Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 17)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From November 2004,
October 2005, November 2005, January 2006, March 2006, and December
2006.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- The only truly peculiar part of
Oswald's performance is that he got better with each shot, which is
rather unusual.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- It might be deemed "unusual" by some people.
But just consider the "timing" of the shots, and the time he had
between each to find the target {JFK} and re-aim.....
Shot #1.) Z160 (approx.).
Shot #2.) Z224 (which was 3.50 seconds after shot 1).
Shot #3.) Z313 (which was 4.86 seconds after shot 2).
Therefore, Oswald had very nearly five full seconds to re-aim and shoot
for his third (and what turned out to be best) shot. From that
perspective of having more time between shots 2 and 3 than he did
between shots 1 and 2, I think it's logical to think that his last shot
just might, indeed, be the best-aimed and, therefore, most accurate.*
* = The first (missed) shot notwithstanding in the "best aimed"
department, since that shot most certainly missed everyone in the
President's vehicle, probably due to that first bullet striking a tree
limb; so we'll never know whether Oswald's "aim" for Shot #1 was honed
in perfectly on JFK's head or not. Logically, though, I'd have to think
it was.
-------------------------------------------
DVP (November 8, 2004) -- Author/Lawyer Vincent Bugliosi knows full
well what he would need to do to convict Oswald as a lone killer. He
knows better than most of us. The expertise of an attorney like Mr.
Bugliosi comes into play here, big time, IMO. For who knows better than
Charles Manson's prosecutor the official definition of "Beyond A
Reasonable Doubt"?
Which is a big reason why I, for one, have no qualms about praising the
contents of Mr. Bugliosi's yet-to-be-seen lone-assassin JFK tome
without reservation (even before one page is dissected).
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Think 'General Walker'.
DVP -- I just love it when conspiracists try to use the "He Missed
General Walker, Therefore He MUST Have Missed JFK Too" brand of
argument (and backward logic).
It's also interesting to note, too, that many of the CTers who argue
about the Walker vs. JFK shooting performances don't even think Oswald
shot at Walker AT ALL!
It was yet another case, per the theorists, of Oswald's rifle being
stolen out from under his very nose by evil conspirators, with SOMEBODY
ELSE using it to "Frame" poor old Patsy Oswald. Holy Mackerel, that guy
evidently was framed more often than the Mona Lisa!.....
1.) For the Walker attempt, HE WAS FRAMED.
2.) For the JFK killing, HE WAS FRAMED.
3.) For the J.D. Tippit murder, HE WAS FRAMED.
I would have advised Lee to sell off that #C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle -- it's brought him nothing but grief and a whole slew of
Patsy-Framers. Poor guy. He never even gets a chance to use his own
rifle; it's too busy being stolen out from under him and used by
conspirators. A pity.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- And even if we trust the accuracy of the earwitnesses, they
cannot account for shots that were fired from silenced weapons.
DVP -- You're shooting yourself in your pro-CT foot with such a silly
argument. (That is, if you want to accept as "correct" the earwitness
testimony of ANY of your "frontal shot" witnesses.)
Because WHY in the heck would only SOME of the non-TSBD shots be
"silenced", while others from the Knoll were perfectly audible (per CT
accounts)? Makes no sense.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- They {the Secret Service} would have never allowed open windows
{along the motorcade route}.
DVP -- This is just plain silly. There's no possible way that the
authorities could have policed the hundreds of potential "sniper's"
windows throughout a lengthy drive through a large city like Dallas,
Texas.
If you got this crazy idea from Colonel Prouty, it's even more
laughable, because Prouty (via one JFK documentary I have on video)
asserts that at the very moment an upper-story window would have been
opened, a SS man would have INSTANTLY been "inside the room and that
window would have been closed". That's just nonsense. First of all,
it'd be too late to do anything about such an open window on, say, the
6th Floor of the TSBD, if the open window wasn't noticed (or even
opened at all) until the motorcade came within firing range.
And, secondly, the SS would need about 3,000 agents in total to police
every possible open window throughout Dallas. And, they'd all have to
be rocket-fast too, in order to dash up six flights, wrestle the rifle
away from the killer, and thusly save the President, all in a matter of
seconds after initially identifying the assassin.
There might very well be something in the official U.S. Secret Service
security manual about "No Open Windows Allowed Along The Route Of The
President's Travels". I really have no idea. But even if such a SS
regulation is on the books, it's not a doable or realistic regulation
to enforce. Couldn't be done on their best day and with a team
comprised of thousands of men (each with a red cape and a big "S"
printed on his chest).
By the way, films reveal that not only were MANY people hanging out of
upper-story windows along the JFK parade route on 11/22/63, but several
people were watching the parade from atop street signs and lamp posts
as well. Why weren't these people briskly taken back down to street
level by the SS prior to the President's arrival?
Again, it's another impossible-to-control situation re. people "high
above" a passing President. The only way to control such activity by
thousands of people is for the President to lock himself in a closet
and simply never travel through a city in an open convertible.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- You cannot name one single witness who correctly stated the
source and number of all shots. 216 were absolutely wrong, to a greater
or lesser degree, and nobody was exactly right. Wow.
DVP -- But what's even more jaw-dropping on the "Wow!" scale is the
fact (per CTer beliefs) that 95%+ of all of the Dealey Plaza witnesses
were dead wrong when it came to establishing the total number of
directions the gunshots came from.
More than 95% of the witnesses in a poll done by John McAdams (taking
into account so-called "CT" and "LN" witnesses alike) heard shots from
just a SINGLE location, instead of multiple locations on November 22nd,
1963.
That's a staggeringly-incorrect figure IF, indeed, multiple guns were
popping away from opposite ends of Dealey Plaza.
-------------------------------------------
DVP -- NONE of the autopsy doctors (in any of their official testimony)
have ever placed the large JFK head (exit) wound anywhere except on the
RIGHT-FRONT-TOP area of the head. Never the "rear" or "back".
CTer -- But this is simply a lie, and Davey-boy is certainly well aware
of that fact.
DVP -- OK, let's have a look then.....
WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY (1964):
DR. HUMES -- "The greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in
the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral
hemisphere. .... We reached the conclusion that this missile was fired
toward the President from a point above and behind him."
=======
DR. FINCK -- "President Kennedy was, in my opinion, shot from the rear.
The bullet entered in the back of the head and went out on the right
side of his skull, producing a large wound, the greatest dimension of
which was approximately 13 centimeters."
=======
MR. SPECTER -- "Do you have anything that you would like to add by way
of elaboration or modification to that which Dr. Humes has testified?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "None. I believe Dr. Humes has stated essentially what
is the culmination of our examination and our subsequent conference,
and everything is exactly as we had determined our conclusions."
MR. SPECTER -- "And specifically as to the points of entry and points
of exit which have been testified to by Dr. Humes, do his views express
yours as well?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "They do, yes."
~~~~~~
HSCA TESTIMONY (1978):
MR. CORNWELL -- "Your autopsy report reflected that there was one and
only one bullet wound to the back of the President s head, that it did
enter in the rear, exited the front. Is that report accurate on those
three points, to the best of your knowledge?"
DR. HUMES -- "Absolutely."
=======
DR. FINCK -- "I think that there were only two wound tracks: one in the
back and one exit and the front of the throat. That is wound track
number one. And the second wound track was an entry in the back of the
head with a large exit on the top and right side of the head. Although
there had been rumors that shots came from the front, I did not see any
evidence on the dead body of President Kennedy of wounds of entry in
the front portions of the cadaver."
~~~~~~
ARRB TESTIMONY (1996):
QUESTION -- "Where, as best you recall, the lacerations were on just
the scalp."
DR. HUMES -- "They went in every direction. I think I described them as
stellate. So they went down this way and back, and the whole area was
lacerated."
QUESTION -- "For the scalp?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes."
QUESTION -- "In towards the back of the head, so in the occipital..."
DR. HUMES -- "Not really. Not really. The parietal region primarily.
Parietal and to some extent occipital, but primarily parietal."
QUESTION -- "Okay. Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears
over the occipital bone?"
DR. HUMES -- "No. No."
QUESTION -- "None whatsoever?"
DR. HUMES -- "No."
=======
DR. BOSWELL -- "And then the top of his head was blown off. A
14-centimeter segment of it was blown off. And it was on the right side
of his brain that the brain was missing. .... The right hemisphere of
the brain is just so torn up, and there's no way of determining a
track. But we did have a good wound of entrance, and then we have
metallic fragments, I believe around the right orbit. So that gives
some sense of direction as far as the shooter."
QUESTION -- "By examining the brain by itself, are you able to
determine to a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether there was
one or more than one bullet wound to the head? Again, just by
examination of the brain."
DR. BOSWELL -- "The only clue, I think, is the fact that the scalp is
reasonably well intact, and we only have one wound of entrance on the
scalp. And by the same token, we only have one wound of exit. It's
huge, now, if he was shot with this one from behind first and then shot
secondly in the same place with a second one, that would be impossible
to tell. But then you would have to have another wound of exit
someplace, which you don't have."
~~~~~~
THE CLAY SHAW TRIAL (1969):
DR. FINCK -- "I have a firm opinion that the bullet entered in the back
of the head and exited on the right side of the top of the head,
producing a very large wound."
QUESTION -- "Doctor, did you find any evidence which would indicate
that the President was hit by more than one shot in the head?"
DR. FINCK -- "No."
QUESTION -- "Doctor, as a result of your examination of the head of the
late President, what, if you have one, is your opinion as to the
direction from which the bullet which inflicted the head wound came?"
DR. FINCK -- "The bullet definitely struck in the back of the head,
disintegrated, which is often the case when such a bullet at high
velocity goes through bone, producing numerous fragments, many of them
seen on X-ray of the head, and of the bony portion of the exit, and
also recovered by us, we found fragments in the brain of the President,
and that projectile produced that wound of exit on the right side and
top of the head."
QUESTION -- "Doctor, having examined the entire body of the late
President Kennedy, did you detect other than the two wounds which you
have described to me any other wounds on the body of the late
President?"
DR. FINCK -- "I did not, no other bullet wounds."
aeffects
It's has to be depressing not finding anyone to play -- perhaps the
lunacy of your position is ringing forth?
you gotta get your E*G*O out of the way champ...
David Von Pein
But CT-Kookatics have got a much bigger problem --- they've got to get
the "EVIDENCE" out of the way, sport.
Because with the evidence that's currently in place...guess who's
guilty of killing JFK & JDT? (Need more than one guess, "champ"?)
Also -- Can Mr. Healy EVER write a post that contains ANY evidence or
solid arguments? If somebody spies such a forum post, please lasso
it....for it'll surely be worth some cash due to its rarity. He's
written a few lengthier posts over at the Simkin-(Kook) forum. Wonder
why he can't do it here? Most curious.
David Von Pein
I don't need anyone to "play". The main reason I'm posting these
"Debate" threads is for my own files (in order to have a record of the
posts by way of a unique and easily-accessible URL/web address).
A secondary reason is so that the one "lurker" per year can get a good
look at the crazy nature of the CT-Kook position, and to see somebody
with a little CS&L rip their arguments apart.
So, I've already "played" my hand, within each "debate" point itself. I
don't need to play it again. Duh.
tomnln
The ONLY sources you post are your own writings.
Real students prefer Official Records Citations.
Found HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165815708....@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
LOL. And you, sir kook, wouldn't recognize "proof" if it introduced
itself to you personally and then attached itself to your sagging
nutsack for all eternity.
>>> "The ONLY sources you post are your own writings." <<<
Another big LOL here! As if I never mention ANY official "sources",
ever. My postings and reviews are very, very often jammed with source
material and direct quotes from witnesses, doctors, other authors, and,
of course, Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq.
Two examples being:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4f18bcb78b94d9d8
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c7616a35ac60e22
So you, Tom-Sack-Kook, don't have the slightest fucking idea what
you're babbling about...as...per...usual!
>>> "Real students prefer Official Records Citations." <<<
See my last answer, you Fucking Kook.
God, I hate this kook's inane ramblings.
Isn't there a shelter somewhere for dried-out, useless,
evidence-skewing nutsack dirtbags? If there isn't, there had-oughta be.
tomnln
You Finally Admitted I'm your worst Nightmare.
AGAIN, your citations are your own Citation Opinion LIES.
You NEVER cite Official Records.
Debate is dialogue between Opposite Parties.
You argue with yourself and STILL Lose.
Let's "Debate" evidence/testimony>
I offer 2 options.....
WHAT parts of the Official Records do you disagree with HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/
What Official Record do you wanna Debate HERE below?
I have a Live Audio Chat Room on www.paltalk.com
Download & Use for FREE.
Once Logged on select Rooms, Social Issues & Politics.
Then select Government & Politics.
Scroll down to room called "Who Killed John F. Kennedy?"
I start between 8-9 pm e.s.t. EVERY NITE.
We can transfer files to one another Instantly.
ANY Exhibits of Evidence, ANY Testimony from WC/HSCA Volumes.
Look forward to seeing you there.
tomnln
ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRR,
Don't you have the guts to address either one?
Let's talk Evidence/testimony?
If you chose to discuss "Charges ONLY", That opens the door for others to
make
Unsubstantiated Charges against you.
That's the LAST thing you can afford.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165858385.9...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...