why are Nutter's obsessed ...

aeffects

unread,

Jan 3, 2007, 6:35:59 PM1/3/07

to

to the point of illness with the WCR? Patently absurd! What excuse
*flag waving* or otherwise...do you have these day's...

Curious minds need to know? LMAO!

Gil Jesus

unread,

Jan 3, 2007, 7:48:19 PM1/3/07

to

A:

There are several different types of people who subscribe to the WC
point of view.

The first are the uninformed.

These poor folks have been lied to and because they don't know any
better, like sheep led to slaughter, they follow their masters. They
have no knowledge of the rules of evidence nor do they understand what
the results of a test mean.

They spend their lives shooting melons, but fail to see that their
results are only valid if Oswald was shooting melons. To coverup their
lack of understanding, they they are forced to rely on the "research"
of charlatans and deceivers. Rather than admit their fault, they
"parrot" the ridiculous, much the same way the WC did in support of J.
Edna Hoover.

The next type is the naive.

Anything that says "conspiracy" is ridiculous to these folks. Their
government doesn't lie to them and yet they fail to see that we are
engaged in a war in Iraq in which the government lied to its people
about Weapons of Mass Destruction being there. Theirs is a world where
democracies hold no information back from its people, that hearings in
executive session are the norm, and the altering and omission of
witness testimony is part of the justice system.

The next type is the troublemaker

They're just looking for a fight. The name calling, profanity, and
personal attacks are symbollic of a deeper personal problem. Although
these folks refer to those who believe in conspiracies as the kooks, it
is they whose words reflect an emotional deficiency requiring
professional attention. It is not the CTs who personally attack the
LNers, but the LNers who attack the CTs.

I must add, however, that there are some LNers, with whom I have had
some spirited debates. I respect their opinions and them personally,
and although I don't agree with them on many points, I do respect their
opinions and will defend their right to express them, as I will the CTs
with whom I have differences.

cdddraftsman

unread,

Jan 3, 2007, 9:06:06 PM1/3/07

to

Hey Chico , It's me , that thorn in your side , that person who who got
under your skin so badly , that made you look so stupid , that you
pretended to killfile me , but burns inside every time he thinks about
his ancestors who fell at the Alamo , all those greasy scum bucket
cockroaches that pose as his friends , Listen Up !

Gil Jesus wrote:
> A:
>
> There are several different types of people who subscribe to the WC
> point of view.
>
>

> > Right . Scientists and higher intellectuals . These 5% of our population make up 40% of
> > our country's GDP .

>
>
>
> The first are the uninformed.
>
>
>

> > Right . They don't listen to poorly constructed conspiracy theory's that begger the
> > imagination as to their statistacal and logical impossibilitys . They do however know
> > how to put communists , Mexicanas soon to be deported back to TJ , Cocain smugglers
> > ( Gil for instance who slipped in a quick 50 rocket launchers ) in their place .

>
>
>
>
> These poor folks have been lied to and because they don't know any
> better, like sheep led to slaughter, they follow their masters. They
> have no knowledge of the rules of evidence nor do they understand what
> the results of a test mean.
>
>
>

> > Right . Perhaps you'd like to explain it to us . But don't use techniques that are
> > unkown to law inforcement , investigative proceedures that were abandoned 100
> > years ago because they didn't work :
> > http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Critical_thinking/Intro_to_critl_thinking.html
> > http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Issues_and_evidence.html
> > http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific_topics/Scientific_topics.html
> > http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Fiction/JFK_assassination_in_fiction.html
> > http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/History/WC_Period/Legal_views_of_WC/Legal_views.html
> > then come back to us Chico , with out using below
> > the border mexicana logic more aptly suited to people who smuggle cocain into
> > this country .
> >
> > .... :-) .....TL

tomnln

unread,

Jan 3, 2007, 10:47:27 PM1/3/07

to

Admitted Racist HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tom_lowery.htm
ALL in his

"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167876365.9...@6g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

aeffects

unread,

Jan 3, 2007, 10:48:05 PM1/3/07

to

cdddraftsman wrote:
> Hey Chico , It's me , that thorn in your side , that person who who got
> under your skin so badly , that made you look so stupid , that you
> pretended to killfile me , but burns inside every time he thinks about
> his ancestors who fell at the Alamo , all those greasy scum bucket
> cockroaches that pose as his friends , Listen Up !

You got to be kidding.....sitdown stump, you don't rate 'pebble' in
shoe status....lmao!

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 4, 2007, 2:09:31 AM1/4/07

to

I've recently had the pleasure of corresponding with Robert Huffaker,
who was a reporter for KRLD-TV/Radio in Dallas on 11/22/63. He reported
on many of the fast-breaking events during that November weekend
(including reporting live on CBS from the DPD basement when Oswald was
shot).

And I think a few of Bob's concise and to-the-point comments re. his
personal opinions about the assassination would fit in nicely here.

I'm just wondering into which of Gil Jesus' convenient "LN
Compartments" Mr. Huffaker would be placed? And which slot does Vincent
Bugliosi fit into as well? Just curious.

Bob Huffaker, who was there in Dallas in Nov. of '63 and saw a heck of
a lot while he was reporting on the history-making events, is a firm
believer that only one shooter (Oswald) struck any victims with bullets
on Nov. 22nd.

Here's a recent e-mail I received from Bob Huffaker (re-printed here
with Bob's permission):

"Dear David,

I thank you for your careful, thoughtful and well-written review. I am
happy to see your attack upon the multi-gun, multi-shot idiocies. These
three shootings happened just as we reported them--and just as Dallas
Police homicide investigators found from the beginning. Their work on
this wild case was especially fine, as was the job done by their
uniformed colleagues, one of whom died in the process. They had Oswald
in custody in little more than an hour after he killed the president,
and I regret that Dallas officers have been so relentlessly suspected
of everything from incompetence to complicity in some ill-defined plot.

At my age I no longer suffer fools gladly, and I appreciate your
attempts to set some of them straight.

Neither I nor my co-authors would foreclose the possibility that others
might have influenced Oswald's murderous intentions, but the evidence
of the acts themselves has been clear all along. And no evidence of a
wider plot has been found in 43 years." -- Bob Huffaker; January 3,
2007

~~~~~~

The review that Mr. Huffaker referred to above is this one for his 2004
book "When The News Went Live: Dallas 1963" (which is a book with lots
of good stuff in it, including some rarely-seen photos):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/103-9597227-6764635?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1589791398&store=yourstore&reviewID=RJTEB6UY458I8&iid=1589791398

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2JNFP6WJ6Q95I/ref=cm_pdp_profile_friend_pic/103-9597227-6764635

eca...@comcast.net

unread,

Jan 4, 2007, 9:43:42 AM1/4/07

to

Gil:
The LN faction has an
**********
*EVIDENCE*PATTERN*
**********
the "There's Something
Fishy Here" gang doesn't.
And that my friend is the
DIFFERENCE.

In a way
I feel sorry for
you Gil..

MR ;~D
Ed Cage 0839Jan407

tomnln

unread,

Jan 4, 2007, 12:59:52 PM1/4/07

to

If you're so sure of your position you can Easily explain why the
authorities Altered the
Walker Back Yard Photo 3 times???

HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm

Is your position Defensible Ed?

<eca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1167921822.8...@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

aeffects

unread,

Jan 4, 2007, 1:34:52 PM1/4/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
> I've recently had the pleasure of corresponding with Robert Huffaker,
> who was a reporter for KRLD-TV/Radio in Dallas on 11/22/63. He reported
> on many of the fast-breaking events during that November weekend
> (including reporting live on CBS from the DPD basement when Oswald was
> shot).
>
> And I think a few of Bob's concise and to-the-point comments re. his
> personal opinions about the assassination would fit in nicely here.
>
> I'm just wondering into which of Gil Jesus' convenient "LN
> Compartments" Mr. Huffaker would be placed? And which slot does Vincent
> Bugliosi fit into as well? Just curious.

why compartmentalize? The guy is a Lone Neuter, one might add with a
vested interest in comfortable theory's.... Outdated they may

> Bob Huffaker, who was there in Dallas in Nov. of '63 and saw a heck of
> a lot while he was reporting on the history-making events, is a firm
> believer that only one shooter (Oswald) struck any victims with bullets
> on Nov. 22nd.
>
> Here's a recent e-mail I received from Bob Huffaker (re-printed here
> with Bob's permission):
>
> "Dear David,
>
> I thank you for your careful, thoughtful and well-written review. I am
> happy to see your attack upon the multi-gun, multi-shot idiocies. These
> three shootings happened just as we reported them--and just as Dallas
> Police homicide investigators found from the beginning. Their work on
> this wild case was especially fine, as was the job done by their
> uniformed colleagues, one of whom died in the process. They had Oswald
> in custody in little more than an hour after he killed the president,
> and I regret that Dallas officers have been so relentlessly suspected
> of everything from incompetence to complicity in some ill-defined plot.
>
> At my age I no longer suffer fools gladly, and I appreciate your
> attempts to set some of them straight.

one fool to another, how quaint!

> Neither I nor my co-authors would foreclose the possibility that others
> might have influenced Oswald's murderous intentions, but the evidence
> of the acts themselves has been clear all along. And no evidence of a
> wider plot has been found in 43 years." -- Bob Huffaker; January 3,
> 2007
>
> ~~~~~~
>
> The review that Mr. Huffaker referred to above is this one for his 2004
> book "When The News Went Live: Dallas 1963" (which is a book with lots
> of good stuff in it, including some rarely-seen photos):

then why do you (or for that matter Mr. Huffaker who suffers no longer
suffer fools nonesense) bother posting in defense of the Warren
"Imaculate Conception" Commission Report, the end-all be-all regarding
the events of Nov 22nd 1963?

Still looking for that elusive writing assignment, Davie? I doubt
Huffaker (whom I've never heard of will launch you into fame) Keep
coming back though we need a few Lone neuter's around here

> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/103-9597227-6764635?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1589791398&store=yourstore&reviewID=RJTEB6UY458I8&iid=1589791398
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2JNFP6WJ6Q95I/ref=cm_pdp_profile_friend_pic/103-9597227-6764635

cdddraftsman

unread,

Jan 4, 2007, 5:23:13 PM1/4/07

to

The few Lner's around here seem to be enough to bury your bull shit ten
feet deep without much problems . Can't stand it when you read a
article that blasts your predispositioning all to shreds can you
stumperroo ? Try building up the ego factor , add ten cans of cambells
beans and come back farting another day . Been on Rossleys Chaterroo
paltakeroo or something , your getting a little fiesty lately AND WHERE
ARE MY TOTALS I TOLD YOU TO KEEP TRACK OF LACKEY ? I SAID I NEED THEM
KNOW ! NOT LATER BOY , HOP TO IT ! ................TL

aeffects

unread,

Jan 4, 2007, 6:09:46 PM1/4/07

to

cdddraftsman wrote:
> The few Lner's around here seem to be enough to bury your bull shit ten
> feet deep without much problems .

come back and tell me ALL about it when you grow up, little guy....
you've become a disgrace to the Lone Neuter cause, you can't quiet
Rossely -- your MORE than a disgrace -- We think you deserve two more
years here.... not to mention a barbwire nutsack holder, I think we can
find someone to make one small enough....

Papa Andy

unread,

Jan 4, 2007, 6:24:06 PM1/4/07

to

"one of whom died in the process"

so JD was working the case when he got shot
that seems like an unresolved point to me
not a fact

A

> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2JNFP6WJ6Q95I/ref=cm_pdp_profil...

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 4:28:28 AM1/5/07

to

>>> "So JD {Tippit} was working the case when he got shot?" <<<

To a degree, yes, J.D. was "working the case"....because it's fairly
obvious (to anyone but the kooks) that Tippit probably stopped Oswald
BECAUSE of JFK's killing less than one hour earlier.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 4:39:05 AM1/5/07

to

>>> "Huffaker (whom I've never heard of)...{remainder of Healy's usual kookshit snipped}..." <<<

That's because you haven't ever watched ANY of the as-it's-happening
11/22 TV coverage. If you had, you'd know who Mr. Huffaker is, and
you'd also be treated to the TRUTH re. the JFK murder case -- i.e., the
fact that there is no way in hell that almost ALL of the LIVE TV/Radio
footage could have HIDDEN from view the type of crackpot multi-shooter
conspiracy that you kooks actually seem to think occurred on Elm Street
that day.

Why not try digging up some of that 11/22 Live footage, aeffects?
Couldn't hurt ya, could it?

Answer truthfully, David H. -- Do you REALLY think that all of that
initial LIVE, AS-IT'S-HAPPENING "Three Shots Were Fired" coverage was
DEAD-WRONG, and there were really many MORE than three shots fired,
that ALL of those news reporters just happened to NOT hear?

Do you really believe that, David?

Answer truthfully....for once.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/103-9597227-6764635?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0001HLT66&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=R177NBVQ2GW9AC&displayType=ReviewDetail

Pat C

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 6:07:24 AM1/5/07

to

Gil,

I am having difficulty understanding why melon shooting tests (or for
that matter gelatin or dead animal shooting tests) are only valid if
LHO comes back from the dead to do the shooting ? Is there something so
so specific about his finger action and his influence on the laws of
physics that negates all other homo sapiens from contributing to
understanding the case ?

Seriously and granted you do acknowledge you have some spirited debates
on the subject with LN's, have you not seen and been compelled by the
Discovery Channel's footage of the Australian team replicating closely
the SBT ?

Yours, not uninformed, not naive or not really a trouble maker,
Patrick, England.

aeffects

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:31:14 AM1/5/07

to

Pat C wrote:
> Gil,
>
> I am having difficulty understanding why melon shooting tests (or for
> that matter gelatin or dead animal shooting tests) are only valid if
> LHO comes back from the dead to do the shooting ? Is there something so
> so specific about his finger action and his influence on the laws of
> physics that negates all other homo sapiens from contributing to
> understanding the case ?
>
> Seriously and granted you do acknowledge you have some spirited debates
> on the subject with LN's, have you not seen and been compelled by the
> Discovery Channel's footage of the Australian team replicating closely
> the SBT ?

I've wondered/questioned why a obscure [unduplicateable] test way out
in the wilds of the Austrailian Outback? Not to mention the validity of
the test that required *gaffers* tape to hold the MC rifle in a secure
position, those questions aside, it did make for good comedy...

Wasn't it the Discovery Channel (when it went on-the-air years ago)
that had a flood of Austraiia based TRAVEL programming? Perhaps a
marker was called in? Or was that the TRAVEL Channel?

Perhaps someone should sent a tape of the Austrailian cluster fu*k to
the "Myth Busters" (The Learning Channel [TLC]) line producer, see what
their sideshow can come up with...

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 8:05:18 AM1/5/07

to

Hey Patrick C.,

That was David "CT-Kook Extraordinaire" Healy who just responded to
your very good post with the kookshit you see above under "aeffects".

You'll find, Pat, if you post here long enough, that Mr. Effects
(Healy) has very (very) little in the way of constructive or useful
dialogue to add to the JFK events on this forum. His posts are
generally of the crap-filled, say-nothing nature we see above.

Just an FYI, you see.

aeffects

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 8:13:18 AM1/5/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
> Hey Patrick C.,
>
> That was David "CT-Kook Extraordinaire" Healy who just responded to
> your very good post with the kookshit you see above under "aeffects".

24/7 eh, VonPein? ROTFLMFAO! And Patrick meet David *VonPAIN* Von Pein
the best **OLDTIME-RERUNS 'internet only' TV program reviewer in the
USofA. He's finishing up his internship hoping for THE big break....
Throw him a bone, the Top Ramen is getting old, baby!

aeffects

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 8:19:53 AM1/5/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Huffaker (whom I've never heard of)...{remainder of Healy's usual kookshit snipped}..." <<<
>
> That's because you haven't ever watched ANY of the as-it's-happening
> 11/22 TV coverage. If you had, you'd know who Mr. Huffaker is, and
> you'd also be treated to the TRUTH re. the JFK murder case -- i.e., the
> fact that there is no way in hell that almost ALL of the LIVE TV/Radio
> footage could have HIDDEN from view the type of crackpot multi-shooter
> conspiracy that you kooks actually seem to think occurred on Elm Street
> that day.
>
> Why not try digging up some of that 11/22 Live footage, aeffects?
> Couldn't hurt ya, could it?
>
> Answer truthfully, David H. -- Do you REALLY think that all of that
> initial LIVE, AS-IT'S-HAPPENING "Three Shots Were Fired" coverage was
> DEAD-WRONG, and there were really many MORE than three shots fired,
> that ALL of those news reporters just happened to NOT hear?
>
> Do you really believe that, David?

frankly, no one, NO ONE had a any fucking idea what the hell was going
on!

You can put the press on the top of the list - local, regional and
NATIONAL .... the only thing the press got right is the following:

the President was shot....

the President was pronounced DEAD at....

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 8:40:34 AM1/5/07

to

Pat and I know each other already, Mr. CT-Kook. So the introduction
isn't necessary.

But thanks anyway (for yet another in your non-stop parade of
say-nothing posts). I think you're up to 1200 straight now. Good man.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 8:46:58 AM1/5/07

to

>>> "No one, NO ONE had a any fucking idea what the hell was going on!" <<<

It was mighty nice, though (for your Patsy-Framing plotters, that is),
for all of those many reporters/newsmen to hear the EXACT number of
shots that would aid in your Patsy-Framers' "Let's Blame It All On LHO"
scheme....wasn't it? (And a number which EXACTLY matches the number of
bullet shells on that 6th Floor in the TSBD too...don't forget that
additional hunk of Patsy-Framing good fortune!)

Even YOU (a kook) must admit that THAT "3 Shots" business coming across
the airwaves within minutes of the so-called SIX-SHOT (or more!)
shooting event was pretty dang fortunate for those patsy-framers!

Right?

(Watch Healy try to worm out of this one. It should be fun. Let's
watch, shall we?? Then maybe he can break his string of Say-Nothing
posts via such a response.)

Pat C

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 9:02:54 AM1/5/07

to

Another fine contribution to the debate I see !

The location could be anywhere in the world providing the weather and
topography allow a sensible reconstruction. The reason Australia was
chosen may well have been due to the team used being Australian.....!

Why that team ?- Well they had very specific and relevant expertise in
building body models due to their worthy research on land mine victims'
injuries - which you would have noted had you watched the DVD properly.
As for the tape - let me explain as I think you clearly miss the point
-producing accurate models of the torso's was no doubt time consuming
and expensive, so the film makers would have wanted to ensure that the
shot was replicated as closely as possible fist time round. NOT because
the shooter was incapable. Had a sudden gust of wind occurred causing
the shot to miss it would have been more expensive and time consuming
and so on. A similar gust of wind could have occured on Nv 22 1963 and
Mr Oswald might have missed. In fact he might have missed 19 times out
of 20. Now do you get the point ?

I am puzzled - what is the point in your contributing to dialogues such
as these if your basic logic (I respect your knowledge and view point -
though I disagree with your view) is so obviously flawed. Actually I've
guessed it ! You are deliberately winding us up so we become "Trouble
makers" and you get to prove your point !
Pat C.

Pat C

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 9:19:16 AM1/5/07

to

Ah Mr Healy what a shame I am somewhere between 5 and 8 hours ahead of
you and usually turn off my lap top at the end of the working day here
- boy we could have some fun !

I have a question - do you think Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon ?
That in fact it was a missile and that all the passengers, crew, next
of kin, work colleagues, second cousins and neighbours are all on a
desert island with Elvis and JFK ? Sorry I do apologise...back to
Dallas please !

aeffects

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 9:33:33 AM1/5/07

to

Pat C wrote:
> Ah Mr Healy what a shame I am somewhere between 5 and 8 hours ahead of
> you and usually turn off my lap top at the end of the working day here
> - boy we could have some fun !
>
> I have a question - do you think Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon ?
> That in fact it was a missile and that all the passengers, crew, next
> of kin, work colleagues, second cousins and neighbours are all on a
> desert island with Elvis and JFK ? Sorry I do apologise...back to
> Dallas please !

tee-hee -- stuff your off-topic/board questions Patrick -- I'm sure
you'll find some dumber-than-a-STUMP Lone Neuter to answer your 9/11
related questions, which again, belong on another board... Throw
another shrimp on the babie, asshole!

Oh, lest i forget, welcome to the board! -- And stay away from Lower_y,
appears he has a fetish for older men! Doesn't know shit about the JFK
assassination either....

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 9:35:14 AM1/5/07

to

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 10:09:15 AM1/5/07

to

I know its a bit tricky when the sequence gets a little screwy - sorry
that's confused you. Please accept my apologies. I'll make sure I get
the protocol sorted out and reply to the correct posting from now on -
well fingers crossed - I've only worked in IT for 15 years I'm a bit
new to all this.

Still looking forward to hearing your "who did it" theory in a
nutshell. I should mention I was a Conspiracy buff for years until I
developed the knack of understanding that people generally write books
to get rich - I had thought the likes of Fetzer, Livingstone and Lifton
et al were all honest men. But now as I am a bit older (as you seem to
keep mentioning) I've kind of seen the light. Cheers for now.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 10:18:37 AM1/5/07

to

In article <1167995244.1...@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Pat C
says...

>
>Gil,
>
>I am having difficulty understanding why melon shooting tests (or for
>that matter gelatin or dead animal shooting tests) are only valid if
>LHO comes back from the dead to do the shooting ? Is there something so
>so specific about his finger action and his influence on the laws of
>physics that negates all other homo sapiens from contributing to
>understanding the case ?

It's amusing hearing a LNT'er referring to the laws of physics.

>Seriously and granted you do acknowledge you have some spirited debates
>on the subject with LN's, have you not seen and been compelled by the
>Discovery Channel's footage of the Australian team replicating closely
>the SBT ?

Ah!! But they *DIDN'T*

There's never been anyone who thought that a bullet couldn't go through two
people. And prove *that*, they did.

But the SBT? They demonstrated how impossible it was.

Correct me if I don't remember correctly, but the bullet just barely plopped out
of 'Connallys' chest, with certainly not enough energy to go on and demolish the
wrist.

This, of course, is exactly the point that all the doctors made at the WC. For,
to a man, if they knew what CE399 looked like, they disagreed with the WC's SBT.

So to did a ballistics expert - who was simply ignored thereafter by the WC.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 10:22:41 AM1/5/07

to

In article <1168007993.2...@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Pat C
says...

>
>I am so sorry you called me an asshole I really am. Such a shame. Thats
>really spoilt my weekend. But thanks for the welcome. And I do look
>forward to some heated debates with you Mr Dave H.
>
>So whats your theory ? In a nutshell of course !

Are my eyes deceiving me? Or is this a LNT'er implying that he's willing to
address the FACTS in this case?

Let me know, Pat... I'll be happy to engage you in a battle of evidence.

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 10:53:52 AM1/5/07

to

Pat C wrote:
> I know its a bit tricky when the sequence gets a little screwy - sorry
> that's confused you. Please accept my apologies. I'll make sure I get
> the protocol sorted out and reply to the correct posting from now on -
> well fingers crossed - I've only worked in IT for 15 years I'm a bit
> new to all this.

then shape the hell up, dufus!

> Still looking forward to hearing your "who did it" theory in a
> nutshell. I should mention I was a Conspiracy buff for years until I
> developed the knack of understanding that people generally write books
> to get rich -

yep, I know -- you idiots all sound the same, stick around read the WCR
comment on the evidence and be prepared for someone to shit in your
hat.....

I had thought the likes of Fetzer, Livingstone and Lifton
> et al were all honest men. But now as I am a bit older (as you seem to
> keep mentioning) I've kind of seen the light. Cheers for now.

you call 15 older? ROFLMFAO! Get a grip Aussie! Of course no one
believes your in Australia!

Von pain, where do you find these idiots?

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 10:58:46 AM1/5/07

to

>>> "Correct me if I don't remember correctly, but the bullet just barely plopped out of 'Connallys' chest, with certainly not enough energy to go on and demolish the wrist." <<<

Ben berates the Discovery Channel experiment and yet, incredibly,
doesn't seem to even know the details of it. Wonderful.

No, Ben, you're wrong (as always) -- The bullet went through a
simulated wrist mock-up of JBC, broke a wrist bone (not as severely as
the real JBC's wrist, I will admit, but the test bullet DID break one
additional rib)...with the test bullet bouncing off the simulated
leg/thigh (but at least it DID hit the thigh mock-up, keeping the
general PATH of the SBT via the re-creation fully intact).

The test bullet then emerged in this condition, below (it's a bit more
flattened than this angle shows, I'll also admit...but a big
SBT-favoring point is that the bullet emerged from TWO "bodies" as a
WHOLE, NON-FRAGMENTED bullet, just like CE399).....

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg

What CTers can't answer (logical or believably) is -- IF the SBT is a
piece-of-shit Specter-created LNer Wet Dream -- then HOW on this Earth
did the Australian team of researchers manage to get so damn close to
duplicating A SHOOTING SCENARIO THAT MOST CONSPIRACISTS BELIEVE
COULDN'T HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY OSWALD IN A MILLION YEARS?

Another "lucky break" for the Patsy-Framers (4 decades later even)? The
THREE different shooters on 11/22/63 shot up the two victims with three
guns (which are needed if the SBT is to be scrapped), but came SO CLOSE
to mimicking a SINGLE-bullet shooting that (in 2004) a real Carcano was
able to come within INCHES of duplicating EXACTLY what CE399 is said to
have done via the SBT.

Odds please?

We must be talking "O.J. odds" here! 1 in 57-billlion maybe? That
number sounds familiar. Let's use that one, for starters.

aeffects

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 11:07:54 AM1/5/07

to

zoom-zoom.....

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 11:12:40 AM1/5/07

to

And, of course, Pat never once said he was "in Australia".

Kook.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 11:15:51 AM1/5/07

to

In article <1168010993....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Pat C says...

>
>>>> "Now imagine if that test had a moving target to deal with..." <<<
>
>
>Zoooooom!!!!!
>
>~~Watching as my whole point re. the IMPROBABILITY OF SBT DUPLICATION
>sails neatly over Healy's kooky cranium~~
>
>
>The very valid point of the learned Mr. VP is that had the target in
>the "Outback" been moving the chances of the bullet entering in the
>precise location to duplicate the SBT would have been reduced. Thus it
>would have to have been repeated - at expense and even then probably
>would never have duplicated the actual shot. The whole point of the
>experiment was to show that a single MC 6.5mm slug could have wounded
>both men and come out pretty intact.

Something, of course, that every medical expert, and at least one ballistics
expert that we know of - testified or asserted *AGAINST* during the WC.

Even many of the Warren Commissioners didn't believe it.

>The point was not to duplicate the
>precise event. When I was more of a conspiracy believer in this case

A strange assertion that we've seen more than once on this forum. Yet those who
claim it never seem to be able to point to any discourses in the past that would
prove such a claim.

>I always accepted that the SBT could be true. I doubted it, but I never
>dismissed it out of hand. Here is a suggestion - buy a DVD such as the
>Zapruder Film documentary "Image of an assassination" and watch frames
>180 to 240 a few zillion times in medium slow mo - not frame by frame.
>You will see that the two men react to being hit very very closely to
>each other - and an important point is this - would you expect them to
>react at EXACTLY the same time if they were hit by the same bullet.

Yep. Exactly correct. And considering that Connally's wounds were such that it
would be medically *IMPOSSIBLE* to not have an *IMMEDIATE* reaction, the extant
Z-film proves that the shots that hit Connally were different than those that
hit JFK.

At least one eyewitness also stated exactly this. That Connally was hit by a
different bullet than JFK. But the WC didn't bother to interview him. The
closest non-limo eyewitness.

Would you care to offer any speculation why they didn't?

>Answer should be NO ! The chances of both men's nervous systems
>producing a visible reaction at the same split second and that being
>visible on the film is a very very outside chance.

Untrue. In fact, this is EXACTLY what we would expect to see.

>In fact it is far
>far more likely that any two people, shot with the same bullet, would
>show a slight difference in reaction times.

"slight difference" is not going to get you to the same amount of difference
seen in the extant Z-film.

"slight difference" would be under a half a second.

>Looking forward to a decent retort.

Looking forward to someone willing to address the evidence in this case.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 11:32:19 AM1/5/07

to

>>> "Untrue. In fact, this is EXACTLY what we would expect to see {i.e., both men reacting at exactly the same time if shot by the same bullet}..." <<<

Somebody note the time. I actually agree with Ben Holmes on something!
(Miracles ARE possible.)

Yes, I agree that both men would probably have reacted very, very close
together (if not at an identical time) if hit with the very same
high-speed bullet.

And, of course, they do. CTers just refuse to see it, or admit it.....

http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif

Message has been deleted

Bud

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 12:29:04 PM1/5/07

to

aeffects wrote:
> Pat C wrote:

> > Gil,
> >
> > I am having difficulty understanding why melon shooting tests (or for
> > that matter gelatin or dead animal shooting tests) are only valid if
> > LHO comes back from the dead to do the shooting ? Is there something so
> > so specific about his finger action and his influence on the laws of
> > physics that negates all other homo sapiens from contributing to
> > understanding the case ?
> >

> > Seriously and granted you do acknowledge you have some spirited debates
> > on the subject with LN's, have you not seen and been compelled by the
> > Discovery Channel's footage of the Australian team replicating closely
> > the SBT ?
>

> I've wondered/questioned why a obscure [unduplicateable] test

"unduplicateable"? You know of attempts to duplicate the Australian
effort?

> way out
> in the wilds of the Austrailian Outback?

As opposed to downtown Dallas?

> Not to mention the validity of
> the test that required *gaffers* tape to hold the MC rifle in a secure
> position, those questions aside, it did make for good comedy...

Were you disappointed the mock Connally torso didn`t shout out
"they`re trying to kill us all"?

> Wasn't it the Discovery Channel (when it went on-the-air years ago)
> that had a flood of Austraiia based TRAVEL programming? Perhaps a
> marker was called in? Or was that the TRAVEL Channel?

Wow, I`ve never seen a suspicious kook draw on his imaginary powers
of percerption to draw connections from thin air before. I suppose now
LN must show that there is no real correlation between those things, at
which time Healy will conclude he is just nuts.

> Perhaps someone should sent a tape of the Austrailian cluster fu*k to
> the "Myth Busters" (The Learning Channel [TLC]) line producer, see what
> their sideshow can come up with...

Would it matter if they shot real human beings and got identicle
results? You kooks need multiple shooters like junkies need crack.

<SNIP>

Bud

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 12:37:36 PM1/5/07

to

aeffects wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > Mr. Healy is actually doing LNers a favor by mentioning the "taped" (or
> > locked down) Carcano that was utilized for the Australian "Beyond The
> > Magic Bullet" SBT test in October 2004.
>
> <snip the nonsense>
>
> Nice try Davie -- now imagine if that little ole Austrailian test had a
> moving target to deal with, LMAO!

How does that change the results? The bullet goes much, much, much
faster than the limo. Oh, I get it, you think this was a test of
accuracy, when actually the test was to determine the feasability of
the bullet`s path presented in the SBT.

> Is there enough gaffers tape in
> Austrailia, thats what inquring minds want to know...

Do you think Oz was trying to hit a specific dot placed on JFK`s
back, idiot? The test had to hit that particular spot, Oz didn`t.

aeffects

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 12:47:03 PM1/5/07

to

I don't think Ben sees you Von Pain, I think you're in his ignore bin
(I wonder why?) perhaps its your ducking perplexing and/or conflicting
WC testimony evidence -- something like that....

curtj...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 12:59:33 PM1/5/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
> I've recently had the pleasure of corresponding with Robert Huffaker,
> who was a reporter for KRLD-TV/Radio in Dallas on 11/22/63. He reported
> on many of the fast-breaking events during that November weekend
> (including reporting live on CBS from the DPD basement when Oswald was
> shot).
>
> And I think a few of Bob's concise and to-the-point comments re. his
> personal opinions about the assassination would fit in nicely here.
>
> I'm just wondering into which of Gil Jesus' convenient "LN
> Compartments" Mr. Huffaker would be placed? And which slot does Vincent
> Bugliosi fit into as well? Just curious.
>
> Bob Huffaker, who was there in Dallas in Nov. of '63 and saw a heck of
> a lot while he was reporting on the history-making events, is a firm
> believer that only one shooter (Oswald) struck any victims with bullets
> on Nov. 22nd.
>
> Here's a recent e-mail I received from Bob Huffaker (re-printed here
> with Bob's permission):
>
> "Dear David,
>
> I thank you for your careful, thoughtful and well-written review. I am
> happy to see your attack upon the multi-gun, multi-shot idiocies. These
> three shootings happened just as we reported them--and just as Dallas
> Police homicide investigators found from the beginning. Their work on
> this wild case was especially fine, as was the job done by their
> uniformed colleagues, one of whom died in the process. They had Oswald
> in custody in little more than an hour after he killed the president,
> and I regret that Dallas officers have been so relentlessly suspected
> of everything from incompetence to complicity in some ill-defined plot.
>
> At my age I no longer suffer fools gladly, and I appreciate your
> attempts to set some of them straight.
>
> Neither I nor my co-authors would foreclose the possibility that others
> might have influenced Oswald's murderous intentions, but the evidence
> of the acts themselves has been clear all along. And no evidence of a
> wider plot has been found in 43 years." -- Bob Huffaker; January 3,
> 2007
>
> ~~~~~~
>
> The review that Mr. Huffaker referred to above is this one for his 2004
> book "When The News Went Live: Dallas 1963" (which is a book with lots
> of good stuff in it, including some rarely-seen photos):
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/103-9597227-6764635?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1589791398&store=yourstore&reviewID=RJTEB6UY458I8&iid=1589791398
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2JNFP6WJ6Q95I/ref=cm_pdp_profile_friend_pic/103-9597227-6764635

What about the newsmen that were reporting 3 shooters and such during
the ongoing events of the day?

What makes your guy so 'special'?

curtj...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 1:13:05 PM1/5/07

to

Pat C wrote:
> Ben,
>
> Fair point, but they came very close to replication. They concluded
> that the test bullet hit two "ribs" not one and that took some more
> energy out of it. It still damaged the mock "wrist", but did not enter
> the "leg". I believe had they say done it 10 to 20 times they would
> have succeeded in a very close result. I think that they were really
> only trying to say the SBT could be correct and that it was a lot more
> likely than had originally been thought by the team that carried it
> out. Nothing more than that.
>

How did these tests do with the amount of lead that was lost, and where
it was lost?

Anyone who is really up on this case knows that the amount of lead that
was left in the two men was much more than what was found as a bullet
at Parkland. Since the magic bullet could not provide for these wound,
do you have a scenario of what kind of bullet did what to both men?

How could 'that' bullet do that type of damage and yet another bullet
leave so many tiny fragments in JFK's head?

CJ

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 1:38:34 PM1/5/07

to

>>> "I don't think Ben sees you Von Pain, I think you're in his ignore bin..." <<<

Doesn't matter. We all know that you, as one of his ass-kissing
lapdogs, will get the message across -- (from one kook to another).

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 1:43:07 PM1/5/07

to

>>> "What about the newsmen that were reporting 3 shooters and such during the ongoing events of the day?" <<<

Name ONE newsman who was "reporting 3 shooters and such" on live 11/22
TV.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 1:55:01 PM1/5/07

to

>>> "Anyone who is really up on this case knows that the amount of lead that was left in the two men was much more than what was found as a bullet at Parkland." <<<

Bull. There was virtually nothing left in JFK from 399 (if ANYthing).
Humes, et al, saw NO lead via 11/22 X-rays. If anything was there, it
was so microscopic to avoid detection on 11/22.

And Connally had a miniscule amount of lead in him, COMBINING the few
fragments left inside him and the ones removed, which, combined,
weighed....

"Less than the weight of a postage stamp." -- Dr. C.F. Gregory; To WC

>>> "How could 'that' bullet do that type of damage and yet another bullet leave so many tiny fragments in JFK's head?" <<<

Easily. That's how.

And PROVEN via Lattimer's tests using identical bullets and via the
2004 Aussie test using an identical type bullet.

Lattimer's skull tests proved beyond any doubt that a similar bullet
would break up greatly upon impact with a skull.

Next?

aeffects

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 2:08:35 PM1/5/07

to

of course it matters.... you need us, without us you'd be writing some
stump type of review about 'I Love Lucy' re-runs...

one simple JFK related post gets you all wound up, you can't help
yourself...

Hey now, Ben Holmes is a known commodity around here (much to your
chagrin) and here you are pulling Bill Miller out of your ass like he
knows something about anything.... A Lone Nutter depending on a Nutter
posing as a CTer, go figure.....

curtj...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 2:09:29 PM1/5/07

to

I actually read it today, if I can find the book and the spot.....

Of course, while I am looking, why don't you answer my question, what
makes your newsman's observation 'so special'?

CJ

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 2:10:22 PM1/5/07

to

About that Australian test. Agreed that one bullet can penetrate two
bodies, and even remain relatively unscathed. Big deal! The wounds
suffered by JFK and JBC were not replicated, especially the massive
trauma to JBC's wrist. But the important point which Pat C. is not
addressing is that the SBT was not replicated nor proven at all. The
entry point in the "JFK" model was in the base of the neck, the only
point viable for the SBT, when in reality, the medical evidence all
dictates that the entry point was in the upper back, a site not viable
for an SBT, and hence shamelessly moved up by the WC to the neck in
order to make it work. The Australian is a sham.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 3:09:53 PM1/5/07

to

>>> "What makes your newsman's observation 'so special'?" <<<

You say "newsman" as if just ONE guy was reporting "3 shots". (Or are
you talking about Bob Huffaker, who was mentioned earlier?)

If you mean Bob H., then I'm sorry to inform you that he wasn't even in
DP at 12:30. So he has no opiniuon at all re. the number of shots (from
a personal standpoint; his opinion is based on covering the weekend's
events and realizing that the evidence wasn't lying to him -- and that
the man grabbed in the theater was the man who likely killed the
President, and probably alone. Simple as that.

And don't you think that Huffaker would have LOVED to have been able to
crack the case by finding evidence of a conspiracy? I'll bet thousands
of eager reporters would have loved to do that in wake of the shooting.

So the next big question to ask is --- With so many sleuths running
around scrambling for ANY clues to a plot ... or SOMETHING ... why
didn't they ever find it?

Were those plotters really THAT good at sweeping everything under the
carpet -- stuff from 3 guns that fired 5 to 10 shots (depending on the
kooky theory)?

Come now, my good man. Let's keep our heads about us!

Anyway, Bob Huffaker was reporting from Main & Akard (I think that was
the cross-street) for KRLD-Radio just before the shooting occurred.

The newsmen I was referring to re. the "3 shots" reporting
include......

Jay Watson, Jack Bell, Merriman Smith, Robert MacNeill, Bob Clark,
Jerry Haynes, and Pierce Allman, among still others.

Some of the other "Three Shot" witnesses who were riding right in the
Presidential motorcade itself include -- Photographers Tom Dillard,
Robert Jackson, Mal Couch, and James Underwood. Plus, both John and
Nellie Connally, who were riding in the same car with President
Kennedy.

More than 91% of the witnesses heard the same number of shots (or maybe
LESS, which does the LN theory no harm, certainly) that the CTers'
PATSY-FRAMERS required to have discovered.

How "convenient" can you get?

It's so "convenient", in fact....that it's actually true. CTers just
can't let go of their multi-gun "plots" long enough to see the
obviousness of the three-shots-only scenario.

aeffects

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 3:25:04 PM1/5/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "What makes your newsman's observation 'so special'?" <<<
>
> You say "newsman" as if just ONE guy was reporting "3 shots". (Or are
> you talking about Bob Huffaker, who was mentioned earlier?)
>
> If you mean Bob H., then I'm sorry to inform you that he wasn't even in
> DP at 12:30.

the rest of Huffaker: hearsay you honor, the gentleman wasn't present
in DP at 12:30

So he has no opiniuon at all re. the number of shots (from
> a personal standpoint; his opinion is based on covering the weekend's
> events and realizing that the evidence wasn't lying to him -- and that
> the man grabbed in the theater was the man who likely killed the
> President, and probably alone. Simple as that.
>
> And don't you think that Huffaker would have LOVED to have been able to
> crack the case by finding evidence of a conspiracy? I'll bet thousands
> of eager reporters would have loved to do that in wake of the shooting.
>
>
> So the next big question to ask is --- With so many sleuths running
> around scrambling for ANY clues to a plot ... or SOMETHING ... why
> didn't they ever find it?

why are you posting nonsense from those not present in DP? As if that
will get you around conflicting WC testimony

> Were those plotters really THAT good at sweeping everything under
the
> carpet -- stuff from 3 guns that fired 5 to 10 shots (depending on the
> kooky theory)?

good enough for you to be grasping at any irrelevant quote from newsmen
not present in DP.... LOL

> Come now, my good man. Let's keep our heads about us!
>
> Anyway, Bob Huffaker was reporting from Main & Akard (I think that was
> the cross-street) for KRLD-Radio just before the shooting occurred.

Huffaker is history..... next

> The newsmen I was referring to re. the "3 shots" reporting
> include......
>
> Jay Watson, Jack Bell, Merriman Smith, Robert MacNeill, Bob Clark,
> Jerry Haynes, and Pierce Allman, among still others.

how many were questioned by the WC?

> Some of the other "Three Shot" witnesses who were riding right in the
> Presidential motorcade itself include -- Photographers Tom Dillard,
> Robert Jackson, Mal Couch, and James Underwood. Plus, both John and
> Nellie Connally, who were riding in the same car with President
> Kennedy.
>
> More than 91% of the witnesses heard the same number of shots (or maybe
> LESS,

or maybe less, now THAT is narrowing it down.....

which does the LN theory no harm, certainly) that the CTers'
> PATSY-FRAMERS required to have discovered.

hurt to think LHO was a patsy?

> How "convenient" can you get?

convenient enough for the questions to persist for 40 years, that alone
should show us how the closing skills of the Nutter's SBT debate

> It's so "convenient", in fact....that it's actually true. CTers just
> can't let go of their multi-gun "plots" long enough to see the
> obviousness of the three-shots-only scenario.

man-oh-man those guys at the NPIC sure thought JFK was hit by more
rounds than you morons think, they screwed up too? Eh, what the hell do
they know, they just put together the briefing boards for th SS/FBI
amongst other's.....

...trudge right along there Davie, your downright entertaining...

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 3:34:02 PM1/5/07

to

>>> "The rest of Huffaker: hearsay you honor, the gentleman wasn't present in DP at 12:30..." <<<

Which means, per Healy-Kook, that Huffaker can't have any opinion on
the number of shots fired VIA OTHER SOURCES OF DATA/INFO. Right, you
fucking kook?

I wasn't in DP either and have an opinion.

And if I were to wager some cash on it, I'd bet that Healy wasn't in DP
either on 11/22. Which means, I guess, that his more-than-3-shots
opinion is to be trashed on that basis alone.

Fucking kook.

Next?

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 3:36:44 PM1/5/07

to

Just for the Healy-Kook......

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/103-9597227-6764635?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0007TKHF2&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=R14Z9F9P8I6AHE&displayType=ReviewDetail

aeffects

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 3:40:19 PM1/5/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "The rest of Huffaker: hearsay you honor, the gentleman wasn't present in DP at 12:30..." <<<
>
> Which means, per Healy-Kook, that Huffaker can't have any opinion on
> the number of shots fired VIA OTHER SOURCES OF DATA/INFO. Right, you
> fucking kook?
>
> I wasn't in DP either and have an opinion.

of course you weren't, you were writing a review of the Howdy Doody
Show

> And if I were to wager some cash on it, I'd bet that Healy wasn't in DP
> either on 11/22. Which means, I guess, that his more-than-3-shots
> opinion is to be trashed on that basis alone.

got that right champ, I was doing my duty in Vietnam little guy, YOU?

> Fucking kook.

coward!

> Next?

why, you can't get past this one...

Todd W. Vaughan

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 3:44:38 PM1/5/07

to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1167995244.1...@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Pat C
> says...
> >
> >Gil,
> >
> >I am having difficulty understanding why melon shooting tests (or for
> >that matter gelatin or dead animal shooting tests) are only valid if
> >LHO comes back from the dead to do the shooting ? Is there something so
> >so specific about his finger action and his influence on the laws of
> >physics that negates all other homo sapiens from contributing to
> >understanding the case ?
>
>
> It's amusing hearing a LNT'er referring to the laws of physics.
>
>
> >Seriously and granted you do acknowledge you have some spirited debates
> >on the subject with LN's, have you not seen and been compelled by the
> >Discovery Channel's footage of the Australian team replicating closely
> >the SBT ?
>
>
> Ah!! But they *DIDN'T*
>
> There's never been anyone who thought that a bullet couldn't go through two
> people. And prove *that*, they did.

Yes there has.

Connally's own doctor, Dr. Shaw, thought just that.

>
> But the SBT? They demonstrated how impossible it was.
>
> Correct me if I don't remember correctly, but the bullet just barely plopped out
> of 'Connallys' chest, with certainly not enough energy to go on and demolish the
> wrist.

Yep, you're wrong.

The bullet passed through the simulated wrist but did not have enough
energy to enter the thigh. Probably because it broke 2 ribs, not just
1.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 3:52:39 PM1/5/07

to

>>> "Got that right champ, I was doing my duty in Vietnam..." <<<

Therefore, per your last bit of "HUFFAKER WASN'T THERE, SO WHY SHOULD I
BELIEVE ANYTHING HE SAYS" brilliance.....why, then, should I believe
anything you have to say re. the number of shots fired in DP on 11/22
either...since you were in 'Nam at the time?

(And, btw, I need to see your papers to verify your Nam
service...because I doubt a freaking kook like you could pass the
physical. My desk. By noon tomorrow. Or else I get to start believing
kooky shit and claiming YOU were a JFK assassin. After all, how do I
know you weren't? You have all the qualifications that Oswald had --
i.e., you're a kook.)

Papa Andy

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 5:21:37 PM1/5/07

to

so he let an armed and dangerous fugitive get the drop on him and bump
him of while working the JFK
case
was this standard police procedure

A

On Jan 5, 4:28 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "So JD {Tippit} was working the case when he got shot?" <<<To a degree, yes, J.D. was "working the case"....because it's fairly
> obvious (to anyone but the kooks) that Tippit probably stopped Oswald
> BECAUSE of JFK's killing less than one hour earlier.

aeffects

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 6:07:06 PM1/5/07

to

Bud wrote:
> aeffects wrote:
> > David Von Pein wrote:
> > > Mr. Healy is actually doing LNers a favor by mentioning the "taped" (or
> > > locked down) Carcano that was utilized for the Australian "Beyond The
> > > Magic Bullet" SBT test in October 2004.
> >
> > <snip the nonsense>
> >
> > Nice try Davie -- now imagine if that little ole Austrailian test had a
> > moving target to deal with, LMAO!
>
> How does that change the results? The bullet goes much, much, much
> faster than the limo. Oh, I get it, you think this was a test of
> accuracy, when actually the test was to determine the feasability of
> the bullet`s path presented in the SBT.
>
> > Is there enough gaffers tape in
> > Austrailia, thats what inquring minds want to know...
>
> Do you think Oz was trying to hit a specific dot placed on JFK`s
> back, idiot? The test had to hit that particular spot, Oz didn`t.

moron! 1st shot: Oz missed the entire "moving" LIMO, 2nd and 3rd shot:
OZ found his Sgt York powers... amazing this 'plinker' OZ Where the
hell is the varsity?

aeffects

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 6:11:45 PM1/5/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Got that right champ, I was doing my duty in Vietnam..." <<<
>
> Therefore, per your last bit of "HUFFAKER WASN'T THERE, SO WHY SHOULD I
> BELIEVE ANYTHING HE SAYS" brilliance.....why, then, should I believe
> anything you have to say re. the number of shots fired in DP on 11/22
> either...since you were in 'Nam at the time?
>
> (And, btw, I need to see your papers to verify your Nam
> service...

it's not papers you fucking idiot, it's called a DD214 .... and Vietnam
vet's refer to Viet-Nam AS Viet-nam, not NAM! Nam is reserved for
armchair internet *cyber-warriors* (such as yourself)...

because I doubt a freaking kook like you could pass the
> physical. My desk. By noon tomorrow. Or else I get to start believing
> kooky shit and claiming YOU were a JFK assassin.

whatever jerks you off, sunshine!

Message has been deleted

aeffects

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:09:19 PM1/5/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "And Vietnam vet's refer to Viet-Nam AS Viet-nam, not NAM! Nam is reserved for {BLAH-KOOKSHIT-AS USUAL......}" <<<"
>
> Yeah, I thought the "NAM" thing would get you going.
>
> Worked like a charm.

gotta love these Lone Neuter cyber-warriors, tough guy's, tsk-tsk!

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 5, 2007, 7:32:57 PM1/5/07

to

In article <1168029878.7...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
Vaughan says...

>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1167995244.1...@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Pat C
>> says...
>> >
>> >Gil,
>> >
>> >I am having difficulty understanding why melon shooting tests (or for
>> >that matter gelatin or dead animal shooting tests) are only valid if
>> >LHO comes back from the dead to do the shooting ? Is there something so
>> >so specific about his finger action and his influence on the laws of
>> >physics that negates all other homo sapiens from contributing to
>> >understanding the case ?
>>
>>
>> It's amusing hearing a LNT'er referring to the laws of physics.
>>
>>
>> >Seriously and granted you do acknowledge you have some spirited debates
>> >on the subject with LN's, have you not seen and been compelled by the
>> >Discovery Channel's footage of the Australian team replicating closely
>> >the SBT ?
>>
>>
>> Ah!! But they *DIDN'T*
>>
>> There's never been anyone who thought that a bullet couldn't go through two
>> people. And prove *that*, they did.
>
>
>Yes there has.
>
>Connally's own doctor, Dr. Shaw, thought just that.

Oh? Can you provide a QUOTE of Dr. Shaw stating that he did not believe a bullet
could go through two people?

curtj...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 11:34:02 AM1/6/07

to

Perhaps no lead was found in JFK because it never went through? If you
look at the Parkland doctors who commented on the JBC lead situation,
most of them would say the amount left in JBC with what was extracted
versus what the 'magic bullet' had 'left behind' would put that in the
absurd category.

CJ

curtj...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 11:44:19 AM1/6/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "What makes your newsman's observation 'so special'?" <<<
>
> You say "newsman" as if just ONE guy was reporting "3 shots". (Or are
> you talking about Bob Huffaker, who was mentioned earlier?)
>
> If you mean Bob H., then I'm sorry to inform you that he wasn't even in
> DP at 12:30. So he has no opiniuon at all re. the number of shots (from
> a personal standpoint; his opinion is based on covering the weekend's
> events and realizing that the evidence wasn't lying to him -- and that
> the man grabbed in the theater was the man who likely killed the
> President, and probably alone. Simple as that.
>
> And don't you think that Huffaker would have LOVED to have been able to
> crack the case by finding evidence of a conspiracy? I'll bet thousands
> of eager reporters would have loved to do that in wake of the shooting.
>
>
> So the next big question to ask is --- With so many sleuths running
> around scrambling for ANY clues to a plot ... or SOMETHING ... why
> didn't they ever find it?
>

Try Atkins that was in the 'cade. He said the shots were from low, and
there was activity from the GK. I don't know the particular newsman
that I came across, as I wasn't looking for anything to pin one's hopes
on and grasp for straws. If I ever find it I will post it. There also
was not a good filter of imformation that first day. Maybe the
statements should be looked at closer before 'the filter' took place.

> Were those plotters really THAT good at sweeping everything under the
> carpet -- stuff from 3 guns that fired 5 to 10 shots (depending on the
> kooky theory)?
>
> Come now, my good man. Let's keep our heads about us!
>
> Anyway, Bob Huffaker was reporting from Main & Akard (I think that was
> the cross-street) for KRLD-Radio just before the shooting occurred.
>
> The newsmen I was referring to re. the "3 shots" reporting
> include......
>
> Jay Watson, Jack Bell, Merriman Smith, Robert MacNeill, Bob Clark,
> Jerry Haynes, and Pierce Allman, among still others.
>
> Some of the other "Three Shot" witnesses who were riding right in the
> Presidential motorcade itself include -- Photographers Tom Dillard,
> Robert Jackson, Mal Couch, and James Underwood. Plus, both John and
> Nellie Connally, who were riding in the same car with President
> Kennedy.
>
> More than 91% of the witnesses heard the same number of shots (or maybe
> LESS, which does the LN theory no harm, certainly) that the CTers'
> PATSY-FRAMERS required to have discovered.
>
> How "convenient" can you get?
>
> It's so "convenient", in fact....that it's actually true. CTers just
> can't let go of their multi-gun "plots" long enough to see the
> obviousness of the three-shots-only scenario.

It was so obvious that was a number that was good for the questionaires
that many others who had differing opinions were dismissed or were
never called. Also the sounds were differing too, like the
crackling-backfire types that a lot heard. That would make anyone
think that it was either defective ammo or a different weapon right
there. James Worrell heard no crackles, just booms, and he was right
under your beloved SN. He heard three from the window, and before he
could head for safer ground, heard a fourth as he got a few steps to
the corner of Houston and Elm, by the SE corner of the TSBD. With the
innumerable descriptions of gunsmoke, seen weaponry, shots heard from,
the GK;, you truly must be so warped in your thinking, as to not
consider that this was a two+ conspiracy for the actual shooting.

CJ

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 6, 2007, 11:57:36 AM1/6/07

to

>>> "If you look at the Parkland doctors who commented on the JBC lead situation, most of them would say the amount left in JBC with what was extracted versus what the 'magic bullet' had 'left behind' would put that in the absurd category." <<<

Yeah, I guess we should just ignore the testimony of the one doctor
(Gregory) who knew more about JBC's wrist injury than anybody else on
the planet. Right?

And the majority of fragments in Connally came from that wrist wound.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 7, 2007, 3:20:56 PM1/7/07

DR. ROBERT SHAW -- "No. We saw no evidence of any metallic material in
the X-ray that we had of the chest, and we found none during the
operation."

~~~~~~

Re. the thigh:

DR. CHARLES GREGORY -- "A fragment of metal, again microscopic,
measuring about five-tenths of a millimeter by 2 millimeters, lies just
beneath the skin, about a half inch on the medial aspect of the thigh."

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What is your best estimate of the weight of that
metallic fragment?"

DR. GREGORY -- "This again would be in micrograms, postage stamp weight
thereabouts. Not much more than that."

~~~~~~

In addition, we have this very interesting comment from Dr. Gregory:

DR. GREGORY -- "I think again that bullet, Exhibit 399, could very well
have struck the thigh in a reverse fashion and have shed a bit of its
lead core into the fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never have
penetrated the thigh sufficiently so that it eventually was dislodged
and was found in the clothing. I would like to add to that we were
disconcerted by not finding a missile at all. Here was our patient with
three discernible wounds, and no missile within him of sufficient
magnitude to account for them, and we suggested that someone ought to
search his belongings and other areas where he had been to see if it
could be identified or found, rather."

~~~~~~

Therefore, in total, we have the following "Connally Bullet Fragments
Inventory":

1.) The very small fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist (of
microscopic "postage stamp" weight). The pre-operative X-ray of JBC's
wrist (CE690) shows the fragments and reflects the very small nature of
all the fragments that were deposited by the bullet in the wrist
(remember, this is PRE-operative, so all fragments TOTAL are visible in
the wrist):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0187a.htm

CE691 shows the wrist fragments from a different angle. Again, the
fragments are very small in dimension:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0187b.htm

2.) Zero metallic fragments discovered in Goveror Connally's
chest/thorax. CE681 is the 11/22/63 chest X-ray of JBC:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0182b.htm

3.) One extremely-tiny bullet fragment in JBC's thigh (again "postage
stamp" type of weight). CE694 shows the thigh (pre-operative):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0189a.htm

~~~~~~

Allow me to add this.....

Dr. John Lattimer did an experiment with a WCC/MC bullet (just like
CE399), whereby he squeezed the bullet in a vise to extrude approx. 2
grains of lead from the base of the missile (to match the approx.
amount of lead that was missing from CE399, which, in point of fact,
was slightly more than 2 grains).

Lattimer's two grains of Mannlicher-Carcano bullet yielded 41 separate
small, sliced fragments (any one of which looks larger than ANY of the
fragments that were deposited in JBC by Bullet CE399).

Have a look:

http://tinypic.com/2s7vnk0.jpg

Via Dr. Lattimer's book:

"Some critics have contended that the four bullet fragments in Governor
Connally are too many to be accounted for by the two grains of lead
missing from bullet 399. In our experiments we were able to make
forty-one such fragments from the two-grain piece of lead that extruded
from our test bullet. It can safely be said, therefore, that four
fragments are by no means too many to be accounted for by the two
grains missing from bullet 399." -- J.K. Lattimer; "Kennedy And
Lincoln"; Pages 276-277

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/103-9597227-6764635?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0151522812&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=R2Y8HMTWRF6L2Q&displayType=ReviewDetail

Pat C

unread,

Jan 8, 2007, 9:39:55 AM1/8/07

to

Seems like I have missed all the fun over the weekend !

How interesting to see our learned friend Mr Von Pein really has been a
pain and carved canyons in your logic and fact recollection - Oh - am
I registering a pattern here ?

So anyway I'm beginning to get the jist of the nature if these
exchanges - forgive me as I come from a different culture ! Seems
like it's the done thing to start with a few insults. So here
goes....well let me see "Anyone who is really up on this case
knows"....boy that's quite a judgement / inference indeed CJ.
Especially as you know didly squat about me. But I won't bore you.
You probably wouldn't be interested in the type of work that I have
done on the case over the last 20 years anyway.

Do you honestly think that two Government commissions could have
allowed themselves to present the SBT as viable if it could be
absolutely and categorically refuted by some very simple math that even
a 10 year old could figure out. As an open minded individual I would
certainly agree that this is an area in which there is a strong
argument against the SBT, but that's all it is. The weight
"problems" don't rule out the SBT. You seem to think it does -
it would not hold water as a theory. It would be at best a hypothesis
and even then a week one.

Lattimer states...
"A grand total of forty-one such fragments (slices) were
made from the extruded metal, as compared with the total of
only four fragments seen in Connally's arm (three fragments)
and leg (one fragment) X-rays. It should be noted that while
one of the fragments in Connally's wrist was about twice the
diameter of our test slices, the other three were much
smaller than our slices.

For those who might argue that bullet 399 in its
unfired state might have weighed only as much as our
lightest sample bullet, namely 159.8 grains, we still have
the fact that twenty-two such slices could have been
produced from the 1.2 grains of metal that would have been
involved.

At the other extreme, if it were assumed that bullet
399 happened to weigh as much as our heaviest sample bullet,
161.5 grains, then fifty-three slices might have been
produced from the missing portion."

And Josiah Thompson ...

"An unfired projectile like 399 might be expected
to weigh about 161 grains (3H430). Subtracting the
weight of CE 399 (158.6 grains) from this figure yields
a possible weight loss of up to 2.5 grains. Hence,
simply from the point of view of total weight, the
various fragments in Connally's body could have come
from CE 399. The critics have been wrong in contending
that weight loss alone precludes CE 399 from being the
bullet that wounded Governor Connally."

CJ wrote

How could 'that' bullet do that type of damage and yet another bullet
> leave so many tiny fragments in JFK's head?

Oh come on ...tests conducted by both CT'ers and LN'ers both
adequately illustrate that the exact same type of bullets hitting soft
tissue initially - ie as in first impact - usually do not fragment
whilst those hitting a skull for example (again on first impact) can do
and invariably will fragment. The reason proposed for 399 not
fragmenting on hitting Conally's torso and wrist was a reduction of
velocity and the tumbling nature of the bullet.
Pat C

Todd W. Vaughan

unread,

Jan 8, 2007, 1:34:26 PM1/8/07

to

Ben,

Your claim was that "There's never been anyone who thought that a
bullet couldn't go through two people.".

The context of your claim was of course in regards to the SBT, and it's
wounds to Kennedy's back/neck, and Connally's chest, wrist, and thigh.

I stated that "Connally's own doctor, Dr. Shaw, thought just that.",
that one bullet could not have caused all of the wounds under the SBT.

If you go to...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0168b.htm

You'll see where Dr. Shaw told the HSCA that he thought a "a tumbling
bullet would not have had sufficient force to cause the remainder of
the Governors wounds", i.e., had the bullet first hit Kennedy, been
tumbling, and hit the Governor's back/chest, it would not have been
able to cause the wounds to his wrist and thigh.

Of course that is not true.

Todd

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 8, 2007, 4:33:47 PM1/8/07

to

>>> "Do you honestly think that two Government commissions could have allowed themselves to present the SBT as viable if it could be absolutely and categorically refuted by some very simple math that even a 10 year old could figure out." <<<

Excellent point, Patrick. And one that the CT-Kooks will undoubtedly
skirt around with the usual -- "Those Commissions both LIED when they
said the SBT was a valid solution to the shooting!"

Let's see if my crystal ball is working today re. that point.

Per the kooks, there is no LIMIT to the number of commissions or the
number of people in officialdom who wanted to frame that poor guy named
Oswald. And scads of ordinary citizens decided THEY, too, wanted to see
poor, innocent Lee convicted of two murders too....for some reason.

An amazing, all-encompassing "LET'S GET LEE" plot that ran the gamut
from Harold Norman, to Ted Callaway, to Howard Brennan, to Will Fritz,
to Robert Frazier, to Wesley Frazier, to Arlen Specter, to J. Edgar
Hoover, and right on up to Lyndon B. Johnson in the White House. (And
hundreds in between.)

Whoever organized that coordination deserves an Oscar (or two).

aeffects

unread,

Jan 8, 2007, 4:57:30 PM1/8/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Do you honestly think that two Government commissions could have allowed themselves to present the SBT as viable if it could be absolutely and categorically refuted by some very simple math that even a 10 year old could figure out." <<<
>
> Excellent point, Patrick. And one that the CT-Kooks will undoubtedly
> skirt around with the usual -- "Those Commissions both LIED when they
> said the SBT was a valid solution to the shooting!"

neutron activation analysis (NAA) for 10 year olds? -- makes perfect
sense for the Lone Neuter crowd
carry on...

take them golf shoes off, Von Pein, those spikes gotta hurt on the ole
Johnson.....

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Jan 8, 2007, 5:06:49 PM1/8/07

to

Pat C wrote (excerpted):

"--the exact types of bullets hitting soft tissue initially---usually do
not fragment whilst those hitting a skull for example-can do ad

invariably will fragment. The reason proposed for 399 not fragmenting on

hitting Connally's torso and wrist was a reduction of velocity and the

tumbling nature of the bullet."

I disagree strongly with your premise. First off an FMJ bullet is
designed to not break up into a myriad of small particles after
penetrating one layer of bone, i.e, the cranium. If thickness and
density of bone is your criterion here, then by all means, CE 399 should
have fragmented, since the bone it shattered, the radius, is one of the
densest bones in the body, certainly rivalling the cranial bones. The
fact that the distal head of the radius was shattered belies your claim
that the reason CE 399 did not break up was loss of "velocity" and
"tumbling. The force required was that of an initial, and separate
strike to the wrist, one not compatible with the SBT.
You can't have it both ways and say that both entirely different effects
can be achieved by MC FMJ rounds. The evidence, both ballistic and
medical, indicate that two entirely different types of ammo were
employed in the shooting.

curtj...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 8, 2007, 8:05:05 PM1/8/07

to

Pat C wrote:
> Seems like I have missed all the fun over the weekend !
>
> How interesting to see our learned friend Mr Von Pein really has been a
> pain and carved canyons in your logic and fact recollection - Oh - am
> I registering a pattern here ?
>

Ahh....a cheerleader.

> So anyway I'm beginning to get the jist of the nature if these
> exchanges - forgive me as I come from a different culture ! Seems
> like it's the done thing to start with a few insults. So here
> goes....well let me see "Anyone who is really up on this case
> knows"....boy that's quite a judgement / inference indeed CJ.
> Especially as you know didly squat about me. But I won't bore you.
> You probably wouldn't be interested in the type of work that I have
> done on the case over the last 20 years anyway.
>

A lot of trivial pursuitists that have logged in lots of event coverage
usually doesn't automatic translate into a well-rounded and fair
researcher IMO, but if you have brain bulge that is ready for spewing,
we might have some entertainment.

I don't claim to know as a lot of people, so if you need to examine JBC
a little closer, you might want to examine this.

http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/The%20Wounding%20of%20John%20Connally.htm

I don't know why people seem to want to ignore the GK witnesses and
their precise in language recollections of gunfire, and smoke, and
smell, along with rifles being toted around prior to the assassination,
but my crystal ball thinks it has something to do with their dislike of
one LHO.

> Do you honestly think that two Government commissions could have
> allowed themselves to present the SBT as viable if it could be
> absolutely and categorically refuted by some very simple math that even
> a 10 year old could figure out. As an open minded individual I would
> certainly agree that this is an area in which there is a strong
> argument against the SBT, but that's all it is. The weight
> "problems" don't rule out the SBT. You seem to think it does -
> it would not hold water as a theory. It would be at best a hypothesis
> and even then a week one.
>

If it was such a good theory, why didn't they come up with it in the
first place?

What do bullets usually look like after hitting and breaking completely
in half one of the densest bones in a human body?

CJ

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 8, 2007, 8:26:00 PM1/8/07

to

>>> "If it {the SBT} was such a good theory, why didn't they come up with it in the first place?" <<<

I've asked myself that question many times. Truth is, they should have.
For, it's the ONLY possible solution to the shooting that fits anything
close to the actual evidence (and, just as important, it fits the LACK
of evidence that should and would exist if the SBT is wrong).

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 9, 2007, 10:53:38 AM1/9/07

to

In article <enlqg...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>In article <1168007993.2...@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Pat C
>says...
>>
>>I am so sorry you called me an asshole I really am. Such a shame. Thats
>>really spoilt my weekend. But thanks for the welcome. And I do look
>>forward to some heated debates with you Mr Dave H.
>>
>>So whats your theory ? In a nutshell of course !
>
>
>Are my eyes deceiving me? Or is this a LNT'er implying that he's willing to
>address the FACTS in this case?
>
>Let me know, Pat... I'll be happy to engage you in a battle of evidence.

Well... I guess we know the answer...

>>aeffects wrote:
>>
>>> Pat C wrote:
>>> > Ah Mr Healy what a shame I am somewhere between 5 and 8 hours ahead of
>>> > you and usually turn off my lap top at the end of the working day here
>>> > - boy we could have some fun !
>>> >
>>> > I have a question - do you think Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon ?
>>> > That in fact it was a missile and that all the passengers, crew, next
>>> > of kin, work colleagues, second cousins and neighbours are all on a
>>> > desert island with Elvis and JFK ? Sorry I do apologise...back to
>>> > Dallas please !
>>>
>>>
>>> tee-hee -- stuff your off-topic/board questions Patrick -- I'm sure
>>> you'll find some dumber-than-a-STUMP Lone Neuter to answer your 9/11
>>> related questions, which again, belong on another board... Throw
>>> another shrimp on the babie, asshole!
>>>
>>> Oh, lest i forget, welcome to the board! -- And stay away from Lower_y,
>>> appears he has a fetish for older men! Doesn't know shit about the JFK
>>> assassination either....

>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > aeffects wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > David Von Pein wrote:

>>> > > > Hey Patrick C.,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > That was David "CT-Kook Extraordinaire" Healy who just responded to
>>> > > > your very good post with the kookshit you see above under "aeffects".
>>> > >
>>> > > 24/7 eh, VonPein? ROTFLMFAO! And Patrick meet David *VonPAIN* Von Pein
>>> > > the best **OLDTIME-RERUNS 'internet only' TV program reviewer in the
>>> > > USofA. He's finishing up his internship hoping for THE big break....
>>> > > Throw him a bone, the Top Ramen is getting old, baby!
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > > You'll find, Pat, if you post here long enough, that Mr. Effects
>>> > > > (Healy) has very (very) little in the way of constructive or useful
>>> > > > dialogue to add to the JFK events on this forum. His posts are
>>> > > > generally of the crap-filled, say-nothing nature we see above.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Just an FYI, you see.
>>
>

Pat C

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 7:47:12 AM1/10/07

to

Ben,

I am 99% convinced that the LN theory is correct. I am totally
convinced that the shots came from above and behind. But I am open to
healthy debate.

I admit that the degree of injury to the wrist bone of JC and the
condition of CE399 is one of the strongest of the CT'ers arguments in
the case . But I would make the point that just because something is
unlikely - it's not impossible. People just have a tough time with
that. Another key point for me is that I think you tend to find that
the majority of people will not budge on their initial opinion -
whereas personally I have changed my view so I feel that makes me more
impartial and I am afraid to say that that impartiality has changed the
way I see the case. I do though think that it is a hugely exciting
topic. It is also of enormous historical importance and key for the
sake of justice that the truth be known (though I think it is known and
history is well served).

My very simple / high level view is -

I would think that Oswald made up his mind to have a shot at Kennedy
between Monday 18th and Wed 20th Nov. I think he believed he had a very
slim chance of pulling it off and that made him fairly casual about the
whole thing. I believe he did not try and make sure each of his shots
hit a very specific part of the target - I believe he essentially took
pot shots and "got lucky". That is not to say that he was not
determined to put himself in 6th floor window area and hide his
position - I just think there was no "grand scheme".

I also think he may have used the iron sites making target acquisition
a lot easier. (Although I am not 100% sure how hard the side mounting
of the scope would have made this). I am happy to be proved wrong on
this. However Gary Cornwell "Real Answers" ( a CT'er) states he has
fired an MC at a 1.6 second interval with reasonable target hit success
using the irons.

I think the Zapruder film is compelling in showing the head shot came
from behind - let alone the ballistics and medical evidence. It is a
complete and utter mystery to me why people see the film and say the
head shot came from the front. The head goes forwards initially
violently. I do not find the rear movement that follows 314 at all
violent - more of a "flop". The hole is in the side not back of the
head and you can clearly see the bone and scalp flaps forward of the
ear. The blood and tissue halo is largely forward likewise the fragment
paths upwards of Kennedy's head.

I believe the evidence is compelling that Oswald killed Tippet and I
think he would have shot the cop in the theatre had he not been
prevented. Please be aware what I write here is a very simplified view
- I realise it is pretty damn complex - I've been a researcher on this
since 1985 - 2 of those years in a professional capacity and two in an
academic capacity. I am a little rusty these days as I have left the
case alone for a few years and my interest was rekindled approx 1 year
ago when I started seeing what I believe to be compelling documentary
productions on DVD - i.e. look never mind the 350 books (of which I
have approx 200) - watch the work done by people like Myers and the KGB
files production team / laser reconstruction work. I honestly believe
that the better written recent works have tended to show that as time
goes by and more research is done, that the case for the LN gets
stronger and the case for Conspiracy gets weaker. When you get true
experts up on the case invariably I find that the Conspiracy theories
get pulled apart - especially around te hshooting. Dull though that is.
For example have you see the KGB files DVD - towards the end in the
reconstruction section, Robert Groden is really exposed on his Grassy
Knoll shot theory. He's frankly shown up by the more impartial and
expert participents in the Dealy Plaza scene.

So tell me what you think happened - I have yet to hear a convincing
alternative that accounts for the existing evidence, but hey - I am
opened to persuasion.

Pat C

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 9:02:59 AM1/10/07

to

Reasonable points granted, though I dont agree with your logic that the
same bullets have to behave in the same way necessarily ref
fragmentation, but so where did the bullet that you suggest would not
fragment on hitting Kennedy's skull - go ? It is not 399. I expect you
think it was a dum dum bullet fired from the knoll ? (Explain the
violent forward motion of the head from 312 to 313.

And at what point in the Z film could JC have been hit by a seperate
bullet to cause his wrist injury without that said bullet causing
additional injury to Nellie Connally or another wound to JC or some one
else and without the car's superstructure preventing a hit ?

Pat C

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 10:29:20 AM1/10/07

to

In article <1168433231.9...@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Pat C
says...

>
>Ben,
>
>I am 99% convinced that the LN theory is correct. I am totally
>convinced that the shots came from above and behind. But I am open to
>healthy debate.

If you *truly* are, then you will be the first.

Based on previous history on this news forum, I have zero expectation.

>I admit that the degree of injury to the wrist bone of JC and the
>condition of CE399 is one of the strongest of the CT'ers arguments in
>the case .

There are, in my opinion, far stronger reasons and evidence.

For example, the 6.5mm virtually round object found in the AP X-ray. If *you*
can explain the circumstances surrounding it, you will be the first one to do
so. Want to give it a try?

Or, as another example, the refusal to call for the testimony of eyewitnesses
that the WC knew quite well that they should have. Can you explain why James
Chaney was never asked a single question by either the WC or FBI prior to the
release of the WCR?

Can you explain the curious refusal to take the testimony of the President's
personal doctor?

The inexplicable absence of a death certificate among the WCR and the 26
volumes?

The photo that showed an unknown person digging up a bullet out of the grass?
(and so captioned)

The curious refusal of anyone in the chain of evidence to identify CE399?

The lack of a 'chamber mark' on one of the three cartridge shells found in the
sniper's nest?

The fingerprints found in the sniper's nest that were never followed up on?

The missing photographs and X-rays?

A far more detailed listing is provided in my post titled "The Questions that
Frighten LNT'ers". Give it a try if you *really* want to illustrate your
character.

>But I would make the point that just because something is
>unlikely - it's not impossible. People just have a tough time with
>that.

However, what is downright silly in the JFK case is the amount of unlikely
things that LNT'ers are forced to believe in.

I note, for example, that you've not tried to answer any of my reposts
concerning proven Warren Commission lies. Since when does the truth need a lie
to support it?

>Another key point for me is that I think you tend to find that
>the majority of people will not budge on their initial opinion -
>whereas personally I have changed my view so I feel that makes me more
>impartial and I am afraid to say that that impartiality has changed the
>way I see the case.

As I've mentioned before, this is a claim that I've frequently seen among
LNT'ers, and never seen proven. Can you point to *any* discussion on the
Internet where you upheld a CT'ers point of view?

>I do though think that it is a hugely exciting
>topic. It is also of enormous historical importance and key for the
>sake of justice that the truth be known (though I think it is known and
>history is well served).

Then why are you here? If the "truth" is already known, and CT'ers are simply
folks with mistaken opinions, there's no reason for you to be here.

>My very simple / high level view is -
>
>I would think that Oswald made up his mind to have a shot at Kennedy
>between Monday 18th and Wed 20th Nov. I think he believed he had a very
>slim chance of pulling it off and that made him fairly casual about the
>whole thing. I believe he did not try and make sure each of his shots
>hit a very specific part of the target - I believe he essentially took
>pot shots and "got lucky". That is not to say that he was not
>determined to put himself in 6th floor window area and hide his
>position - I just think there was no "grand scheme".

This is a common theme among LNT'ers... stay carefully away from any evidence,
and simply propose theories that cannot be supported or denied.

>I also think he may have used the iron sites making target acquisition
>a lot easier. (Although I am not 100% sure how hard the side mounting
>of the scope would have made this). I am happy to be proved wrong on
>this. However Gary Cornwell "Real Answers" ( a CT'er) states he has
>fired an MC at a 1.6 second interval with reasonable target hit success
>using the irons.

The *fact* is that the actual MC had physical problems with it that make
comparisons with other MC's debatable. You *do* know this, right?

>I think the Zapruder film is compelling in showing the head shot came
>from behind - let alone the ballistics and medical evidence.

There definitely *was* at least two shots from behind. But the extant Z-film is
not what I'd use to prove it. Feel free to research Z-film alteration threads
to understand why.

Can you explain the eyewitness reports that JFK went forward when he was shot?

You *do* know that it can't be seen in the extant Z-film, right?

>It is a
>complete and utter mystery to me why people see the film and say the
>head shot came from the front.

Perhaps because most people instinctively understand momentum.

>The head goes forwards initially
>violently.

Then it appears that you're a dishonest person after all. You make the claim
that the head goes violently forward - and combine it with the statement that
you can't understand "why people see the film and say the head shot came from
the front". You clearly imply that the forward movement can be seen by those
watching the film.

Yet you know that this is simply *NOT TRUE*.

Would you like to support such an implication? Or clear this up so that my
misunderstanding is corrected? (For if you're truly honest, I must have
misunderstood your implication)

>I do not find the rear movement that follows 314 at all
>violent - more of a "flop".

Silly...

>The hole is in the side not back of the head

Oh? And what did the autopsy say? What did the over 40 medical eyewitnesses
say? Use medical terminology, please.

>and you can clearly see the bone and scalp flaps forward of the
>ear. The blood and tissue halo is largely forward likewise the fragment
>paths upwards of Kennedy's head.
>
>I believe the evidence is compelling that Oswald killed Tippet and I
>think he would have shot the cop in the theatre had he not been
>prevented. Please be aware what I write here is a very simplified view

Carefully avoiding the evidence, is what I see...

>- I realise it is pretty damn complex - I've been a researcher on this
>since 1985 - 2 of those years in a professional capacity and two in an
>academic capacity.

Then you are well equipped to debate the *EVIDENCE* in this case. My
prediction: You won't.

>I am a little rusty these days as I have left the
>case alone for a few years and my interest was rekindled approx 1 year
>ago when I started seeing what I believe to be compelling documentary
>productions on DVD - i.e. look never mind the 350 books (of which I
>have approx 200) - watch the work done by people like Myers and the KGB
>files production team / laser reconstruction work.

Tell us about the optical density measurements done by Dr. Mantik...

>I honestly believe
>that the better written recent works have tended to show that as time
>goes by and more research is done, that the case for the LN gets
>stronger and the case for Conspiracy gets weaker.

Then you are "honestly" mistaken. The evidence released through the ARRB, for
example, has done *nothing* to help support the WCR, and has helped proven the
CT.

Can you cite a *single* bit of evidence released by the ARRB that supports the
LNT'er cause?

One of the interesting releases showed how the HSCA simply lied through their
teeth about the medical testimony. Not a single LNT'er has ever stepped forward
to try to defend the lie told by the HSCA. Would you care to explain why the
truth needs a lie to support it?

>When you get true
>experts up on the case invariably I find that the Conspiracy theories
>get pulled apart - especially around te hshooting. Dull though that is.
>For example have you see the KGB files DVD - towards the end in the
>reconstruction section, Robert Groden is really exposed on his Grassy
>Knoll shot theory. He's frankly shown up by the more impartial and
>expert participents in the Dealy Plaza scene.

*NOTHING* you do will impugn the eyewitnesses who were there that day, and who
state their belief of where shots came from.

>So tell me what you think happened - I have yet to hear a convincing
>alternative that accounts for the existing evidence, but hey - I am
>opened to persuasion.

You can *start* with a post titled "The Questions that Frighten LNT'ers" - if
that one doesn't faze you, then start in on the "FBI Intimidation" post.

Lurkers will be able to judge your honesty and character if and when you do so.

(or more likely, when you fail to do so.)

For my "theory" is simple. What happened that gives us the evidence we have?
Multiple shooters are a *given*. The only way to get around that is to label
the eyewitnesses mistaken.

The wound in JFK's head was in the right *REAR*... until you can discover a way
to put the occipital on the top or side of the head, the facts will always
indict your honesty.

Pat C

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 11:08:51 AM1/10/07

to

Clearly I will need some time to consider answering a veritable "War
and Peace" barrage of questions. And Ben - there are some good
questions. I can't answer them all off teh top of my head no. I do not
know all the details about everything you have mentioned. No. Hell
guess what I'm not bloody Einstein ! Hey but I did go to that little
university nestling by the river in that little old town of Cambridge,
England - so I must somewhere have a few brain cells lurking in there.
So I'll work on it.

Just one point at this stage - maybe it is your attempt at carcasm -
the inferernce that I do not understand momentum ? As I guess as an
intelligent human being you will realise that rudeness may hinder
debate or plain and simple switch some one off ! ie me.

Yes I understand momentum and you know what ? the momentum of Kennedy's
head in a forward direction was about a thousand times (not literally)
greater than that of the car and its other occupants - if I catch your
drift.

Unlike you it seems I have respect for other peoples knowledge and
views - so yes I will take a look at the points you have made. Give me
a month ! Or two perhaps. Pat C.

Pat C

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 11:25:09 AM1/10/07

to

Are you really telling me that there is no forward motion from 312 to
313 ? That it is not present in specified versions of the Z film.
Please clarify "extant" - there are several copies of the Z film in
existance made from the original or do you mean the original none
spliced original original which does not exist any more and is
therefore extinct. Or do you mean the original as it exists now in NA 2
? Pat C.

PS. And yes I have Fetzers "The great Zapruder film hoax", Wrones book
"The Zapruder Film" and Trasks "Six Feet of Film", so feel free to make
a reference and I'll put dinner on hold and dig them out the second I
get home.....as I am of course driven now to keep up with your barrage
Mr H.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 5:13:08 PM1/10/07

to

In article <1168445331....@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Pat C says...

>
>
>Clearly I will need some time to consider answering a veritable "War
>and Peace" barrage of questions.

Feel free to take all the time you want. Tony has taken several years now,
Toddy is up to over a year, I believe... it's not uncommon for LNT'ers to duck
away and never answer.

Particularly when it comes to the evidence.

Or pick only one at a time. But then again, perhaps you can't find even *one*
that you can answer...

>And Ben - there are some good
>questions. I can't answer them all off teh top of my head no. I do not
>know all the details about everything you have mentioned. No. Hell
>guess what I'm not bloody Einstein ! Hey but I did go to that little
>university nestling by the river in that little old town of Cambridge,
>England - so I must somewhere have a few brain cells lurking in there.
>So I'll work on it.
>
>Just one point at this stage - maybe it is your attempt at carcasm -
>the inferernce that I do not understand momentum ? As I guess as an
>intelligent human being you will realise that rudeness may hinder
>debate or plain and simple switch some one off ! ie me.

Feel free to run no matter what the excuse you proffer. Robert Harris, for
example, has never been other than the perfect gentleman - yet LNT'ers run from
him as well.

So the excuse that I label cowards as cowards, or liars as liars, or even
something as gentle and soft as an implication that you don't like is still
going to be only an excuse.

Lurkers have learned that by now. So don't fool yourself. You can either
*ANSWER* the evidence, or you can't. It's really just that simple.

>Yes I understand momentum and you know what ? the momentum of Kennedy's
>head in a forward direction was about a thousand times (not literally)
>greater than that of the car and its other occupants - if I catch your
>drift.
>
>Unlike you it seems I have respect for other peoples knowledge and
>views - so yes I will take a look at the points you have made. Give me
>a month ! Or two perhaps. Pat C.

Oh, I'll give you whatever you need. But the chances are that we'll never see
you answer the questions. Sorry, but that's what history has taught everyone
here on this news forum. Troll come, and trolls go - but no LNT'er sticks
around once they discover that there are posters here that really *do* know the
evidence.

Lurkers... be sure to note below the questions left unanswered:

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 5:19:22 PM1/10/07

to

In article <1168446309.3...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Pat C
says...

>
>
>Are you really telling me that there is no forward motion from 312 to
>313 ?

I'm telling you, and you can easily verify it for yourself, that it's *NOT
POSSIBLE TO SEE ANY FORWARD MOVEMENT OF JFK'S HEAD OR BODY FROM 312 to 313 BY
WATCHING THE FILM*

Only a detailed frame by frame comparison *WITH MEASUREMENTS* can show this
movement.

So the question becomes - why did eyewitnesses report what can't be seen?

>That it is not present in specified versions of the Z film.
>Please clarify "extant" - there are several copies of the Z film in
>existance made from the original or do you mean the original none
>spliced original original which does not exist any more and is
>therefore extinct. Or do you mean the original as it exists now in NA 2
>? Pat C.

I mean that I, along with many others, don't believe that the extant film is
what was originally filmed by Zapruder. It means that there are things that
eyewitnesses reported that are *NOT* seen in the film.

It means that yes, the extant film was *ALTERED* to eliminate some features.

>PS. And yes I have Fetzers "The great Zapruder film hoax", Wrones book
>"The Zapruder Film" and Trasks "Six Feet of Film", so feel free to make
>a reference and I'll put dinner on hold and dig them out the second I
>get home.....as I am of course driven now to keep up with your barrage
>Mr H.

Then you already have all the facts at your fingertips. Can you explain, for
example, why the transition from the motorcycle cops to the limo doesn't have a
"first frame flash" phenomena?

Or why eyewitnesses reported JFK going forward when shot?

For if you keep top-posting, and ducking the questions, I'm simply going to keep
asking them.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 6:29:47 PM1/10/07

to

>>> "It's not uncommon for LNT'ers to duck away and never answer. Particularly when it comes to the evidence." <<<

Bullshit. .....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/669634de16b64e8e

Of course, since Ben is so firmly rooted in Conspiracy-Land, it doesn't
really matter WHAT answers Ben-Kook gets from LNers....he'll just skew
the answers beyond recognition and then ask, ask, ask even more
questions that all have just as many "LN-leaning" answers as they do
CT-leaning ones.

You see, CT-Kooks are experts at constantly ASKING questions -- but
very weak on ANSWERING any.

Examples of questions that CTers are totally inept at answering.....

WHY WOULD A TEAM OF KILLERS EVEN *WANT* TO SHOOT KENNEDY FROM GOBS OF
DIRECTIONS WHEN THE WHOLE IDEA (PER THE CT-KOOKS) WAS TO FRAME A *LONE*
PATSY FROM BEHIND?!

And:

WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANY PHOTO-FAKERS EVEN *WANT* TO "FAKE" SEVERAL
BACKYARD PHOTOS, WHEN EVEN MOST HARDCORE CONSPIRACY KOOKS ADMIT THAT
*ONE* "REAL" B.Y. PHOTO EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE? (Just for a hobby,
maybe? To see if they could get caught?)

And:

WHY ON EARTH WEREN'T THE PATSY-FRAMERS *WATCHING* THEIR ONE PATSY AT
12:30 ON 11/22 (Per the Kook Theory that has Oswald in any number of
TSBD locations OTHER than the SN window at exactly 12:30)?

And:

WHY DOESN'T KENNEDY'S HEAD SHOW *ANY* SIGNS OF BULLET FRAGMENTS ON THE
*LEFT* SIDE OF HIS HEAD (AND WHY NO *EXIT* POINT THERE) IF HE'D BEEN
SHOT BY A HIGH-SPEED BULLET FROM THE KNOLL?

And:

WHY WOULD THE PLOTTERS EVEN *NEED* TO USE MULTIPLE KILLERS ON 10TH
STREET TO KNOCK OFF TIPPIT (Per the "Multiple Killers Murdered Tippit"
theorists)?

And:

WHERE ARE THE *THREE* BULLETS THAT CTers NEED TO REPLACE THE
SINGLE-BULLET THEORY? WHERE DID THEY GO? WHERE?!

You must also remember, Patrick, CT Kook Rule #2A (or maybe it's number
1C...I can't recall; my Kook Manual was tossed out last year due to its
persistent foul stench), which is a basic CTer rule that another LNer
named "Bud" (whose posts I can't get enough of; his stuff is fabulous
and brims over with CS&L) told me about a while back. That rule
being.....

"ALL QUESTIONS *MUST* BE ANSWERED TO A CT-KOOK'S COMPLETE SATISFACTION,
OR ELSE THAT KOOK GETS TO BELIEVE ANY STUPID CONSPIRATORIAL KOOKSHIT HE
WANTS TO BELIEVE."

And, has there EVER been a question answered to meet a CT-Kook's total
"requirements"? Very doubtful indeed. Therefore, we're left with CTers
like Ben believing in the EXTRAORDINARY explanations that resolve his
questions....instead of believing in the much-more-likely ORDINARY
(non-conspiratorial) type of explanations.

curtj...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 7:20:34 PM1/10/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "It's not uncommon for LNT'ers to duck away and never answer. Particularly when it comes to the evidence." <<<
>
> Bullshit. .....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/669634de16b64e8e
>
> Of course, since Ben is so firmly rooted in Conspiracy-Land, it doesn't
> really matter WHAT answers Ben-Kook gets from LNers....he'll just skew
> the answers beyond recognition and then ask, ask, ask even more
> questions that all have just as many "LN-leaning" answers as they do
> CT-leaning ones.
>
> You see, CT-Kooks are experts at constantly ASKING questions -- but
> very weak on ANSWERING any.
>
> Examples of questions that CTers are totally inept at answering.....
>
> WHY WOULD A TEAM OF KILLERS EVEN *WANT* TO SHOOT KENNEDY FROM GOBS OF
> DIRECTIONS WHEN THE WHOLE IDEA (PER THE CT-KOOKS) WAS TO FRAME A *LONE*
> PATSY FROM BEHIND?!
>

Probably for insurance. Wouldn't have needed the walkie-talkies in the
plaza except for that. He obviously wasn't dead yet, so they had to
get off a couple more rounds. People heard it, saw it, smelled it, but
don't let that get in your way. Of course they could have killed JFK
from point blank from the so-called SN if they had somebody that would
have wanted to take the fall, but they didn't. A LN would have had an
ideal shot for JFK to kill JFK but no, he had to make it interesting
and aim and shoot through a tree. Of course he had to just warn them
first with a missed shot.

> And:
>
> WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANY PHOTO-FAKERS EVEN *WANT* TO "FAKE" SEVERAL
> BACKYARD PHOTOS, WHEN EVEN MOST HARDCORE CONSPIRACY KOOKS ADMIT THAT
> *ONE* "REAL" B.Y. PHOTO EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE? (Just for a hobby,
> maybe? To see if they could get caught?)
>

To interpose a head onto a body to implicate?

> And:
>
> WHY ON EARTH WEREN'T THE PATSY-FRAMERS *WATCHING* THEIR ONE PATSY AT
> 12:30 ON 11/22 (Per the Kook Theory that has Oswald in any number of
> TSBD locations OTHER than the SN window at exactly 12:30)?
>

How do you know that Oswald was an innocent patsy? Maybe he did what
he was told?

> And:
>
> WHY DOESN'T KENNEDY'S HEAD SHOW *ANY* SIGNS OF BULLET FRAGMENTS ON THE
> *LEFT* SIDE OF HIS HEAD (AND WHY NO *EXIT* POINT THERE) IF HE'D BEEN
> SHOT BY A HIGH-SPEED BULLET FROM THE KNOLL?
>

Why didn't JFK's head show any damage when shot from behind? That
would be easy to cover up for an alterist wouldn't it? Take from the
witnesses in the limo in back, they saw and felt read, and saw a hole
in the back.

> And:
>
> WHY WOULD THE PLOTTERS EVEN *NEED* TO USE MULTIPLE KILLERS ON 10TH
> STREET TO KNOCK OFF TIPPIT (Per the "Multiple Killers Murdered Tippit"
> theorists)?
>

They wouldn't. All they needed was a patsy in a theater, people
chasing him way before he was supposed to be chased, and a way to get
those people there. Tippit gone was the way.

> And:
>
> WHERE ARE THE *THREE* BULLETS THAT CTers NEED TO REPLACE THE
> SINGLE-BULLET THEORY? WHERE DID THEY GO? WHERE?!
>

One in a "snowstorm" in JFK's brain. One fell out during handling at
the autopsy. And well, there were a few in Dealey Plaza. Bullet on
street. Bullet in grass. Miscellaneous forms of bullets found.
Fragments in JBC. Fragment hitting Tague, and fragment found later by
Triple Underpass by Lester.

>
> You must also remember, Patrick, CT Kook Rule #2A (or maybe it's number
> 1C...I can't recall; my Kook Manual was tossed out last year due to its
> persistent foul stench), which is a basic CTer rule that another LNer
> named "Bud" (whose posts I can't get enough of; his stuff is fabulous
> and brims over with CS&L) told me about a while back. That rule
> being.....
>
> "ALL QUESTIONS *MUST* BE ANSWERED TO A CT-KOOK'S COMPLETE SATISFACTION,
> OR ELSE THAT KOOK GETS TO BELIEVE ANY STUPID CONSPIRATORIAL KOOKSHIT HE
> WANTS TO BELIEVE."
>

What would happen to the SBT if the bullet found at Parkland wasn't
used in the attack?

CJ

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 10, 2007, 8:41:07 PM1/10/07

to

Well, I've at least got to give CJ credit....he's at least attempted to
answer the impossible-to-reconcile idiocy of the so-called "Patsy
Framers".

Of course, he failed miserably...as any CTer HAS to fail when
attempting to tackle those questions re. the obviousness of the
"MULTI-GUNMEN PATSY PLOT THAT NEVER HAPPENED" (and would never even
have been CONSIDERED for implementation by any group of conspirators
planning to eliminate Kennedy via a 1-Patsy scheme).

Let's have a gander at a CTer's inept replies:

>>> "{They shot JFK from multiple angles within a ONE-PATSY plan} Probably for insurance." <<<

Then you can forget about framing your lone patsy. The horse is out of
the barn the instant ANY frontal shot strikes anybody. Period. (David
Lifton's nonsense notwithstanding.)

>>> "He {Kennedy} obviously wasn't dead yet, so they {the forever-unnamed "plotters"} had to get off a couple more rounds." <<<

Again, there goes your ONE-PATSY-FROM-THE-TSBD plot. Up in smoke.

>>> "People heard it, saw it, smelled it, but don't let that get in your way." <<<

Of course, not a single person SAW the gunman...even though this guy
was supposedly using a smelly, smoky musket of some ilk to shoot JFK,
which left behind trailing smoke for MINUTES after the weapon was
fired.

Pretty damn lucky for that cloak-like assassin indeed. He must have had
"Jeannie" beside him to "fold & blink" right after the shooting.
(Wonder why Jeannie didn't "blink" out the "smoke" and the "smell" too
though.)

But, anyway, your response above still doesn't address the issue of any
stupid plotters WANTING to intentionally set up a lone patsy by placing
several rifles in DP at locations WHERE THE PATSY COULDN'T POSSIBLY
HAVE FIRED FROM.

You're skirting the PRE-11/22 logic of such a plotters' mindset.

In short -- NOBODY would set up a patsy in that reckless/needless
manner. Would you? Truthfully?

>>> "A LN would have had an ideal shot for JFK {LHO you mean??; or did JFK kill himself?} to kill JFK. But no, he had to make it interesting and aim and shoot through a tree. Of course, he had to just warn them first with a missed shot." <<<

~chuckle~

As if Oswald INTENTIONALLY "missed" with Shot #1. Jeez. You can surely
do better, CJ.

>>> "To interpose a head onto a body to implicate?" <<<

But if ONE "real" backyard pic already exists, why is there any need at
all to fake ADDITIONAL photos? It's just....dumb.

Would YOU have faked additional photos depicting something that already
legitimately exists? If so...why?

>>> "How do you know that Oswald was an innocent patsy? Maybe he did what he was told?" <<<

And maybe...just maybe...Oswald shot JFK.

I know that theory is WAY out in left field...but do consider it as a
possibility at least.

>>> "Why didn't JFK's head show any damage when shot from behind?" <<<

I think the following three letters would be useful here....

WTF???

>>> "All they needed was a patsy in a theater, people chasing him way before he was supposed to be chased, and a way to get those people there. Tippit gone was the way." <<<

These letters are most appropriate here:

LOL!

"Way before he was supposed to be chased"?????

I guess about a half-hour AFTER a fellow DPD officer was killed in the
same area Oswald was in was "way before" the police should have been
chasing Saint Oz, huh?

Get a clue. There's not a damn thing hinky about the DPD capturing
Oswald in the theater. It came about as a result of ordinary
(non-plotting!) citizens doing ordinary things that led the DPD to the
theater.

Ordinary people like Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal....doing ordinary
things like observing a man acting "funny and "scared" and avoiding
police cars just outside the Texas Theater .... and Postal's ordinary
act of calling the police after she learned from Brewer what Brewer
knew about this "funny"-acting person who just slipped into the theater
without bothering to fork over the few cents to buy a ticket.

CTers, as always, build Oswald's theater capture into the Oliver
Stone-like crackpot scenario which incorrectly has dozens of cops on
the scene before they could have possibly known a suspect was even in
the theater.

Anyone can easily fact-check Stone's bullshit re. Oswald's
capture....but almost nobody bothers to do the quick fact-checking by
reading Brewer's and/or Postal's WC testimony. Those two hunks of
official testimony ALONE debunk Stone's filmed crappola.

>>> "One in a "snowstorm" in JFK's brain." <<<

But yet, somehow (some crazy way) we have ZERO fragments showing up in
the LEFT side of JFK's head via the official X-rays.

The amazing luck of those plotters NEVER runs dry. Never!

>>> "One fell out during handling at the autopsy." <<<

A whole bullet? Or a fragment? And where is it? Another "lost" hunk of
evidence, I suppose, that only "plotters" managed to see and sweep
under the "Let's Frame Only Oswald" carpet...right?

Bunk.

>>> "Bullet on street." <<<

Again only seen and/or handled by the "Evil Plotters"...right?

Bunk.

>>> "Bullet in grass." <<<

And yet another bullet that was only seen by people who were "in" on
the LHO Frame-Up Plan. Right?

Bunk.

>>> "Miscellaneous forms of bullets found." <<<

Another "WTF???" is required here.

>>> "Fragments in JBC." <<<

Totalling "less than the weight of a postage stamp" (C.F. Gregory; To
the WC; 1964). The fragments in JBC included ZERO fragments in his
chest at all; 1 ever-so-tiny "postage stamp weight"-sized fragment in
his thigh; and 2 or 3 "very, very small" (Gregory) fragments removed
from JBC's wrist.

The very tiny fragments that may (or may not) have been left in his
wrist certainly did not weigh enough to make the SBT theory invalid
based on "weight of fragments" alone.

Again, anyone can easily fact-check these stats re. the Connally
fragments. But nobody does (I guess). Because if they did....they'd see
how stupid and WRONG the theorists are who cry "Too many fragments were
left in Connally to have come from CE399". That just is not the case.
And the record reflects that.

Gregory's a bald-faced liar re. the "postage stamp weight" thing,
right?

Bunk.

>>> "Fragment hitting Tague." <<<

That was probably via Oswald's first (missed) shot. Next?

>>> "Fragment found later by Triple Underpass by Lester." <<<

Who's "Lester"? Let's see his testimony and/or affidavit, stating
he/she found a "fragment of a bullet" on 11/22/63 in DP. I look forward
to it.

>>> "What would happen to the SBT if the bullet found at Parkland wasn't used in the attack?" <<<

Obviously -- a conspiracy would have existed (just like you want).

But your question is a moot one....because CE399 WAS used in the attack
(as a reasonable person must admit)....and that bullet WAS from
Oswald's gun....and Oswald's gun WAS located to the rear of the limo in
the Book Depository DURING THE ATTACK.

Meaning: the ONLY possible, logical way that CE399 got into that
hospital was by one of the victims (JBC) taking it into the hospital
inside his own body.

There IS no other non-EXTRAORDINARY (i.e., a non-"It Was Planted")
explanation. Period.

Or do some CTers want to believe that a stray bullet from Oswald's
Carcano (from a DIFFERENT shooting event) just HAPPENED to show up near
Connally's stretcher within a very short time of LHO's Carcano being
used in the Dealey Plaza shooting too?

How many OTHER people did Rifle #C2766 shoot on 11/22/63 that were
taken to Parkland around noontime?

Seems like a fair question to ask of the rabid CT crowd.

Pat C

unread,

Jan 11, 2007, 7:04:08 AM1/11/07

to

Ben wrote:

The *fact* is that the actual MC had physical problems with it that
make
comparisons with other MC's debatable. You *do* know this, right?

Comparisons of potential firing speed using alternative MC rifles to
the originals is debatable yes, but it is a short debate. You would be
quite wrong to state that tests using alternative MC's are not valid.
The FBI were able to fire and aim using the actual Oswald rifle and
scope in 2.3 seconds. Given that tests using alternative rifles again
with the scope, usually yield the same results + or - 0.1 second (ie
2.3 seconds is a reliable average), we can conclude that tests of
firing without a scope on the original rifle would have yielded an aim,
fire and hit rate (sometimes at an approx 66% success rate) of approx
1.7 to 1.9 seconds. This simple logic proves that it is possible
(though not likely) to fire the Oswald MC as it was in 1963/64 in less
than 2 seconds with a hit rate of two out of three shots.

You can argue all you like about it being unlikely. Of course we do not
need a firing rate as fast as this to account for the shots using the Z
film as a time frame, but it illustrates that the shooting may not have
been especially difficult for an ex marine. The fact that you infer
that these tests are invalid tells me that you will never accept any
argument that opposes your stance - because you don't want to. So I
suggest we move onto another of your questions shortly.

> > >I also think he may have used the iron sites making target acquisition
>a lot easier. (Although I am not 100% sure how hard the side mounting
>of the scope would have made this). I am happy to be proved wrong on
>this. However Gary Cornwell "Real Answers" ( a CT'er) states he has
>fired an MC at a 1.6 second interval with reasonable target hit success
>using the irons.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 11, 2007, 10:22:44 AM1/11/07

to

In article <1168517048.6...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Pat C
says...

>
>Ben wrote:
>
>The *fact* is that the actual MC had physical problems with it that
>make comparisons with other MC's debatable. You *do* know this, right?
>
>Comparisons of potential firing speed using alternative MC rifles to
>the originals is debatable yes, but it is a short debate. You would be
>quite wrong to state that tests using alternative MC's are not valid.

How silly! The bolt mechanism was difficult to operate, and upon *that* the
speed of firing is dependent.

When you try to judge maximum firing speed by using another rifle that has a
smooth action in it's bolt - you aren't proving anything at all. And such a
test IS NOT VALID WHATSOEVER.

Sorta like trying to prove the maximum speed of a Volkswagon Bug by driving a
Maserati. After all, they're both cars... right?

>The FBI were able to fire and aim using the actual Oswald rifle and
>scope in 2.3 seconds.

Yep... and given that it was done *using* the actual rifle, I accept that
figure. I recognise that the FBI was rather biased on this issue, and I suspect
that a *true* test would have produced a result somewhat slower - but at least
it *was* done with the only rifle that such a test would be valid for.

You see, I recognize that it's *possible* for LHO to have done what the WC said
was done. The problem, of course, is that what the WC *said* happened doesn't
match up with the actual evidence. James Chaney, for example, destroys the SBT
all by himself. Robert Harris convincingly demonstrates that there were shots
fired *UNDER* the 2.3 second window - using the extant Z-film.

Even presuming the WC scenario, however - anyone knowledgeable about that rifle,
and LHO's rifle "expertise", is going to have grave doubts about LHO's ability
to do what was claimed.

>Given that tests using alternative rifles again
>with the scope, usually yield the same results + or - 0.1 second (ie
>2.3 seconds is a reliable average), we can conclude that tests of
>firing without a scope on the original rifle would have yielded an aim,
>fire and hit rate (sometimes at an approx 66% success rate) of approx
>1.7 to 1.9 seconds.

No, we cannot "conclude" this. You are extrapolating without any evidence.

A slick debating technique - but meaningless. You're going to have to cite for
it.

>This simple logic proves that it is possible
>(though not likely) to fire the Oswald MC as it was in 1963/64 in less
>than 2 seconds with a hit rate of two out of three shots.

Well, at least you do make an attempt to be honest. "not likely" indeed!
Shooters with *vastly* greater experience had great difficulty duplicating what
LHO allegedly did.

Of course, if the WC wasn't so intent on coming up with a preconceived theory,
we might have had a real investigation, and have the facts on record today.

>You can argue all you like about it being unlikely. Of course we do not
>need a firing rate as fast as this to account for the shots using the Z
>film as a time frame,

Yep... we need it *faster*, as Robert Harris has convincingly shown.

But my guess is that you'll stay far away from that topic...

By the way, you've been strangely silent on my "Provable Lies of the Warren
Commission" series... any reason why you don't want to jump in?

>but it illustrates that the shooting may not have
>been especially difficult for an ex marine.

On the contrary, the facts presented by the Warren Commission illustrate how
*UNLIKELY* it is for the former Marine to do what they asserted he did.

As stated above, shooters with vastly more experience hired by the WC had great
difficulty - in fact, as I recall, only one shooter managed to duplicate the
shots - and *NOT* from the 6th floor. (Someone will correct me if I mistate the
facts.)

For the *facts* are that LHO was a below-average in his rifle skills while in
the Marine Corps. Considering that I spent over a decade in the Corps - and
some of that time on the West Coast Rifle Team - I do trust you'll recognize my
expertise to qualify LHO's expertise with a rifle.

>The fact that you infer
>that these tests are invalid

If not done with the *same* rifle, yes, they are invalid. But we *DO* have
tests done with the same rifle, so there's no need to look at other attempts, is
there?

>tells me that you will never accept any
>argument that opposes your stance - because you don't want to.

I'm *ALWAYS* willing to look at the evidence in this case. Feel free at *ANY
TIME* to cite the relevant statements, testimony, or arguments from the WCR or
26 volumes. Or, for that matter, the Clark Panel or HSCA or ARRB.

When you do, be prepared to defend it.

>So I suggest we move onto another of your questions shortly.

I've got quite a large number of them that *no* LNT'er has made an attempt to
answer. Feel free to pick and choose among any of them.

If you're feeling particularly brave - pick any of the medical areas... it's in
this area that LNT'ers are forced to be dishonest with the actual evidence.
Let's see if *you* can say "occipital-parietal"...

Pat C

unread,

Jan 11, 2007, 11:53:35 AM1/11/07

to

Ben,

I will get back to you on the "strangely silent" question. I am snowed
under at work today. Patience please. Appreciate your detailed response
as always. Food for thought. Pat C.