David VP, Please Reply
Robert Harris
David, now that you have admitted that:
1. You cannot connect the first shot to Oswald.
2. You can only "guess" as to the source and nature of the shot that
caused Tague's minor wound.
3. You cannot objectively confirm that the "stretcher bullet" was
actually, CE399,
will you EVER make the false claim again, that ALL the hard evidence
points to Oswald, to the exclusion of other possible snipers??
Will you admit that you cannot isolate Oswald as the only possible
shooter, and that the hard evidence at best, only proves that ONE of
those shots was associated with him.
Simply yes or no answers are all that is required, David.
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
David VP
You must be kidding. Surely!
The three examples you gave above do nothing to sway my LN position.
And, yes, I still maintain the stance that ALL of the hard, physical
evidence in the JFK & Tippit murder cases points in one lonely
direction, toward Lee H. Oswald and his weapons. Which is also a stance
that has been expressed by a man with more knowledge about this case
than I could ever hope to acquire in my lifetime -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
-------
"No one has produced one piece of evidence to support a conspiracy
theory. ... No one has come up with one piece of solid evidence {to
support a conspiracy theory}. Just theories and motives." -- V.B.
To address your points (1 thru 3 above) separately.......
1.) Naturally, since the first shot MISSED and didn't remain inside a
victim, that shot cannot be conclusively proven to have come from
Oswald's rifle. On the flip side, of course, no CTer can "tie" that
missed shot (nor ANY other shot, miss or otherwise) to a non-Oswald
weapon....because no such weapon exists. Nor can any shot be "tied" to
any particular non-Oswald shooter by CTers...missed shot or otherwise.
Because the CTers have no other shooters to attach these shots/bullets
to.*
* = So, overall, it's a CT/LN "draw" with respect to attempting to tie
any missed shots to certain guns/killers. Isn't this an all-too-obvious
and elementary observation in the first place? Or perhaps Bob is trying
a Freudian "trick" of some kind...to get me to ADMIT TO A CONSPIRACY!
Some CT nuthatch over at Lancer was always doing that a few years
ago...twisting every pro-LN argument I'd make into a faux "CT"
argument....he'd then start up new Forum threads with titles like: "DVP
SAYS HE BELIEVES MULTIPLE KILLERS SHOT KENNEDY!" .... It was always
good for an LOL or two.
2.) Naturally, since it's my opinion that the "Tague shot" was
(essentially) a MISSED shot (striking no victims in the limo), yes,
it's a GUESS re. the Tague wounding. But...so what? This is pretty much
identical to #1 above. All anybody CAN do is "guess" re. any and all
"missed" shots that were never recovered. (How many "misses" does your
CT scenario entail, Robert? And aren't YOU, too, merely "guessing" re.
those misses? If you're not just guessing, then pull a bullet or two
out of your CT hat and tell us what gun(s) they came out of. That'd be
nice to see, for a change.)
3.) Of course the stretcher bullet was CE399. It's only the rabid CTers
(on a mission to discredit every last piece of "Oswald Did It" evidence
in this case) who attempt to cast doubt on 399. But it's not my nature
to shout "It Was Planted!" every five seconds, like some people do.
Sure, skepticism is a good thing up to a point. But at what point does
skepticism become outright CT Wishful-Thinking?
On the whole........
When a person looking at this case can STOP "isolating" certain pieces
of evidence from other evidence, and when a person STOPS trying to
patch together pieces of a "conspiracy" based on this type of isolation
of individual hunks of evidence .... then the TOTALITY of the event
shines through bright and clear.
Don't you think, Robert, that standing back from the CT pit for a
moment and LOOKING AT THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE is a good thing to
do upon occasion? (I know, I know, you think this "totality" adds up to
conspiracy. I think just the opposite. And that TOTALITY of both
physical and circumstantial evidence leaves a reasonable person to
conclude, IMO, that Lee Harvey Oswald was firing his own gun from his
own workplace on 11/22/63....as he fired (per the overwhelming majority
of evidence) exactly three shots, striking JFK twice and missing the
car once (with that shot striking Tague, most likely). .....
A.) An incredibly-high overall % of people in Dealey Plaza heard "3
shots" exactly. Over 75% total.
B.) An even more incredibly-high % of witnesses (95%+!) heard shots
from a SINGLE DIRECTION (be it front or rear.....and since everybody,
even CTers, agrees that SOME shots came from the REAR)....well....you
figure that one out.
C.) Oswald was the ONLY known employee who was INSIDE THE DEPOSITORY AT
PRECISELY 12:30 PM who left work without express permission to do so on
November 22nd. And Oswald was the only such employee without a
VERIFIABLE alibi re. his whereabouts at exactly 12:30 PM. Not a single
person can vouch for Oswald's location during the time when JFK was
being murdered on Elm Street.
D.) No strangers were seen by anyone in the TSBD before the
assassination on Nov. 22. (Save a report re. an old man who evidently
went into the building to use the bathroom.)
E.) Oswald kills Tippit less than an hour after the JFK shooting.
There's no getting around this item, no matter what silly CT spin
people wish to slap on this murder -- Oswald Killed Officer Tippit! And
it's a huge part of the TOTALITY of evidence in this case, leading to
the common-sense theory that Oswald shot Tippit because Oswald had also
just shot Kennedy. How can this "coincidence" of a cop killing in
nearby Oak Cliff POSSIBLY be spun any other way? IMO, it can't be.
F.) Oswald's gun is on the 6th Floor of the TSBD.
G.) Exactly three shells from Oswald's gun are found in the SN.
H.) Oswald's prints are all over the place WHERE AN ASSASSIN WAS
POSITIVELY FIRING A RIFLE TOWARD THE PRESIDENT'S CAR DURING THE
ASSASSINATION. .... Including prints on an item (empty bag) that has no
logical reason for being where it was found after the shooting (in the
SN). To those people who don't cry "Planted!" each and every step of
the way, this item (the paper bag) is an enormous piece of that
"totality" of Oswald's guilt (the proverbial "mosaic" of guilt as my
main dude, Vince Bugliosi, will no doubt be referring to it in his
"Final Verdict").
I.) Oswald tells gobs of lies to police and to THE WORLD via Live TV
after his arrest. (Does a truly "innocent patsy" REALLY need to lie
that much? Really?)
J.) The Z-Film "timeline" of the shooting gives Oswald the necessary
time to squeeze off three shots in an ample number of
seconds...approx. 8.2 seconds in total, given the "stamping" of Shot #1
(a certain miss) around Z160 or so. John Connally's "first-shot right
turn" begins, without question, at approx. Z164. And there is NO OTHER
RIGHT TURN made by Connally that can possibly account for his
unwavering testimony re. turning to his right after hearing a gunshot
(a shot which did not hit him).
A. thru J. totality = A guilty killer by the name of Lee H. Oswald
(aka: "O.H. Lee", "Alek James Hidell", "D.F. Drittal", and "Dr. A.J.
Hideel").
>> "Simply yes or no answers are all that is required, David."
Sorry....I didn't feel like accommodating this request (this time). ;)
WhiskyJoe
David
By refusing to just answer with a simple
"Yes" or "No" to each of Robert's
questions, but instead explaining each
answer in detail, you are denying Robert
an opportunity to explain what you
really mean with each "Yes" or "No"
answer. I don't think that is what he
had in mind. He can argue more
effectively if you just give him a
chance to explain what you really mean
in his words instead of yours.
Joe
David VP
Robert Harris
>>> "Will you EVER make the false claim again, that ALL the hard evidence points to Oswald, to the exclusion of other possible snipers??"
>
>You must be kidding. Surely!
David, I asked you a question.
Are you going to answer it?
>
>The three examples you gave above do nothing to sway my LN position.
I did not try to "sway" anything.
I asked you a question.
>
>And, yes, I still maintain the stance that ALL of the hard, physical
>evidence in the JFK & Tippit murder cases points in one lonely
>direction, toward Lee H. Oswald and his weapons.
David, you are not answering my question.
I asked if you will now admit that you cannot produce hard evidence
that connects more than one shot to Oswald.
A simple yes or no will do nicely. We don't need an essay.
YES or NO.
Robert Harris
You need to reread David's post, Joe.
He never answered my questions, but instead went into a longwinded
rant about Oswald's guilt - knowing of course, that I have no dispute
with him about that at all.
His answer to the disagreeable witnesses who unanimously refused to ID
CE-399, was to as always, change the subject and pretend that I was
talking about a "planted" bullet, something I have never suggested or
remotely implied, in my entire life.
Now, if you disagree with me, simply cite the sentences verbatim in
which he admitted that he can only link one shot to Oswald, or
presented evidence suggesting otherwise.
If you can't do that, then you should admit that he is no more capable
of defending the LN position than you or anyone else.
Robert Harris
>
>Joe
David VP
"required" one-word answer...seeing as how I've already written my
"long-winded rant" which states more-detailed views re. the subject at
hand).
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Robert,
Say, you say to DVP that:
QUOTE ON:
A simple yes or no will do nicely. We don't need an essay.
QUOTE OFF:
Well, Bob, in five or so years of lurking here I do believe I have
observed many, many postings of your own that I would class as an
"essay". If Dave wants to respond in kind, I say good for him!
I mean, what's the go around here? It's OK for JFK-CT types post
lengthy essays and then JFK-LA types are meant to respond with yes or
no answers? This is the internet. DVP can post what he likes here, as
long as it gets past the moderators. And, FWIW, I share his view that
if and when Vince (the "g" is silent) Bugliosi publishes his book it
will be an absolute cracker tome! Keep posting DVP, I say!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
Robert Harris
>Ask me the question again, Robert,
David, it's still sitting there at the top of the thread, waiting for
an honest answer.
Robert Harris
>and then I'll answer it (via your
>"required" one-word answer...seeing as how I've already written my
>"long-winded rant" which states more-detailed views re. the subject at
>hand).
>
>
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
Robert Harris
>TOP POST
>
>Hi Robert,
>
>Say, you say to DVP that:
>
>QUOTE ON:
>
>A simple yes or no will do nicely. We don't need an essay.
>
>QUOTE OFF:
>
>Well, Bob, in five or so years of lurking here I do believe I have
>observed many, many postings of your own that I would class as an
>"essay". If Dave wants to respond in kind, I say good for him!
That's fine, but don't you think he could also add a straight answer,
to complement his long winded essay?
As always, he evaded the question, pretending instead, that I said
something entirely different than what I did.
Robert Harris
David VP
And I apologize to Robert for "lumping" him in with other CTs. I do have a
tendency to "lump" in that regard and place all CTers in the same kooky
basket many times. It's a habit hard to break. Sorry about that.
But, after you've ignored my prior post about asking the question yet
again Bob, I'll re-post your original question from Post #1:
"Will you EVER make the false claim again, that ALL the hard evidence
points to Oswald, to the exclusion of other possible snipers??" -- Robert
Harris; 04/28/2006
My one-word answer to that would be --- Yes.
My longer-than-one-word answer would be ---
It's not a "false" claim in my view. And, yes, the hard, physical evidence
of bullets, guns, shells, fibers, and prints (and most witnesses) leads
straight to LHO and no other human on Earth, and no other gun or guns on
Earth....period.
Anybody can make a "case for conspiracy" if all that is required is a
"missed" shot that nobody recovers later on to attach to a particular gun
or gunman. Obviously, that shot COULD have come from a non-Oswald gun. But
the TOTALITY of the evidence tells me it didn't.
There were THREE spent shells connected to one single gun (Oswald's).
There were TWO distinct bullets connected to one gun (Oswald's).
There was ONE person seen firing a gun on 11/22 (either Oswald or a
nicely-"staged" Oswald look-alike). Not a single other gun or "pipe in a
window" was seen anywhere in DP (despite Jean Hill's post-1963 made-up
fantasy).
So, sure, there COULD have conceivably been a mystery shooter firing at
JFK. But, as Vince B. said in 1986.....
"There may have been 50 people firing at President Kennedy that day...but
if there were...they all missed...only bullets from Oswald's Carcano rifle
struck the President."
If you want to build a conspiracy around Z-Film reactions (which can be
interpreted numerous ways)...or a missed shot that (yes) COULD have come
from any rifle on Earth due to the bullet not being recovered....then have
fun building that kind of conspiracy.
But, IMO, you're on shaky CT ground. Because every single substantive
thing in this case (including Oswald's own actions before and after his
arrest on November 22) should be telling a reasonable person that a single
killer was loose in Dealey Plaza on the day of JFK's Dallas visit....and
that killer was L.H. Oswald.
Robert Harris
>Let me try one more time.......
>
>And I apologize to Robert for "lumping" him in with other CTs. I do have a
>tendency to "lump" in that regard and place all CTers in the same kooky
>basket many times. It's a habit hard to break. Sorry about that.
>
>But, after you've ignored my prior post about asking the question yet
>again Bob, I'll re-post your original question from Post #1:
>
>"Will you EVER make the false claim again, that ALL the hard evidence
>points to Oswald, to the exclusion of other possible snipers??" -- Robert
>Harris; 04/28/2006
>
>My one-word answer to that would be --- Yes.
Then please explain how you connected the first shot to Oswald, and
the one that caused the Tague wound, which you previously admitted,
was a "guess"?
>
>My longer-than-one-word answer would be ---
>
>It's not a "false" claim in my view. And, yes, the hard, physical evidence
>of bullets, guns, shells, fibers, and prints (and most witnesses) leads
>straight to LHO and no other human on Earth, and no other gun or guns on
>Earth....period.
So, you are arguing that because there was evidence connecting Oswald
to the crime, no-one else could have been involved.
Or to put it another way, you believe that since the authorities did
not present evidence of other snipers, that none existed.
Am I understanding you correctly?
My questions then are:
1. Since there are thousands of cases in which murderers did not leave
evidence at a crime scene linking directly them, why do you believe
that the lack of such evidence constitutes proof that no-one else was
involved?
2. Even if other snipers did leave incirminating evidence behnid, do
you think it is significant that the authorities did not search other
possible sniper locations, such as the Daltex building?
3. Do you think the FBI's documented policy of trying to "convince the
public" that only one assassin was involved, and the numerous cases of
them hiding evidence from the WC, suggests that they were thorough and
unbiased in the their investigation?
Or to put it another way, are you totally confident that we can trust
the FBI to have vigorously sought and the revealed all relevant
evidence?
4. Have you resolved the question of why no-one reacted to the first
two shots as they did the ones that followed? If not, then don't you
think there is at least a possiblity that low caliber, silenced
weapons were used to fire those shots?
>
>Anybody can make a "case for conspiracy" if all that is required is a
>"missed" shot that nobody recovers later on to attach to a particular gun
>or gunman.
But that is not my "case". My case can be found here.
What we are discussing now, is YOUR argument that all the evidence
points to Oswald to the exclusion of all other possible snipers.
> Obviously, that shot COULD have come from a non-Oswald gun.
Then why did you answer "yes" to the question?
Why didn't you instead say, that you *hought*Oswald fired all the
shots, based on your "guesses" or whatever else you believe supports
that theory?
>ut
>the TOTALITY of the evidence tells me it didn't.
Good, then you are ready to resolve the question of all those people
reacting in perfect unison with Zapruder, to that mysterious loud
noise at Z285.
What was it, David?
>
>There were THREE spent shells connected to one single gun (Oswald's).
But one could have been an old shell left in the chamber.
And if there were indeed, silenced shots that day, as the evidence
suggests, then there were certainly, more than three fired.
>
>There were TWO distinct bullets connected to one gun (Oswald's).
Not unless you are prepared to resolve the extremely dubious evidence
trail of the stretcher bullet.
Can you do that David, or do you intend to continue to snip everything
related to the issue?
>
>There was ONE person seen firing a gun on 11/22 (either Oswald or a
>nicely-"staged" Oswald look-alike). Not a single other gun or "pipe in a
>window" was seen anywhere in DP (despite Jean Hill's post-1963 made-up
>fantasy).
David, do you think there is at least a remote possibility that the
snipers deliberately stayed out of sight:-)
Why would you expect them to show themselves?
>
>So, sure, there COULD have conceivably been a mystery shooter firing at
>JFK.
Good, then why didn't you answer my question correctly?
Why did you say you could implicate Oswald, to the exclusion of all
others??
>But, as Vince B. said in 1986.....
>
>"There may have been 50 people firing at President Kennedy that day...but
>if there were...they all missed...only bullets from Oswald's Carcano rifle
>struck the President."
That is just not correct, David, no matter who said it.
You cannot confirm that CE-399 was fired during the attack. In fact,
the statements of the people who handled the stretcher bullet make
that extremely unlikely.
The best you can argue is that you can connect Oswald to ONE shot. And
even that must be with qualifications, since we are trusting an FBI
with a history of dishonesty in the JFK case.
>
>If you want to build a conspiracy around Z-Film reactions (which can be
>interpreted numerous ways)...
No they cannot be interpreted in numerous ways, David.
If they could, you would address these issues instead of snipping
them, and tell us about all the great alternative explanations.
Not only were their reactions obvious and taking place in the middle
of a shooting, but each and every one of the people we see react then,
TOLD US exactly what they were hearing, and WHEN.
This is a proverbial, slam dunk, David.
You will never be able to talk around it or 'splain it away, even if
you spend the rest of your life trying.
It is reality, David. The shot at 285 is an absolute and indisputable
certainty - which is why none of you guys will even attempt to dispute
it.
Robert Harris
>or a missed shot that (yes) COULD have come
>from any rifle on Earth due to the bullet not being recovered....then have
>fun building that kind of conspiracy.
>
>But, IMO, you're on shaky CT ground. Because every single substantive
>thing in this case (including Oswald's own actions before and after his
>arrest on November 22) should be telling a reasonable person that a single
>killer was loose in Dealey Plaza on the day of JFK's Dallas visit....and
>that killer was L.H. Oswald.
>
>
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
Whistler
some sharp critics! Well here's my big
critism/question. (from a guy who has
read alot of your web material)...
After all that careful, lengthy study and
research, did you ever had a moment where
you might have thought that LHO might
have really been a lone nut, and that Ruby
was another? Even a small moment?
C'mon admit it, you must have...
David VP
the one that caused the Tague wound, which you previously admitted, was a
"guess"?"
1.) Overwhelming evidence of THREE shots (exactly) being fired/heard.
2.) THREE bullet shells (exactly) being found in the place where a
sniper was seen firing a weapon. (The ONLY sniper who was seen by
anyone on November 22.)
3.) Oswald's weapon found on the same floor from where a sniper was
firing at the motorcade.
4.) TWO bullets and TWO bullets only being "connected" to the wounds of
all victims in the Presidential limousine. Which leaves ONE bullet to
account for (by way of #1 and #2 above). And since I don't cry
"planted" or "faked" or "substituted" at the drop of a hat, I have no
doubt that CE399 from Oswald's gun is a "real" bullet connected to this
case. And if it's "connected" to this case, then the ONLY way that
bullet gets into Parkland Hospital is by way of a victim being wounded
by it when the limo passed by Oswald's gun at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63.
5.) Almost nobody in DP hears shots coming from MULTIPLE directions,
with a majority of earwitnesses hearing ALL OF THE SHOTS coming from
the rear, i.e., from the general direction of the TSBD. Number 5 here
is not evidence that is quite as solid and ironclad as #1 thru #4, but
IMO it is still fairly important, given the huge 95%+ figure of
"One-Directional" witnesses, an incredibly-high percentile IF multiple
shooters were popping away at JFK in Dealey.
Final Analysis of above..........
Is the "missed/Tague" shot "connected" to Oswald via ballistics? No,
quite obviously not. But it's not "connected" to anyone else or anyone
else's gun either. Since it's not connected directly to a specific
rifle, does that mean in a CTer's book that it COULDN'T have come from
Oswald's gun?
Is the "missed/Tague" shot "connected" to Oswald and his rifle via a
little bit of common sense (based on the totality of the evidence
found)? Yes....absolutely.
~Mark VII~
Robert Harris
wrote:
> Boy oh boy, Mr. Harris, youve got
>some sharp critics!
Where?
>Well here's my big
>critism/question. (from a guy who has
>read alot of your web material)...
> After all that careful, lengthy study and
>research, did you ever had a moment where
>you might have thought that LHO might
>have really been a lone nut, and that Ruby
>was another? Even a small moment?
> C'mon admit it, you must have...
Of course I did.
I read *Case Closed*, long before I ever posted on the Internet, as
well as David Moore's book and a couple others that supported your
view.
If you read even my recent postings, you will discover that the large
majority of my conclusions match yours.
Unfortunately, there is one that doesn't.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
On 30 Apr 2006 23:08:16 -0400, "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> "Then please explain how you connected the first shot to Oswald, and
>the one that caused the Tague wound, which you previously admitted, was a
>"guess"?"
>
>1.) Overwhelming evidence of THREE shots (exactly) being fired/heard.
That does not connect Oswald to any of the shots.
And why did you snip almost my entire post and my questions?
>
>2.) THREE bullet shells (exactly) being found in the place where a
>sniper was seen firing a weapon. (The ONLY sniper who was seen by
>anyone on November 22.)
You are just repeating number one, David.
That does not connect Oswald to any of the shots.
>
>3.) Oswald's weapon found on the same floor from where a sniper was
>firing at the motorcade.
That does not connect Oswald to any of the shots.
>
>4.) TWO bullets and TWO bullets only being "connected" to the wounds of
>all victims in the Presidential limousine.
That is not true.
You continue to snip and evade the fact that you cannot support your
belief that CE-399 was the same bullet that was found at Parkland.
You therefore, are left with only one bullet that you can connect to
Oswald.
Robert Harris
>Which leaves ONE bullet to
>account for (by way of #1 and #2 above). And since I don't cry
>"planted" or "faked" or "substituted" at the drop of a hat, I have no
>doubt that CE399 from Oswald's gun is a "real" bullet connected to this
>case. And if it's "connected" to this case, then the ONLY way that
>bullet gets into Parkland Hospital is by way of a victim being wounded
>by it when the limo passed by Oswald's gun at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63.
>
>5.) Almost nobody in DP hears shots coming from MULTIPLE directions,
>with a majority of earwitnesses hearing ALL OF THE SHOTS coming from
>the rear, i.e., from the general direction of the TSBD. Number 5 here
>is not evidence that is quite as solid and ironclad as #1 thru #4, but
>IMO it is still fairly important, given the huge 95%+ figure of
>"One-Directional" witnesses, an incredibly-high percentile IF multiple
>shooters were popping away at JFK in Dealey.
>
>Final Analysis of above..........
>
>Is the "missed/Tague" shot "connected" to Oswald via ballistics? No,
>quite obviously not. But it's not "connected" to anyone else or anyone
>else's gun either. Since it's not connected directly to a specific
>rifle, does that mean in a CTer's book that it COULDN'T have come from
>Oswald's gun?
>
>Is the "missed/Tague" shot "connected" to Oswald and his rifle via a
>little bit of common sense (based on the totality of the evidence
>found)? Yes....absolutely.
>
>~Mark VII~
>
>
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
David VP
And just exactly how many bullets/shots can you definitively "connect"
to a "conspirator"...or to anybody's rifle other than Lee Harvey
Oswald's? 1? 2? 3? Or maybe...zero?
Wonder how that "proves" conspiracy. But, then again, it doesn't take
much to prove conspiracy to some people. Two ladies moving their heads
down to lean in toward their shot-all-to-hell husbands is probably
enough to "prove" it to one CTer in particular.
Robert Harris
>>> "So, you are arguing that because there was evidence connecting Oswald to the crime, no-one else could have been involved. Or to put it another way, you believe that since the authorities did not present evidence of other snipers, that none existed. Am I understanding you correctly?"
>
>Is it truly possible for a seemingly-intelligent person like Robert to
>BE this dense?? I wonder.
I don't think you wonder at all, David.
I think you are only pretending to be unable to differentiate between
a question and a declaration.
I just asked you a *question*, which you are as usual, evading.
>
>How are the authorities supposed to present "evidence" of "other
>snipers" (i.e., guns, whole bullets, fragments, ANYTHING of this
>nature) that does not exist and was never found?!
David, I have never seen a more flagrant example of circular reasoning
in my entire life:-)
>
>Were the cops supposed to go traipsing after E. Howard Hunt and Johnny
>Roselli based on the fact that ALL of the physical evidence of the
>above nature stamped only Oswald as the one and only killer??
No David, they were supposed to search the crime scene for possible
sniper locations in Dealey Plaza.
>
>Was the DPD known as "Wild Goose-Chasers, Inc." back in '63?? I guess
>most CTers think that moniker SHOULD have been applied to the DPD. (And
>the FBI too, for that matter.)
No David, they were supposed to search the crime scene for possible
sniper locations in Dealey Plaza.
>
>
>>> "David, do you think there is at least a remote possibility that the snipers deliberately stayed out of sight."
>
>And while they were staying "out of sight", they're firing bullets that
>an enormous pct. of DP earwitnesses did not hear at all ....
You don't know that David.
In fact, by your own admission, you can only connect one of those
shots to Oswald.
>and these
>other gunmen were also firing bullets from their guns that either ALL
>MISSED everything in DP (some great pro shooters there) ... or ... all
>bullets from "other snipers" that go into victims somehow completely
>disappear after entering said victims. (All "hidden" away by plotters,
>right...before a single Parkland "non-plotter" could see a single one
>of these bullets?
You don't know and cannot prove any of that David.
By your own admission, you are only guessing about most of it.
>
>~Ricky Ricardo Laugh Ensues Boisterously~
>
>You're engaging in utter CT fantasy, without a single "other sniper's"
>bullet, shell, fragment, or gun to place before the world.
You can only connect one of three audible shots to Oswald, David, and
you have no clue about how many shots might have been fired that were
inaudible or nearly simultaneous with other audible shots.
>
>And yet *I'm* accused of "guesswork"??
No, David - YOU said you were guessing.
It's bad enough that you distort what I say, but can't you at least
get your own statements right:-)
Robert Harris
>Astounding hypocrisy indeed!
David VP
They did. Or are you forgetting about the cop who immediately ran up the
knoll (right straight to the exact area where nearly all CTers think at
least 1 shot was fired) and what did he find again?
Answer -- Not a single sign of a gunman.
Should the police, therefore, have just PRETENDED there was a gunman there
to make CTers happy?
>> "You have no clue about how many shots might have been fired that were
inaudible or nearly simultaneous with other audible shots."
This is beautiful! Via this argument, NO crime involving guns could ever
be thoroughly solved or blamed on a lone shooter.....because there COULD
have always been another gunman somewhere who fired a silenced shot.
The big problem Robert has is that virtually all of his "evidence" of
conspiracy is 100% conjecture-based....i.e., inaudible shots, synchronized
shots, "Everybody's Ducking", Jean Hill's rapid head snap. Great case for
a plot there indeed.
When you've got some hard, concrete evidence.....let us all know. But a
wild guess re. "inaudible shots" just ain't gonna make the grade I'm
afraid.
Great argument, huh? Nobody hears that shot over there, and there's no
physical evidence of it either....meaning: there MUST have actually been a
shot from over there (of a totally-silenced and unprovable variety).
Vince Bugliosi would love to do battle with that silliness in court I'll
bet.
That's akin to the proverbial CT argument of: Since virtually all the
evidence leads to only Oswald...that must mean just THE OPPOSITE (i.e.,
Oswald's perfectly innocent somehow)!
(That last blast wasn't aimed at you Robert. I was "generalizing".)
Anthony Marsh
>>> "No David, they were supposed to search the crime scene for possible sniper locations in Dealey Plaza."
>
> They did. Or are you forgetting about the cop who immediately ran up the
> knoll (right straight to the exact area where nearly all CTers think at
> least 1 shot was fired) and what did he find again?
>
> Answer -- Not a single sign of a gunman.
>
Because the other cop, Joe Smith, had already found the gunman and let
him go, in the parking lot, not on the triple overpass. Two slightly
different places.
> Should the police, therefore, have just PRETENDED there was a gunman there
> to make CTers happy?
>
>
>>> "You have no clue about how many shots might have been fired that were
> inaudible or nearly simultaneous with other audible shots."
>
> This is beautiful! Via this argument, NO crime involving guns could ever
> be thoroughly solved or blamed on a lone shooter.....because there COULD
> have always been another gunman somewhere who fired a silenced shot.
>
Not exactly, but you shouldn't always assume it was a lone shooter.
Robert Harris
>>> "No David, they were supposed to search the crime scene for possible sniper locations in Dealey Plaza."
>
>They did.
Of course they did. But they didn't search some of the most obvious,
potential locations, like the Daltex or the Records building.
>Or are you forgetting about the cop who immediately ran up the
>knoll (right straight to the exact area where nearly all CTers think at
>least 1 shot was fired) and what did he find again?
Please reread my posting, David.
I never said they failed to check the knoll. Nor did I say they
searched nowhere.
>
>Answer -- Not a single sign of a gunman.
That's probably because there was no shooter there.
>
>Should the police, therefore, have just PRETENDED there was a gunman there
>to make CTers happy?
David, I have never seen anyone whose reasoning, so consistently
eludes me.
>
>
>>> "You have no clue about how many shots might have been fired that were
>inaudible or nearly simultaneous with other audible shots."
>
>This is beautiful! Via this argument, NO crime involving guns could ever
>be thoroughly solved or blamed on a lone shooter.....
You are correct, that in many cases, the question of multiple snipers
is indeed, a nonfalsifiable. And DP certainly falls into the class.
>because there COULD
>have always been another gunman somewhere who fired a silenced shot.
Daivd, the problem here is not that they "could have been", it's that
they were.
One sniper, using the alleged murder weapon, could not have fired all
the shots. You undoubtedly, realize that or you wouldn't have to
continually evade that issue.
>
>The big problem Robert has is that virtually all of his "evidence" of
>conspiracy is 100% conjecture-based....i
David, since you have refused to read my article, which contains
numerous pieces of footnoted facts and citations, how can you know
that "virtually all" of my evidence is conjecture based?
You realize of course, that your refusal to discuss specific issues,
proves that you are totally incapable of dealing with this, don't you?
>.e., inaudible shots, synchronized
>shots,
What "synchronized shots" David?
Why do you continue to make up things, that I never said?
And why do you dispute the fact that there were inaudible shots, when
you know very well, that the vast majority of witnesses confirmed that
they only heard one of the early shots?
And you realize that not even one of the many law enforcement
professionals who were there, reported hearing early shots that were
closer than the final shots.
And that Gov. Connally never heard the shot that hit him?
This is not "conjecture", David. Neither is the total lack of
reactions to the shot at 223.
>"Everybody's Ducking", Jean Hill's rapid head snap. Great case for
>a plot there indeed.
You are absolutely correct, David, except that not everyone was
ducking at the time. Greer was turned to the rear and really couldn't.
>
>When you've got some hard, concrete evidence.....let us all know. But a
>wild guess re. "inaudible shots" just ain't gonna make the grade I'm
>afraid.
David, do you think that no-one notices how you continually delete the
arguments and questions that you cannot deal with?
Do you think no-one notices that you fabricate theories and pretend
that your adversaries support them, so that you have something to
"refute"??
Have you ever considered that these tactics confirm the inability of
your "side" to defend it's position, far better than anything I could
say?
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
David VP
eludes me."
That's funny....I was having those very same thoughts re. your reasoning.
;)
Anthony Marsh
> On 2 May 2006 00:28:02 -0400, "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>> "No David, they were supposed to search the crime scene for possible sniper locations in Dealey Plaza."
>> They did.
>
> Of course they did. But they didn't search some of the most obvious,
> potential locations, like the Daltex or the Records building.
>
Nor did they search the storm drains. But they did search the parking
lot, found the shooter and let him go.