're a CTer.)


MICHAEL CLARK SAID:

David, when you go into a supermarket, do you walk around and, in a bellicose manner, mock, ridicule and taunt people for shopping for groceries?

I have to admit, there is a comedian inside of me that develops caricatures and scenarios like this. I chuckle at my image of you doing this in a grocery store. Lol

To be sure, when I read your posts I come away from them with a sense of a decent person with a good, affable personality and manner. I also respect the lengths you go through to collect and present a great deal of valuable information.

The labeling, mocking and ridicule mentioned above is an unfortunate exception to that and is the source of my Problem Grocery Store Customer sketch.

It can't be easy doing what you do. I hope you can find a little amusement in it.

Cheers,

Michael


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Indeed, Michael, I find a lot of amusement in it.

(Do you need even 2 guesses to figure out the source of the bulk of my amusement?) :)

Here are just a few random samples of some of the things written by conspiracy theorists that I have archived at my websites over the last several years, providing an immense amount of "amusement", to be sure. (Authors' identities withheld. No sense rubbing salt in these wounds.) ....

[Silly Quotes On:]

"The [autopsy] images were altered, fake representations of JFK's wounds. Any examination of them is also fake, as it is based on false information."

~~~~~~~~~~

"Oswald was already in the Texas Theater at the time of Tippet’s [sic] murder."

~~~~~~~~~~

"Baker never saw Oswald. .... I believe the [Oswald/Baker/Truly] incident was created after the fact."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I will not respond to any thread that David von Pein [sic] or any of his numerous sock puppets start. He (and his multiple fake profiles) are not looking for truth. .... It is just not productive to engage a disinformation artist."

~~~~~~~~~~

"David Von Pain [sic] is a known disinformation agent working for John McAdams on the newsgroup alts. He's been thrown off most of the assassination sites for being an abusive flame thrower and a miserable troll."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit."

~~~~~~~~~~

"DVP doesn't post evidence but only his opinion of what it says and means."

~~~~~~~~~~

"Do not be fooled by this guy [DVP]. His education is what he has always kept covered up. Hiding his real identity has thrown everyone for a loop, his plan exactly. .... Remember he was from the town that Ruth Paine visited on her trip to pick up Marina -- Richmond, Indiana, a strong Quaker town. Von Pein would only have been a couple years old in '63, but he had family. Although I can't prove it, I think his family knew Ruth Paine. He may have set [sic] on her lap? .... I suspect he is a disinfo agent."

[Oh, man! If only my bladder wasn't so damn weak!]

~~~~~~~~~~

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. .... I think Brennan is a completely created witness."

~~~~~~~~~~

"Couldn't find anything good in it [the book "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"] and didn't see anything you got right."

~~~~~~~~~~

"You cannot even prove he [LHO] ever had possession of the handgun."

~~~~~~~~~~

"What's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other end."

~~~~~~~~~~

"And despite all your years writing about the case, you haven't a single piece of solid definitive evidence against Oswald."

[Time for another one of these ----> ]

~~~~~~~~~~

"DVP, Either you are a surrogate for the U.S. Government. Or you speak the same as the government."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I do not think you (or your pal Vince Bugliosi) have ever understood what the Kennedy murder was all about. You both seem to view it as a simple homicide. But it was not. It was not simply about "killing the President"; It was about murdering the President and getting away with it. .... In this case, the evidence had to be altered, messed with, replaced, substituted, planted, choose your own terms. .... Critical evidence has been changed, and replaced with a false overlay, if you will."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald."

~~~~~~~~~~

"They messed with the Hughes film. They messed with every film and photo that they could get their hands on. The JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event in the history of the world."

~~~~~~~~~~

"Having studied these [Zapruder Film] frames - Z 222 to Z 230 - it is clear that what is happening is that John Connally is turning his body to the left so that by Z 230 he is actually facing forward. These frames in a gif would demonstrate that - were Z 226 and Z 227 and Z 228 not partially or wholly blurred. Unfortunately they are blurred and when incorporated into a gif these same frames throw up extraordinary results. It is these same extraordinary results that allow members like you [David Von Pein] to suggest that these very frames actually suggest that John Connally is reacting to being struck by a bullet when - in fact - he has not been struck."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction."

~~~~~~~~~~

"JEH [J. Edgar Hoover] alone controlled all the evidence."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I think that that whole thing about burning the [autopsy] notes...was just a cover story."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no evidence. There is no evidence. There is no evidence. Other than the fact that Oswald could NOT have killed the president."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I am 99.9999999% convinced now that Oswald did not room at the Bledsoe residence. He did not know this woman."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people. I think we also need to figure out a way to move towards prosecuting them. These persons are just in flagrant denial of the obvious evidence of Oswald's CIA relationship."



~~~~~~~~~~

"Now can we work on getting Von Pein legally prohibited from use of the internet?"

~~~~~~~~~~

"The biggest development in the history of JFK assassination research has just happened. We have irrefutable proof now that the garage shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald was FBI Agent James Bookhout. .... There is no longer a speck of doubt that an agent of the US government, James Bookhout, shot Lee Harvey Oswald--not Jack Ruby."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I believe that Lee Oswald shot neither JFK or Tippit."

[End Silly Quotes.]

Whew! That's enough amusement to last until next Christmas!


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Typical non sequitur by DVP.

The idea that the database of info has not changed significantly since the ARRB is preposterous, but alas so is DVP.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The only thing that is "preposterous" is the notion that the release of the ARRB files has totally discredited every last thing the Warren Commission ever said or did. THAT'S really preposterous. The ARRB files do no such thing and never did.

Jimmy D., as usual, is dreaming his wistful conspiracy dreams in his world filled with more alleged liars than you can shake a stick at.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

And Gary Aguilar is one of the people who has changed that calculus first hand.

To name 3 examples:

1. He is the one who fished out the fact that there was no difference between the Parkland and Bethesda witness about the hole in the rear of the skull.

Either Blakey or Baden lied.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The autopsy photos trump the witnesses. And not a single autopsy photo shows a big hole in the back of JFK's head. Nor does the Zapruder Film. Simple as that.

Mark VII.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

2. He is the one, with Tink Thompson, who found that Bardwell Odum never showed CE 399 to O. P. Wright.

Hoover, or a subordinate with his permission, lied.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, good! More liars! (Jimmy never runs out of those, as we can see.)

Jim thinks the 37-year-old memory of Bardwell Odum trumps the 1964 FBI report which verifies and documents all the details of Odum's 6/12/64 visit to Parkland Hospital to show CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright.

Odum's memory of the event was obviously pretty bad in 2001 or 2002.

I wonder if Bardwell Odum actually said something like this to Aguilar and Thompson:

That FBI report with my name in it in many places is a complete fraud and a forgery.

Think Odum ever said that?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

3. Gary got Rick Randich and Pat Grant to do a seminar in SF to demonstrate over a period of 90 minutes how and why the NAA for Bullet Lead Analysis is pure bunk, and how [Dr. Vincent] Guinn made a series of incredible errors in his entering assumptions to make a mockery of this so called "proof". And then Gary blasted Bugliosi in the Federal Lawyer for bringing it up again in his turgid door stop, RH ["Reclaiming History"]. Bugliosi was so embarrassed at being shown up as con artist in front of his peers that he threatened to sue Gary. But he did not.

I am not sure if Guinn lied in this one. IMO, he was simply out of his element since he was not a metallurgist.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This item isn't even all that important for Lone Assassin believers. As has been mentioned many times over the years, the NAA analysis was simply a corroborative type thing in the first place. It is completely unnecessary in any effort to support the Single-Bullet Theory.

Yes, it would be nice if Dr. Guinn's NAA tests turned out to be more definitive. But even without any NAA analysis on the bullet fragments, the SBT is still alive and well for so many OTHER obvious reasons. Given ALL the evidence surrounding the wounding of Connally and Kennedy on Elm Street, it would almost be impossible for the SBT NOT to be true.

[Let the ridicule of DVP begin in earnest.]


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Those three points are all since the ARRB and Lane could not have known about them. And they were all fundamental defenses used by WC defenders. They have all been completely vitiated, yet they had all been used to support the official story. And notice none of this concerns what DVP always likes to say about the new evidence, oh it's x-ray fakery, etc. This is all just new evidence, and I could go on and on.

DVP never went through the new files and he never will. He just surfs the web and when someone on his side comes up with something, like the discredited Jean Davison, he prints it, with no prior knowledge of the primary source.

But believe me, if Gary got on TV with Mathews [sic] and presented this stuff, it would have an impact. Which is why it will not happen. Which is why our country is so schizoid on the JFK case. As the case discrediting the WC gets stronger and stronger, the ban from mass media gets more and more stringent. I think for obvious reasons.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Did you ever consider the possibility that the Mainstream Media just simply figured out that all the conspiracy theories about JFK's death are worthless and void of any FACTUAL basis for consideration?

You've got to admit, Jim, that it would sure be nice (for your side) if you had something besides speculation, liars, and disappearing bullets to rest your case on. Unfortunately for the conspiracists, they don't possess anything else.

David Von Pein
February 26, 2017




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1232)


BUD SAID:

Hey David! I was looking at BWF [Buell Wesley Frazier] and LMR's [Linnie Mae Randle's] testimony and found an anomaly maybe you can shed some light on (as we know, any anomaly is seen by the conspiracy hobbyists as malevolent).

First, what I was looking for was the probable route Oswald took from the Paine's to the Randle residence, to see what opportunity Oswald would have had to ditch any incriminating material he might have had, mainly the box the bullets came from. He might have had them stored in the clip, or he might have had the box with the 4 bullets in the bag, which would lead me to think it ended up in the TSBD somewhere.

It doesn`t seem like they really checked trash cans and things the way they might today, especially a case like this. In any case, I was looking at the area using Google Earth and it seems there was a drainage ditch running down the side of the Paine's place. It was a short walk to the corner (one house) and then catty corner over to the Randle carport where LMR saw Oswald cross with the bag.

Seems all these areas, including around the carport, would be scoured today, but I don't see evidence that any of this was done at the time.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You can find pictures of 5th Street and the Paine and Randle homes in Commission Document No. 497.

Interestingly, in that picture I linked to above, several trash cans can be seen out near the curb on 5th Street. (The photos must have been taken on trash day.)

I wonder if Friday was "Trash Day" on Fifth Street in Irving? ~shrug~

Anyway, when the topic has been brought up in the past as to what Lee Oswald did with the leftover paper that he swiped from Troy West's mail-wrapping station at the TSBD, I have speculated that he likely just tossed the unused paper (assuming there was anything leftover after he constructed his homemade bag) in one of Ruth Paine's trash cans in her house or in the garage.

I don't recall reading any testimony by anyone saying that Ruth Paine's trash cans were thoroughly searched for bits of leftover brown paper (or for empty bullet boxes). So it's quite possible (even likely, IMO) that Oswald merely threw away any such trash into a trash can right there in Ruth's house or garage.


BUD SAID:

Yes, I was looking at that [photo in CD497] and then I went to Google Earth and looked around. That photo shows the rain runoff to the left of the driveway I was talking about, in recent times it has a cover across the pavement.

If he [LHO] picked up a gun-cleaning kit, that might also need to be gotten rid of.

You gotta wonder what purpose there was for covering his tracks, though. He had to figure going out that he was going to be caught red-handed if he took shots or caught beforehand with the rifle.

In any case, this is the anomaly I found....

When asked where he lived, BWF said...

"2439 West Fifth Street."

Which is the correct address. When LMR was asked where she lived, she said...

"2438 Westfield, Irving, Tex."

Any thoughts?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The correct address, as you mentioned, is definitely 2439 West Fifth Street. And the correct address appears on Linnie Mae Randle's 11/22/63 affidavit.

As well as Buell Wesley Frazier's affidavit.

As for why that "Westfield" error appears in Linnie Mae Randle's Warren Commission testimony....

I'm wondering if the stenographer wrote it down wrong? Maybe Linnie Mae really said the street name correctly -- West FIFTH -- but the stenographer (for some reason) thought she said WestFIELD. ~shrug~

As for why Linnie Mae would have gotten her house number wrong (2438 instead of the correct number, 2439), I haven't the foggiest idea. It's kind of strange, isn't it? Everybody knows their own street address by heart. And to have two address errors made by the person who actually lives at that residence is odd indeed.

Also, my above "stenographer's error" explanation doesn't explain a further anomaly in Mrs. Randle's Warren Commission session (at 2 H 245), when the WC's Joe Ball repeated the "Westfield" error when he asked:

"That was before you moved down the street to the corner of Westfield and Fifth Street?"

In answering Ball's question, Randle made no attempt to correct Ball's reference to "Westfield" at all. So she either thought the error wasn't important enough to correct or she was mighty confused about the names of the streets that she lived on.

For the record --- The correct name of the cross street where Randle lived was "Westbrook", not "Westfield". And Mrs. Randle even mentions "Westbrook" one time in her WC testimony, when she said (speaking of seeing Lee Oswald on the morning of 11/22/63) -- "He crossed Westbrook." [2 H 248]

David Von Pein
February 25, 2017






JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1231)


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

All in all, I am even more convinced that Lovelady was NOT Doorman [the man seen in the TSBD doorway in James Altgens' photo] and Oswald was.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ralph,

Doesn't it matter at all to you that Billy Lovelady HIMSELF said that he was the man in the doorway? Lovelady even drew an arrow to himself on Warren Commission Exhibit No. 369, with that arrow pointing to the man you say is Lee Oswald.

Is Lovelady himself a liar?

And is Wesley Frazier a liar too when he said that Doorway Man was Lovelady and not Oswald? (See the video below to hear Frazier say it himself [at 9:05].)




RALPH CINQUE SAID:

No, it doesn't matter to me at all what Lovelady said. We know for certain that Lovelady either replaced his shirt OR he altered it, so that makes him a conspirator.

And regarding Frazier, you notice in that video that when asked if Lovelady and Oswald looked alike, he [Buell Wesley Frazier] indicated no, that Lovelady was a much more stocky fellow, and of course he was at the time.

But as for his mistaking Lovelady for Doorman, I attribute it to their having moved Lovelady's face over. Frazier was looking at the face and not at the body and the clothes. And when he saw Lovelady's facial features, it never occurred to him that anyone could be so evil as to move the face over in order to cover up the conspiracy and deceive the entire world.

The bottom line is that Doorman has Oswald's build, and he is wearing Oswald's clothes. And THAT MAKES HIM OSWALD REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANYBODY SAID.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, brother.


ROBERT MORROW SAID:

Ralph, I am going to give you a tip. You are conversing with multiple personalties [sic] of David von Pein [sic] -- S.V. Anderson being the primary one. Shaboo is another. Dale Hayes is definitely another.

I will not respond to any thread that David von Pein [sic] or any of his numerous sock puppets start. He (and his multiple fake profiles) are not looking for truth.

Occassionally [sic], I do make exceptions to my rule, but it is just not productive to engage a disinformation artist. I personally don't agree with your "Owald [sic] in the TSBD door theory", but at least you believe what you say.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh goodie! I've now got at least three other "personalities" on the Internet (per an insane person named Morrow).

Lovely. I wish my Langley bosses would pay me four times the Disinfo salary then. Looks like I've earned it.

BTW, care to lose another $100, Morrow? I guess losing that first hundred didn't faze the kook in the least. Even after I proved that I'm not S.V. Anderson (to the point where Morrow actually had to cough up a hundred bucks, which he did), Morrow is still sticking to his lie about me having "multiple personalities" online.

But that's typical CT-Kook behavior, of course -- i.e., they'll stick to the worn-out and proven-false theories until the day they join their hero Oswald in the world beyond.

A great example of that strange mindset is being exhibited by Ralph Cinque right now (regarding the Doorway Man issue). Regardless of how many different ways he is shown to be 100% wrong--he'll still insist on dragging out the old "Oswald Was In The Doorway" myth. And that's a myth that essentially died in the 1960s even. But it's still not a dead enough equine for Mr. Cinque. Go figure.


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

Robert, an honest researcher wouldn't need all those aliases. I know he's all over the place. I just heard from an Australian researcher who told me the same thing: that SV Anderson is David von Pein [sic]. Personally, I like to go with the pet name Pein-head, but that's just me.


S.V. ANDERSON SAID:

Hey Cinque, you big dummy, I thought you were 100% convinced I was John McAdams?

You can't seem to keep straight which conspiracy you believe from day to day. Which is it? Am I John McAdams or am I David Von Pein? This fact alone reveals volumes about the inability of the conspiracy cultists to resolve a relatively easy issue.


S.V. ANDERSON ALSO SAID:

David,

Does it get any better than this? I'm you and you're Shaboo2 and you are also Dale Hayes and I am Vincent Bugliosi and I am John McAdams and you are me.

Maybe Jim Garrison was right when he said getting involved in this world means black is white and up is down. Maybe we really are through the looking glass. Between Robert Morrow and Ralph Cinque, I have been accused of being five different personalities. See what you [are] missing [by] not hanging around this [Amazon.com] nut house?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Indeed, Steve. It looks like the acj nuthouse isn't the only place to go to find the outer-fringe conspiracy crazies, huh?

According to Dave Healy (another CT loon of the first order), I am also supposed to be Dave Reitzes, Vince Bugliosi, and someone named Steve Keating (plus many other people who serve as my "aliases").

Truth is, I've never used an alias at all on the Internet....except for the username "LAX" at an aviation forum that I used to post at several years ago. And even on that forum, my full name is visible in my profile for all to see:

http://www.airliners.net/user/LAX/profile

I have always used my real name on Internet forums, or in the case of IMDB, my initials ("DVP-1"). I have no reason to hide behind any aliases or "multiple personalities" (to use Morrow's description).

That's silly, IMO, mainly because I want my own credit for my own common-sense posts on the subjects I write about. Why should I want my remarks attributed to some "alias" who doesn't even exist? And I truly think that "common sense" resides in my posts, and on the "lone assassin" side of the JFK debate. I've always felt that way.

But if Mr. Morrow wants to get rid of another hundred bucks or so, I'll gladly give him the chance. Because that's a bet I can't possibly lose.

Addendum:

BTW, Steve (S.V.) -- I was re-introduced to this Amazon JFK forum by way of a post you made recently that was attached to your review of John McAdams' book.


S.V. ANDERSON SAID:

David,

Robert Morrow and Ralph Cinque are hilarious to deal with, but they are like talking to a photograph of a horse.

Even over at the MisEducation forum, Morrow's claims draw criticism and rolled eyes. He doesn't come around here much anymore, but when he does he continues to play the same tune: someone said that someone said that someone said that they heard Johnson tell someone else that he was going to have Kennedy assassinated--therefore based on this information, Johnson was behind it.

I don't know if you've had to deal with Ralph Cinque much. He is even more impossible to deal with than Morrow. Cinque is a chiropracter, turned health-fasting counselor, turned health food guru, turned photographic expert (ala Jack White's school of self-credentialing.) He and Jimmy Fetzer are trying without much success to sell the conspiracy cultists on the long-disproven claim that Oswald was in the doorway and that Billy Lovelady was in on the assassination plot and he was "heart-attacked" (Cinque's term) in 1977 to prevent him from revealing the truth to the HSCA.

Cinque and Fetzer are claiming that the Altgens photograph was stolen from the AP offices, altered by placing Lovelady's face on Oswald's body and then returned to the AP offices prior to the photograph's release to the public at 1:03 [PM on 11/22/63]. All of their imagined conspiratorial shenanigans took place in about fifteen minutes time.

I seriously don't have the time or energy to respond to Cinque and Fetzer's claims because they are simply too dumb to warrant serious rebuttal. But it goes to show that there is NO THEORY too nutty for the conspiracy cultists to embrace, believe, and then defend.

There is nothing that could surprise me anymore.

By the way...is Morrow still claiming that you are sending him mysterious letters from around the country? Remember last year when he was trying to convince people that you worked for the CIA and you were traveling the country sending him mysterious letters of an undisclosed content? I swear, he is a laugh a minute. I would love to have another voice of sanity to contribute here once in a while. Don't be a stranger.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Steve [S.V.],

I haven't conversed with Morrow very much. I don't feel the need to engage his weirdness in a debate. (But I'm more than willing to take some more of his money off his hands--if he wants me to.)

And I haven't heard him making the "mysterious CIA letters" claim anywhere other than here [at Amazon.com] last year.

That was, though, one of the top highlights from the 2011 CT Kook Season, I must say.

[To see more of Robert Morrow's lies and hilariously insane rantings, click here and here and here.]

Hey, speaking of crazy theories -- have you seen the one from Gil Jesus about Governor Connally possibly whipping out a pistol and killing JFK? (More below.)

"Let's not forget that all of the previous three successful Presidential assassinations were made from a distance of three feet or less. In addition, the position of Kennedy's head at Z312, together with the description by the witnesses of an entry wound in the right front of the head and an exit wound in the right rear, would indicate a trajectory of a shot coming out of the floorboard of the car. Let's also not forget that Johnson's man Connally was less than 3 feet from the President when he was murdered and was reportedly known to have carried a gun strapped to his ankle. Think about it." -- Gil Jesus; July 15, 2007


S.V. ANDERSON SAID:

I will have to read Gil's latest. I don't see him on this site, but I used to get my fill of him over at the Alt.com website. He divided his time between proposing nutty theories and trying to find out the personal details of the private lives of all the posters. I remember him trying to expose the whereabouts of all of the various posters that didn't buy his theories. That HAS to be the lowest point a researcher can stoop to. But what are we to expect.

Hey, I was going to ask you about something someone brought up about the Zapruder film on the night of the assassination. I assumed that if ANYONE would know about this, you would. Someone wrote a post about a copy of the Zapruder film being sent to a CIA photography lab on the night of 11/22/63. I have Richard Trask's great book on the Z-film, "National Nightmare", but I don't recall him addressing this claim (or maybe I read it and forgot it). I believe the reference was volume IV of Doug Horne's ARRB book. I only have volume I, so I couldn't check the reference myself. Anything to this claim and what (if anything) is the significance?

Thanks.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Steve,

I've heard the claim that the Z-Film was supposedly altered at Hawkeyeworks in Rochester, New York. Is that the "CIA" place you meant? Or was it just a "copy" of the film that the CIA supposedly tampered with?

But if it's only a COPY of the original film, then how would the film-fakers deal with the fact that Zapruder's camera-original and two other copies were left unaltered?

I do know that the Z-Film could not possibly have undergone the kind of alterations and crazy manipulation that kooks like Fetzer, et al, believe was done, for the simple fact that Abe Zapruder HIMSELF was present during the processing of the film AND during the making of the three copies of the film.

So, unless Zapruder himself was a conspirator, the film could not have been altered.

Zapruder also testified at the 1969 Clay Shaw trial, and said that the film that was shown at the trial was the same film he shot in Dallas.

Also see:




RALPH CINQUE SAID:

So, your name is Steve? The S in SV Anderson is Steve? But wait, it's an alias, remember? Why would you use your real first name in your alias? There are 25 other letters, so why not use a different one? You're a history professor, and your first name is Steve? Isn't that an awfully big clue to give away for a guy who is trying to remain completely anonymous? And why would your friend, David Von Pein, who surely must know that you use an alias, give away your first name?

Well, guess what, Steve? I don't believe you are Steve. Everyone knows that SV Anderson makes up identities and has conversations with himself on this forum. You also make up identities to double-team your targets.

So, I think you are either David Von Pein having a conversation with yourself OR you are John McAdams. One or the other. That's what I think. Nice try, Steve.


S.V. ANDERSON SAID:

Wait a minute Cinque, you forgot one other option, perhaps I'm David Von Pein having a conversation with John McAdams. I think your deductive skills have almost broken this heart-stopping mystery.


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

No, I don't think David Von Pein IS John McAdams. How many aliases does one guy need, even you?

But honestly, I am going to stick with my first guess that you are John McAdams. That is my strong hunch.


RALPH CINQUE LATER SAID:

There aren't any claims of any witnesses that can possibly remove Lee Harvey Oswald from his perch in the Altgens photo. .... When I see things, I see them. And I see Lee Oswald standing right there on the doorstep. It is definitely him. So, he could not possibly have been up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But you think it's only Oswald's BODY that we see, right? And Lovelady's face has been pasted over Oswald's face in the Altgens picture, right?

Please inform the world WHO pasted Lovelady's face over Lee Oswald's body? And please tell us how that person accomplished that feat within just a very short time of the assassination? (Seeing as how Altgens' picture ran on at least one of the wire services very shortly after the shooting. Did some plotter steal the photo from Altgens before it was developed?)


JOHN I. BOSSY SAID:

He doesn't know the answers to these questions, David. He only sees what he sees and that's all the proof he needs. It's like these people who see images of Jesus Christ in their coffee grounds or Satan in their soiled baby's diaper, they see what they see.

What beguiles me is something you have probably dealt with for years: Why this zeal to exonerate a cold blooded murderer?


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

It's perfectly logical. The presence of alterations in the photo prove that there was time to make them--and they were made.

Look: OSWALD IS IN THE PHOTO! It's his outer shirt! It's his t-shirt! It's his manner of wear! It's his build! All of that is primary. Stop acting stupid. It's him!

You can't close your eyes to all that just because of speculations about the timeline.

Hey, they altered the Backyard photo, so why couldn't they alter the Altgens? They altered the Zapruder film (removing frames to hide the slowing and stopping of the vehicle), so why couldn't they alter the Altgens photo?

Oswald is there! He is as present in the Altgens photo as Jesus Christ is in DaVinci's Last Supper. So stop fighting it.


D. AXELSON SAID:

Mr. Cinque -

Your whole argument comes down to this: you THINK you see Oswald's shirt in the picture, and therefore everything that would go into that ACTUALLY being Oswald's shirt must be true. You have absolutely no supporting evidence for your conclusion that Doorman is Oswald, other than that you think Doorman is wearing Oswald's clothing. And since that requires that "forgers" altered the picture (and succeeded in doing so despite some rather tight time frames, in an undetectable manner, under extremely unlikely circumstances), you simply say, "Well, it must have been possible, since they did it."

The rest of us look at the same evidence, and say, "Well, they couldn't have done it in an undetectable manner, or under the time constraints they would have been working under, so therefore, even if I THINK it looks like Oswald's shirt, I must be mistaken."

Now, without simply repeating what you have already said, can you tell me why I should accept YOUR analysis as correct (since it relies solely on your interpretation of what you THINK you see), and reject the analyses of Mr. Anderson, Mr. Von Pein, Mr. Bossy, and Mr. Shaboo, which rely on multiple OTHER pieces of evidence?

Regards,
D. Axelson


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

No, I don't THINK I see Oswald's shirt in the picture. I see it. I am not "interpreting." I am simply looking and seeing. And when I see things, I see them. This is beyond doubt. We're talking about multiple likenesses--and I mean perfect, identical likenesses--to Oswald's outfit, and utter dislikenesses to Lovelady's outfit. And that takes precedence over anybody's claims about the timeline.

You, obviously, don't know how to think. You don't understand that there is a hierarchy involved here. And clearly recognizing unmistakable signs of Oswald in the picture takes precedence over everything else, including your claims about the timeline. Maybe they anticipated the possibility of errant photos appearing and had a photo alteration lab all set up and raring to go. That's worth investigating. But, the fact is, it doesn't matter. We don't need it. The photo stands by itself; it does not require the support of an explanation about the timeline. Oswald is in the Altgens photo. That means he was there and could not have been on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. It also means that the likenesses to Lovelady were faked.

And by the way, our next article is going to deal with the chicanery on the part of Lovelady as he masqueraded as Doorman over the remainder of his short life until he died unexpectedly of a heart attack at age 41. .... Stay tuned for that, you Boys of Langley.


DALE H. HAYES JR. SAID:

Ralph is not a rational person - you are all wasting your time with him.


S.V. ANDERSON SAID:

I second Dale's sentiments. Ralph should be catching on that no one buys his child-like claims and evidence-less assertions. There is no point responding to his posts:

1. He doesn't know much of the evidence in this case.
2. What minimal evidence he DOES know...he ignores.

He just keeps repeating the same lies over and over and over hoping that repetition can take the place of evidence and logic.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Amen, Dale and S.V.




David Von Pein
February 15—March 8, 2012
February 21, 2017






MISC. JFK POSTS OF INTEREST
(PART 127)


OSWALD'S CHEEK:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/Rh-TswULi8g/dsD8sLwEDgAJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/4OhtDsPdZVs/2D0TEWiGAAAJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/XxB989n9dGg/smIVQAvVAAAJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/XxB989n9dGg/tC6LmsbiAAAJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/6VOPC7OTKOY/-CSl9su-AQAJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/1hBGnMAoAVE/r1wCCbEXAgAJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/3ECNPrDBYow/xJdCIOIYAgAJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/3ECNPrDBYow/4GHxtO8bAgAJ


MEANS, MOTIVE, AND OPPORTUNITY:
http://educationforum.com/topic=17614/comment=228837


SAME DEBATES, DIFFERENT MILLENNIUM:
http://jfk-archives/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1233


BILLY LOVELADY:
https://alt.assassination.jfk/IeCL-aMqAjM/yG2td4GyBwAJ


WHAT DID OSWALD DO WITH HIS TRASH?:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/tH3KXx9eDYA/IidAaM0nAQAJ


LEE "BAD LUCK" OSWALD:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/ww-A5AsEi4g/aXT4Te1vAQAJ


J.D. TIPPIT'S MURDER:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/d5Vog9qg7MU/K6b7mzAZAgAJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/d5Vog9qg7MU/tzgxoG8aAgAJ


BASEBALL FUN:
http://educationforum.com/topic=23250/comment=344219
http://educationforum.com/topic=23250/comment=344339
http://drive.google.com/JFK Video/Opening Day 1961
http://drive.google.com/JFK Video/All-Star Game 1962
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/JFK Video/Opening Day 1963



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










DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
(PART 120)


[NOTE -- IN ADDITION TO JIM DiEUGENIO,
A FEW OTHER CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ARE
QUOTED BELOW AS WELL.]



DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

The impossible large black "sharpie" patch over JFK's head can be seen on the Nth generation [Zapruder Film] frames.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

David J.,

Try doing the same zooming-in on Clint Hill's head at approx. frame 340 of the Z-Film and see if you think Hill's pitch-black head also resembles a "black sharpie patch".

From this 2015 discussion....

RON ECKER SAID:

What is casting the black shadow on the back of JFK's head here, when he is virtually face down? ....



DVP SAID:

What's causing the same kind of "blackness" to appear on the back of Clint Hill's head in the very same Z-Film frame? Was Hill's head "blacked out" by the conspirators too?....



BOB PRUDHOMME SAID:

Hill's head is turned far more to the north, and is in shadow. Look at Altgens' shadow.

DVP SAID:

In this comparison I made below of the head positions of Secret Service agent Clint Hill and JFK, it doesn't look to me as if Hill's head is in a position (relative to the sun) that is all that much different than JFK's head position. Does it? And yet I see the same blackness appearing at the back of both of their heads. And with respect to the Z317 frame shown here of President Kennedy's head, I've heard many conspiracy theorists say that they think JFK's head has most certainly been artificially "blacked out" here (click to enlarge the image)....



Looks like one more conspiracy myth debunked by merely examining other parts of the same allegedly "altered" Zapruder home movie.

[...]

And...since no plotter or conspirator bent on altering or faking the Zapruder Film would possibly have had any need or desire to alter any part of Clint Hill's image in the film, then I think even most conspiracy believers would agree with me that the "blackness" that we see at the back of Clint Hill's head in frame 340 is legitimate, unaltered blackness being seen on his head.

Therefore, since Hill's "blackness" is real and legit in Z340, then why would anybody think that the similar "blackness" at the back of President Kennedy's head in Z317 (which is just 1.25 seconds earlier than Z340 in the very same home movie) is blackness that must have been added to the film by some unknown film-fakers?

It's time to stamp the "blacked out head" theory with this label --- DEBUNKED!

ROBIN UNGER SAID:

Taking into account that the head is deformed in frame Z317, to my eyes the dark "Shadow area" in Z317 / Z312 [seen in the GIF below] appear very similar....



DVP SAID:

Fabulous. It's now getting harder to keep up with the revised "new" theory that conspiracy theorists will now have to embrace in order to keep their "Blacked Out Head" theory alive and well. Here's the latest revision....

"JFK's and Clint Hill's and Nellie Connally's heads (and maybe a lot more heads too that nobody has even noticed yet) have been artificially blacked out in all post-Z313 frames of the Zapruder Film. Plus, JFK's head has also been artificially blacked out in frame 312, which is one-eighteenth of a second BEFORE he was even hit in the head by any bullet."

And, of course, we can also go back earlier in the Z-Film and find many more frames which show the "blackness" on the back of JFK's head BEFORE he was even shot in the head. Here's just one example--frame 275. And what about Roy Kellerman too? His head looks pretty black here as well. Does that mean Kellerman's head has been "blacked out" by film-fakers in Z275?


BRAD MILCH SAID:

Giving credit where it is obviously due, David, that was one hell of a smack you gave that grand slam. I could hear it way over where I was running my crab traps (and I wasn't even on the Internet!). They tell me the ball left the stadium so fast that it began to unravel & resembled a small meteor entering the atmosphere as gravity pulled it down. I wonder if it landed on the head of the 1st Z-film 'black patch' proponent.

It's always great to see a dedicated researcher step up to the plate & do his/her own visual analysis & not lean on self-proclaimed 'experts'. This isn't the first time you've caught things that have been overlooked by many others over the years, David. I don't expect it to be the last either.

I hear lots of crickets in the distance. You just may have astounded with such efficiency & effectiveness that all the air of your detractors has left their bodies, rendering them completely unable to respond?

Stranger things have happened.

Keep on keeping on, Mr. Von Pein!


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Brad:

Are you serious? I feel like Oskar Werner at the end of the courtroom scene in the film of The Spy Who Came in from the Cold.

You are going to compare an internet reproduced series of frames from god knows what a generation of Z film to what the Wilkinsons have done with a 6 K scan of a third generation copy projected on a wide screen auditorium?

You have to be joking. They are not remotely similar to each other. I have seen the Wilkinson scan. In their high-resolution scan I can assure you that the black patch does not appear anywhere else. And it is as David Josephs describes it. And DVP should have asked to have seen it before he shot off his mouth and his typing fingers. But, IMO, he probably did not originate this either. He probably got it from Duncan [MacRae] or one of the ersatz named trolls on another forum.

I learned many eons ago that DVP does very little, if any, original work. He just roams around like McAdams and scoops up stuff without ever analyzing it before he dumps it here. All in order to create new installments on his site. (BTW, he did a similar scam when [Pat] Speer found a very likely area where the bullet hit JFK at the base of the head. He pointed somewhere else and said, "What about there?" It was not even close to what Pat had done. But that is what he is here for, to confuse.)

I myself am an agnostic on the issue. But the Wilkinson work is very interesting. I talked about the final obstacles they face on BOR [Black Op Radio]. You should listen to it. Then you would not be misled by Davey's fiasco, which recalls the B&W Z film where you can see the SS agent shooting Kennedy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, let's see if the "Black Patch" conspiracy clowns can somehow get around Robin Unger's interesting GIF clip (below) which toggles back and forth between Zapruder frames 312 and 317 --- which, of course, is a comparison between a frame that was exposed in Zapruder's camera BEFORE President Kennedy was struck in the head (Z312) and another frame exposed in Mr. Z's camera AFTER the President was hit in the head with a bullet (Z317). Did the film-fakers decide to paste in a "black patch" over JFK's head at a point in time on the film which was before he was even struck by the fatal bullet? ....

IN THIS 2015 DISCUSSION, ROBIN UNGER SAID:

Taking into account that the head is deformed in frame Z317, to my eyes the dark "Shadow area" in Z317 / Z312 [seen in the GIF below] appear very similar....



DVP SAID (IN 2015):

Fabulous. It's now getting harder to keep up with the revised "new" theory that conspiracy theorists will now have to embrace in order to keep their "Blacked Out Head" theory alive and well. Here's the latest revision....

"JFK's and Clint Hill's and Nellie Connally's heads (and maybe a lot more heads too that nobody has even noticed yet) have been artificially blacked out in all post-Z313 frames of the Zapruder Film. Plus, JFK's head has also been artificially blacked out in frame 312, which is one-eighteenth of a second BEFORE he was even hit in the head by any bullet."

And, of course, we can also go back earlier in the Z-Film and find many more frames which show the "blackness" on the back of JFK's head BEFORE he was even shot in the head. ... One example [being] frame 275. And what about Roy Kellerman too? His head looks pretty black [in Z275] as well. Does that mean Kellerman's head has been "blacked out" by film-fakers in Z275?


SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What about that Z312/317 comparison, Sandy? Do you really think somebody put a black patch over the back of JFK's head in Z312---before the time of the fatal head shot? (Those film-fakers were thorough, weren't they?)

And they must have also painted in the black blob in Z311 too....

http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z311.jpg

And in Z310....

http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z310.jpg

And 309....

http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z309.jpg

(Should I keep going back to the beginning of the film?)


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

I think they would color the preceding frames as necessary, so that there isn't a sudden change in shade.

However, I don't think they intended on using quite that dark of color. Mixing paint can get... um... hairy. :)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID THIS.


BRAD MILCH SAID:

@Jim DiEugenio....

Quote: "Brad, are you serious?" -- Jim DiEugenio

Very much so, Jim. I look at everything written & posted here at EF [Education Forum] as a college student deciding on what to offer his/her professor on any given paper/topic on the JFK subject. Just like the adversarial processes are a necessary element of a 'fair trial' (both Prosecutor & Defense are required to present a case as 'fair' to a jury), David Von Pein's observations & comments are a necessary element of a 'fair' debate. A student turning in a lop-sided paper is likely to have it rejected & handed back by a professor (that professor possibly being you, Jim!).

Is the judicial adversarial process perfect? Nope. I'm still waiting for OJ's prosecutors to present the 'low speed chase' into his murder trial. A televised event I wasted a couple of hours watching on my TV that I'll never get back that somehow was left out of the trial. How did that happen?

David could have just as easily written off the images seen in the Z-film as products of bad photography. Or a faulty camera lens. Or cheap film. Or gremlins that monkey around with stuff in laboratories late in the night. I gave him credit where it looked to me it was due.

As for you, I haven't missed a Len Osanic Black Op radio show featuring you as a guest in the past several years. Len won't interview David. He really should. It would liven up his show. Like you, I'm agnostic on film & photo alterations simply because I have no expertise in that subject. .... I learned early in life not to trust film images. Even today, I check my windows ever so often just in case a giant ape is about to smash through the window & grab me out.

What's always been missing from the narrative is the stories of the technicians who performed the suspected allegations. The folks operating the optical printers & painting stuff on rectangular glass 'cells'. Those folks that did the actual work. What happened to them in 53 years?

I have a question for everyone interested in this thread: How is it that bootleg autopsy images of President Kennedy are taken as genuine? Didn't they all get slipped into the public consciousness by a SS agent? The same SS agency that has been accused of standing down while JFK was slaughtered. The same SS agency that supposedly desecrated JFK's corpse, removed bullets from it & hid it in AF-1's cargo bay? The same SS agency that allegedly shot JFK while acting as his trusted chauffer? The same agency that allegedly shot JFK in the head from behind with an AR-16 military rifle & killed him?

How can anyone trust that particular agency agents with anything tangible if some or all of its agents are guilty of those (and other) high crimes?

The gory JFK autopsy photos presented in this thread all came from questionable sources, yet they have been presented here at EF in this thread as if Moses came down from the mountain with them still smoking. I don't trust any of them. As far as I'm concerned, until the Kennedy family officially releases some or all of JFK's autopsy photos, the public hasn't seen them.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Brad:

I guess I should repeat this: I have seen the Wilkinson's work in its original form.

That makes a large difference. They have a third generation copy of the [Zapruder] film which they then transferred to a four K digital scan.

Having seen that on a large screen, I can tell you that DVP did not even hit a foul ball with that ridiculous Clint Hill comparison. But the point is he did it without consulting the original evidence. The Wilkinsons will show their work to anyone who wants to see it. If DVP was a serious person, which he is not, he would go ahead and call them, and arrange it. He could write it off as a business trip since there are various KFC's near there. Just call one up and go in and look at how it's managed and it's a write off.

But he won't, and I guarantee he will not. Just like he never went to NARA, as he said he would [DVP INTERJECTION: This is a complete lie uttered by DiEugenio; see later text], to prove that Todd's initials are on the Fantasy Bullet. Because that is just not him. He sits back at his desk, surfs around, and then posts anything that fits his fancy. And then when people object, he puts it on his site, but cuts out the last word from our side. Thereby positing a phony argument. I know, I have seen it.

See, it's not enough to post evidence. The important thing is the analysis. As Bob Tanenbaum told me once, you must do a qualitative analysis of each witness you put on and each exhibit you place before the jury. If you do not do that, then any good defense lawyer will blindside you. And he faced some good ones like Barry Scheck. But it was his preparation that made Bob unbeatable. He never lost a murder case, and he was Deputy Chief of Homicide in NYC.

So that is my message to you. Just DVP putting something up and then asking some bombastic question, that is not enough. It's the analysis that matters. In other words, is this really worthy of comparison? Does it really match the original circumstances. In this case, as with his Pat Speer bullet hole comparison, it's not. I mean, you can get many poor copies from the nth generation and say, look see? Recall, the whole imbroglio with the Black and White Z film that went through ten generations and you could see the SS agent shooting Kennedy? Well, that was false. And so was DVP's here.


BRAD MILCH SAID:

Jim,

What you are describing was called 'shuck & jive' in the area I was partially educated at as I grew into a young adult. It's another way of describing when someone who knows better loads a gullible, trusting person with utter BS.

I appreciate the schooling, kind, learned, distinguished & esteemed Good Sir!


PAUL TREJO SAID:

Brad,

I would like to recommend to you the 900-page book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

[...]

It is my opinion, as well as Jeff Caufield's, that General Walker did lead the Dallas Police to assassinate JFK, and if LHO had killed General Walker, then, yes, JFK would have served eight years.

[...]

As for DVP himself -- I regard him as one of the famous skeptics like the Amazing James Randi -- who go around saying No to everything. DVP sticks close to the Warren Report -- but that door swings both ways. First, most of the WC testimony is true. But also, many WC witnesses contradict DVP, so that he must cover his eyes and his ears while he reads much of it.

Also, DVP keeps the CT community honest. I disagree with DVP's conclusions, but I like the fact that he weeds out our weaklings -- and we have a lot of them.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I know it makes most conspiracy theorists roll their eyes and sigh heavily with boredom whenever I do this, but nevertheless I'm going to post the following excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book anyway, because (IMO) there is no better reference book to consult than Vincent's "Reclaiming History" when it comes to the many sub-topics associated with the assassination of President Kennedy.

These "RH" excerpts pertain to the topic of "Alleged Zapruder Film Fakery"....

[Quotes On:]

"I want to address one of the craziest allegations that conspiracy buffs have ever latched onto in their efforts to pull the conspiratorial wool over the eyes of gullible people everywhere. The Zapruder film, of course, was originally touted by the vast majority of conspiracy theorists as incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy that killed the president (Connally reacting later than Kennedy, head snap to rear, etc.). As prosecutor Jim Garrison argued in his final summation in the Clay Shaw murder trial in 1969, the head snap to the rear on the film proves the fatal head shot "came from the front." Though the Warren Commission's investigation of Kennedy's death, he said, was "the greatest fraud in the history of our country," how wonderful, he told the jurors that they had seen the "one eyewitness which was indifferent to power — the Zapruder film. The lens of the camera tells what happened . . . and that is one of the reasons two hundred million Americans have not seen the Zapruder film."

Even the zany Garrison would have never believed that the latest big rage in the conspiracy community today is its charge that the film, through alteration, is a forgery, created by photographic experts (hired by the "conspirators") in an effort to conceal the truth about the shooting in Dallas and frame Oswald.

Can you imagine that, folks? The deliriously wacky conspiracy buffs are now claiming that the Zapruder film itself, the film of the assassination, is a hoax, a fraud, a forgery. What's next? Kennedy is still alive in a suite on the top floor of Parkland Hospital? G. Gordon Liddy was the grassy knoll assassin? Oswald was, as rumored, Ruby's illegitimate son? Just stay tuned to the buffs' wacko network.


[...]

One would think the "alterationists" (the name applied to those in the conspiracy community who believe the Zapruder film was altered) would have a difficult time with the fact that the Zapruder film shows that the back of the president's head always looks intact (negating the conspiracy position that there was a large exit wound to the rear of the president's head) and also shows a large exit wound to the right front of the president's head (validating the Warren Commission's and HSCA's position that the head wound shot came from the president's rear, not the grassy knoll). But where there's a will there's a way.

Alterationist David Lifton, while conceding "it wasn't easy" for the conspirator-forgers of the film to do it, claims that they "blacked out" the back of the president's head to conceal the large exit wound, and "painted on" what looked like a large exit wound to the right front of the president's head. But Lifton offers no evidence to support his absolutely incredible allegation, nor is he troubled in the least, apparently, by the fact that Zapruder testified that while viewing the motorcade through his telephoto lens he saw the right side of the president's head open up and "blood and everything" come out.


[...]

The list of alleged discrepancies, contradictions, and anomalies seems to grow in direct proportion to the number of amateur Internet-based film experts who take up the challenge of finding the "proof of conspiracy" that they believe is imbedded somewhere in the frames of Zapruder's film, just waiting to be extracted, like DNA from a crime scene.

Most of this thoughtless nonsense is sold on the strength of what is theoretically possible today using modern computer technology. However, twenty-first-century technology is hardly a measuring stick for events that allegedly occurred more than four decades ago. In fact, there is nothing simple about the kinds of wholesale changes that are alleged to have been made during the course of altering the Zapruder film, even with today's technology.


[...]

Since the alleged conspirators couldn't have known at the time that it was Zapruder's film, not any of the many others, that they had to seize because it was the only one that captured the entire assassination sequence, their only going after his film makes absolutely no sense. If we're to govern our reasoning on this issue by common sense, the above reality, all by itself, would tell any reasonable person that the Zapruder film was not altered.

Another reason why it's obvious the Zapruder film was not altered is that, as we know, at the very heart of nearly all conspiracy arguments is the contention that the fatal shot to the president's head came from the grassy knoll to the president's right front, not from the right rear where Oswald was. We also know that the head snap to the rear has convinced Americans more than any other thing that, indeed, the head shot came from the president's front, and this, without an explanation, exonerates Oswald at least as to the fatal shot.

Since the whole alleged purpose of the forgery of the Zapruder film, per the conspiracy theorists, was to frame Oswald as the lone gunman and conceal the truth from the American public (the truth, per the buffs, being that the shot to the head came from the grassy knoll), if there were one thing, and one thing only that the forgers would have altered, they would have altered the Zapruder film to make it look like Kennedy's head had been violently thrust forward (indicating a shot from the rear, where Oswald was), not backward, as the film shows.

Instead, if we're to believe the conspiracy theorists, the conspirator-forgers decided to alter everything else in the film, including the height of a spectator, but not the most important thing of all, the head snap to the rear. Leading alterationist Dr. David Mantik claims that the conspirator-forgers excised frames that he said would have shown "tissue debris" from Kennedy's head going backward. "Backward going debris would have been overwhelming evidence of a frontal shot (or shots) and would have posed too serious a threat to the official story of only posterior [from the rear] shots."

But if the forgers would delete the backward movement of the spray, they all the more so would want to delete the much more visible head snap to the rear.


[...]

The original Zapruder film was proved to have been shot using Zapruder's camera, which effectively eliminates the alterationist argument that the film is actually a forgery of selected frames created by using an optical printer. In 1998, at the request of the ARRB, Roland J. Zavada, the retired standards director for imaging technologies at Kodak, and Kodak's preeminent 8-millimeter film expert, analyzed the "out-of-camera" original film (i.e., the actual film that Zapruder had loaded into his camera on November 22, 1963), several first-generation copies, and a number of prints of the Zapruder film, as well as the actual Bell & Howell camera used by Zapruder to create the film.

Edge print codes embedded in the original film show that the film was manufactured in 1961 at Kodak in Rochester, New York, and processed (i.e., developed) in November 1963, both of which are very strong indications that the film being examined was, indeed, the original film. The processing number 0183, perforated vertically along the width of the film (a common practice used to match up processed films with customer orders), was traced to the Kodak developing laboratory in Dallas where Zapruder took his film to be processed.

The link between the processing number (0183) and Zapruder's film was confirmed by the technicians involved in the developing process, and proves that the Zapruder film, as we know it, was developed in Dallas on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, and not at some other time and place after alterations had been made.

Further, Zavada concluded that whatever "anomalies" there were in the Zapruder film "can be explained by the design and image capture characteristics of [Zapruder's] Bell & Howell 414 PD Camera."


[...]

Even hypothetically assuming that a forgery were possible, the forgers would have had to alter the original Zapruder film before any copies were made, since an altered copy could immediately be exposed as a fraud when it was compared with the original. But we know from the record that Abraham Zapruder kept the original film in his possession until it was sold to Life magazine on Saturday, November 23, 1963, which means, of course, that no one could have altered the film before then. Yet by that time, multiple copies of the film were already in the hands of the Secret Service and the FBI, both of whom were, in turn, making second- and third-generation copies for their files.

Or do the alterationists want us to believe that the "conspirators" altered the original film after these second- and third-generation copies had been made? But in that case, any one of the copies could expose the fact that the original had been altered.

The fact that each of the many copies of the Zapruder film matches all others as well as the original film proves beyond any doubt that no alterations were made.


[...]

Richard W. Burgess of the Department of Classical Studies at the University of Ottawa...in addition to noting that “I have personal knowledge of the sorts of processes and effects that were available to film-makers in 1963 and I can state categorically that the Zapruder film has not had anything added to it or removed from it apart from the splices that everyone knows about,” he finds the hypothesis set forth by [Harrison] Livingstone and [David] Lifton ludicrous on its face. He writes that such an alteration “would result in a ridiculously amateurish mess that would not fool a four-year-old, even in the hands of a skilled miniature painter under a microscope.”

Burgess tells of the enormous complexity, and ultimate futility, of such an endeavor. He writes, “Any attempted modification would necessitate [as Lifton says] the enlargement of the film to 35 mm (to maintain clarity, and reduce changes in color saturation and balance, contrast, and grain), various types of optical printing with traveling mattes, and then reduction back to 8 mm. The conspirators would have to begin by rear-projecting each frame onto the back of an animator’s drawing table and tracing each successive frame of Kennedy onto a piece of paper. This is known as rotoscoping . . . Then an animator would have to animate the ‘blob’ by drawing it onto the successive rotoscoped images of Kennedy’s head. These drawings would then be transferred to animation cels and painted. The area around the painted wound on each cel would then be painted black. Another set of cels would then be copied, but with the wound painted black and the rest of the cel clear. These images would then be filmed with an animation camera onto two sets of film, one with the wound surrounded by black (film 1) and the other with a black blob floating in mid-air on clear film (film 2). This is a traveling matte. Next the Zapruder film enlargement would be run through an optical printer with film 2 on top in correct frame register, producing film 3. This film would show a black hole where the wound should be. Film 3 would then be rewound and film 1 (the wound surrounded by black) would be run through the printer exposing film 3 again. Since black does not expose the film, the surrounding black of film 1 wouldn’t expose the already exposed Zapruder film and, if the copying of the cels was done exactly and the job was done properly on a high quality optical printer, the painted wound would fit right into the unexposed hole in film 3 like a moving jigsaw puzzle piece. Film 3 is reduced back to 8 mm and there you have it: faked Zapruder film.”

“Unfortunately,” Burgess writes, “this would and could never work, for a number of important reasons.” He goes on to give several independent reasons, just one of which being the poor quality of the image to start with resulting in a final version that would be “so murky as to be almost useless, even with fine grain, low contrast 35 mm masters and specialized color duping film, a new development in 1963.”

He then goes on to discuss “the problem of registration,” keeping each frame in the same relative position. He writes that “it was easy . . . to describe the process of rotoscoping and optical printing, but it would have been impossible for anyone to have been able to maintain perfect registration of the [fake] wound on the head. Without perfect registration the wound would move around on the head, as if it weren’t attached. This goes for movement in all three dimensions. Not only would the animated [fake] wound have to move back and forth and up and down in perfect synchronization with Kennedy’s head, but it would also have to shift with changes in depth and angle; it would have to show foreshortening in exact calibration with Kennedy’s head movements. This is impossible since even a half a grain’s shift would cut the animated wound free of Kennedy’s head and make it look like some grotesque free-floating balloon. In the film, the wound is firmly part of Kennedy’s head. Indeed, part of the flap in front actually flops about in reaction to the violence of Kennedy’s head movements. Such virtually invisible ‘finessing’ in a process already unbelievably complex is simply impossible.” ('Fourth Decade', September 1994, pp.5–7)"


-- Vincent Bugliosi; Via "Reclaiming History" (Pages 504-511 and Pages 350-351 of Endnotes)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey kept on saying he was going to NARA to prove John [Hunt] was wrong.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I never said anything of the kind. I have never once EVER said I was planning to make a trip to the National Archives and Records Administration.

DiEugenio is making up crap from whole cloth.

In fact, in the discussion linked here, I even made fun of Jim for suggesting that I could have just walked right into NARA and demanded to see CE399. (Hilarious notion there.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey once said he was going to NARA. And he was going to prove John Hunt was wrong by finding Elmer Lee Todd's initials on CE 399.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bull. Such a thing never happened. I never ever made any such statement or comment about planning to go to NARA. DiEugenio, as I said, is just inventing crap out of thin air. Please stop doing that, Jim. Okay?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Hooey, yes you did.

Ok, so just drop it.

It was just your usual gassy utterances from a professional bloviator.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nope. Never happened. Your imagination is just running rampant (as always).


REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I have seen the Wilkinson scan. In their high-resolution scan I can assure you that the black patch does not appear anywhere else.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But has anyone even bothered to look at the intensity of the "blackness" of Clint Hill's head when examining the "Wilkinson scan" of the Zapruder Film?

In other words, when viewing the Wilkinson HD scan, has anyone performed the type of comparison like the one I did on a lower-quality version of the Z-Film (comparing Clint Hill's head to JFK's head) to see whether or not the "black" levels are the same or totally different in shading and intensity?

If such a direct "Hill vs. JFK" comparison hasn't been done for that Wilkinson material, and if nobody has even paid any attention to Clint Hill in the Wilkinson scan (has anyone?), then how can we know that Jim DiEugenio is 100% correct when he said this recently: "I can assure you that the black patch does not appear anywhere else"?

Now, to be fair, maybe somebody has done a direct comparison of Clint Hill's head with President Kennedy's in the "Wilkinson scan". I don't know for sure. That's why I asked.

But even if someone has done such a comparison and has concluded that a "black patch" has definitely been artificially placed over the back of JFK's head in many frames of the Zapruder home movie, I still wonder how those CTers can explain the fact that high-quality autopsy photos of JFK's head (like the one below) pretty much prove, via the presence of individual hairs that are visible in the right-rear section of the head, that President Kennedy most certainly did not have a huge gaping hole in the back of his head when he was on the autopsy table at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of 11/22/63....because there most certainly is not a "black patch" over the back of JFK's head in this autopsy photograph:




IN ANOTHER DISCUSSION....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

According to Greg Parker, he will have some very interesting revelations about the Paines in his upcoming Volume 3 of his series on Oswald.


PAUL TREJO SAID:

OMG, not more Probe Magazine cloak-and-dagger drivel.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Paul, there's always some "very interesting revelation" lurking just around the corner, according to Jim DiEugenio.

Just like early last year, when James made this bold assertion with respect to the debate about Oswald's Postal Money Order....

"Armstrong is coming. Guns blazing." -- Jimmy D.; January 8, 2016

The end result of the above "blazing guns" of Armstrong was ..... absolutely nothing (AFAIK).

And David Lifton's "Final Charade" is supposedly going to be the next big "bombshell" book on the JFK case, hammering the final nails in the Warren Commission coffin. As if every last piece of evidence favoring Oswald's guilt is going to suddenly go sliding down the drain because of Mr. Lifton's persistent efforts. If he can manage that trick, then he's a miracle worker.

David Von Pein
February 29, 2016
February 13-19, 2017
March 21, 2017




DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
(PART 119)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

As I wrote in my book, Reclaiming Parkland, Vince [Bugliosi] actually took that BS phony sideshow "trial" in London seriously. When in fact, it and Spence were both a joke. And one of the worst parts of his [Bugliosi's] book is when he tries to convince the reader that it really was just a like a real trial.

LOL

When Vince started doing that in his book, I realized it was not an honest effort. No rational person could possibly think that the phony circus sideshow in London was commensurate to an actual trial. Let alone a criminal lawyer. I mean, it was not even good as a TV mock trial. The King mock trial took many more pains to be realistic than that piece of crap did.

The absolutely incredible thing is that Vince took it seriously and he actually thought Spence put on a defense. :)

I mean all you need to do is watch what Spence did with Dr. Petty, who was nothing but a buffoon about the JFK case. He actually once said the JFK autopsy was done well. (Reclaiming Parkland, revised edition, p. 61)

This idiot actually said on the stand that it was not necessary for him to examine the brain since he had the photos and x rays. (ibid, p. 62) And right there, Spence should have moved in for the kill. He should have asked the following questions:

1. Doctor, can you explain to the jury what sectioning the brain at autopsy means, and can you explain to them the techniques used to do that?

2. Doctor, can you explain to the jury why that process is done in a homicide case where the cause of death is gunshot [wound] to the skull?

3. Doctor, can you explain to the jury what the results of that process were in the JFK case?

4. It wasn't done? But wasn't this a gunshot [wound] to the head case? How could you determine entrance and exit and path and direction without it?

5. Did you ask Dr. Humes why it was not done when he was before the HSCA?

6. Why didn't you ask him?

7. Well, can you then explain how you dissect the track of a back wound through the chest?

8. What, you mean that was not done either?

I would have loved to have seen Vince's face as Petty was exposed as a charlatan to the jury. Of course, Spence did not ask these questions, or if he did they were cut out.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Jim, Time Magazine seemed to think that "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" was a pretty decent simulated trial....

"The trial in London took place on July 23, 24, and 25, 1986. After the jury was out deliberating for six hours, they returned, on July 26, with a verdict of guilty, convicting Oswald of the murder of John F Kennedy. Obviously, were it not for my participation in this docu-trial of Oswald, which Time magazine said was "as close to a real trial as the accused killer of John F. Kennedy will probably ever get," this book would never have been written." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xxiv of "Reclaiming History"*

* Bugliosi's sources for the Time Magazine information:

“Best of ’86” [Time Magazine; January 5, 1987, p.78] ... see also “What If Oswald Had Stood Trial?” by Richard Zoglin [Time Magazine; December 1, 1986, p.60]

Vince Bugliosi also said this about the docu-trial back in 1986:

"I defy anyone who is familiar with the Kennedy assassination to look at the 18 hours of tape or examine the trial transcript and say that the gut issues of the case were not addressed or were treated cosmetically." -- Vincent Bugliosi; 1986

So not everybody in the world thinks that the 1986 mock trial was a "phony circus sideshow" or a "piece of crap". Time Magazine and Vince Bugliosi didn't think that way. And neither do I....

"Although it wasn't a "real" trial (quite obviously), "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" did a nice job (at least partially) of filling a gap that had long been in need of filling -- and that is: to present the evidence against Lee Oswald in a courtroom setting, complete with the adversarial process of United States law on full display (i.e., the prosecution vs. the defense).

Lee Harvey Oswald, posthumously, had his day in court. Some conspiracy theorists maintain that the 1986 mock trial was nothing but a "sham", a "farce", a "fictional TV drama" with no real facts or truths being brought out in the courtroom.

I, however, would strongly disagree with such assertions regarding "On Trial". While not binding as an actual "Guilty" verdict in the case against Oswald, the fact remains that a lot of REAL evidence, presented by REAL witnesses, came to light in that London courtroom.

And whether Oswald was alive or not to defend himself against this evidence, it is evidence that still exists all the same. And it's evidence that convicted Lee Harvey Oswald of a Presidential assassination in the eyes of twelve Dallas citizens in 1986. And, in my opinion, that's a nice gap in the world of "JFK Assassination Lore" to have filled in."
-- David Von Pein; October 28, 2008










More on Dr. Charles Petty here....
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/Dr. Charles Petty

David Von Pein
February 11, 2017