(PART 229)


>>> "I said Al "says"..." <<<


But the main point is: Al [Fuller] did not "say" those words -- I said them. Al was quoting me. So to say that "Al says" is just silly. And incorrect.

>>> "...since he [Al Fuller] wouldn't be making the quote unless he accepted it as true." <<<

Does that mean when Al (or I) quote the crazy things you say, it indicates we accept those things "as true" just because we've quoted them?

Some kooky rules you've got.

>>> "As a matter of fact, I thought the quote came from Bugliosi." <<<

Bull. I think you thought the whole post came from Al, which is why you said "Al says".

>>> "As I've said countless times, the likes of Von Pein and Bugliosi have nothing to back up their ludicrous arguments concerning the JFK assassination." <<<

Yeah, having every single scrap of evidence (including every gun, bullet, bullet shell, fingerprint, fiber, and LHO bald-faced lie) is, indeed, "ludicrous" stuff with which to attempt to prove Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the two murders he committed in Dallas...isn't it?

Once more, folks, we're treated to a kook on the loose, with nary a bullet (or a cohesive theory) to place on the assassination table.

>>> "That is why they [Von Pein and Bugliosi] resort to ridicule and name-calling." <<<

Oh, that's not the reason we resort to name-calling. The evidence speaks for itself--and always has. Oswald's guilty. And he was almost certainly a LONE guilty party. But the name-calling ensues because it's so darn much fun is all. (And so incredibly easy when confronted by kooks like Dean Jackson.)

>>> "Quoting William Davy in his review of Bugliosi's terd of a book, specifically on Bugliosi's ad hominem attacks: "What strikes one most upon reading Bugliosi's work is the amount of ad hominem attacks he launches at the JFK research community. Few are spared Bugliosi's vitriol. Most are referred to as "zanies" (Bugliosi's favorite. It's even used in a chapter title).The Chief Military Analyst for the ARRB is called "insane," "obscenely irresponsible", "harebrained" and his theories "mad." Joachim Joesten, an early critic, is a "communist". Colonel Fletcher Prouty is a "wacky, right-winger." Mark Lane - a "left-winger." " <<<

Let's not leave out these Vincent Bugliosi gems, which are some of my personal faves:

"The problem I have is this: Am I elevating Oliver Stone's movie by holding it to be worthy of denigration? Only theoretically. The denigration [within the pages of "Reclaiming History"] will be so complete that to say Stone and his movie have been elevated would be a contradiction. .... [Oliver Stone] wanted his movie, he wrote with towering arrogance in the January 1992 edition of "Premiere" [magazine], to "replace the Warren Commission Report." Can you imagine that? A Hollywood producer wants his movie to REPLACE the official and most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. .... Arrogance thought it already had a bad name. That was before it met Oliver Stone." -- V. Bugliosi


"OLIVER STONE, IN HIS MOVIE 'JFK', NEVER SAW FIT TO PRESENT FOR HIS AUDIENCE'S CONSIDERATION ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD KILLED KENNEDY! So a murder case (the Kennedy assassination) where there is an almost unprecedented amount of evidence of guilt against the killer (Oswald) is presented to millions of moviegoers as one where there wasn't one piece of evidence at all. There oughta be a law against things like this." [All emphasis Bugliosi's.] -- VB


"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." -- VB


"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB


"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation." -- VB


"[Jim] Garrison, of course, smelled a rat in [James] Braden's story and had his investigators pursue the matter. Remarkably and unbelievably for Garrison, he concluded that "after sustained analysis...it was clear that Braden's contribution to the assassination was a large zero." When you can be cleared of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination by the likes of Jim Garrison, you must be clean."
-- VB


"Not the smallest speck of evidence has ever surfaced that any of the conspiracy community's favorite groups (CIA, mob, etc.) was involved, in any way, in the assassination. Not only the Warren Commission, but the HSCA came to the same conclusion. But conspiracy theorists, as suspicious as a cat in a new home, find occurrences and events everywhere that feed their suspicions and their already strong predilection to believe that the official version is wrong." -- VB


"One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- VB


"Playboy gave [Jim] Garrison the longest interview in the history of
the magazine in its October 1967 issue, 37 pages, and among other radio
and TV appearances, Mort Sahl got him on the Johnny Carson show on
January 31, 1968. Johnny may have been a comedian, but he had a good,
solid head on his shoulders, and he could spot a phony, or at least an empty vessel, when he saw one."
-- VB


"[Joan] Mellen's book ["A Farewell To Justice"] is dreadfully bad on all counts. All the completely discredited witnesses, even mental cases, who had made bizarre allegations years ago in the Shaw case...were actually, per Mellen, telling the truth. .... There have been several pro-Garrison books before [Mellen's], every one of them lacking in credibility, but hers is the very worst. .... Where Mellen can't find some already well-known nut in the Garrison case to rely on or tell her what she wants to hear, she comes up with more obscure nuts. .... The Kennedy assassination has already been polluted beyond all tolerable limits by nuts and quacks and phony stories. Mellen is a university professor. How dare she publish such misleading material on so serious a subject." -- VB


"NSAM 273 (November 26, 1963) does not, as [Oliver] Stone's audience was told, reverse NSAM 263 (October 11, 1963). In fact, it specifically REAFFIRMS Kennedy's decision to withdraw 1,000 troops [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963. .... The main issue being discussed by [Kennedy] and his advisers during the period of the October 2 [1963] memo and the October 11 NSAM 263 was not the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, but whether to support a coup of [Vietnam's President] Diem. But we learned years later from a Hollywood producer and his daffy adviser, Colonel Prouty, that the real coup being contemplated at the time, and eventually carried out, was not against Diem but against the president of the United States." -- VB


"No evidence plus no common sense equals go home, zipper your mouth up, take a walk, forget about it, get a life. Of course, the hard-core conspiracy theorists, who desperately want to cling to their illusions, are not going to do any of these things. .... If these conspiracy theorists were to accept the truth, not only would they be invalidating a major part of their past, but many would be forfeiting their future. That's why talking to them about logic and common sense is like talking to a man without ears. The bottom line is that they WANT there to be a conspiracy and are constitutionally allergic to anything that points away from it." -- VB

David Von Pein
May 19, 2008

(PART 228)


>>> "David, is this [a Google Group devoted solely to VB's book "Reclaiming History"] really necessary?" <<<


Well, of course it's not really "necessary". None of these silly JFK-related forums is really "necessary". It's all a huge waste of time and energy, as we all know, because nobody is changing anybody's mind about the John F. Kennedy assassination one way or the other.

I've never, ever ONCE heard somebody say this as a result of reading any LNer's comments on the various newsgroups/forums: "You know what, that guy makes a lot of sense; I was wrong; I now think Oswald acted alone."

Has that ever happened to anybody here? If so, I've yet to hear about it. It certainly hasn't happened to me. And I KNOW I make a lot of "sense". ~wink~

So, as I said, these forums are purely for FYI and entertainment and opponent-bashing purposes only....as is quite obvious by reading pretty much anything written in the newsgroups.

Having spouted the above forthright rant, I will also say that I'd like to think that a few of my LN-favoring posts, reviews, and assorted articles have met with some degree of approval and favorable head-nodding over the years, although certainly not by any members of the entrenched "Conspiracy" crowd (naturally).

And since Google allows people to start up these newsgroups for free and with very little effort, I decided to start one up devoted exclusively to Vince Bugliosi's "Book For The Ages" ["Reclaiming History"].

I'm not allowing anybody else to post anything at all to the RH site, however, because I don't want it ruined by a bunch of meaningless "Bugliosi's nothing but a liar" crap from the conspiracy theorists (which would, of course, inevitably happen over the course of time).

If that's called censorship, so be it. Then I'm a censor. But since Google gives the group's owner a right to decide who can post and who can't, I'm going to take advantage of those options and ownership rights.

So, is my "Reclaiming History" Google site necessary? Hell, no. Of course it isn't. But I don't care. I like it anyway. :)

Maybe next month I'll start up a new NG called: "The Wonders Of Watching Grass Grow".

That site won't be the slightest bit necessary either; and it'll probably attract about the same number of visitors as my new "RH" site (anywhere from 0 to 2 per month). ~Cheshire grin~

David Von Pein
May 19, 2008

(PART 227)


>>> "Maybe it hasn't dawned on you yet, but the correct answer is that the book ["Reclaiming History"] was written by a committee." <<<



You can't prove what you just said and you know it. But you'll say it anyway....right Anthony?


>>> "Vince wrote that part about 210 and commissioned the drawing showing 210, while Myers wrote the bit about 224." <<<

More bullshit.

BTW, Tony, do you believe Lifton's allegation about Pat Lambert writing the entire Stone/Garrison chapter of VB's book?

[If so, read this.]

>>> "JFK's balled-up fists are in the way of an exiting bullet at 224." <<<

Oh goodie! More bullshit!

>>> "As noted above, the book ["Reclaiming History"] was written by a committee and cobbled together at the last minute." <<<


Vince took 21 years to write a book, but for some reason it needed to be "cobbled together" at the "last minute" in 2007.

Tony, you're hilarious.

>>> "For example, Bugliosi sent someone to the Kennedy Library to find out the specifications of the limo." <<<

Who performed that task for Vince? Any chance you can tell us? Or would you prefer to wallow in your make-believe, wishy-washy mush regarding the way Vince Bugliosi wrote and researched his JFK book?

>>> "But that person was a dunce and did not realize that the documents were about the limo AFTER the Quick Fix after the assassination." <<<

"The limousine was not, as the buffs allege without any supporting authority, immediately rebuilt. The rebuilding of the car did not commence until over a year later in Detroit." -- VB; Page 1276 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

>>> "That's why Vince tries to snow us with very precise details about things like the weight and then reveals his ignorance by saying it was armored. Sloppy research method." <<<

Yes, he got the "armored" thing wrong.

So let's string him up by the oak tree in front of the Depository.

>>> "Could be that Bugliosi didn't even bother to read it. Often authors have never read their own books when they have been ghostwritten by the CIA." <<<

Goodie! More excrement seeping onto the Internet carpet!

Marsh...you're BEYOND hilarious!

>>> "Again, you miss the point. He [VB] doesn't care. You [DVP] don't care. The facts [which VB & DVP know about] just get in the way. You can change the [SBT] frame every day." <<<

But many conspiracists feel it's perfectly okay to change the number and names of the "plotters" every other day...with some CTers also feeling it's okay to change the number of shots fired.

What's this got to do with you, right Tony?

Well, okay. But the above paragraph was merely a general hunk of info I wanted to toss into the mix -- and it's certainly true when it comes to some people on the "conspiracy" side of the fence.

David Von Pein
May 18, 2008

(PART 226)


>>> "My God, man, can't you even see that Bugliosi's SBT diagram has the bullet hit Connally in the back halfway over to the right armpit? Forget precise measurements. It isn't even CLOSE to the right armpit." <<<


Sure it is. Obviously it is. You'd better look again. Because you're dead wrong:

>>> "Remember that I asked Bugliosi which frame was the SBT and he refused to answer the question." <<<

Probably because Vince doesn't know himself what the exact SBT frame is. He's all over the Zapruder map in his book regarding the SBT timing, which is one of the things I've criticized him for. I think he should have been more consistent in the book regarding the SBT timing.

I'm of the opinion, of course, that the precise and accurate SBT Z-frame can be established fairly easily by way of John Connally's post-Z223 reactions and movements.

And I'm actually a bit amazed that Dale Myers (a person who worked closely with VB on certain parts of the book "Reclaiming History") wasn't able to convince Vince that Z223-Z224 is the precise time on the Z-Film when the SBT occurred.

But, obviously, Dale either didn't even try to convince Bugliosi of the Z223-Z224 SBT timing....or VB still didn't buy into such a timeline even AFTER being exposed to Myers' detailed work and the various toggling Z-Film clips which depict the obvious involuntary reactions of John B. Connally having been hit by a bullet just an instant after Z-Frame #223.

Beats me why Vince can't see the obviousness of a Z224 SBT hit. But Vince is pretty much everywhere when it comes to his timing of the Single-Bullet Theory throughout his book -- from Z207 to Z225. But, then too, when looking at VB's ambiguous SBT timelines in his book, in a way I can appreciate the fact that Vince doesn't want to pin himself down to any ONE single Z-Film frame for the SBT. He just flat-out doesn't think it's possible to KNOW for certain what the exact frame number is.

This, of course, is exactly what the Warren Commission did as well, with the WC electing to not pin themselves down to any precise frame for the SBT, instead deciding to go with a range of frames, from Z210 to 225.

Of course, a lot better (digital) technology exists now with which to view the Zapruder Film (and constantly toggle back and forth between any of the frames within the film).

And the super-fast and obviously involuntary "hat dance" performed by Connally starting at Z226 is a darn good sign, IMO, that a bullet has just an instant earlier struck the Governor's right wrist (and the actual penetration of that bullet certainly didn't occur way back at Z190 or Z210, given what we see on the Zapruder Film starting at Z226):

David Von Pein
May 17, 2008

(PART 225)


>>> "How do Lone [Assassin] Theorists reconcile that one of the bullets allegedly used by Oswald smashed through two men, their clothes and broke bones and came out the other end virtually unscathed, with no bodily fluids on it (and with its grooves intact - a miracle event against all odds) and the other bullet allegedly used by Oswald on Kennedy disintegrated on impact? How could two bullets supposedly the same react in such a different fashion from each other?" <<<


It's been proven that MC/WCC ammunition WILL react in just exactly the
same general ways that Lee Harvey Oswald's two bullets did on November
22, 1963. Bullet tests were done by Dr. Olivier for the Warren
Commission, and even better tests were done by John Lattimer using
Oswald's ammunition:

And then there's the test bullet from the 2004 program "JFK: Beyond
The Magic Bullet"
, which generally looks the same as CE399 -- i.e., it
ended up COMPLETELY INTACT (NOT FRAGMENTED at all) after striking
pretty much the same parts of two "bodies", with the nose still
rounded, just like 399:


>>> "How do Lone [Assassin] Theorists reconcile that one of the bullets allegedly used by Oswald smashed through two men, their clothes and broke bones and came out the other end virtually unscathed, with no bodily fluids on it (and with its grooves intact - a miracle event against all odds)..." <<<

Here's another look at the Discovery Channel's SBT test bullet. This
"Beyond The Magic Bullet" MC/WCC test missile smashed through two
surrogate "bodies" and struck three bones (2 ribs and 1 wrist bone).


THE GROOVES ARE COMPLETELY INTACT! Another myth handily debunked:


>>> "How do Lone [Assassin] Theorists reconcile that one of the bullets allegedly used by Oswald smashed through two men, their clothes and broke bones and came out the other end virtually unscathed, with no bodily fluids on it..." <<<

"One can only wonder why Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not have any blood residuum on it. My only guess is that the blood traces that must have been on it were removed by someone early on...almost as a matter of course. In all the evidence bullets I handled in court in murder cases during my prosecutorial career, none had any visible blood on them. .... Interestingly, [Robert] Frazier [of the FBI] testified that with respect to the two main bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine [CE567 and CE569], "there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination"." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 425 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

David Von Pein
May 15, 2008

(PART 224)


>>> "A bullet that has just smashed John Connally's rib cannot be relied upon not to be deflected." <<<


Who cares?

Once the bullet gets into Connally, WHO CARES how (or if) it was

Since we know beyond all reasonable doubt that John Connally was only
hit by ONE single bullet on November 22, 1963....and since we know the
place on JBC's body where that ONE single bullet entered his body (the
upper back near his right armpit)....what difference does it really
make how much that ONE bullet deflected and moved once it got into
Connally's body?

Dale Myers could actually have stopped at Connally's upper-back wound
in his SBT animation. The remainder of the bullet path through
Connally is relatively insignificant, since, as mentioned, Connally
was only hit by ONE bullet during the shooting. That one bullet,
therefore, HAD to have taken the course it did -- from the upper back,
out through the chest, hitting the right wrist, and then lodging in
the left thigh.

There is NO OTHER PATH that this one bullet could have taken through
Connally's body. And that ONE bullet was positively Commission
Exhibit No. 399
. Any other explanation reeks with silliness (and far
more "unexplainables" than does the Single-Bullet Theory).

David Von Pein
May 15, 2008

(PART 223)


>>> "Nowhere does [Dale Myers] cite any medical support that the bullet passed through JFK at a downward angle. But the HSCA did. They tracked the wound at an 11-degree UPWARD angle. The exact opposite to what Myers showed. What a surprise. Again, what does this say about the quality of [Myers'] work when UP becomes DOWN?" <<<


You're not stating the HSCA's position regarding the "11 degrees
upward" nonsense correctly at all.

Do you think that a gunman shot Kennedy in the upper back from below
street level or some such impossible angle (so as to achieve a literal
"upward" trajectory through JFK's body when the shooting occurred)?

The HSCA (incorrectly, as is quite obvious by taking just a cursory look
at the top autopsy photo shown below) only determined that the SBT
bullet was travelling "11 degrees upwards" when JFK was re-positioned
in a ramrod straight ("anatomical") position.

But the bullet was ALWAYS travelling DOWNWARD from the sniper's
(Oswald's) POV...quite obviously. Which means, after traversing the
soft tissues of Kennedy's upper back and neck (throat) and striking
"no bony objects" to divert its path significantly (if at all), the
downward-angled bullet had nowhere else to go except into the car's
seats or floor or into the body of the person who was sitting in front
of him (John Bowden Connally Jr., Governor of Texas).

And even Dr. Cyril Wecht agrees with LNers on this one; i.e., Wecht
believes that the bullet did NOT change from a DOWNWARD course to
any kind of an UPWARD course after it passed through John F. Kennedy's

At least that was Dr. Wecht's position regarding that important matter as
of June 14, 2007, as we can hear for ourselves HERE during Cyril's debate
with Vincent Bugliosi on matters relating to the Single-Bullet Theory on
Pittsburgh radio station WPTT.

RE: The HSCA....

By way of the top autopsy photo linked below, the House Select
Committee's Forensic Pathology Panel is pretty much proven dead wrong
with respect to its determination that the SBT bullet was travelling
UPWARD through an anatomically-erect John Kennedy.

Because it can't be any more obvious that Kennedy IS in an
"anatomical" (straight up & down) posture in the top photo below; and
it also couldn't be any more obvious that the visible throat wound in
this same turned-sideways picture is located well BELOW the wound in
JFK's back, despite the fact we can't see the actual bullet hole in
Kennedy's back here. But SOME common sense regarding the approximate
location of the wound should be used when examining this photograph.

And when you toggle back and forth between both of these photos, can it
be any clearer that JFK's throat wound is located anatomically lower than
his upper-back wound?:

David Von Pein
May 15, 2008

(PART 222)


>>> "Hey there Dave, have you had a chance to rebut [Jim] Fetzer's review of [Vincent Bugliosi's] book or read his "reasoning" article? If you have and it's on the web somewhere, drop me the link. /s/James .... PS: btw, he emailed these to me after I shot an email to him re his views of the assassination. .... PSS: good job rebutting Pat Speer's ridiculous "logic" on Myers' graphics presentation." <<<


Hi James,

I think I've seen those two Fetzer articles you sent me [linked below].



It's all total crap, of course, with Dr. Fetzer seemingly pulling out
every last tired and already-trashed conspiracy theory in existence
since '64 to try and prove his case for a massive plot to kill JFK.
(Plus the newer nonsense about the Z-Film being "wholly fabricated",
which is a theory that's always good for a robust giggle or two.)

A couple of my favorite laugh-inducing passages from Fetzer's review
of Vincent Bugliosi's book are these:

"While he [Bugliosi] claims to have 53 items of evidence incriminating Oswald, he also dismisses indications that most if not all of them appear to be planted, faked or fabricated." -- JHF

"Mantik has demonstrated that, given the wound to the back and the wound to the throat combined with two wounds to the head (one from behind and one from in front), JFK was hit at least four times." -- JHF

Imagine that, folks! JFK was hit TWICE as many times as the three
autopsists said he was! And the President was hit TWICE as many times
("at least"!) as BOTH Government investigative panels (the WC and the
HSCA) determined he was hit!

But Fetzer and Mantik know the truth. President Kennedy was hit by "at
least" FOUR bullets on 11/22/63.

I guess the massive cover-up did no good after all, huh? It's all come
unraveled due to the persistent digging of truth-seekers like Dr. Fetzer
and Dr. Mantik.

And here's another amazing "IMAGINE THAT!" moment!:

Fetzer is telling us that there are very likely 53 separate pieces of
"planted", "faked", and/or "fabricated" evidence connected with the
murders of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit -- all leading to the same
guy ("Patsy Oswald")!

Whew! Those plotters deserve not only an Academy Award....they have
also earned a lifetime vacation in the Bahamas! Because NO covert
mission in history could possibly have been more tiring and taxing
than the one carried out by those amazing conspirators in Dallas who
assembled all of that "fabricated" stuff to frame that poor schnook
named Lee Harvey.

And there must have been hundreds if not thousands of them working
in perfect unison with one another to make the fabrication of all 53
pieces of evidence flow seamlessly together.

For some mysterious reason, Mr. Fetzer seems to think that arranging
53 pieces of FALSE evidence against a single man named Oswald is a
fairly simple task. And, incredibly, Mr. Fetzer evidently thinks that
his current belief that virtually all of the evidence in the JFK case has
been planted, faked, or fabricated is a MORE REASONABLE thing to
believe than to simply believe in Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt.

Somebody check on William of Occam (of Occam's Razor fame). For, he
is surely performing a series of cartwheels in his grave at this


Dr. Fetzer's charge that his pro-conspiracy conclusions in his three
assassination books have been totally "ignored" by Vincent Bugliosi in
VB's book "Reclaiming History" is just flat-out silly.

This is similar to the equally-false allegation--put forth by a
certain Mr. Ben Holmes on the Internet--that Mr. Bugliosi has totally
ignored and/or sidestepped all 16 of Fetzer's "Smoking Guns".

But the truth is: Bugliosi doesn't just completely ignore the
conspiracy-slanted allegations put forth in Fetzer's books; nor has
Vince ignored the main points that Fetzer focuses on in his absurd
"16 Smoking Guns" list.

Evidently, people like Fetzer and Holmes must think that because
Bugliosi decided not to call one of his chapters in his JFK book
"Debunking All Of James Fetzer's Theories, One-By-One", this
therefore means (per those kooks) that Vince has totally ignored the
individual conspiracy theories set forth in Fetzer's three books and
in his "Smoking Guns" laundry list.

But this, of course, is nonsense of the first (kook) order. Because as
I fully illustrate HERE, Vincent Bugliosi, in "Reclaiming History",
has most certainly addressed, confronted, and knocked down ALL of the
theories and allegations put on the table by Dr. Fetzer (and virtually all
other major conspiracy authors).

And while it's true that Vince hasn't done this theory-debunking with
specific chapters in his book devoted solely to Super-Kook James H.
Fetzer, the theories espoused by Fetzer are most certainly still
addressed and covered SOMEWHERE within Mr. Bugliosi's massive book
(and the accompanying CD-ROM full of Endnotes). Several examples are
provided at the link above and HERE (including a section on the ridiculous "Zapruder Film Alteration" theory).

Thanks for writing, James.

Best Regards,
David Von Pein
May 11, 2008

(PART 221)


>>> "Well, you are making progress. Can I interest you in some conspiracy theories?" <<<


Why would I want to make a silly leap like that? The Single-Bullet Theory fits absolutely beautifully with the bulk (sum total) of the evidence in the JFK case.

So perfectly does the SBT fit, in fact, it would have probably taken an act (miracle) from God Himself to make so many things end up supporting an "SBT" scenario and yet still have the single-bullet conclusion NOT be the truth.

Why more conspiracists fail to realize this fact (or say they don't realize it) is beyond me.

>>> "[Dale] Myers knows the correct measurements. He misspoke. The implication of his mistake is that if he were right about Connally's midline being 6 inches to the left of Kennedy's midline then the SBT is impossible. You MUST move Connally over farther to his left." <<<

I really have no idea why you're saying this.

Let's have a gander (via two separate sources):

1.) From Dale Myers' website (third picture from the top HERE).

2.) The illustration below from Vincent Bugliosi's book (which is an illustration that is not directly connected with Myers' animation project):

I don't know how to go about measuring the exact distance between the two victims' midlines in the above two photos, but six inches looks approximately correct to me (via just eyeballing the distances).

A conspiracy theorist's mileage, of course, will undoubtedly vary.


Commission Exhibit #903:

Quite obviously, we cannot tell exactly how far inboard the stand-in for John Connally is located in CE903. But we do have Lyndal Shaneyfelt's Warren Commission testimony [shown below] to guide us. Do CTers feel that Shaneyfelt, too, is a liar or a Government-controlled shill?

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Were the stand-ins for President Kennedy and Governor Connally positioned in the same relative positions as those occupied by President Kennedy and Governor Connally depicted in the Zapruder films?"

LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes. These positions were approximately the position of the President and Governor Connally in the Zapruder films in the area around frame 225 as they go behind the signboard and as they emerge from the signboard."

SPECTER -- "Was the rod which is held in that photograph positioned at an angle as closely parallel to the white string as it could be positioned?"


SPECTER -- "And through what positions did that rod pass?"

SHANEYFELT -- "The rod passed through a position on the back of the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the entrance wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button of the coat or button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was inserted in the entrance hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat which was being worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally."

SPECTER -- "And was Governor Connally's stand-in seated in the position where the point of exit would have been below the right nipple at the approximate point described by Governor Connally's doctors?"

SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."


SENATOR COOPER -- "You had to establish the position of the President at the time the bullet struck him and the position of the rifle to make a determination about the degree of the angle of the direction?"

SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct. The positions in the car, their positions in the car, were based on the Zapruder film."

COOPER -- "And you were able to determine what you think very accurately the position of the President in the car by the films that you have examined?"


David Von Pein
May 14, 2008





It is often said that television truly came of age with its coverage of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I think that can be a bit overstated, but there's no question that, almost 50 years later, the "As It Happened" coverage, coming as it did like a lightning bolt out of the blue of an ordinary Friday afternoon in November, remains absolutely riveting.

Until the advent of YouTube, access to this video coverage, which tells you the story in a way totally unlike the history book or the newspaper, was relatively hard to come by, limited mostly to video traders and online dealers. Today, however, anyone can call up hours of footage, not only from the three networks but also from local television and radio.

Of the various sites devoted to the JFK assassination, few come with the video treasure that can be found on the sites run by David Von Pein. An outspoken believer (as am I) that Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only assassin of Kennedy, Von Pein has amassed an incredible amount of video history on JFK -- not just the assassination, but various tributes, documentaries and movies, not to mention rarely seen clips from Kennedy's 1960 presidential campaign. As someone who has spent more than a few hours with my own JFK collection, I thought David would be an outstanding choice for the inaugural "It's About TV" interview.


David, thanks first of all for your time. We're going to be talking about collecting old television shows on DVD, because you have an amazing collection, not just of the JFK assassination, but all kinds of TV series and movies. Do your friends and family think you’re kind of, uh, nuts for doing this? Because I know some of the looks I get, I have to go into this long academic discussion about how this is all historical research, in order to justify what is probably really a guilty pleasure.


No, I don't think my family thinks I'm TOTALLY crazy. Just a LITTLE bit. ~wink~


So tell me - how did you first get interested in the Kennedy assassination? Was this a contemporary event for you, something you'd always been interested in, or is this a case of a young man looking back at a particular point in time?


I was born on December 27, 1961 (when JFK was President, coincidentally), so I don't remember the assassination (or JFK as a President) at all. I just know that (for me) there's something about Mr. Kennedy, his Presidency, his family, and his assassination that are endlessly fascinating.

I first got deeply interested in President Kennedy's assassination in 1981, when I read David Lifton's book, Best Evidence [book review here].


Yeah, I remember reading that book as well. Seemed plausible to me at the time. Maybe I just wanted to believe it was something exotic.


Back at that time, I really wasn't a conspiracy theorist, nor can I remember really being a "lone assassin" believer either. I guess I must have been somewhere in-between, but, frankly, I just cannot remember having a strong opinion about the matter one way or the other back then--even after reading Lifton's book.

I'm just glad I didn't place too much faith in Mr. Lifton's nutty theories about casket-switching and body alteration. But even though I didn't really buy into any of Lifton's outlandish theories, I do recall that his book got me much more interested in the JFK murder case.


So here's the $64,000 question: who did it?


I think Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby acted on their own in November 1963, which is a position that places me in the distinct minority when it comes to that subject. As of late 2003, a Gallup Poll indicated that 75% of Americans believe that some kind of a conspiracy existed to murder the President in Dallas.

The hard physical evidence, however, just simply does not support conspiracy in the JFK case, and the majority of circumstantial evidence doesn't support the beliefs of that 75% of Americans either. And I think I provide a good deal of support to back up my "Lone Nut" opinions on my various JFK websites.

I've talked with many conspiracy theorists in the last several years, and it's quite remarkable to me that so many of these theorists--on the Internet anyway--are not just believers in a conspiracy (per se), but many of the online "CTers" (as conspiracists are often called on Internet forums and websites) also believe that Lee Oswald was completely innocent of BOTH President Kennedy's murder and the murder of Police Officer J.D. Tippit as well.

But given the evidence that conclusively proves for all time that Oswald was most certainly guilty of Tippit's slaying, such an "Oswald Is Innocent" stance is just flat-out nutty. Simple as that.


As your interest increased, did you ever think there would be such a treasure trove of video material to review?


No, I never did think I'd be able to collect such a vast amount of video and audio material associated with JFK's assassination. But over a period of time, I've been able to amass quite a library of videos, as well as many audio programs, connected to John F. Kennedy, his Presidency, and his untimely death, along with a large number of photographs as well.

I am grateful to many people for supplying me with a lot of these materials, some of which I have obtained from other private collectors like myself, while other material, such as the photos that I have put in my large Kennedy Photo Album, has been collected through the means of this great tool known as the Internet and the World Wide Web.

The number of pictures that were taken of JFK and his family is simply staggering. I will occasionally add photos to my above-linked Kennedy Album, and each time I search for more photos, I seem to find a dozen new ones that I had never seen before. It's amazing.


Your YouTube channel on the JFK assassination is just incredible. You have hours of continuous footage from all three of the broadcast networks, not just from November 22 itself, but from all of the four days. It’s much more comprehensive than the highlights you see on commemorative shows, and it really puts things in a proper context. How did you first start collecting the JFK videos? Was there something in particular that interested you, or that you were looking for? Or did one thing lead to another?


My interest in JFK and the assassination prompted my interest in the video-collecting thing. As you know, President Kennedy's murder was the first huge news story of the television age that was covered as it was happening. Oswald's murder on live TV is still a one-of-a-kind event (as far as I know). The footage from the Dallas police basement is still amazing--even 40+ years later.


Why are people still fascinated by this, after almost fifty years? I mean, besides your site there are hundreds of JFK assassination videos posted to YouTube - what's the attraction? Is it our fascination with the Kennedys, is it the "history as it happened" aspect of the coverage, is it the sense of horror and shock that still resonates when you watch the coverage unfold, a sense of nostalgia for an era since gone, or is there something else?


Well, I can't really know for sure what other people's thoughts are about this issue, but as far as I am concerned, there's just something about JFK and his era (the early 1960s) that is endlessly appealing and interesting. It's just "there". At least for me it is, and perhaps other people feel the same way.

And that feeling extends to President Kennedy's tragic murder too. It's just "there", something deep down that makes the case fascinating and intriguing (even though I, myself, firmly believe that nobody else was involved in the President's murder other than Oswald).

But the way things unfolded that weekend (even with Oswald guilty alone) is perpetually interesting .... including, of course, the unbelievable drama that was played out in the police basement two days later, with Jack Ruby killing Oswald on live TV and in front of 70 policemen.

Anyway, I can't know the answer to your last very good question, Mitchell, but for ME the JFK murder case will never go away, even though I do think it was "solved" virtually the day it occurred in November 1963.


So looking back on it after almost fifty years, what's your opinion of the television coverage, and which networks do you think did the best and the worst jobs?


That's a tough question. I think that it might be a tie for best network coverage of the assassination--between NBC and CBS, with ABC definitely ranking third, in my opinion, although I think the ABC News team did a good job too, but their facilities seemed to be a few notches below the other two major TV networks. (Have you seen the footage from the ABC studios in New York from 11/22/63? It literally looks like they were broadcasting from an unfinished basement. It's hilarious. But I think Mr. Cochran and company did the very best they could.)


The local coverage from Dallas was quite good, especially the ABC affiliate, on whose coverage the network relied heavily.


That would be WFAA-TV, with Jay Watson anchoring much of the coverage from November 22nd. And I completely agree with you about WFAA's excellent coverage. They did a very good job, even though they were a bit disorganized and rattled in the first hour or two, with Watson not being able to decide whether to broadcast from the studio or the newsroom. But that kind of disorganization is fun to watch. It gives a true sense of being there "live" during a crisis as it is happening.

And WFAA was able to provide some very interesting interviews with some of the eyewitnesses within literally minutes of the shooting (Bill and Gayle Newman). And Watson interviewed Abraham Zapruder just two hours after Abe took his famous 26-second home movie of the assassination.

All of that stuff is archived on my websites as well. I've even provided separate videos that show only the interviews of various witnesses, such as the Newmans and Mr. Zapruder.


One thing that’s changed since 1963, of course, is the advent of the all-news network. I mean, here you had the president of the United States shot, perhaps fatally, and because the networks don’t have cameras warmed up yet they can’t switch to the studio, so they just do voiceovers where they’re reading the wire service copy, and then they return to regular programming and commercials!


Yes, it is indeed surreal to look at the first bulletins now and try to imagine anyone being the slightest bit interested in a Nescafe coffee ad or an episode of Father Knows Best after hearing those initial tragic bulletins.


The ABC affiliate in New York, I think it is, is showing a rerun of Father Knows Best when the first bulletins come in, where Bud is apparently trying to make himself look older for a date he has with an older woman. We have the interruption for an update on the shooting, and then when we go back to regular programming he's saying goodbye to the girl on the steps of her house, and in that moment between those two scenes it's almost as if the world has completely changed. What was a pressing problem for Bud pre-bulletin now seems to be almost a nostalgic look back at the past, a world that we might never see again. Perhaps it's just our contemporary perspective, looking back on it after all these years and knowing the tumult that's to come, but I find that moment in retrospect to be so naive, actually extremely moving.


BTW, I now have that complete episode of FKB on DVD--from the third season of that series. It's an episode called "Man About Town", and I always think of the ABC bulletins whenever I watch that show, halfway expecting an "ABC Bulletin" slide to appear on the screen after the girl says "Go on, Bud, it sounds exciting."


That's ironic, the timing of the bulletin, isn't it? A little too exciting, sadly. So, if all-news networks had existed back then, would the coverage have been better or worse? I know that's kind of a loaded question, but when I think back to Congresswoman Giffords' shooting, and all the misinformation that followed, I wonder if today's coverage would have been any better than it was in '63. But, having said that, do you think there's any chance the conspiracy theories would have been as prevalent if today's technology had existed? Or are the conspiracies after 9/11 proof that it wouldn't have mattered?


I think your comment about 9/11 is on-target. If people can actually be goofy enough to think that NO AIRPLANES AT ALL struck the Pentagon and the World Trade Center (even with VIDEO FOOTAGE of the planes striking both WTC towers!), then I have no doubt that if the JFK murder had occurred in the 21st century, there would probably be just as many ridiculous conspiracy theories as there are today about the JFK case. Possibly even more.

And there are now conspiracy theories about Osama Bin Laden's recent death. People just love conspiracies and plots and secrets--even when they make no sense at all (such as with 9/11).


Out of the mountain of footage, what are the moments that stand out for you as being the most memorable from the four days?


That's another toughie. I'm not sure I can narrow it down to just one single memorable moment. So, I'll list my top 4 (off the top of my head):

1.) Walter Cronkite's emotional announcement of the President's death on CBS-TV. Oddly enough, I think Walter's emotions have become just as famous as the bulletin itself. For the record, Mr. Cronkite displayed his inner feelings on the air at least one other time that weekend. Walter broke up a little bit on Saturday, November 23 when he was reading a story about President Kennedy's son, John Jr.

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald being shot and killed by Jack Ruby on live TV.

3.) This one is a pre-assassination moment --- before JFK gave his last speech in Fort Worth, there's a point in the TV coverage when the announcer starts talking (in some detail) about the 1901 assassination of President McKinley. In light of what happened in Dallas just three hours later, those remarks about McKinley's murder are quite chilling and poignant.

4.) Another eerie pre-assassination moment is when KRLD-Radio reporter Bob Huffaker is providing live reports from Main Street in Dallas as JFK's motorcade passes by his position.

After the President's car goes by, Huffaker continues to broadcast live on KRLD-Radio for several more minutes. Bob was telling the radio audience how smoothly everything went with the motorcade, and how there were no anti-Kennedy demonstrations, etc. Huffaker was literally on the air live as JFK was being shot just a short distance down the street in Dealey Plaza.

If Huffaker had been located closer to Elm and Houston Streets, his open microphone would have likely picked up the sound of Lee Oswald's three rifle shots from the Texas School Book Depository Building in Dealey Plaza.

The FBI, in fact, did a detailed analysis of Huffaker's recording to see if any gunshots were audible on the audio tape. Unfortunately, none could be heard, as Huffaker was located too far east of the shooting scene. Here is Huffaker's recording.


Speaking of Cronkite, it’s interesting how he’s become shorthand for the assassination coverage – whenever a period movie or show wants to depict it, they always use the CBS clips, even though we know from contemporary accounts that more people watched NBC and Huntley-Brinkley than CBS and ABC together. Is that because CBS already had the tape rolling whereas the other networks didn’t, or is it because Cronkite’s stature has grown even more in the years since?


I think Walter Cronkite's bulletin would still be the most famous -- even if NBC had rolled tape sooner. I don't think that delay had much to do with anything in the long run.

I just hate hearing people now bad-mouthing Mr. Cronkite (following his death a year or two ago). Some conspiracy people were calling Walter a traitor and a liar and a CIA stooge, etc. Just ridiculous. It makes me sick.


Is there a "Holy Grail" for Kennedy assassination video collectors and researchers? Anything you'd like to see but haven't seen yet?


Oh, there are lots of things I'd like to have in my collection that I currently do not possess -- such as more of the live "as it's happening" type of TV and radio coverage from any number of U.S. stations and markets, such as the Chicago coverage (WLS and WGN), and Los Angeles, and San Francisco, and Miami, and many other cities.

In 2008, I was lucky enough to obtain almost 40 hours of November 1963 audio material from radio station WLW in Cincinnati, and it got me to thinking about all of those other major cities which were covering the JFK assassination for hundreds of other radio and television stations across the country, very little of which has ever been heard or seen since 1963.

But it seems to me that if WLW had nearly 40 hours of footage archived somewhere in its vaults for over 40 years, it stands to reason that many other TV and radio outlets might have saved their audio and video from those four dark days too.

I'd also like to see (or hear) the Parkland Hospital press conference that was given by Dr. Malcolm Perry and Dr. Kemp Clark on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. As far as I know, however, that conference has never surfaced in either an audio or video form.


My wife would say this discussion is getting exceedingly morbid, so let me close with some questions about classic television. What's your favorite show of all time?


Another tough inquiry from you, Mitch. I'm going to have to do a "list" of favorites (again), because I cannot narrow it down to just one single show. That's impossible. So, I'll give you my Top 6:

Leave It To Beaver
The Dick Van Dyke Show
The Fugitive
The Andy Griffith Show
The Mary Tyler Moore Show
Father Knows Best (especially Season 3)


What do you think is the most underrated show, from that era?


I can tell you one particular TV series that I, myself, severely underrated before buying the first four seasons on DVD in the last few years -- and that's Father Knows Best.

After watching the episodes of FKB on DVD, I began to realize what a truly outstanding show it was (and still is). I don't know if other people "underrated" FKB, but I know I sure did.


Do you think TV was better back then than it is now?


Oh, yes, I think TV was much better "back then" (i.e., in the "Golden Age" of the 1950s and 1960s, and even through the 1970s too).


Why is that, do you think? I’m always concerned it’s because I’ve just become an old fuddy-duddy, even though I’m not that old.


I really can't pinpoint the exact reasons for my opinion, but I certainly watch a lot more of the "oldies" on TV (and via DVD) than I do current offerings on the boob tube.

I think part of the reason is that the performers, writers, and producers of the older TV shows put a lot more of their heart and soul (and talent, of course) into making the older shows the best they could possibly be.

It's not that the TV people of today don't put a lot of effort and sweat into their current shows too. I didn't mean to suggest that. But the quality of the older shows (like my "Top 6" list above) cannot be denied.

And as far as I am concerned, there hasn't been another drama series like The Fugitive come along since David Janssen's iconic series ended in 1967. And as for comedy--it's hard to beat Mary Tyler Moore and Dick Van Dyke...and even "The Beaver"...for genuine, realistic laughs and situations.


Lastly (for now), what are the best retro TV sites on the web?


Here are a few sites about individual television series (or performers) that I really like:

The David Janssen Archive
The Fugitive [This one's my own.] :-)
Leave It To Beaver

And before my current advertising campaign ceases (grin), allow me to steer you to my newest website -- Classic TV On DVD.

Of course that oft-used word "classic" is a very subjective term, as we all know. But if you look at my movies site, I think you'll agree that I've included a lot of truly great all-time classics in there. I think my photo galleries for those films are very worthwhile too, as well as my Kennedy photo album, which I recently revamped and expanded.


Thanks so much for your time and insight, David. We'll be sharing some unique footage of the JFK assassination coverage over the next few days.

June 2011
Original Article






(PART 220)


>>> "No, [the width of each jump seat in the Presidential limousine is] exactly 20.5 inches." <<<


Yes, I think you're right here, Tony. Thanks for the correction. The
"5" in "20.50" in this schematic below is blurry and hard to read; I
had thought originally it said "20.00"; but I think it is 20.50:

Via the illustration used in the actual HSCA volumes (at 6 HSCA 50),
the "5" in "20.50" is a little clearer and easier to read. So, 20.50
inches it must be (thank you again, Tony, for that correction, because
it makes my previous argument an even better one--by 1 inch total,
counting both jump seats).

Therefore, given the fact that there's an extra half-inch in there for
the width of each jump seat, as opposed to my previous probably-
incorrect statement concerning the width of the seats, it means that
my prior argument in another post is certainly even stronger and more
valid about there not being enough room to slide the jump seats
inboard a full six inches without running up onto the hump that runs
along the floor of the car.

For the record (again), I now fully believe that the best and most-
likely-to-be-accurate figure for the "jump-seat-from-the-door"
measurement is 2.5 inches--not 6 inches.

Because the actual limo chart (body draft) shows 2.50 inches for that
measurement. Surely that's the data we should rely on as the BEST
EVIDENCE in this regard. And from what I've seen in Mr. Myers' FULL
and not just a culled video snippet showing a close-up of the seats
with a toggling jump seat moving back and forth), Myers has, indeed,
utilized the correct and best measurement for the distance between the
right-hand door and John Connally's jump seat (2.5 inches).

>>> "Probably impossible. That extra 3.5 inches [if the jump seats had, in fact, been located 6 inches inboard in the limo, instead of just 2.5 inches inboard] would not fit." <<<

Exactly. I'm glad to see that a lone-assassin believer like myself and
a conspiracy theorist like Anthony Marsh can finally agree with each
other on something. This is precisely what I had theorized in an
earlier post:

"If the jump seat is 20 inches wide (which the Hess & Eisenhardt chart says it is) [I've now come to realize that that measurement is slightly off; it should be 20.5 inches], and IF the seat was placed a full six inches from the inner surface of the door, it looks like that might be an awfully-tight squeeze without actually having the seat itself (or the base part of it) running up onto the hump. That, of course, is just a guess on my part, based on nothing more than merely eyeballing the..."hump" picture, without having any way to accurately measure the distances with any precision. And since we are only talking about a "discrepancy" of 3.5 inches in the first place, I suppose I could very well be mistaken. But it seems to me, it's something to take into account anyway." -- DVP; May 13, 2008

>>> "...Dale Myers refused to come clean about his data." <<<

Dale has a whole bunch of stuff laid out in great detail on his website (pages
of which are linked below). How much more "data" does a skeptical conspiracy
theorist require? Just curious.




>>> "National Liars Award [referring to Dale K. Myers]." <<<

To use Tony's favorite one-word retort:


David Von Pein
May 13, 2008

(PART 219)


>>> "From what I can tell, he [Dale Myers] just said that he moved Connally and the jumpseat six inches. He never admitted or claimed he has the jumpseat six inches from the door. But, in truth, there is no need to give Mr. Myers the benefit of the doubt. There is no serious doubt. His video shows two heavy lines, which the jumpseat crosses over in the "Before" position. Those heavy lines have to represent the door. The inboard heavy line is the edge of the door at floor level, the outboard heavy is the edge of the door up high. The lines continue the length of the passenger compartment and are roughly flushed with Kennedy's seat and the front seat which Kellerman and Greer sat on. Kennedy's seat overlaps the inboard line, as it may very well have done, since the back seat may have extended slightly beyond the interior boundary at floor level. What else can these heavy lines represent? Not the door itself but some sort of force field generated by the door? Of course not. They represent the door, the boundary of the interior of the limousine." <<<


I've just been watching the videos featuring Dale Myers again (and again)....plus I've been looking at some pictures of the interior of the limousine for comparison purposes....and I noticed something in one of the photos [seen below] of the limo taken after the assassination at the White House garage that I hadn't paid much attention to previously (although I have definitely seen this gory picture before). Like most cars, the Presidential limousine has a hump running down the middle of the floor (directly between the two jump seats):

Now, given the fact that each jump seat was exactly 20 inches wide, and keeping in mind the place in the middle of the car where the "hump" begins to curve upward, I'm just wondering if it would be physically possible to even place John Connally's jump seat a full six inches inboard of the right-hand door?

Seems to me that might not even be physically conceivable to do, given the "hump" being where it is (and given the location in the car where the hump begins its curve upward toward the center of the vehicle).

If the jump seat is 20 inches wide (which the Hess & Eisenhardt chart says it is), and IF the seat was placed a full six inches from the inner surface of the door, it looks like that might be an awfully tight squeeze without actually having the seat itself (or the base part of it) running up onto the transmission hump.

That, of course, is just a guess on my part, based on nothing more than merely eyeballing the above "hump" picture, without having any way to accurately measure the distances with any precision. And since we are only talking about a discrepancy of 3.5 inches in the first place, I suppose I could very well be mistaken. But it seems to me, it's something to take into account anyway.

I must admit (even though I've seen the above "hump" photo before), I had never thought about the way that the hump in the middle of the car could have physically affected the location of the jump seats.


Although this isn't exactly ironclad proof that the position of John Connally's jump seat was only 2.5 inches inside the limo's right-hand door, the following illustration appears in the photo section of Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book "Reclaiming History"; and in my opinion this "three-dimensional overhead rendering" (as Vince calls it in his book) looks pretty darn accurate in its pertinent details. And just look how close the jump seats are to the doors:

Governor Connally's seat doesn't look like it is six inches inboard of the door to me in the above animated illustration. It looks closer to the 2.50 inches as purported in the limo's body draft, which is probably the best evidence for the true measurement of the seat, even though Mr. Bugliosi, in multiple places within the same book that contains the illustration above, claims that the seat is six inches inside the door.

And the above artist rendering also seems to make full allowances for the transmission hump that runs along the floor of the limousine directly between the two jump seats, with the seats coming very close to physically touching the outer edges of the rendered "hump" in the illustration in Bugliosi's book.

And, Joe, once again, I want to emphasize that you might very well be correct regarding the "heavy lines" representing the thick car door in the Discovery Channel video clip. It's just that it's kind of difficult to know for certain what all of those schematic lines mean that are criss-crossing the car.

But, like John Fiorentino recently said, when speaking of Dale Myers (and I must concur):

"He's the one who wins the awards you know." -- John F.; May 3, 2008

David Von Pein
May 13, 2008

(PART 218)


>>> "DVP, if the distortion of the images used in 'Beyond the Magic Bullet' was "self-evident", than [sic] why have you had such a hard time recognizing it? Myers, in his zeal to call me stupid, is attacking you as well." <<<


In all honesty, the thought about distorted images on computer monitors
filmed at an angle by the Discovery Channel never even once crossed my
mind before this topic came up recently at the various JFK forums (and at
Dale Myers' website).

Why in the world WOULD it cross anyone's mind particularly?

But when a person stops and THINKS about it for a few moments, then, yes,
I guess it does, indeed, make sense that the angle of the monitor to the camera would distort things a little bit.

The STRAIGHT-ON view of Myers pushing Connally's jump seat inboard isn't "distorted" in any great way, however. At least I doubt it is. It's being filmed HEAD-ON, it looks to me.

And Dale is definitely sliding that jump seat inboard more than 2.5 inches, and IMO that's not a good thing for him to do, regardless of "time" constraints for the Discovery Channel program. Because it can only serve to confuse people who see the whole seat (with Connally sitting on it) being shoved into a place inside the Presidential limousine where it was never really located.


In Myers' FULL WORKING MODEL that has been LOCKED IN and "Key Framed" to the Zapruder Film itself (with the trajectory lines on it leading back to the Book Depository's Sniper's Nest), and not just culling the snippet with the moving seat, Dale appears to have that jump seat CLOSER to the door (i.e., in the CORRECT location, per the body draft supplied by the limo's manufacturer, Hess & Eisenhardt).

And the Single-Bullet Theory works perfectly via that CLOSER-TO-THE-DOOR full working model. And THAT'S the most important thing. (IMHO.) (YMMV.)


To repeat (yet again):

The bullet that exited JFK's throat had TWO places to go as it came out of the President's throat on its downward angle---

1.) Into the seats or floorboards of the limousine.


2.) Into the body of Governor John B. Connally Jr.

Since we know beyond ALL doubt that #1 did not occur....it means that #2 did occur.

The SBT lives.
And always will.
Because it's the obvious truth.

David Von Pein
May 11, 2008

(PART 217)

Dale Myers has added the following comments to his original May 8, 2008, article posted on his website:


"In a recent post on the UK’s Education Forum, Mr. [Patrick J.]
Speer writes, “No one to my knowledge, including Myers, until this
response, had ever suggested the images were distorted because the
animation – the animation shown round the world to convince people the
single-bullet trajectories worked, mind you – was shot at an angle
from a computer monitor.”

"Mr. Speer doesn’t seem to understand that in the real world
there is no need to acknowledge something that is self evident--
namely, that Discovery Channel viewers were watching a presentation
being given from a vantage point that was not perpendicular to the
presentation screen. This is obvious from the Discovery program
sequences that show a wide-angle view of the studio in which the
presentation was being given. Mr. Speer failed to note that fact and
now claims that the Discovery Channel and yours truly conspired to
deceive everyone about the single bullet theory.

"The so-called distortions Mr. Speer refers to are of course the
unintended result of the Discovery Channel photographing the
presentation monitor at an angle and have nothing to do with the
alignments depicted in the actual images appearing on the monitor. And
the trajectory path superimposed over the videotaped sequence by
Discovery editors after the fact has no more relevance or accuracy to
the images below it (other than to illustrate, in very broad terms,
the path of the bullet*) than Mr. Speer’s own attempts to project two-
dimensional lines into three-dimensional space.

"It’s unfathomable to me that anyone could swallow Mr. Speer’s
illogical rationale for dismissing the breadth of my work on the
single bullet theory, but in the world of conspiracy theorists bent on
embracing anyone and anything critical of the single bullet theory,
such idiocy is common place. (The UK’s Education Forum’s
administrator, John Simkin, applauded Speer writing, “Congratulations.
I am sure all members have been very impressed with your work in this


"Mr. Speer further complains that the animated sequence I
produced in which Connally is shown sitting inboard of Kennedy by six
inches is equally deceptively because it shows Connally and the
jumpseat moving in unison. I explained in a recent email that Connally
and the jumpseat were moved as one for clarity.

"According to Mr. Speer, “This is as good as a confession that
Myers knew the jumpseat was not 6 inches in from the door when he
created animation showing it to be 6 inches from the door… I wonder
how many [millions of viewers] would feel deceived to find out that
Connally's sitting comfortably in the middle of his seat was merely a
Myers invention designed to ‘clarify’ things for them? Some might call
this an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the public.”

"I don’t know how many ways to say it, but Connally was situated
six inches inboard of Kennedy at the time they were both hit.
Connally’s jumpseat, however, was fixed to a track in the floor of the
limousine, the outside edge of the jumpseat cushion measured at 2.5
inches from the inside door panel, according to body drafts produced
by Hess & Eisenhardt Company.

"To demonstrate the difference between a rather common (and
inaccurate) drawing purporting to show Connally seated directly in
front of Kennedy at the time of the single bullet shot and their
actual positions as deduced from the Zapruder film and other
photographs, the models of Connally and the jumpseat were moved as a
single unit during presentations for ABC News and the Discovery

"The relationship between Connally and the jumpseat are
identical in both positions. Moving Connally and the jumpseat in
unison was simply easier than moving the two separately given the
television time available – especially given the fact that the
position of the jumpseat had absolutely no bearing on the single
bullet theory.

"But for Mr. Speer, focusing on inconsequential minutia is
better than acknowledging his own obvious mistakes in photographic
analysis and logic. It also allows him to play the martyr for his
fellow conspiracy theorists and pretend he has actually proven
-- Dale K. Myers; May 2008


* = Which was just exactly my response to Mr. Speer regarding this very issue (when it surfaced in the following May 6, 2008, newsgroup exchange):


The [video] clip at your link is most certainly the clip filmed at an angle now denounced by Myers as inaccurate. As you can see they start the trajectory line to the left of the monitor and superimpose it on Myers' distorted animation.


Merely to illustrate the obvious--i.e., that any bullet exiting John Kennedy's neck IS going to strike John B. Connally's body without a shred of a doubt. But the ENTIRE FULL-SCREEN CLIP (showing the trajectory line going back into the Sniper's-Nest window) isn't filmed at any skewed "angle", for Pete sake. In other words, it's not being filmed straight off a computer screen, kinescope-style. This seems quite obvious (to me anyway).


I will add this (once again) regarding the "jump seat" topic:

There is definitely a discrepancy with respect to the exact
measurement of the jump seat that John Connally was sitting on when he
was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano bullet (CE399).

The Hess & Eisenhardt chart shows the seat to be "2.50 inches" inboard
of the right door (which is almost certainly the best possible source,
I would think, to rely on for the true distance between those two
points in the limousine, which Myers has, in fact, done in his 3D
computer model).

But there's also testimony from the Warren Commission (via Thomas J.
Kelley) and the HSCA (by Thomas Canning) indicating that the seat was
located 6 inches inside the door.

Author Vincent Bugliosi, via the quotes in his 2007 book "Reclaiming
History", quite obviously thinks the jump seat was a "half foot"
inboard of the right door, instead of the 2.5-inch measurement found
in the H&E body draft (schematic). Vince uses those exact words ("half
foot") at one point in his book. And in an Endnote on Page 344 of the
CD-ROM, VB says this (which certainly is at odds with the Hess &
Eisenhardt measurement):

"A six-inch gap separated Connally's jump seat from the right door [6 HSCA 49]."

But, as Dale Myers has also pointed out, the exact location of the
seat on which John Connally was riding is NOT the most important
factor at all with regard to lining up the SBT trajectory in Dale's
three-dimensional computer model. It is the location of the two MEN
themselves (JFK & JBC) in "virtual space" that is the key factor.

And Dale's model, as he has fully explained already to Mr. Speer, has
been key-framed to the MEN THEMSELVES as they appear in the Zapruder
Film--and not to the SEATS of the two victims.

I'm still a bit confused myself about the precise jump-seat
measurement. As mentioned, there's definitely an official disagreement
there with respect to that measurement from the right-hand door.

But I'll also add a breath of CSA (Common Sense Air) to this Mountain-
Out-Of-A-Molehill discussion:

It couldn't BE more obvious that a bullet proceeding on a downward and
forward path exiting John Kennedy's throat had noplace else to go
except into Governor Connally's back -- REGARDLESS OF EXACT JUMP-SEAT
LOCALITY (be it 6 inches from the damn door, or 2.5 inches from it).

Pat Speer probably realizes that my last paragraph is 100%
true....which is probably why he decided to invent his own unique
"SBT" a while back, wherein Pat pretends that a non-existent bullet
hole was located at the "hairline" of JFK's body, with that bullet
being fired from a make-believe gunman firing a gun from a made-up
shooting location (the Dal-Tex Building), with this make-believe
bullet then exiting Kennedy's throat at a lesser right-to-left angle
than a Depository SBT bullet would.

You see, being a conspiracy theorist, Pat apparently thinks he doesn't
have to stay within the borders of something called "THE KNOWN
EVIDENCE IN THE CASE". Almost all conspiracists own this strange and
unique rulebook; just as nearly all "CTers" also adhere to the
following motto -- "ACCUSE NOW; PROVE NEVER".

And if Pat wants to respond to my last statement with a comment about
my being a hypocrite and insisting that Dale Myers hasn't been able to
stay within the "known evidence" either -- I'd fire back with:

Yes, he has (regardless of exact jump-seat placement).


Because, as Dale has said (and I have no reason to think he's lying
about this, mainly because it makes SO MUCH SENSE for this statement
printed below to be a truthful and accurate one, based on his computer
animation work):

"The location of the jumpseat has no bearing on the alignment of
ANY trajectory plotted in my computer reconstruction. The figures of
JFK and JBC were matched to the Zapruder film perspective, not to the
location of the jumpseat. Frankly, you could eliminate the entire
limousine from the reconstruction and the alignments of JFK and JBC
would still be valid since their position in space is based on
Zapruder's view of the scene and the relationship of JFK to JBC, and
their combined relationship to the TSBD and the surrounding buildings.
In short, the position and size of the jumpseat has no bearing on the
single bullet theory."
-- Dale K. Myers; May 8, 2008

David Von Pein
May 10, 2008