Damn, This Is A Good (Re-)Post! (Even If I Do Say So Myself)

[David Von Pein]

RE-POST OF A FAVORITE KOOK-BASHING SESSION OF MINE FROM OCTOBER 31,
2007.

Enjoy. (I know I did [again]....and I wrote it. So, sue me. I think
it's good.)

<grin>

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

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7098cffc9a406803

>>> "There were many better opportunities for a single assassin to attack. One is when JFK is on the truck platform at Ft. Worth giving a morning speech and the crowd is not far off; and secondly would have been at Love Field as JFK came right up to the crowd. Why do you suppose LHO would choose the hardest option, with the worst rifle known to modern man, when he could have gotten real close and shot him with a revolver? Makes no sense to sane people, only nutjobs like you." <<<

<huge laugh commences (as per usual after reading anything written by
a kook named "Robcap")>

LHO's one-man Book Depository assassination plan made perfect sense,
from every "LHO POV". You're just a kook who doesn't want Saint Oz to
be involved....so naturally you have to act like a total moron and
pretend that LHO should have performed the deed in a different manner.

But, Lee Oswald didn't travel to Love Field or Fort Worth to shoot the
President UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL with his Smith & Wesson .38-caliber
revolver because.....

1.) Lee Oswald couldn't drive.

2.) He had no car even if he could drive.

3.) It's doubtful that he'd be willing to ask Wes Frazier for a ride
to the airport or for a ride to Fort Worth so that he could shoot the
President. I doubt if Lee wanted to ask Frazier for the following
favor:

"Hey, Wesley, can I get a lift to Love Field this morning? I
know we'll already be at work by the time JFK arrives at the airport
at around 11:40 AM, and we'll already be at work by the time JFK gives
his pre-Chamber of Commerce parking-lot speech in Fort Worth at about
8:30 AM too....but why don't we skip work and go see the President so
I can get a better shot at him? You don't mind, do you Wes? And if you
wouldn't mind, can I also get a ride away from the murder scene too,
after I kill the President (either at the airport or in Fort Worth)?
Come on, Wes, be a good sport and help me out so I won't have to use a
bus as a getaway vehicle."

4.) Oswald knew he would have a BUILT-IN INITIAL ALIBI after shooting
the President from the Book Depository, because he WORKED THERE and
could be cleared as just another of the building's many regular
workers (which he was, by Roy Truly at 12:31 to 12:32 PM, just minutes
after Oswald shot Kennedy).

Therefore, why would LHO go looking for alternate shooting
opportunities and locations when President Kennedy was going to be
COMING TO OSWALD at noontime on November 22nd?

And the biggie:

5.) Oswald wasn't suicidal. He was a murderer with a lousy getaway
plan, yes. But he wasn't suicidal. He proved that multiple times after
12:30 PM on November 22.

Therefore, shooting JFK while secreted (to a large degree) in his
Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository
(a place where nobody would be suspicious of him in the slightest way
prior to the assassination attempt at 12:30...and nobody WAS
suspicious in any way whatsoever) was the perfect choice for the 24-
year-old ex-Marine sharpshooter who happened to have at his disposal
(thanks to that unusual Thursday-night visit to the Paine house in
Irving) a rifle that was more than capable enough to fire a lethal
bullet into the body of a person who was less than 100 yards away from
the muzzle of that rifle.

But travelling to Fort Worth or the airport to kill Kennedy (two
places where Oswald WASN'T EMPLOYED and therefore couldn't use the
perfect "I Work Here" initial alibi) would have been much
riskier....and probably would have been a suicide mission had he
chosen either of those locations to shoot JFK out in the open (and
with a handgun!).*

* = Or, alternately, was Oz supposed to manage to hide himself inside
the Texas Hotel someplace after he carried his Carcano rifle inside
the hotel, which was crawling with Secret Service men and police
officers that morning? Or was he supposed to go into another nearby
building in Fort Worth (or at Love Field) to pull off his murderous
deed?

Ask yourself: WHY would he take such chances when he already had at
his fingertips the PERFECT BUILT-IN SNIPER'S LOCATION IN DEALEY PLAZA
(i.e., the very building he worked in every day since mid-October --
the TSBD)?

AN OSWALD 11/22/63 "TIMELINE":
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16

>>> "I don't think professional assassins worry about that part {framing the "patsy"} much. They do their job and make a getaway. .... They left the framing of LHO and coverup to the people who hired them. Boy Davy, you are naive." <<<

And when given the choice of "Conspiracy Kook" vs. "naive", I'll
choose "naive" every time, thanks.

BTW, can you tell me how many "Multi-Shooter" assassination plots have
EVER been pinned on "Solo Patsies" in the past? Just how many times
has that neat little trick been pulled off (and provably so)? Just
curious.

Surely you can name at least ONE other occasion when a batch of brain-
dead plotters shot up a victim with many different guns and then tried
to pin the whole nine yards on some schnook who never even fired a
shot. Can't you? (That probably happens every day of the week, right
Mr. Kook?)

>>> "Close to 90% of Americans don't believe he {Saint Oswaldovich} was involved or did it alone." <<<

The percentage isn't nearly that high. You've probably been reading
too much of Ben Holmes' kookshit regarding the "conspiracy"
percentiles.

The latest polls that I've seen (from November 2003) indicate that 83%
of those polled believe that Oswald WAS INVOLVED AS A SHOOTER IN
DEALEY PLAZA.

Only 7% (via the ABC poll in question, linked below, which included a
total of 1,031 respondents) think Oswald was "Not Involved" at all.
Only 70%, not 90%, think there was a conspiracy surrounding John F.
Kennedy's death (per that ABC poll from 2003).

And another separate question within that same ABC poll (a question
specifically about who was firing the gun/guns at JFK on 11/22/63)
reveals that only 58% of those with an opinion on the matter believe
that there was a gunman in Dealey Plaza besides Lee Harvey Oswald.....

www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

>>> "Only you delusional 10% nutjobs believe the official garbage." <<<

Actually, the correct figure (as of this writing) is approximately
"19%". That is to say, about 19% of Americans believe that the Warren
Commission got it right.....

NATIONWIDE GALLUP POLL (NOV. 2003):

One Man -- 19%
Others Involved -- 75%
No Opinion -- 6%

>>> "LHO didn't hit anyone....all data regarding the "hits" comes from the government..." <<<

And the evil "Government" should always be looked at sideways and
should always be considered the enemy, right? For, there's no possible
way they would ever tell the truth about a murdered Chief Executive,
correct?

Of course, the BULLETS in evidence and the LACK of non-Oswald bullets
in evidence are also telling a reasonable person a good deal about the
shooting too. Plus, there are the WOUNDS on the two victims and the
wound locations, which generally line up to produce an amazing "SBT"-
like pattern.

And if those wounds had been caused by more than one bullet, it's a
truly incredible coincidence, a coincidence that CTers embrace to
their bosoms without batting an eye....even though OTHER
"coincidences" are totally impossible to believe (per some members of
the CT-Kook Brigade).

E.G.: Oswald getting hired in a building along the motorcade route;
and a guy named Lovelady coincidentally also working in the same
building with Mr. Oswald in November of 1963.

In truth, the "Government" went where the evidence led them....and
that was to Lee Oswald and Lee Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

There's not a shred of ballistics evidence that undermines the
immutable fact that ONLY Oswald's rifle was involved in the
assassination. Kooks attempt to undermine the "LHO Did It Alone"
conclusion. But since when do the unsupportable opinions of rabid
conspiracy nuts really matter very much when weighed against the
actual ballistics evidence in the case?

>>> "The other bullet no LNer ever wants to address is the windshield frame one. Which one hit the windshield frame below the rearview mirror if all the other 3 are accounted for?" <<<

How can you possibly not know the answer to this question?

A separate shot/bullet isn't required to account for the windshield/
chrome damage at all. One of the two front-seat fragments from
Oswald's gun (via the fatal shot to JFK's head) almost certainly
caused the chrome damage; while the other front-seat fragment almost
certainly caused the windshield crack and lead smear on the inside of
the windshield.

Everything aligns perfectly from the LN/LHO/Windshield perspective
too....i.e., TWO damaged areas to the front portion of the limousine
(the chrome dent and the windshield crack with lead residue deposited
on the inside of the glass), which perfectly match the number of
bullet fragments (TWO) from Oswald's rifle that were found in the
front seat of the limo.

Via Robert Frazier's Warren Commission testimony:

ALLEN DULLES -- "I wonder if I could go back just a moment to the
indentation in the chrome around the windshield at the top of the
windshield, but on the inside, could that have been caused by a
fragment of a bullet?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it very easily could have. It would not
have been caused, for instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its
full velocity from a rifle, but merely from a fragment traveling at
fairly high velocity which struck the inside surface of the chrome."

MR. DULLES -- "Could that have been caused by any of the fragments
that you have identified as having been found on the front seat or
near the front seat of the car?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes. I believe it could have by either, in fact, of
the two fragments of rifle bullets found in the front seat."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0485b.jpg

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0486a.jpg

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0485a.jpg

>>> "You're using faulty data." <<<

I'm using the "data" that is agreed upon by every official agency
which has investigated JFK's murder.

Naturally, you kooks think it's incumbent upon you to merely ignore
everything "official". After all, you've got shadows to chase and
extra killers to give guns to. And there's nothing "faulty" about
shadow-chasing, right? <smirk>

>>> "JFK was hit 3 times..." <<<

Which must be why 17 different pathologists who have examined either
the actual body of President Kennedy or the photos, X-rays, and
associated evidence connected with the President's murder said that
JFK was hit by just TWO bullets (with both of those bullets coming
from "above and behind" the President when he was shot).

But, being a kook who likes to make up his own evidence (while
ignoring 17 respected pathologists as you sprint toward the Kook Goal
Line), you want to think that JFK was hit "3 times". Go figure.

>>> "Connally {was hit} 2 times..." <<<

You can't get anything right, can you? Not even this easy one.

Governor Connally was positively hit by just one single bullet...and
that bullet was positively "CE399". No other conclusion is even
remotely possible, given the evidence that's on the table. (Naturally,
you, being a kook, MUST think this evidence is "fake". Go figure.)

Of course, by saying JFK was hit three times and JBC twice, you really
only manage to increase the absurdity of any anti-SBT scenario to
laughable levels of improbability and impossibility.

Because you'll now need FOUR SEPARATE BULLETS to do what CE399 is said
to have done....with ALL of these bullets either totally disappearing
from view immediately after the shooting, or having at least one of
them (399) moved from JFK's stretcher to Connally's (while the other
THREE completely vanish into a puff of smoke).

Yeah, that's WAY more believable than my fairy-tale belief in the SBT,
isn't it?

(And yet I'M supposed to be the "naive" one, folks. Ain't that a
hoot?!)

>>> "1 {bullet} hit the windshield frame..." <<<

That was a fragment from the head shot (of course), as any non-halfwit
could easily figure out. There's no way that a bullet travelling at
full velocity hit that chrome strip (molding)....or the non-
bulletproof windshield glass either.

Bob Frazier testified that a bullet moving at full speed would have
most likely gone clean through the chrome and would definitely have
gone through the windshield easily at such a velocity. Obviously,
therefore, the fragments that hit those things in the car were
severely slowed down before hitting them.

>>> "1 {bullet} hit the curb near Tague..." <<<

You finally got one right. Good going.

>>> "And one or two more {bullets} hit the street and curbs." <<<

<chuckle time>

I thought you said these gunmen were "professionals" all the way. LOL.
Some great "pros" these blind-as-a-bat assassins were, huh? They
totally miss the huge Presidential stretch limo up to THREE times!
Lovely.

Care to change your mind about the killers being in the "professional"
ranks, Mr. Kook? Or do you think they were all blindfolded on November
22 (just to make the assassination a little more challenging)?

In any event, your extra one or two missed shots are nothing but pure
CT wishful-thinking, of course. There was only one "missed" shot (the
Tague shot; which was shot #1 from Oswald's MC rifle). There certainly
weren't an additional TWO missed shots, plus the Tague bullet.

>>> "That is 8 or 9 shots in my book." <<<

Gee, get with the program, Rob-Kook! Even Bob Groden's got TEN shots
being fired. Surely you can go one or two better than him, can't you?

(And you call yourself a decent CTer. Meh.)

>>> "Try reading some up-to-date research that isn't based on 1964 data." <<<

Oh, you mean I should place my trust and faith in people like John
Armstrong (the "Double Oswald" crackpot) and Joan Mellen (who decided,
in 2005, it was time to resurrect the already-moribund silliness
spouted by Jim Garrison) and maybe Robert Groden (who believes that
it's likely that ZERO gunshots came from Oswald's SN window)?

Or did you have some other CT-Kook authors in mind besides the trio
listed above?

Anyway, I'm sure you find comfort in reading pretty much anything that
attempts to bash the still-erect WC, correct?

In other words, CTer guesswork is always much better than the hard
evidence dealt with by the DPD, FBI, and WC. Right?

Well, no thanks....I'll stay in 1964. And you can have the CT authors
and all of the unsupportable nonsense that goes with them.

>>> "Do you know anything about Lovelady?" <<<

I know he died more than 21 years ago. And I know he worked in the
TSBD with double-murderer Lee Oswald for about five weeks in late
1963. And I know he resembled LHO. And I know I have no reason under
the sun to suspect Billy Nolan Lovelady of being involved in some kind
of plot to kill JFK.

Now....what do you know about Mr. Lovelady?

>>> "The CTers are the ones that have had to spend their own money and time to investigate on their own." <<<

And how many killers and non-Oswald bullets have been uncovered as a
result of all that "investigating" that's been performed by those many
conspiracy theorists over the last 40+ years?

You'd think that some CTer would have found proof by now of at least
ONE non-C2766 bullet being involved in this supposedly-MULTI-GUN
assassination.

And you'd think that after all that time SOME theorist (somewhere on
Earth) would have come up with just ONE non-Oswald killer being
provably involved in the assassination too.

But every "confession" by a so-called JFK assassin turns into a
situation comedy. Like the "Three Tramps". Or Jimmy Files. .....

"Perhaps the most famous of the "other" assassins are the "three
tramps". The fact that there never was any evidence at all of their
guilt is irrelevant to the conspiracy theorists. To the buffs, there
was one big piece of incriminating evidence against the tramps: THEY
WEREN'T LEE HARVEY OSWALD! And in the balmy and unhinged conspiracy
universe, no evidence of guilt is stronger against someone than that
he isn't Lee Harvey Oswald." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 929 of
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

~~~~~~

"Another alleged assassin is James E. Files, the Rodney
Dangerfield of Kennedy assassins. .... Files has fallen on such hard
times that few buffs will even talk to him. However, a few promoters
and publicity seekers have tried to exploit Files's pathetic story."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 917 of "RH" (c.2007)

http://images.dvdtalk.com/images/smilies/rotflmao.gif

>>> "I don't think LHO ever said he was in the door. He may have not thought of it or maybe he wasn't." <<<

He may have "NOT THOUGHT OF IT"?? (LOL.)

Via the POV of Oswald possibly actually BEING "Mr. Doorway Man" (which
you seem to have implied in your previous posts), that's a very
strange thing to say, Robert. I.E.: Oswald wouldn't have THOUGHT to
give the cops his provable, ironclad alibi for the time when JFK was
being shot?

Oswald was quick enough, however, to make up a lie re. his
"alibi" (his lie about having lunch with "Junior")....but he wouldn't
actually say where he REALLY WAS at 12:30??? How nutty is that??

Back here in reality, however -- If Lee Harvey Oswald had been in that
Depository doorway at 12:30, he would certainly have SAID SO after his
arrest. But he said NOT A WORD to the police about being outside on
the TSBD steps when JFK was in the process of being murdered on Elm
Street.

Nor did Oswald say a word about being in the Book Depository
entranceway to the LIVE TELEVISION AUDIENCE EITHER, which he had ample
opportunities to do, what with the cameras and microphones being
shoved in his face several times as LHO was being paraded through the
DPD corridors on both November 22 and November 23.

In point of fact, Oswald actually admitted to the reporters (and
thusly to the live TV audience) that he was INSIDE THE BUILDING at the
time Kennedy was being shot.

A reporter asked him:

"Were you in the building?"

Oswald answered (somewhat sarcastically, after having just told the
same reporters, "I work in that building"):

"Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ee70b7502d2b2fd7

>>> "Can't we use facial recognition software to determine this {the identity of "Doorway Man"}?" <<<

Mr. Lovelady's admission that it was him in the doorway isn't NEARLY
good enough for a kook like you....is it, Robert?

And what about the testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier and William
Shelley (both of whom said they saw Lovelady outside the building,
near the front entrance, at the time of the shooting)?

Lovelady, Frazier, and Shelley are ALL to be disbelieved, is that
correct?

It's going to take "facial recognition" computer software to convince
Robert C. of the truth about Doorway Man, right?

<chuckle>

>>> "I stick to all the facts of this case and that includes all the new ones found since 1964, that is the year you are stuck in." <<<

<additional chuckle>

Yeah, you stick to such "facts" as: 4 assassins/spotters on the 6th
Floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on November 22. (A "fact" with ZERO pieces
of credible/provable evidence to support it.)

And "facts" like "LHO shot no one" (not even Officer Tippit, a murder
which has a DOZEN witnesses fingering Oswald as the killer or the ONE
AND ONLY man who ran from the scene with a gun in his hands).

It's Kook "Facts" like yours that make me so glad to be residing on
the side of (LN) truth in this case. Because you and your "CT Facts"
are truly (truly) pa-thet-ic.

As my very, very able LN cohort, Bud, has said so many times in the
past (and now is a good time to repeat it) -- You conspiracy-loving
kooks are the very LAST people on the face of this globe who should be
looking into the assassination of the 35th U.S. President.

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

A LONE-ASSASSIN PERSPECTIVE:

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

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

"RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY":

www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858

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

THREE HOURS WITH "RECLAIMING HISTORY" AUTHOR VINCENT BUGLIOSI
(NOVEMBER 4, 2007):

www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8792&SectionName=In%20Depth&PlayMedia=Yes

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

[David Von Pein]

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e08f1eac601f8ed7

>>> "No, it {DVP's lengthy CS&L-filled posts re. the actual evidence surrounding JFK's murder} made me realize even more how silly your official theory is." <<<

Yeah, trying to shoehorn all of that evidence against Oswald into a
silly, crazy, off-the-wall theory that says "OSWALD DID IT" is totally
ridiculous, isn't it, Robby?

It's kind of like trying to prove the sun is hot. And what a
ridiculous "theory" that is!

>>> "I don't envy you for having to try and defend something so ridiculous." <<<

You're deeper into CT Kookland that I had originally envisioned. I
don't envy you either.

>>> "...but as you said the CIA pays well." <<<

True. (And dental insurance, to boot.)

>>> "You are even reviewing movies for them to squash anyone from wanting to see them." <<<

You betcha. Why should filmmakers who place total lies and
unsupportable guesswork up on the cinema screen be given a free pass
when it comes to ridicule?

As Vince B. has said in virtually every interview he's given in 2007
-- "Oliver Stone's movie is one continuous lie."

And he's right, too.....

www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

www.amazon.com/gp/review/R1ZW3QU49S1AM1

www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3263134

>>> "I am the sane one." <<<

By whose measuring stick? The measuring stick used by other "LHO Shot
No One" kooks?

>>> "It is only a matter of time before you have nothing left to defend." <<<

I guess that means that you think ALL of the mile-high pile of
evidence favoring Lee Oswald's guilt in TWO 1963 murders is suddenly
going to disappear and/or vaporize before our very eyes in the coming
months/years/decades. Is that it, Mr. Kook?

IOW -- Do you think that the MC rifle (#C2766) will suddenly, in the
year 2034, CEASE being a rifle bought, paid for, and possessed in the
year 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald?

And in the year 2525 (if man is still alive...), the bullet shells
found in the Depository and the shells found on Tenth Street will,
somehow, CEASE being bullet shells that were determined in 1963 to be
shells that came out of weapons owned and possessed in '63 by a man
named Lee Harvey Oswald?

And in 2784, do you think that all of the more than 12 witnesses that
fingered Lee Oswald as being the lone person involved in J.D. Tippit's
murder will somehow ALL be discredited to the point where Oswald's
innocence in that crime is assured?

Well, Rob, at least you have your dreams.

By the way, is it going to take another 44 years for you kooks to come
up with that first non-Oswald bullet or bullet shell or gun?

With thousands and thousands of you kooks working on uncovering that
dreaded "conspiracy", you'd think you would have at least a semi-
believable and coherent assassination scenario to place on the table
to try and knock the Warren Commission's version out of the box.

But, thus far, 44 years into your investigation, what have you got in
the way of HARD EVIDENCE to favor a conspiracy?

And what hard, verifiable evidence do you have to support the type of
grandiose (and highly-hilarious) "Multi-Gunmen, One-Patsy" plot that
you seem to think existed on November 22, 1963?

Your OPINIONS are not HARD EVIDENCE, btw. So let's leave the "Robcap
Show" off of the table for the time being, okay?

Let's see your list of HARD EVIDENCE that supports a JFK conspiracy,
please.

(And then, after posting that list, you can pretend that each one of
your listed items HASN'T previously been thoroughly debunked/refuted/
trashed by LNers worldwide.)

>>> "Most Americans already aren't with you on this case..." <<<

And the majority of Americans certainly are not in your silly "Oz Was
A Patsy" corner either. But I guess you think that most people believe
Oswald was merely an innocent simp who never shot at anybody in '63
(not even Gen. Walker), right?

Think again.

In the only poll at the below link which specifies such details (the
ABC poll from Nov. 2003), only 7% of 1,031 people polled believe that
Oswald was "Not Involved" AS ONE OF THE ACTUAL SHOOTERS IN DEALEY
PLAZA. (That ABC poll, btw, included twice the number of respondents
than the Gallup Poll included.).....

www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

>>> "...But you still have the government, media and academia backing you up." <<<

Plus all 17 pathologists who examined the case (and JFK's body) in
detail for the WC, the Clark Panel, the HSCA, and the Rockefeller
Commission.

Others that "back" me up on the LN conclusion include people like
Joseph Nicol and John Lattimer.

Nicol was the independent firearms expert from Illinois called in by
the Warren Commission. It was a good move by the WC too, since there
were bound to be kooks like Rob Caprio and Ben Holmes (et al) who
would come forth years later and complain about the WC's conclusions
coming from ONLY Government-"controlled" sources, like the FBI.

But Nicol was NOT connected with the United States Government, and he
even went a step FURTHER down the "Oswald Was Guilty" road with
respect to the Tippit murder, when Nicol said that one bullet from
Tippit's body could be linked to Oswald's revolver "to the exclusion
of all other weapons", which is something even the FBI's Robert
Frazier would not confirm (and Frazier is a person whom the kooks love
to treat as a criminal and big fat liar).

Lattimer, of course, verified the validity and sheer doability of
several of the WC's conclusions when he conducted many different
shooting experiments using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and bullets from
the same batches that Oswald used in '63.

And EVERY single experiment/test conducted by Lattimer favored the
likelihood that Oswald could, indeed, have done just exactly what the
Warren Commission concluded Oswald did do in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

Rob should read the book "Kennedy And Lincoln" by Dr. Lattimer. It's
very informative and unbiased. But certain CTers probably prefer to
turn their heads the other way when faced with Lattimer's detailed
ballistics tests, which were NOT CONTROLLED IN ANY WAY BY THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT.

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

"KENNEDY AND LINCOLN: MEDICAL & BALLISTIC COMPARISONS OF THEIR
ASSASSINATIONS":
www.amazon.com/review/R2Y8HMTWRF6L2Q

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

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have
succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--
Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the
most complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history.

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

"With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren
Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA
documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or
there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And
that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has
done. ....

"I am unaware of any other major event in world history which
has been shrouded in so much intentional misinformation as has the
assassination of JFK. Nor am I aware of any event that has given rise
to such an extraordinarily large number of far-fetched and conflicting
theories." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Via the pages of "Reclaiming
History" (c.2007)

http://blog.myspace.com/davidvp1961

[David Von Pein]

More, you ask? Okay........

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

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9cd0044be6b3e205

DVP SAID:

"Where was the gunman who fired that shot then? Sitting on the
floorboards of the limousine?"

ROB SAID:

"Geez, I would guess in front of the Limo! This was seen by many
witnesses on the triple underpass and Henry Bowers."

DVP NOW SAYS:

Oh, so now Rob seems to be saying that "many witnesses on the triple
underpass" physically SAW an assassin firing a gun at JFK's car from
the front.

I guess the "smoke" that was said to have been seen by S.M. Holland
and a few other witnesses is the same thing as proving an assassin was
behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll firing a rifle at President
Kennedy. Is that it?

Well, think again. Because it doesn't prove any such thing.....

"If an ephemeral wisp of smoke--even if it existed--can overcome
several mountains of solid evidence to the contrary, then the
investigation into the truth in the assassination is more of an
existential exercise fit for black coffee-sipping Left Bank
philosophers who have always been more interested in asking questions
than in getting answers to those questions." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page
896 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

http://blog.myspace.com/davidvp1961

By the way,

Was "Henry Bowers" related to Lee Bowers (the guy in the railroad
tower)? ;)

Oh, well....I'll just chalk up that "Henry" error as an innocent
mistake. Mistakes can certainly happen. I'll admit that. After all, I
once thought you were a sane person.

"Lee Harold Oswald has been shot!!" -- Bob Huffaker (KRLD-TV);
11/24/63

A Bowers Addendum --- For more about how CTers have misrepresented Lee
Bowers' 11/22 observations, go here:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3b7e7c5c568f85c3

ROB SPEWS ANOTHER HUNK OF SPECTACULAR UNSUPPORTABLE KOOKSHIT (with
three misspellings corrected by DVP):

"These were separate wounds. One went into the front of JFK's neck and
came out the back of the neck. The second wound {bullet} struck him in
the back area (below the shoulders), but did not fully penetrate out
of the front."

DVP NOW SAYS:

Ahhhh! The life of a CT-Kook. Making up more stuff that's not in the
record anywhere and can never in a billion years be supported by
ANYBODY.

But, the kooks who spout such nonsense (like the above insanity
authored by Robert) couldn't care less about what the real evidence
shows.

For example: they don't CARE that the official autopsy report says the
following.....

"Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the
deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted
by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
level of the deceased. The observations and available information do
not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
wounds.

"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of
the external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile
traversed the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see
lateral skull roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its
path. A portion of the projectile made its exit through the parietal
bone on the right carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and
scalp. The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the
missile produced extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of
the superior saggital sinus, and of the right cerebral hemisphere.

"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax
above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular
and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the
neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal
pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung.
The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
structures in its path through the body." -- VIA JFK's AUTOPSY REPORT

http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html

The above words from President Kennedy's official autopsy report are
(evidently) TOTALLY MEANINGLESS to a kook like Robert. That report
(signed by all three autopsists) doesn't mean a damn thing, right Mr.
Kook?

And the kooks also don't CARE about the fact that NOT ONE DOCTOR ever
saw a SECOND bullet hole in John F. Kennedy's back (or the back of his
"neck") on November 22, 1963.

Apparently the only thing an "Anybody But Oswald" JFK conspiracy kook
cares about is getting a double-murderer exonerated in the mind of the
public.

Nice hobby. If you're a loon.

ROB SAID:

"I didn't make these up, Dave. Check out numerous sources, including
the autopsy photos. You'll see a small entry wound in JFK's right back
area."

DVP NOW SAYS:

Sure, there's ONE bullet entry hole here, but not two:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg

Do you think that the little spot of dried blood (just below the one
and only verified bullet hole in the above picture) is another "bullet
hole"?

Funny, though, that all of the doctors at Bethesda missed seeing this
other "hole", huh?

Plus: That photograph shows at least two additional small "spots" on
JFK's back that look generally like the spot you seem to think is a
second bullet hole. Why don't you think those spots of blood are
"bullet holes" too?

Or maybe the white spot near the bottom of JFK's hairline in this
autopsy picture is yet another "bullet hole"?:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg

You might as well go whole-hog with your fairy tale, Rob. You could
have four or five different holes in JFK's back and neck regions,
based on the various "spots" seen in the above-linked autopsy photos!
Go for it!

But when we return to the world of reality, your theory is defeated
from another POV too -- JFK's coat and shirt. Where's the SECOND
bullet hole in JFK's shirt and the SECOND bullet hole in his coat
jacket?

Or doesn't the clothing matter at all in your theory? Just like the
autopsy report doesn't matter to you, and the doctors' testimony
doesn't matter, and the WC and HSCA conclusions regarding the ONE back
wound don't matter either. Right, kook?

(You make this so very easy, Rob. You DO realize that, right?)

ROB SAID:

"The fools are the ones who believe a fantasy scenario set up by the
WCR, which has been proven to be false many times over the years. You
just refuse to read/believe these reports."

DVP NOW SAYS:

The above words being spoken by a person who just a minute ago said
the following (without a hint of embarrassment attached):

"These were separate wounds. One {bullet} went into the front of JFK's
neck and came out the back of the neck. The second {bullet} struck him
in the back area (below the shoulders), but did not fully penetrate
out of the front." -- Rob Caprio

Now, I ask -- Who is the one believing in "fantasies" here? DVP or
Robert C.?

ROB SAID:

"Later that evening, according to the two FBI agents, Dr. Humes
reiterated this "non-transit" finding as an official autopsy
conclusion: "Dr. Humes stated that the pattern was clear that one
bullet had entered the President's back and worked its way out of the
body during external cardiac massage and that a second...bullet had
entered the rear of the skull..." This would seem to make it clear Dr.
Humes did not believe the rear wound was the entry for a bullet which
traveled through the body--at least not the night he did the autopsy."

DVP NOW SAYS:

So?

Sure, Humes thought (on the night of the autopsy) the back bullet
might not have transitted the body. But he soon got the full story of
the bullet wound in the throat from Dr. Perry at Parkland the next
morning (November 23).

The autopsy report was then appropriately revised and corrected. After
talking with Perry and confirming the bullet hole in JFK's throat, the
LACK OF BULLETS AND *DAMAGE* IN KENNEDY'S BODY made perfect sense to
Dr. Humes --- ONE bullet went clean through the President's body.

Why is this rocket science to the CT-Kooks of the world?

And the corrections to the original report are what made the original
draft of the report meaningless and worthy of being burned in Dr.
Humes' fireplace (something, btw, he would have NEVER admitted doing
if he had been involved in a "cover-up" plot of some sort re. JFK's
autopsy).

And the reason Humes burned his autopsy notes is because they were
stained with Kennedy's blood. Naturally, the kooks don't believe that
story either of course.

ROB SAID:

"For full story see David Lifton's "Best Evidence", pp. 101-09."

DVP NOW SAYS:

<chuckles at the hilarious source that is named above>

If you still believe anything theorized by David "THE BODY WAS
ALTERED" Lifton, then you're deeper in the CT quicksand than even I
thought (and that's pretty deep).

If you want to read a made-up fictional tale that even Stephen King
probably wouldn't touch, then yes, by all means prop up "Best
Evidence" in bed tonight.

Or, you might like this article a little better (the common sense is
included for free).....

MUSICAL CASKETS AND THE "BODY-ALTERATION" SILLINESS:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0de08844600b8c7a

DVP SAID:

"You CT-Kooks think THREE bullets went into the two victims (not
counting the head shot to JFK), and then all of these bullets just
vanished. And yet you think my question is a "trick" question of some
kind? Are you senile? It's a perfectly-logical question that needs to
be answered in a coherent manner by the CTers who think the official
"SBT" version of events is incorrect."

ROB SAID:

"They didn't all vanish Dave. We have the one {bullet} found at
Parkland..."

DVP NOW SAYS:

Which is CE399 (which came out of Lee Oswald's rifle "to the
exclusion").

Is it fake? Think it through logically from this point-of-view:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bceb46435b39817f

ROB SAID:

"...Fragments in Kennedy's brains (left over from an explosive
bullet)..."

DVP NOW SAYS:

This is more CT-Kook-spun conjecture (the part about the "explosive
bullet", that is).

A fragment taken from Kennedy's head was matched to CE567 (one of the
front-seat fragments) via NAA. Naturally, you (being a kook) will have
to totally reject Dr. Vincent Guinn's NAA findings re. the 5 bullet
specimens he analyzed in 1978.

But, even if you do reject the NAA study done by Guinn (and you do
reject it, of course), think about the bullet evidence this way for a
change.....

"Even if the new findings {from 2002 to 2004, not the 2007
study} were to render NAA, and hence Guinn's conclusions, invalid, we
DO know that the stretcher bullet was fired from Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of ALL other weapons.

"Since THAT is definite, what is the likelihood that a bullet
found on CONNALLY'S stretcher, which we know was fired from Oswald's
gun, is not the same bullet that deposited its missing fragments in
Connally's wrist? Next to nothing.

"In other words, when all is said and done, what difference does
it make if it turns out that the NAA tests are completely invalid? But
there is a more important point to be made. Let's not forget that the
NAA conclusions by Guinn...are COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with all the
other evidence showing that Oswald was at the sniper's nest window and
it was his Carcano rifle that fired the only bullets that hit Kennedy.

"This other, independent evidence necessarily increases the
likelihood that Guinn's separate NAA conclusions are accurate." --
Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 436-437 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(c.
2007)

ROB SAID:

"...A bullet down near where Tague was..."

DVP NOW SAYS:

And you've SEEN that bullet, eh?

This sub-topic was about bullets that I said that CTers think had all
"vanished" and were not recovered, with your response being "They
didn't all vanish Dave". But now you're including the Tague bullet as
a bullet that did NOT vanish? This can only prompt me to say --
"Huh?!"

Obviously, even from my "Lone Assassin" viewpoint, the Tague bullet
(which was probably Oswald's first/missed shot) wasn't a bullet that
was recovered, nor was it recoverable. Hence, it's the one single
missing bullet in the LN/LHO/SBT scenario. But the other two bullets
(the ones that actually struck the victims in the limousine) are
present and accounted for, via CE399 and the two large fragments from
the head-shot bullet (CE567/569).

But CTers need multiple bullets that they claim went INTO VICTIMS
performing a vanishing act on 11/22/63.

ROB SAID:

"...One {bullet} that was in the limo below the rearview mirror..."

DVP NOW SAYS:

The chrome damage (which I assume is what you're referring to above)
was almost certainly caused by a fragment from the head-shot bullet
(either CE567 or CE569, both of which were fired from Oswald's gun).

You now seem to want the chrome/windshield damage to be caused by a
SEPARATE bullet (which, as per the CTer norm, was not recovered)?

I ask -- Is it more likely for the TWO damaged areas of the limo
(chrome dent + windshield crack) to have been caused by TWO slowed-
down fragments (from LHO's rifle) that came out of JFK's head, with
those two fragments ending up near that chrome and windshield damage
in the front seat of the car?

Or:

Is it more likely for the chrome and/or windshield damage to have been
caused by one or more non-Oswald bullets that were never recovered
(nor were any non-C2766 bullet fragments recovered in the front-seat
area of the car)?

Not a difficult choice by any means....is it?

ROB SAID:

"...And one {bullet} found in the grass across from the knoll."

DVP NOW SAYS:

No bullet was "found in the grass" in Dealey Plaza. That's merely
"Conspiracy-Flavored Myth #409" and everybody knows it.

There's not a single police report (or any report) in existence that
proves that any "bullet" was picked up off of the grass in the Plaza
on 11/22/63.

There might have been an area of disturbed turf on Elm where some
policemen THOUGHT a bullet might have struck...hence, we have this
photo:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/slug1.jpg

But one thing's a certainty -- no BULLET (or bullet fragment or bullet
cartridge casing) was ever found or was ever SAID TO BE FOUND in the
grass on Elm Street.

DVP SAID:

"The only non-head damage to his {JFK's} body was some very slight
trachea damage (caused by Bullet CE399 and/or by Dr. Perry's trach
incision at Parkland) and a small amount of bruising to Kennedy's
right lung (caused, per the autopsy doctors, by the mere PASSAGE of
the high-speed bullet as it went over the top of JFK's right lung,
prior to exiting out the lower part of his throat)."

ROB SAID:

"Wrong. You keep covering the same ground. I guess you think if you
say it enough times it will become true."

DVP NOW SAYS:

Okay, Rob....the spotlight's on you now. Tell us what major damage was
documented inside John F. Kennedy's upper back and neck that could
have possibly caused a bullet moving through soft tissue to suddenly
stop inside his body?

(This oughta be good.)

DVP SAID:

"My main job here is merely to help make you conspiracy-loving kooks
look like total idiots (which is a job I do very well most of the
time)."

ROB SAID:

"In your own mind. Dreamer."

DVP NOW SAYS:

I don't need to dream about it. You make debunking your make-believe
nonsense so easy that even my neighbor's sick dog could do it with
ease.

("Henry Bowers", btw, was the extra special treat from this kook-
bashing session. A special "Thanks" for that one, Rob.)

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/77ec7f37070cdb55

ROB SAID:

"Lee Bowers died in a one-car accident in 8/66. Just one of many
strange deaths in this case."

DVP NOW SAYS:

Yeah, he was supposedly murdered by the "Mystery Death Squad" AFTER he
had already talked to Mark Lane ON FILM.

Great tactic there....let the "CT" witness live for years after the
assassination (so he has ample time to talk; and Bowers did
talk)...and THEN rub him out after his story is not only in print in
Mark Lane's book, but also is ON FILM for Mr. Lane's upcoming movie.

A brilliant move by the ever-efficient brain-dead plotters indeed.

"The vast majority of the witnesses on the various mysterious-
death lists of the conspiracy theorists (e.g., Jim Marrs's book
"Crossfire" lists 104 witnesses) weren't connected with the case in
any known way whatsoever, and had absolutely nothing of any known
value to say about the case. ....

"But of those who did have a connection -- such as Roger Craig,
Earlene Roberts, Lee Bowers, and Buddy Walthers -- all of them,
WITHOUT EXCEPTION, had already told their story, most of them on the
public record, so what could possibly be achieved by killing them?" --
Vince Bugliosi; Page 1018 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

ARE THESE SO-CALLED "MYSTERY DEATHS" REALLY SO MYSTERIOUS?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d52845e6c744cccf

ROB SAID:

"None of the trained ballistic forensic doctors/nurses at Parkland
would agree with this. I'll take their word over doctors who have
never worked with gun deaths before."

DVP NOW SAYS:

Again your ignorance shows. Dr. Finck was called in, and he had plenty
of experience with gunshot wounds. And he also signed that revised
autopsy report, didn't he?

Next?

ROB FANTASIZED:

"...They altered the photos and X-rays."

DVP NOW SAYS:

Oh, naturally. And that, of course, means that the many photo experts
for the HSCA were all liars/cover-uppers too (because those HSCA guys
said the photos & X-rays were not altered in any way whatsoever).

So, you're willing to completely ignore ALL of the autopsy doctors,
plus the autopsy report, plus the WC people, plus the entire HSCA
photographic panel. And, instead, you'll believe that the X-rays and
pics are "altered".

Can you say: "Mega-Kook"??

ROB DISTORTS AS FOLLOWS:

"Dr. Humes probed this wound you are denying."

DVP NOW SAYS:

He probed the ONE and ONLY back wound, yes. So what?

There was no SECOND back wound at all. You invented that to meet your
silly CT requirements for some reason.

Humes' pinky probe possibly messed up the true path of Bullet CE399,
and even Humes himself admitted something similar to that when he
said:

"Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful
without fear of making a false passage." -- J. HUMES; 1964

JFK's muscles had stiffened after death. The path of the bullet
through the tissue had, in effect, "closed" itself up.

Why you think there was a second wound in JFK's upper-back region is
anybody's guess...because nobody ever even hinted at such a thing.

ROB GUSHED:

"You are violating the rights of a deceased citizen. Don't you know
you are innocent until proven guilty in this country? That means in a
court of law by your peers, not by a presidential commission that was
not interested in investigated what really happened."

DVP NOW SAYS:

Some soft violin music might help here, to accompany your pathetic
attempts at getting an obviously-guilty double-murderer off the hook.

Obviously there can be no "trial". Does that mean that Oswald's guilt
can never be proven? Hardly. Many times (or most) a guilty killer
never takes the witness stand at his trial anyway.

So, we probably would never have heard a peep out of Saint Oswald at
his trial anyway (had he lived to face trial). Therefore, if the
murdering bastard had gone to trial, the only thing the jury would
have heard from the defense lawyers would be the same type of defense
that was placed on the table in 1995 at O.J. Simpson's trial -- i.e.,
a defense filled with murkiness and unsupportable charges that all of
the evidence in the case had been "tainted" or "mishandled" or was
"fake" or was "planted" or was "altered" in some fashion, etc., etc.

That's THE ONLY type of defense that was offered up at Simpson's trial
(plus the "Race Card" defense too, which should have never been
allowed in by Judge Ito, but it was anyway).

Yes, the pathetic jury voted Simpson Not Guilty, but my point still
stands regarding his defense and the tactics used by his Scheme Team
of shameless attorneys.

And Simpson, of course (being the guilty double-murderer he was),
didn't take the stand either. Just as Oswald (being the guilty double-
murderer he was in '63) wouldn't have dared take the stand had he gone
to trial either.

A simulated sample of what very likely would have happened if Oswald
had taken the witness stand at his own murder trial (with Mr. Bugliosi
serving as the prosecutor).....

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 139,
which is a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial number C2766.
Police officers who testified at this trial have verified the fact
that this exact rifle was found on the sixth floor of your workplace,
the Texas School Book Depository, just 52 minutes after President
Kennedy was shot and killed from right in front of that building on
November the 22nd, 1963. A palmprint of yours was located on this
exact weapon. .... I ask you now, Mr. Oswald, have you ever seen this
rifle before?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have not."

BUGLIOSI -- "Did you, Mr. Oswald, ever send in a mail-order coupon to
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, a coupon for a 6.5-millimeter
carbine rifle, during the first half of the year 1963?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir. I didn't order any rifle through the mail."

BUGLIOSI -- "Have you ever owned a rifle in your lifetime, Mr.
Oswald....a privately-owned rifle, that is, since you got out of the
Marine Corps in late 1959?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have never owned a rifle in my life."

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 134,
a photograph of a man who looks exactly like you--Lee Harvey Oswald.
This man in the photo, who looks like you, is holding a rifle, has a
handgun in a holster around his waist, and is also holding up two
Russian newspapers, dated March 11th and March 24th of 1963. .... I
ask you now, Mr. Oswald, are you the man depicted in this photograph?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir. That picture must be a fake or something. I never
posed for any picture like that in my life."

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now direct your attention to the date of
President Kennedy's assassination--November the 22nd, 1963--and I ask
you now, Mr. Oswald, if you know a young man by the name of Buell
Wesley Frazier?"

OSWALD -- "Yes, I worked with him at the book store....the Depository,
I mean."

BUGLIOSI -- "And did Mr. Frazier give you a ride to work on the
morning of President Kennedy's visit to Dallas--that is the morning of
Friday, November the 22nd, 1963?"

OSWALD -- "Yes....I believe I did ride to work with him that morning."

BUGLIOSI -- "Okay. And did you bring any type of paper package with
you to work on that particular morning?"

OSWALD -- "I brought my lunch. That's all."

BUGLIOSI -- "You brought ONLY a lunch sack with you to work on
November 22nd, is that correct?"

OSWALD -- "Yes, sir. I had my lunch with me."

BUGLIOSI -- "Did you have any OTHER paper package with you that
morning at all? Anything larger than a small lunch bag?"

OSWALD -- "No, I had nothing else with me that day."

BUGLIOSI -- "Wesley Frazier, just this morning, told this court and
this jury that he observed you carrying a much-larger paper bag on the
morning of November the 22nd. Mr. Frazier said that you told him you
had some curtain rods in that larger paper package. Did you tell
Wesley Frazier anything like that on the morning of November 22nd?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir! Absolutely not! I don't know why he'd say a thing
like that. I never told him anything like that."

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, another witness--Mr. Frazier's sister, Linnie
Mae Randle--also testified during this trial that she also observed
you carrying a bulky-type brown paper bag as you walked toward her
house in Irving, Texas, around 7:10 AM on the morning of November
22nd, 1963. Was she mistaken, Mr. Oswald? Did she ONLY see your small
paper lunch sack?"

OSWALD -- "Well...er...I...uh...I really can't speak for what another
witness might or might not have said. I can only tell you that she's
wrong if she said I had a big bag with me that day. I just carried my
lunch to work, like I usually do on work days."

BUGLIOSI -- "Thank you, Mr. Oswald....no further questions at this
time."

[END COURTROOM SIMULATION OF OSWALD'S DESTRUCTION.]

The above questioning of Oswald would have been, of course, preceded
by a parade of witnesses who would have confirmed (without a shred of
a doubt) that Lee Oswald DID purchase Rifle #C2766 by mail-order in
March 1963, and WAS photographed (by his own wife) while holding that
weapon on 3/31/63, and DID take a bulky paper package into the Book
Depository on 11/22/63.

Who do you think the jury is going to believe? The accused murderer?
Or the succession of several different witnesses who all paint Oswald
as the liar he obviously was when he told Mr. Bugliosi (via my
simulated courtroom proceeding above): "I have never owned a rifle in
my life"?

The jury wouldn't even break a sweat on that decision.

In short, Lee Harvey Oswald's many, many LIES would have done almost
as much to convict the bastard as would the wealth of physical and
circumstantial evidence in the JFK case (which also convicts him ten
times over, of course).

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d2c24506aa7154bf

ROB SAID:

"I guess you like claiming people are guilty without a trial."

DVP NOW SAYS:

Only if I have a carload of evidence to show the person committed the
crime(s).....which I do have in the LHO instance (for both the JFK and
Tippit murders).

I guess you, however, enjoy trying to exonerate guilty murderers
posthumously. Just one of the many curious hobbies you kooks engage in
daily.

ROB SAID:

"Not just dried blood according to Siebert/O'Neill report, supported
by Dr. Humes."

DVP NOW SAYS:

This is nothing but a lie. Humes never, ever supported the notion of
TWO separate holes in JFK's back. You're nuts if you think he did.

In fact, the O'Neill/Sibert report doesn't support the idea of
multiple back wounds either. Why you think it does support two such
bullet holes is another of the many mysteries associated with your
Kook Disease.

ROB SPEWS ADDITIONAL KOOK BLATHER:

"They didn't miss it, Dave. Dr. Humes assumed the bullet found at
Parkland came out of this hole."

DVP NOW SAYS:

Humes thought initially that it was possible that the bullet had
fallen out of the ONE and ONLY upper-back bullet hole, yes. I don't
deny that Humes thought that. He said so.

But when BETTER and MORE COMPLETE information came his way (from
Perry) the next morning, the scenario changed, and everything made
sense to Humes then (particularly the parts about NO DAMAGE IN
KENNEDY'S BODY and NO BULLETS IN HIS BODY either).

ROB LIES (AGAIN):

"CE399 came from this small indentation, not from JBC's stretcher."

DVP DOESN'T LIE BY NOW SAYING:

Why are you deliberately telling falsehoods about the KNOWN FACTS
regarding Bullet CE399?

That bullet could not have POSSIBLY come off of Kennedy's stretcher,
because JFK's stretcher was never rolled down the hall to the place
where Tomlinson found that bullet.

MORE CRAP FROM ROB:

"Face it, the SBT is a farce that was dreamed up by a lawyer of all
people."

DVP SETS ROB STRAIGHT ABOUT THE GENESIS OF THE "SBT":

It wasn't ONLY Mr. Specter who originally thought the SBT was the
accurate solution to the JFK/JBC double-man wounding. Several other WC
members came to the same conclusion, at the same time. .....

"When I asked {Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005} if, indeed,
Arlen Specter, was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his
exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself,
Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." ....

"I don't know about you folks, but I'm inclined to take what
Redlich told me to the bank. My sense is that Redlich, who by almost
all accounts worked harder on the case than anyone else, was a team
player only interested in doing his job well." -- Vince Bugliosi;
Pages 302-304 of "RH" Endnotes (c.2007)

ROB SAID:

"And you know they are not bullet holes because you were there? You
were part of the autopsy? Didn't think so. You are making judgements
just like you accuse everyone else of doing."

DVP (FIGHTING TO HOLD BACK THE LAUGHTER) NOW SAYS:

And you WERE at the autopsy and saw these extra bullet holes in JFK's
back, eh? That's funny, I didn't think you were there. Guess I was
wrong.

So, being an Anybody-But-Oz kook, you think it gives you free reign to
dismiss gobs of official stuff (like the autopsy report and the
pictures) in order for you to believe in an extra bullet hole in JFK
that has never once been documented by ANYBODY (not even Sibert and
O'Neill). Right, kook?

Geez.

MORE MADE-UP STUFF FROM THE ROB-STER FOLLOWS:

"The bullet that entered the front come out above the back of the
collar (shirt/jacket)."

DVP NOW SAYS:

Oh, I see. How convenient. I wonder how a bullet EXITING from the spot
of blood seen underneath the one real wound in this picture managed to
NOT go through either JFK's shirt or coat jacket? (Another crazy zig-
zagging bullet I guess, huh?).....

www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg

Oh, that's right! That picture is a "fake". I forgot that!

I wonder, then, why this same kook named Robert said this just
yesterday:

"Check out numerous sources, including the autopsy photos.
You'll see a small entry wound in JFK's right back area."

But now, today, the same kook said this:

"They altered the photos and X-rays."

Nice and contradictory, huh? So, one day the kook is RELYING on the
autopsy photos to prove his assertion of a second hole in JFK's
back....but 24 hours later the kook is claiming the photos are
"altered".

Tomorrow, the kook will say: "Well, uh, only SOME of the pictures were
altered. I didn't mean ALL of them were faked/altered. The ones that I
think prove conspiracy were not altered."

You make this too easy, Rob. You DO realize that, right?

ROB SPEWED:

"Learn the facts!"

DVP NOW SAYS:

That's kinda like saying this to Babe Ruth:

"Learn to hit some home runs, you slob!"

ROB BELLOWED (AGAIN):

"It is still an extra wound. Where did it come from Davy? You are not
addressing that because you can't."

DVP NOW SAYS:

Rob The Kook has taken the words "back" and "neck" and has created a
"second wound" on the back of John Kennedy's body.

Hint to Rob: Those words were used interchangeably by many people when
describing where on JFK's body the ONE bullet hole resided. But
nobody, at ANY time, ever hinted that there was more than ONE bullet
hole in the back/neck of President Kennedy (again, not even Sibert or
O'Neill).

You, however, being a Mega-Kook, can't evaluate this "back" vs. "neck"
terminology correctly. You want to think these people were talking
about one "back" wound and a separate "neck" bullet hole.

Of course, as can easily be determined in ANY of the documents and the
testimony of witnesses/doctors and the various reports (including the
AUTOPSY REPORT), these people who used the two words in tandem ("back"
and "neck") were talking only about ONE SINGLE BULLET HOLE in John F.
Kennedy's upper-back region.

The confusion only exists because of exactly WHERE Kennedy was hit by
Bullet CE399 -- i.e., very near the top of the shoulders, near the
junction of where the upper "back" meets the lower "neck" area
(roughly anyway). .....

www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg

It would have been better if everybody had referred to the wound
location as the "upper back", instead of some referring to the
location as the "neck" or "back of the neck" (etc.).

But, humans being what they are (i.e., "human"), sometimes things
aren't always laid out in perfect uniform apple-pie order.

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/920675e014eb3b70

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/df2adef5fc2b8797

>>> "I think there were probably two teams of two men in the west and east windows. One spotter and one shooter per team." <<<

There's nothing better than making stuff up incessantly, with zero
shreds of evidence to support your wishful-thinking, is there Robby?

FOUR assassins (strangers to all TSBD employees, I would assume) all
manage to sneak IN and OUT of the Depository without being seen going
IN or coming OUT.

Not a single employee of the TSBD saw any "strangers" on the upper
floors on 11/22. And I think only one "stranger" was seen on the first
floor all day by any employees, and he was seen leaving the building
well before the assassination.

I guess that quartet of killers either ALL looked exactly like Lee
Oswald (and MERGED into one "Oswald Entity" on 11/22), or those 4 guys
just lucked out when they cloaked themselves and escaped a semi-busy
building on a workday (Friday) sight unseen.

>>> "This is how professionals do it and everything about that killing was professional. No amateur like LHO could do it." <<<

<chuckles warmly at this thought>

It's interesting to me that many of you kooks think that JFK's murder
could have ONLY been pulled off by "professionals".....and yet WHO IS
IT THAT THESE "PROS" ARE ATTEMPTING TO FRAME? -- Yes, a NON-
professional named Lee Harvey Oswald....the same Lee Harvey Oswald who
was (per you kooks) a piss-poor shooter and who was unable to hit the
broad side of the broadest barn in Texas.

So, I guess the "pro" plotters/assassins must not have counted on
sleuths like you CT-Kooks who keep spouting "Oswald Couldn't Have Done
It On His Own", huh?

Otherwise, those real killers would have a bit of a problem, don't you
think? I.E.: Trying to frame this Barney Fife-like boob named Oswald
as a LONE shooter, while doing so in a way that (per you kooks)
couldn't POSSIBLY have been pulled off by just that solo patsy.

But, when we return to a thing called "Reality" and "The Evidence In
The Case", a reasonable person doesn't have the slightest bit of
trouble believing that Lee Oswald could have pulled off the non-
difficult shooting that LHO did, in fact, pull off in Dallas (per ALL
of the physical/ballistics evidence in the case).

Oswald only hit the target (JFK's head) with 33% of his shots that
day; and he totally missed the target (and the whole car) with another
33% of his shots.

Some "professional" hit there.

>>> "Excellent. Thanks for the info {re. Lovelady's Dec. '61 date of hire}. That means we have a look-alike already there." <<<

No prob. Like I told you previously, I occasionally specialize in
making stuff easier to find for super-lazy and clueless CT-Kooks like
yourself.

But, of course, if you suspect Billy N. Lovelady of being part of the
"Let's Frame Oswald" plot, then you should be asking yourself this:
Should I believe Lovelady's Dec. 1961 hiring date that he gave the WC?

If he lied about being in the doorway...don't you think he'd be
willing to lie about other stuff too?

Rob, you are so "all over the map" in almost every post you make, it's
pathetic. No wonder it's hard to follow your fairy tales from one day
to the next.

Was Orson Welles up on the 6th Floor too? How about Frank Sinatra? (He
shot at a President in the 1954 movie "Suddenly" remember....a film
LHO watched shortly before 11/22, btw.)

Rob's daily Fable Sessions are rather entertaining, though. I just
wonder how many more days will pass until he has J.D. Tippit firing a
rifle at President Kennedy from the Grassy Knoll. (I'll give him
another week....tops.)

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e17d23718ec4b649

>>> "The best analogy I can make is this -- Mike Stivic made a lot of sense, but when you are dealing with Archie Bunkers (LNers) you aren't going to make any headway. You think every single thing you are told is 100% fact. No thought of double checking to make sure." <<<

Talk about a classic Pot/Kettle statement coming from the lips of a
conspiracy kook....the one above takes the prize (and the cake too).

I guess Rob really DOESN'T mind looking like a complete fool, 24/7. Go
figure that, kids o' the corn. ~shrug~

Anyway, you CT-Kooks believe pretty much EVERY single thing that CT
authors write, without any checking for verification or truth re.
those beliefs.

As VB has said so very well (and it's never been more true than in the
case of this kook named Robert):

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

Good case in point: The "automatic" shells that some CTers think were
found at the Tippit murder scene.

A kook hears that there was some initial, knee-jerk talk about the
gunman possibly having an "automatic" weapon on Tenth Street....and
the kooks latch onto that info and refuse to ever let go of it, even
when it's been PROVEN to them that the initial knee-jerk statements
re. an "automatic" were just that--initial knee-jerk (and incorrect)
statements. (The first such statement coming from a WITNESS, btw--Ted
Callaway--not a policeman.)

But LNers can go BEYOND the initial knee-jerk statements and look at
the whole picture. .....

1.) If an "automatic" was used to kill Tippit, then NO GUNMAN (no
matter WHO he was) would have been seen physically shaking bullet
shells out of a gun just after Tippit was shot. The "shaking of
shells" indicates right there that a REVOLVER, not an automatic, was
the Tippit murder weapon. And there's no evidence at all to indicate
that more than just a SINGLE gun was used on Tenth Street on 11/22/63.

2.) MANY witnesses IDed (positively) Lee Harvey Oswald as the ONE and
only killer of Officer Tippit (or as the ONE and only man who fled the
scene of the crime just after the murder).

3.) Oswald, when arrested, had on him a REVOLVER, not an automatic.

4.) The revolver taken off of Oswald just half-an-hour after Tippit
was killed was determined by multiple firearms experts for the FBI and
an independent expert from Illinois (Joseph Nicol) to be the weapon
that was used to kill Officer Tippit (based on the four spent shell
casings, which were all linked to Oswald's gun, and also based, in
part, on Mr. Nicol's independent examination of the bullets in J.D.
Tippit's body, an examination that revealed--in Nicol's personal
opinion--that one of the four bullets recovered from Tippit's body
could be positively matched to Oswald's revolver "to the exclusion").

Now, what were you saying about "automatic" shell casings, Mr. Kook?

>>> "Of course he {Lyndon Johnson} was stacking the deck." <<<

LOL.

So Johnson "stacked the deck" with a person (Richard Russell) who
later went on the record with his belief that a conspiracy DID exist
with respect to JFK's death and his DISbelief in the WC's SBT???

Is that the kind of "stacked deck" that LBJ (who many kooks think was
deeply involved in the proverbial post-Nov. 22 "cover-up", of course)
was putting his trust and faith in? Lovely.

Instant Replay -- "LOL!"

Oh, just so you'll know, I like Archibald Bunker (and "The Meathead"
and "The Dingbat") very much.

You, though, Rob, seem more like the "Stretch Cunningham" type to me
(i.e., probably a pretty nice guy, but the ol' elevator doesn't quite
reach the top floor....or even the 6th Floor of the 7-story Depository
Building). ;)

www.amazon.com/review/R175D2O7M7SI7V

www.amazon.com/review/RNCHPJO0GGLJ9

www.amazon.com/review/R24TWQ4ANUZQRN

www.amazon.com/review/R273KT155GMJX7

www.amazon.com/review/RRS2PJMEVKHHV

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ddded12b18e06c60

Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation project has been KEY
FRAMED into the Z-Film itself. IOW, it's LOCKED and LINKED directly to
every single important (during-the-shooting) frame of the Zapruder
Film.

Every CTer thinks Myers has fudged on the wound locations. Well,
that's bullshit too. He's used the known wound locations via the
official records for the wounds on JFK & JBC.

And Myers' trajectory cone centers right smack-dab on the 6th-Floor of
the SN. Which is pretty incredible, indeed, if in fact THREE shooters
had really caused all of that damage on TWO victims.

Do CTers think that the real killers just got lucky when they shot up
the TWO men with THREE shots and then, decades later, a computer
animation which is KEYED TO THE Z-FILM ITSELF proves that this THREE-
bullet shooting is perfectly consistent with a SINGLE-bullet scenario?

Talk about gullibility. CTers take the prize in that regard with their
continued belief that a THREE-SHOT event could be perfectly re-created
as a one-shot event.

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/kframe.htm

David Von Pein
September 2007

[robcap...@netscape.com]

On Feb 20, 5:13 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> RE-POST OF A FAVORITE KOOK-BASHING SESSION OF MINE FROM OCTOBER 31,
> 2007.
>

"Enjoy. (I know I did [again]....and I wrote it. So, sue me. I think
it's good.)"

You had help, and I am here to help again.

> <grin>

Ditto.

> =======================================
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7098cffc9a406803

> >>> "There were many better opportunities for a single assassin to attack. One is when JFK is on the truck platform at Ft. Worth giving a morning speech and the crowd is not far off; and secondly would have been at Love Field as JFK came right up to the crowd. Why do you suppose LHO would choose the hardest option, with the worst rifle known to modern man, when he could have gotten real close and shot him with a revolver? Makes no sense to sane people, only nutjobs like you."

"<huge laugh commences (as per usual after reading anything written by
a kook named "Robcap")"

You need to start showing some proof that I'm a kook as everything I
write is supported by nearly 90% of the population, whereas your
propaganda is only supported by a small minority and much of that is
government or people needing to keep their jobs.

"LHO's one-man Book Depository assassination plan made perfect sense,
from every "LHO POV". You're just a kook who doesn't want Saint Oz to
be involved....so naturally you have to act like a total moron and
pretend that LHO should have performed the deed in a different
manner."

Sure, it made perfect sense because he could control the route; the
speed (this was key as he chose a window with a HUGE tree in the way
so if the car was traveling at 44 mph as usual it would have blown
right by); the schedule (the President was 10 minutes LATE) , the SS
agents; the issue of others being on the floor he planned to shoot
from; the incredible luck that the target came TO him at a highly slow
speed; the issue of the military NOT providing their usual protection
services; the driver hitting the breaks instead of the gas; police
protection being reduced to just four motorcycles and told to stay
away from the sides of the limo so the crowd could see the President
(wink-wink); and the President being gracious enough to ride to his
death exactly at lunch time for the workers of the TSBD so no one
would be in the upper floors for the most part. Boy, that does make
perfect sense.

"But, Lee Oswald didn't travel to Love Field or Fort Worth to shoot
the President UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL with his Smith & Wesson .38-

caliber revolver because.....

1.) Lee Oswald couldn't drive."

Again, how incredibly luck for a non-driving assassin to have the
President come to him with harldly any protection and at very SLOW
speeds, huh?

"2.) He had no car even if he could drive."

Luckiest assassin in history of mankind.

"3.) It's doubtful that he'd be willing to ask Wes Frazier for a ride
to the airport or for a ride to Fort Worth so that he could shoot the
President. I doubt if Lee wanted to ask Frazier for the following
favor:"

I guess the bus and cabs are out of the question? They only come to
LHO's mind when he is "fleeing" I guess. He could have takent the day
off and could have hidden the gun at the TSBD the day before so it
would be seen.

"Hey, Wesley, can I get a lift to Love Field this morning? I know
we'll already be at work by the time JFK arrives at the airport at
around 11:40 AM, and we'll already be at work by the time JFK gives
his pre-Chamber of Commerce parking-lot speech in Fort Worth at about
8:30 AM too....but why don't we skip work and go see the President so
I can get a better shot at him? You don't mind, do you Wes? And if you
wouldn't mind, can I also get a ride away from the murder scene too,
after I kill the President (either at the airport or in Fort Worth)?
Come on, Wes, be a good sport and help me out so I won't have to use a
bus as a getaway vehicle."

I guess he could not get around if not for Wes Frazier, huh? Sure.

"4.) Oswald knew he would have a BUILT-IN INITIAL ALIBI after shooting
the President from the Book Depository, because he WORKED THERE and
could be cleared as just another of the building's many regular
workers (which he was, by Roy Truly at 12:31 to 12:32 PM, just minutes
after Oswald shot Kennedy)."

And hope the police would determine in a few minutes the shots came
from his workplace, and NO where else, in a plaza that was equivalent
to a echo chamber. Sure, that makes a bunch of sense.

"Therefore, why would LHO go looking for alternate shooting
opportunities and locations when President Kennedy was going to be
COMING TO OSWALD at noontime on November 22nd?"

Yeah, how lucky that the President came to him out of all the places
in Dallas, huh? If only Connally and others in on the assassination
would have left the luncheon at the Women's club instead.

"And the biggie:

5.) Oswald wasn't suicidal. He was a murderer with a lousy getaway
plan, yes. But he wasn't suicidal. He proved that multiple times after
12:30 PM on November 22."

LOL!!!!! I can't believe this, oh wait, LOL!!!! Wasn't suicidal?
Since when? You have him leaving shells, poorly hiding the rifle
(which wasn't his by the way), leaving his wallet at the JDT scene,
leaving more shells, getting on a bus that was heading back the way he
just walked and you say he wasn't suicidal? Every piece of evidence
you put forth says he didn't want to get away, but then when arrested
he denies it all? Talk about making NO sense at all.

"Therefore, shooting JFK while secreted (to a large degree) in his
Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository
(a place where nobody would be suspicious of him in the slightest way
prior to the assassination attempt at 12:30...and nobody WAS
suspicious in any way whatsoever) was the perfect choice for the 24-
year-old ex-Marine sharpshooter who happened to have at his disposal
(thanks to that unusual Thursday-night visit to the Paine house in
Irving) a rifle that was more than capable enough to fire a lethal
bullet into the body of a person who was less than 100 yards away from
the muzzle of that rifle."

Sure, IF only you could prove it. That is the stumbling block for
your theory, that after 44 years you still can't put LHO in the SE 6th
floor window at 12:30 p.m. on 11/22/63 with a rifle in his hands.

"But travelling to Fort Worth or the airport to kill Kennedy (two
places where Oswald WASN'T EMPLOYED and therefore couldn't use the
perfect "I Work Here" initial alibi) would have been much
riskier....and probably would have been a suicide mission had he
chosen either of those locations to shoot JFK out in the open (and
with a handgun!).*"

So LHO had to be the "workplace assassin", huh? He was ahead of the
curve from future Postal workers I guess. EVERY other assassin in
history used a knife or hand gun up to this point, but LHO decided to
break the mold I guess and make it as hard as possible and hope to get
lucky.

"* = Or, alternately, was Oz supposed to manage to hide himself inside
the Texas Hotel someplace after he carried his Carcano rifle inside
the hotel, which was crawling with Secret Service men and police
officers that morning? Or was he supposed to go into another nearby
building in Fort Worth (or at Love Field) to pull off his murderous
deed?"

Again with the rifle, NO one ever used a rifle in a political
assassination up to this point, why was he so set on a rifle?
Especially when it was common knowledge to most Americans that JFK
would walk into crowds and be an easy target?

"Ask yourself: WHY would he take such chances when he already had at
his fingertips the PERFECT BUILT-IN SNIPER'S LOCATION IN DEALEY PLAZA
(i.e., the very building he worked in every day since mid-October --
the TSBD)?"

Perfect? I guess we are forgetting all those factors I listed above
that he would have NO control over and let's not forget the HUGE tree
in his way. This is the most ridiculous theory I have heard of since
I read about the SBT initially.

> >>> "I don't think professional assassins worry about that part {framing the "patsy"} much. They do their job and make a getaway. .... They left the framing of LHO and coverup to the people who hired them. Boy Davey, you are naive." <<<

"And when given the choice of "Conspiracy Kook" vs. "naive", I'll
choose "naive" every time, thanks."

Naive was being nice, we all know what you really are don't we?

"BTW, can you tell me how many "Multi-Shooter" assassination plots
have EVER been pinned on "Solo Patsies" in the past? Just how many
times has that neat little trick been pulled off (and provably so)?
Just curious."

JFK, MLK, and RFK to start with? Lincoln, McKinley and Garfield come
to mind in just American history. NO one man wants the President dead
so bad he will take the risks necessary to do this, it is always a
matter of groups wanting to take control of the process.

"Surely you can name at least ONE other occasion when a batch of brain-
dead plotters shot up a victim with many different guns and then tried
to pin the whole nine yards on some schnook who never even fired a
shot. Can't you? (That probably happens every day of the week, right
Mr. Kook?)"

See above "Mr. I know nothing of American history."

> >>> "Close to 90% of Americans don't believe he {Saint Oswaldovich} was involved or did it alone." <<<

"The percentage isn't nearly that high. You've probably been reading
too much of Ben Holmes' kookshit regarding the "conspiracy"
percentiles."

Not really, I posted that number my first day here. It is an ebb and
tide, but since the early nineties it has never gone below 75% and in
all the recent polls it is always 85% or higher. The bottom line is
you are severly outnumbered.

"The latest polls that I've seen (from November 2003) indicate that
83% of those polled believe that Oswald WAS INVOLVED AS A SHOOTER IN
DEALEY PLAZA."

Polls are tricky, but even if we have 90% saying LHO was involved, but
it was a conspiracy, I would say great!! Because despite what you
think I have no vested interest in LHO, just proving it was a
conspiracy. LHO was NOT included via shooting anyone though as the
evidence does NOT show this and some of these folks are just not
familar with all the physical evidence probably.

"Only 7% (via the ABC poll in question, linked below, which included a
total of 1,031 respondents) think Oswald was "Not Involved" at all.
Only 70%, not 90%, think there was a conspiracy surrounding John F.
Kennedy's death (per that ABC poll from 2003)."

I don't care if they think LHO was involved, just that they realize it
was a conspiracy, and you need to get up to speed with some new polls
as this one has become tired as you trot it out everytime.

"And another separate question within that same ABC poll (a question
specifically about who was firing the gun/guns at JFK on 11/22/63)
reveals that only 58% of those with an opinion on the matter believe
that there was a gunman in Dealey Plaza besides Lee Harvey
Oswald....."

This is malarky as two-thirds of those asked in 1964 said the grassy
knoll was the source for the shots. Also an additional 123 were never
asked, why? Furthermore, look at all the pictures of the TSBD moments
after the shots, how many people do you see looking up? I don't see
any, how come?

> >>> "Only you delusional 10% nutjobs believe the official garbage." <<<

"Actually, the correct figure (as of this writing) is approximately
"19%". That is to say, about 19% of Americans believe that the Warren
Commission got it right....."

As of this point? You're using a 4 year old poll.

"NATIONWIDE GALLUP POLL (NOV. 2003):

One Man -- 19%
Others Involved -- 75%
No Opinion -- 6%"

Notice the "One man" doesn't say LHO?

> >>> "LHO didn't hit anyone....all data regarding the "hits" comes from the government..." <<<

"And the evil "Government" should always be looked at sideways and
should always be considered the enemy, right? For, there's no possible
way they would ever tell the truth about a murdered Chief Executive,
correct?"

Absolutely, that is what the Constitution and Bill of Rights say, stop
making me sound nutty, you are being a poor citizen by accepting
everything you are told without proof. Shame on you.

"Of course, the BULLETS in evidence and the LACK of non-Oswald bullets
in evidence are also telling a reasonable person a good deal about the
shooting too. Plus, there are the WOUNDS on the two victims and the
wound locations, which generally line up to produce an amazing "SBT"-
like pattern."

What???? You are the wackiest person I have met. You have NO alleged
LHO bullets that were ever INSIDE either victim, period. Thus, how can
you prove they ever where? The lack of other bullets is not
surprising as they obviously were not of a 6.5mm type, thus they were
disposed of. How do we know this is true? Well if the alleged
evidence you put forth was NEVER inside either victim, and no other
bullets were found according to you, why do we have a dead president
and a severly wounded governor? What caused these wounds? As for the
wounds, the ones the WC claim do NOT match up with the death
certificate for JFK so you have nothing. Also, a Mr. Tague could not
alter your official outlook if you were reporting honestly the wounds
you saw at the autopsy, would it?

"And if those wounds had been caused by more than one bullet, it's a
truly incredible coincidence, a coincidence that CTers embrace to
their bosoms without batting an eye....even though OTHER
"coincidences" are totally impossible to believe (per some members of
the CT-Kook Brigade)."

No if about it, you had your shot with the official theory and it fell
flat on its face, you can't prove the SBT so you are out of luck.

"E.G.: Oswald getting hired in a building along the motorcade route;
and a guy named Lovelady coincidentally also working in the same
building with Mr. Oswald in November of 1963."

Yeah, and another guy name Wes Frazier getting a call in 9/63 to come
to Dallas and live with his sister, a neighbor of the Paines where
LHO's wife and children are living, and gets a job at the TSBD so he
can drive LHO work and report seeing curtain rods on 11/2263, how
lucky.

"In truth, the "Government" went where the evidence led them....and
that was to Lee Oswald and Lee Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle."

This one statement shows how much you are ignorant of the truth as the
evidence showed anything but LHO doing the shooting.

"There's not a shred of ballistics evidence that undermines the
immutable fact that ONLY Oswald's rifle was involved in the
assassination. Kooks attempt to undermine the "LHO Did It Alone"
conclusion. But since when do the unsupportable opinions of rabid
conspiracy nuts really matter very much when weighed against the
actual ballistics evidence in the case?"

You have NEVER proved it was LHO's rifle to start with and then you
have failed to prove that any of the ballistic evidence mentioned
(notice how I phrase this as much more was found but ignored as it
was .30 caliber ammo) was ever inside either victim. Game over.

> >>> "The other bullet no LNer ever wants to address is the windshield frame one. Which one hit the windshield frame below the rearview mirror if all the other 3 are accounted for?" <<<

"How can you possibly not know the answer to this question?

A separate shot/bullet isn't required to account for the windshield/
chrome damage at all. One of the two front-seat fragments from
Oswald's gun (via the fatal shot to JFK's head) almost certainly
caused the chrome damage; while the other front-seat fragment almost
certainly caused the windshield crack and lead smear on the inside of
the windshield."

Sure, and one bullet can cause 7 wounds, 3 broken bones (notice it is
now 3 broken bones as Baden said there was a break in the spine) and
come out nearly pristine. LOL!!!!! This is all theory, bad theory,
as you have no proof. Besides, many who viewed the car said there was
a pencil-sized hole in the window so why did the fragment stay in the
car?

"Everything aligns perfectly from the LN/LHO/Windshield perspective
too....i.e., TWO damaged areas to the front portion of the limousine
(the chrome dent and the windshield crack with lead residue deposited
on the inside of the glass), which perfectly match the number of
bullet fragments (TWO) from Oswald's rifle that were found in the
front seat of the limo."

I wouldn't expect anything else from someone who thinks the SBT is
perfectly aligned too. How about the crack in the right-hand side
mirror? What caused that? How can fragments cause such a huge dent in
hardened chrome?

"Via Robert Frazier's Warren Commission testimony:
>
> ALLEN DULLES -- "I wonder if I could go back just a moment to the
> indentation in the chrome around the windshield at the top of the
> windshield, but on the inside, could that have been caused by a
> fragment of a bullet?"
>
> ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it very easily could have. It would not
> have been caused, for instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its
> full velocity from a rifle, but merely from a fragment traveling at
> fairly high velocity which struck the inside surface of the chrome."
>
> MR. DULLES -- "Could that have been caused by any of the fragments
> that you have identified as having been found on the front seat or
> near the front seat of the car?"
>
> MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes. I believe it could have by either, in fact, of
> the two fragments of rifle bullets found in the front seat."

Nothing but speculation and opinion. IF he could have shown in a
scientific method that this is how it happened than it would have had
weight, but as it is there is NO proof this is what happened.

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_...
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_...
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_...

> >>> "You're using faulty data." <<<

"I'm using the "data" that is agreed upon by every official agency
which has investigated JFK's murder."

Exactly.

"Naturally, you kooks think it's incumbent upon you to merely ignore
everything "official". After all, you've got shadows to chase and
extra killers to give guns to. And there's nothing "faulty" about
shadow-chasing, right? <smirk>"

That is not why it has been ignored (it being official), it has been
ignored because it makes no sense and cannot be proven to be accurate
in any way. <smirk>

> >>> "JFK was hit 3 times..." <<<

"Which must be why 17 different pathologists who have examined either
the actual body of President Kennedy or the photos, X-rays, and
associated evidence connected with the President's murder said that
JFK was hit by just TWO bullets (with both of those bullets coming
from "above and behind" the President when he was shot)."

How many more have said something different including the doctors at
Parkland? Way more than 17 is the answer. Why was the WC derelict in
its duties by NOT examining the autopsy photos and x-rays?

"But, being a kook who likes to make up his own evidence (while
ignoring 17 respected pathologists as you sprint toward the Kook Goal
Line), you want to think that JFK was hit "3 times". Go figure."

Dude, you really don't want to get into the autopsy evidence as it is
more fishy than the ballistic evidence. I would quit while you are
behind.

> >>> "Connally {was hit} 2 times..." <<<

"You can't get anything right, can you? Not even this easy one.

Governor Connally was positively hit by just one single bullet...and
that bullet was positively "CE399". No other conclusion is even
remotely possible, given the evidence that's on the table. (Naturally,
you, being a kook, MUST think this evidence is "fake". Go figure.)"

It is a shame there is NO proof he was hit by just one bullet,
including his own testimony, so you should just accept he was hit
twice by seperate bullets.

"Of course, by saying JFK was hit three times and JBC twice, you
really only manage to increase the absurdity of any anti-SBT scenario
to laughable levels of improbability and impossibility."

Unfortunately the evidence of the number of shots show this to be
correct.

"Because you'll now need FOUR SEPARATE BULLETS to do what CE399 is
said
to have done....with ALL of these bullets either totally disappearing
from view immediately after the shooting, or having at least one of
them (399) moved from JFK's stretcher to Connally's (while the other
THREE completely vanish into a puff of smoke).

"Yeah, that's WAY more believable than my fairy-tale belief in the
SBT, isn't it?"

News flash: Anything is more believable than the SBT!

(And yet I'M supposed to be the "naive" one, folks. Ain't that a
hoot?!)"

So you believe bullets and fragments that could NOT be proved to have
been inside either victim is proof of guilt? You are more than naive
if you say yes.

> >>> "1 {bullet} hit the windshield frame..." <<<

"That was a fragment from the head shot (of course), as any non-

halfwit could easily figure out. There's no way that a bullet

travelling at full velocity hit that chrome strip (molding)....or the
non-bulletproof windshield glass either."

Prove it, and opinion is NOT proof.

"Bob Frazier testified that a bullet moving at full speed would have
most likely gone clean through the chrome and would definitely have
gone through the windshield easily at such a velocity. Obviously,
therefore, the fragments that hit those things in the car were
severely slowed down before hitting them."

The shot did go through the windshield and as for the chrome it was
designed to stop bullets so I don't buy it would go through. He
couldn't prove it either so all you have is opinion.

> >>> "1 {bullet} hit the curb near Tague..." <<<

"You finally got one right. Good going."

It is a shame the WC didn't until Mr. Tague came forward, how did they
overlook this one? Didn't the bodies tell them the correct data?

> >>> "And one or two more {bullets} hit the street and curbs." <<<

"<chuckle time>"

Chuckles always come out when DVP can't answer a statement or
questions.

"I thought you said these gunmen were "professionals" all the way.
LOL. Some great "pros" these blind-as-a-bat assassins were, huh? They
totally miss the huge Presidential stretch limo up to THREE times!
Lovely."

Your ignorance is showing again. Even professionals miss, especially
when firing at moving targets, albeit very slow ones, so you are just
ignorant of a lot of things.

"Care to change your mind about the killers being in the
"professional" ranks, Mr. Kook? Or do you think they were all
blindfolded on November 22 (just to make the assassination a little
more challenging)?"

Care to change your stance on professionals never missing?

"In any event, your extra one or two missed shots are nothing but pure
CT wishful-thinking, of course. There was only one "missed" shot (the
Tague shot; which was shot #1 from Oswald's MC rifle). There certainly
weren't an additional TWO missed shots, plus the Tague bullet."

Doubt it, as the Stemmons freeway sign was it, the pavement/curb had a
bullet mark (they would cover this over), a manhole had a mark (this
too would be covered over) and a slug was found in the grass and was
never officially recovered.

> >>> "That is 8 or 9 shots in my book." <<<

"Gee, get with the program, Rob-Kook! Even Bob Groden's got TEN shots
being fired. Surely you can go one or two better than him, can't you?"

Maybe there was 10, the only key point is there was way more than
THREE shots fired.

"(And you call yourself a decent CTer. Meh.)"

At least I disprove my own theory by saying the SBT was not that
important. LOL!!!!!!

> >>> "Try reading some up-to-date research that isn't based on 1964 data." <<<

"Oh, you mean I should place my trust and faith in people like John
Armstrong (the "Double Oswald" crackpot) and Joan Mellen (who decided,
in 2005, it was time to resurrect the already-moribund silliness
spouted by Jim Garrison) and maybe Robert Groden (who believes that
it's likely that ZERO gunshots came from Oswald's SN window)?"

Why do you think way more people believe in a conspiracy than don't?
If there is NO truth in it than it should not be so widely accepted
IMO. You are the one believing in falsehoods.

"Or did you have some other CT-Kook authors in mind besides the trio
listed above?"

There are way more who believe in conspiracy, you are in the small
minority.

"Anyway, I'm sure you find comfort in reading pretty much anything
that attempts to bash the still-erect WC, correct?"

Anything but comfort, I am saddened that my government would lie to me
and all other Americans so obviously for 44 years.

"In other words, CTer guesswork is always much better than the hard
evidence dealt with by the DPD, FBI, and WC. Right?"

Unfortunately for you that is all the WC did, was guess and frame a
preconceived patsy.

"Well, no thanks....I'll stay in 1964. And you can have the CT authors
and all of the unsupportable nonsense that goes with them."

Of course you will as your checks rely on you doing that.

> >>> "Do you know anything about Lovelady?" <<<

"I know he died more than 21 years ago. And I know he worked in the
TSBD with double-murderer Lee Oswald for about five weeks in late
1963. And I know he resembled LHO. And I know I have no reason under
the sun to suspect Billy Nolan Lovelady of being involved in some kind
of plot to kill JFK."

Me either, but the fact they looked similar is no coincidence I'm
sure. Also, he stated the shirt they claim he was wearing was not the
shirt he was wearing, thus he was not the man on the steps, LHO was.

"Now....what do you know about Mr. Lovelady?"

Beyond what you wrote I don't know much, other than the fact he became
a pawn in the rush to frame LHO.

> >>> "The CTers are the ones that have had to spend their own money and time to investigate on their own." <<<

"And how many killers and non-Oswald bullets have been uncovered as a
result of all that "investigating" that's been performed by those many
conspiracy theorists over the last 40+ years?"

Many, but you are still in 1964 so you don't know about it.

"You'd think that some CTer would have found proof by now of at least
ONE non-C2766 bullet being involved in this supposedly-MULTI-GUN
assassination."

They have, but unless DVP hears his government or the media say it
doesn't exist I guess.

"And you'd think that after all that time SOME theorist (somewhere on
Earth) would have come up with just ONE non-Oswald killer being
provably involved in the assassination too."

Many have been put forth but you wouldn't accept any of them. That is
a good question, what theory would you accept from a CTer?

"But every "confession" by a so-called JFK assassin turns into a
situation comedy. Like the "Three Tramps". Or Jimmy Files. ....."

True as some are trying to do what the LNer camp has been doing for
40+ years, make money off of this tragedy so they invent stuff, but
most CTers are in it for the truth and to right the wrong the WC
created so long ago.

"Perhaps the most famous of the "other" assassins are the "three
tramps". The fact that there never was any evidence at all of their
guilt is irrelevant to the conspiracy theorists. To the buffs, there

was one big piece of incriminating evidence ag ainst the tramps: THEY

WEREN'T LEE HARVEY OSWALD! And in the balmy and unhinged conspiracy
universe, no evidence of guilt is stronger against someone than that
he isn't Lee Harvey Oswald." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 929 of
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

Sure, and they were brought in and let go so fast because? There were
quite a few others arrested/detained and let go without a record as
well.

> >>> "I don't think LHO ever said he was in the door. He may have not thought of it or maybe he wasn't." <<<

"He may have "NOT THOUGHT OF IT"?? (LOL.)"

He was following instructions and perhaps he was told not to mention
it, who knows. Pictures speak much louder and the Altgens photo shows
it could be him in the doorway to me.

"Via the POV of Oswald possibly actually BEING "Mr. Doorway
Man" (which you seem to have implied in your previous posts), that's a
very strange thing to say, Robert. I.E.: Oswald wouldn't have THOUGHT
to give the cops his provable, ironclad alibi for the time when JFK
was being shot?"

How do we know he was ever given the whole story of how the
assassination was supposed to have happened? No recordings, no notes,
no proof he was told how it went down.

"Oswald was quick enough, however, to make up a lie re. his
"alibi" (his lie about having lunch with "Junior")....but he wouldn't
actually say where he REALLY WAS at 12:30??? How nutty is that??"

Again, how do we know he said this? We have a sighting of him at
12:25 p.m. by Carolyn Arnold near the front entrance.

"Back here in reality, however -- If Lee Harvey Oswald had been in
that Depository doorway at 12:30, he would certainly have SAID SO
after his arrest. But he said NOT A WORD to the police about being
outside on the TSBD steps when JFK was in the process of being
murdered on Elm Street.

LOL!!!! You are on a roll today Dave, science fiction books and movies
have more reality than the official theory. I would think so, but
unlike you, I won't guess why he didn't. If he was an agent, and it
looks like he was, he was probably following orders.

"Nor did Oswald say a word about being in the Book Depository
entranceway to the LIVE TELEVISION AUDIENCE EITHER, which he had ample
opportunities to do, what with the cameras and microphones being
shoved in his face several times as LHO was being paraded through the
DPD corridors on both November 22 and November 23."

Again, he was keeping his mouth shut and probably assumed they would
get him out of this. I don't know, I can't speculate, but the man on
the steps looks like LHO to me. Shelley said LHO was there as well.

"In point of fact, Oswald actually admitted to the reporters (and
thusly to the live TV audience) that he was INSIDE THE BUILDING at the
time Kennedy was being shot.

A reporter asked him:

"Were you in the building?"

Oswald answered (somewhat sarcastically, after having just told the
same reporters, "I work in that building"):

"Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."

Where does he say he was inside during the shooting? I don't see that
here.

> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ee70b7502d2b2fd7

> >>> "Can't we use facial recognition software to determine this {the identity of "Doorway Man"}?" <<<

"Mr. Lovelady's admission that it was him in the doorway isn't NEARLY
good enough for a kook like you....is it, Robert?"

He also said he was wearing a red and blue (if I recall correctly)
shirt, which was not close to the shirt color LHO had on. It doesn't
add up as he did not wear his open to the fourth button like the man
in the picture either.

And what about the testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier and William
Shelley (both of whom said they saw Lovelady outside the building,
near the front entrance, at the time of the shooting)?

Lovelady, Frazier, and Shelley are ALL to be disbelieved, is that
correct?"

You are not telling the whole story as usual Dave. Shelley would tell
the FBI "he was standing just outside the glass doors of the entrance.
At the time President John F. Kennedy was shot I was standing at this
same place. Billy N. Lovelady who works under my supervision for the
TSBD was SEATED on the entrance steps just in front of me." (XXII,
673) Now perhaps Lovelady jumped up at the sound of the first shot,
but why did the WC NOT investigate this to determine if he did or
not? Both times he testified they did NOT ask him about his posture,
why?

"It's going to take "facial recognition" computer software to convince
Robert C. of the truth about Doorway Man, right?"

It would help and make it definitive.

> >>> "I stick to all the facts of this case and that includes all the new ones found since 1964, that is the year you are stuck in." <<<

"<additional chuckle>"

Chuckles the Clown is getting on my nerves.

"Yeah, you stick to such "facts" as: 4 assassins/spotters on the 6th
Floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on November 22. (A "fact" with ZERO pieces
of credible/provable evidence to support it.)"

This is what the real evidence shows.

"And "facts" like "LHO shot no one" (not even Officer Tippit, a murder
which has  a DOZEN witnesses fingering Oswald as the killer or the ONE
AND ONLY man who ran from the scene with a gun in his hands)."

Again, the evidence show this.

"It's Kook "Facts" like yours that make me so glad to be residing on
the side of (LN) truth in this case. Because you and your "CT Facts"
are truly (truly) pa-thet-ic."

Kook facts=the truth so Dave wants nothing to do with it.

"As my very, very able LN cohort, Bud, has said so many times in the
past (and now is a good time to repeat it) -- You conspiracy-loving
kooks are the very LAST people on the face of this globe who should be
looking into the assassination of the 35th U.S. President."

Why? You like keeping lies for the governement? Those checks must be
real good.

[robcap...@netscape.com]

On Feb 20, 6:16 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e08f1eac601f8ed7

> >>> "No, it {DVP's lengthy CS&L-filled posts re. the actual evidence surrounding JFK's murder} made me realize even more how silly your official theory is." <<<

"Yeah, trying to shoehorn all of that evidence against Oswald into a
silly, crazy, off-the-wall theory that says "OSWALD DID IT" is totally
ridiculous, isn't it, Robby?"

Again I ask what evidence? I haven't seen any from you or the WC.

"It's kind of like trying to prove the sun is hot. And what a
ridiculous "theory" that is!"

Poor analogy as the sun gives off heat so it is understood it is hot,
you have NO evidence, therefore, it is your opinion LHO did the
crimes.

> >>> "I don't envy you for having to try and defend something so ridiculous." <<<

"You're deeper into CT Kookland that I had originally envisioned. I
don't envy you either."

Sure, mock me instead of telling the truth, I have all the evidence on
my side.

> >>> "...but as you said the CIA pays well." <<<

"True. (And dental insurance, to boot.)"

Taxpayers money being used to cover and support more lies, what a
shocker!

> >>> "You are even reviewing movies for them to squash anyone from wanting to see them." <<<

"You betcha. Why should filmmakers who place total lies and
unsupportable guesswork up on the cinema screen be given a free pass
when it comes to ridicule?"

Ahh, freedom of the press? Just guessing, but your side gets more air
time than the current president.

> >>> "I am the sane one." <<<

"By whose measuring stick? The measuring stick used by other "LHO Shot
No One" kooks?"

By most people in the world.

> >>> "It is only a matter of time before you have nothing left to defend." <<<

"I guess that means that you think ALL of the mile-high pile of
evidence favoring Lee Oswald's guilt in TWO 1963 murders is suddenly
going to disappear and/or vaporize before our very eyes in the coming
months/years/decades. Is that it, Mr. Kook?"

Mile-high pile of evidence? You are not dealing with reality.

"IOW -- Do you think that the MC rifle (#C2766) will suddenly, in the
year 2034, CEASE being a rifle bought, paid for, and possessed in the
year 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald?"

Of course, it ceased to be those things in 1963 so why would it be
those things in 2034?

"And in the year 2525 (if man is still alive...), the bullet shells
found in the Depository and the shells found on Tenth Street will,
somehow, CEASE being bullet shells that were determined in 1963 to be
shells that came out of weapons owned and possessed in '63 by a man
named Lee Harvey Oswald?"

He didn't own them, but even IF he did, ownership of a weapon doesn't
mean guilt.

"And in 2784, do you think that all of the more than 12 witnesses that
fingered Lee Oswald as being the lone person involved in J.D. Tippit's
murder will somehow ALL be discredited to the point where Oswald's
innocence in that crime is assured?"

More fantasy here, only ONE shaky witness ID'd LHO as the shooter of
JDT, and that would have been ripped to shreds in court.

"Well, Rob, at least you have your dreams."

I don't live in the dream world, I live in truth, facts, evidence and
proof, all things your side lacks.

"By the way, is it going to take another 44 years for you kooks to
come up with that first non-Oswald bullet or bullet shell or gun?"

Already did, I posted the 4 specimans found and survived, but you
continue to ignore them. Denial is a tough business.

"With thousands and thousands of you kooks working on uncovering that
dreaded "conspiracy", you'd think you would have at least a semi-
believable and coherent assassination scenario to place on the table
to try and knock the Warren Commission's version out of the box."

We do, but you choose to ignore them.

"But, thus far, 44 years into your investigation, what have you got in
the way of HARD EVIDENCE to favor a conspiracy?"

Lots, but you continue to ignore it.

"And what hard, verifiable evidence do you have to support the type of
grandiose (and highly-hilarious) "Multi-Gunmen, One-Patsy" plot that
you seem to think existed on November 22, 1963?"

I love how we have to provide "hard, verfiable evidence" when the
official theory does not. Pure irony.

"Your OPINIONS are not HARD EVIDENCE, btw. So let's leave the "Robcap
Show" off of the table for the time being, okay?"

Looks who talking, you never provide evidence, let alone hard
evidence. LOL!!!!

"Let's see your list of HARD EVIDENCE that supports a JFK conspiracy,
please."

Why waste my typing? I can prove you have no evidence, thus, it was
NOT LHO, thus, it was a different scenario, thus, the door for a
conspiracy is wide open.

"(And then, after posting that list, you can pretend that each one of
your listed items HASN'T previously been thoroughly debunked/refuted/
trashed by LNers worldwide.)"

See, why waste my time? You don't even know what I would list, but
you are sure it has been debunked already.

> >>> "Most Americans already aren't with you on this case..." <<<

"And the majority of Americans certainly are not in your silly "Oz Was
A Patsy" corner either. But I guess you think that most people believe
Oswald was merely an innocent simp who never shot at anybody in '63
(not even Gen. Walker), right?

Think again."

Denial is a tough business. You have no proof or evidence showing LHO
shot anyone, that is all I'm saying. IF he was guilty of some crime
you need to show this evidence.

> >>> "...But you still have the government, media and academia backing you up." <<<

"Plus all 17 pathologists who examined the case (and JFK's body) in
detail for the WC, the Clark Panel, the HSCA, and the Rockefeller
Commission."

Look who can't get every things right now? I forget to mention in the
other reply that NOT all the government pathologists agreed, as
several in the HSCA dissented, I think it was 3-2 if I recall
correctly. Besides, way more don't agree with this findings than do
including those that tried to treat JFK at Parkland.

"Others that "back" me up on the LN conclusion include people like
Joseph Nicol and John Lattimer."

Nicol was not in regards to the medical aspect and Lattimer was a
urine doctor.

"Nicol was the independent firearms expert from Illinois called in by
the Warren Commission. It was a good move by the WC too, since there
were bound to be kooks like Rob Caprio and Ben Holmes (et al) who
would come forth years later and complain about the WC's conclusions
coming from ONLY Government-"controlled" sources, like the FBI."

Did he not work for the state of Illinois? Last time I looked that
was a government position.

"But Nicol was NOT connected with the United States Government, and he
even went a step FURTHER down the "Oswald Was Guilty" road with
respect to the Tippit murder, when Nicol said that one bullet from
Tippit's body could be linked to Oswald's revolver "to the exclusion
of all other weapons", which is something even the FBI's Robert
Frazier would not confirm (and Frazier is a person whom the kooks love
to treat as a criminal and big fat liar)."

Nicol worked for the state of Illinois and had a pension to lose, same
difference.

"Lattimer, of course, verified the validity and sheer doability of
several of the WC's conclusions when he conducted many different
shooting experiments using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and bullets from
the same batches that Oswald used in '63.

And EVERY single experiment/test conducted by Lattimer favored the
likelihood that Oswald could, indeed, have done just exactly what the
Warren Commission concluded Oswald did do in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

Rob should read the book "Kennedy And Lincoln" by Dr. Lattimer. It's
very informative and unbiased. But certain CTers probably prefer to
turn their heads the other way when faced with Lattimer's detailed
ballistics tests, which were NOT CONTROLLED IN ANY WAY BY THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT."

A urine doctor doing ballistics reports and studies, will the
ridiculousness of the official theory ever stop? LOL!!! That is like
a vet doing forensic wound analysis, oh wait, they did that too!!
Chuckle town here I come!

[robcap...@netscape.com]

On Feb 22, 12:05 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> More, you ask? Okay........
>
> =========================
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9cd0044be6b3e205
>

"DVP SAID:

"Where was the gunman who fired that shot then? Sitting on the
floorboards of the limousine?"
>
> ROB SAID:
>
> "Geez, I would guess in front of the Limo! This was seen by many
> witnesses on the triple underpass and Henry Bowers."

"DVP NOW SAYS:

Oh, so now Rob seems to be saying that "many witnesses on the triple
underpass" physically SAW an assassin firing a gun at JFK's car from
the front.

I guess the "smoke" that was said to have been seen by S.M. Holland
and a few other witnesses is the same thing as proving an assassin was
behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll firing a rifle at President
Kennedy. Is that it?"

ROB NOW SAYS:

Some saw smoke, some saw flashing lights or reflections, but the poin
is two-thirds of those asked where they thought the shots originated
from said the grassy knoll! How can 65 people (out of 90) all be
wrong?

"By the way,

Was "Henry Bowers" related to Lee Bowers (the guy in the railroad
tower)? ;)"

Cheap trick, but expected. I said way back in October I typed the
wrong first name as I was knew to the board and discussing the case
like this. I had not spent years and years like you as Reitzes and
Von Pein and who knows who else spending all my awake posting. So
what? I made a typo, doesn't change the context.

"Oh, well....I'll just chalk up that "Henry" error as an innocent
mistake. Mistakes can certainly happen. I'll admit that. After all, I
once thought you were a sane person."

You make mistakes all the time as you said the SBT was not vital to
the LN case, remember? You recently said LHO fired 4 shots, something
the WC would disagree with. Many more, but why dredge up old history?

"ROB SPEWS ANOTHER HUNK OF SPECTACULAR UNSUPPORTABLE KOOKSHIT (with
three misspellings corrected by DVP):

"These were separate wounds. One went into the front of JFK's neck and
came out the back of the neck. The second wound {bullet} struck him in
the back area (below the shoulders), but did not fully penetrate out
of the front."

"DVP NOW SAYS:

Ahhhh! The life of a CT-Kook. Making up more stuff that's not in the
record anywhere and can never in a billion years be supported by
ANYBODY.

But, the kooks who spout such nonsense (like the above insanity
authored by Robert) couldn't care less about what the real evidence
shows.

For example: they don't CARE that the official autopsy report says the
following.....

"Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-
velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
level of the deceased. The observations and available information do
not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
wounds."

I love the part where they say "wounds inflicted by high-velocity
projectiles" and Dave will skip over it. How could a low-to-medium
velocity rifle produce high-velocity bullets? If you believe all of
the report how do you explain this?

"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed
the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral
skull roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A
portion of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on
the right carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp. The
two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile
produced extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the
superior saggital sinus, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."

The Warren Commission made no serious effort to establish the type of
ammunition that produced the head wounds, and it failed to establish
any connection between those wounds and the ammunition allegedly used
by Oswald. The Commission postulates that Oswald fired military
ammunition. Such bullets are constructed of a lead core chemically
hardened and inserted into a jacket of copper alloy.[Winchester
Handbook, p. 121, and A. Lucas, pp. 241-42. ] The principal reason
for this type of construction is to insure good penetrating ability by
inhibiting bullet deformation. Hard metal-jacketed military bullets
can be deformed upon striking resistant tissue such as bone. In such a
case, the bullet is liable to become mangled and distorted in shape.
When such bullets undergo fragmentation, it is rarely extensive.
Typically, the jacket may separate from the core which, in turn, may
break up into relatively large chunks, depending on the nature of the
resistant tissue and the force with which it was struck.[Rowland H.
Long, The Physician and the Law (New York, 1968), p. 239.]

However, the pathologists could present no evidence to substantiate
the "conclusion" that the gaping defect was an exit wound. The
unmistakable inference of the testimony of Dr. James Humes, the chief
autopsy pathologist, is that the doctors "concluded" this was an exit
wound solely because the only other external head wound was one of
entrance (II,352). This reasoning is in total disregard of any
practicable medico-legal standards, and is worthless without tangible
evidence to buttress it.

"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above
the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and
the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the
neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal
pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung.
The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
structures in its path through the body." -- VIA JFK's AUTOPSY REPORT

This theory has long been rendered incredible in numerous critical
analyses.[See Weisberg, Whitewash, pp. 178-86; Meagher, pp. 139-59;
David Welsh and David Lifton, "A Counter-Theory: The Case For Three
Assassins," Ramparts, January 1967, section II: "The Bullet in the
Back." Much of the original research can be found in Vincent
Salandria, "The Warren Report," Liberation, March 1965, pp. 14-22,
Part I: A Philadelphia Lawyer Analyzes the President's Back and Neck
Wounds.] However, one piece of information in particular prevents
anyone, whether or not he believes the Warren Report, from asserting
that a bullet went through the neck in the manner described in the
autopsy report. In order to substantiate the assumption of a
continuous bullet track, that track must be dissected at the autopsy.
According to Drs. Fillinger and Wecht, there is no way to positively
identify a bullet path other than by dissecting it -- taking it apart
and following it through every fraction of an inch of the tissue it
penetrates.[Fillinger Interview, and Thompson, p. 50.] In his New
Orleans testimony, Colonel Finck stated explicitly, under oath, that
the **putative bullet track in the President's neck was not
dissected.** [Transcript of court proceedings of February 24, 1969, in
State of Louisiana v. Clay L. Shaw, p. 115. (Hereinafter referred to
as "Finck 2/24/69 testimony.")] This failure to dissect is, according
to Dr. Fillinger, "the most critical thing of the whole
autopsy."[Fillinger Interview.] Without such dissection, no one,
including the autopsy pathologists, can be in a position to assert
that one bullet made a continuous path through the President's neck.
There is way more, but why mention it all now as you probably stopped
reading awhile ago.

http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html

"The above words from President Kennedy's official autopsy report are
(evidently) TOTALLY MEANINGLESS to a kook like Robert. That report
(signed by all three autopsists) doesn't mean a damn thing, right Mr.
Kook?"

Yes, because the simple process of Mr. Tague coming forward made them
change the wounds, so how accurate could the autopsy report be?

"And the kooks also don't CARE about the fact that NOT ONE DOCTOR ever
saw a SECOND bullet hole in John F. Kennedy's back (or the back of his
"neck") on November 22, 1963."

There may not have been as the one was at the T-3 level, and he
frontal one (through the throat) did not go through, but where did
this bullet go? Some say the chest cavity but after a thorough exam
(something they would deny later) of this area they claim to not find
any bullet. Where did it go?

"Apparently the only thing an "Anybody But Oswald" JFK conspiracy kook
cares about is getting a double-murderer exonerated in the mind of the
public.

Nice hobby. If you're a loon."

Same tired dialog, it is boring. ~Yawn~

> ROB SAID:

> "I didn't make these up, Dave. Check out numerous sources, including
> the autopsy photos. You'll see a small entry wound in JFK's right back
> area."

"DVP NOW SAYS:

Sure, there's ONE bullet entry hole here, but not two:

> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg

Do you think that the little spot of dried blood (just below the one
and only verified bullet hole in the above picture) is another "bullet
hole"?"

The one guaranteed bullet hole is at the T-3 level, not T-1, as the
death certificate. How did the autopsy mess up so badly?

"Funny, though, that all of the doctors at Bethesda missed seeing this
other "hole", huh?"

Funny how much stuff they missed.

Plus: That photograph shows at least two additional small "spots" on
JFK's back that look generally like the spot you seem to think is a
second bullet hole. Why don't you think those spots of blood are
"bullet holes" too?"

I was refering to the exit wound of the throat wound, but it would
seem it did not transverse the body. Regardless, the only back wound
noted did not occur at the T-1 level, that was a lie by the autopsy
doctors.

"Or maybe the white spot near the bottom of JFK's hairline in this
autopsy picture is yet another "bullet hole"?:"

Any bullet hole near the hairline is made up, we all know that.

> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg

"You might as well go whole-hog with your fairy tale, Rob. You could
have four or five different holes in JFK's back and neck regions,
based on the various "spots" seen in the above-linked autopsy photos!
Go for it!"

That is generous since your side made up stuff all the time.

"But when we return to the world of reality, your theory is defeated
from another POV too -- JFK's coat and shirt. Where's the SECOND
bullet hole in JFK's shirt and the SECOND bullet hole in his coat
jacket?"

Like you have ever been in the world of reality. I don't remember the
context in which I said that, but perhaps I was wrong, I admit it.
Don't recall the conversation, but I do know we have one wound at the
T-3 level NOT the T-1 level. How do you explain this?

"Or doesn't the clothing matter at all in your theory? Just like the
autopsy report doesn't matter to you, and the doctors' testimony
doesn't matter, and the WC and HSCA conclusions regarding the ONE back
wound don't matter either. Right, kook?"

Of course it does and thanks for mentioning it as the holes in the
shirt and jacket support the wound at the T-3 level like the death
certificate said, NOT the T-1 level the autopsy said. This is why
they made up the phony "bunching effect" to compensate.

"(You make this so very easy, Rob. You DO realize that, right?)"

I do? I think you make it so easy to show what a crock the official
theory is.

> ROB SAID:

> "The fools are the ones who believe a fantasy scenario set up by the
> WCR, which has been proven to be false many times over the years. You
> just refuse to read/believe these reports."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:

"The above words being spoken by a person who just a minute ago said
the following (without a hint of embarrassment attached):

"These were separate wounds. One {bullet} went into the front of JFK's
neck and came out the back of the neck. The second {bullet} struck him
in the back area (below the shoulders), but did not fully penetrate
out of the front." -- Rob Caprio

Now, I ask -- Who is the one believing in "fantasies" here? DVP or
Robert C.?"

Well since the exact path of the frontal throat wound has never been
fully explained (in terms of an exit wound) you can't disprove the
above statement. In fact, they may have used this wound (if it
existed) as their SBT wound as the one noted in the death certificate
was too LOW to be of use.

> ROB SAID:

> "Later that evening, according to the two FBI agents, Dr. Humes
> reiterated this "non-transit" finding as an official autopsy
> conclusion: "Dr. Humes stated that the pattern was clear that one
> bullet had entered the President's back and worked its way out of the
> body during external cardiac massage and that a second...bullet had
> entered the rear of the skull..." This would seem to make it clear Dr.
> Humes did not believe the rear wound was the entry for a bullet which
> traveled through the body--at least not the night he did the autopsy."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:

"So?

Sure, Humes thought (on the night of the autopsy) the back bullet
might not have transitted the body. But he soon got the full story of
the bullet wound in the throat from Dr. Perry at Parkland the next
morning (November 23)."

Nice try, but the two FBI men noted he checked the wound with his
finger so he knew it was only about an inch or so deep.

"The autopsy report was then appropriately revised and corrected.
After talking with Perry and confirming the bullet hole in JFK's
throat, the LACK OF BULLETS AND *DAMAGE* IN KENNEDY'S BODY made
perfect sense to Dr. Humes --- ONE bullet went clean through the
President's body."

Not hardly. Describing antero-posterior X-ray views of the lower neck
region, the Clark Panel Report declared, "Also several small metallic
fragments are present in this region."[25] This observation by the
Panel vitiates Dr. Humes's sworn testimony to the Commission that the
X rays revealed no metallic fragments in the neck region (II,361).
Detailed information concerning these fragments is scant. Of their
number, the Clark Panel says only that there are "several"; of their
size, that they are "small." The radiologist on the Panel, Dr. Russell
Morgan, has said that the exact "region" in which these fragments
appeared on the films was just lateral to the tip of the right
transverse process of the seventh cervical vertebra, which is located
at the very base of the neck.

"Why is this rocket science to the CT-Kooks of the world?"

Because it is a science based art, and science has been totally
ignored by your side.

And the corrections to the original report are what made the original
draft of the report meaningless and worthy of being burned in Dr.
Humes' fireplace (something, btw, he would have NEVER admitted doing
if he had been involved in a "cover-up" plot of some sort re. JFK's
autopsy)."

Sure, how do you know? Why did he do it after LHO was gunned down?
Nothing to worry about, like a trial I guess.

"And the reason Humes burned his autopsy notes is because they were
stained with Kennedy's blood. Naturally, the kooks don't believe that
story either of course."

Baloney, he could have made a new version/copy, there is NO good
reason to burn the original copy.

> ROB SAID:
>
> "For full story see David Lifton's "Best Evidence", pp. 101-09."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:

"<chuckles at the hilarious source that is named above>

If you still believe anything theorized by David "THE BODY WAS
ALTERED" Lifton, then you're deeper in the CT quicksand than even I
thought (and that's pretty deep).

If you want to read a made-up fictional tale that even Stephen King
probably wouldn't touch, then yes, by all means prop up "Best
Evidence" in bed tonight.

Or, you might like this article a little better (the common sense is
included for free)....."
>

I notice no refutation by Dave.

> DVP SAID:

> "You CT-Kooks think THREE bullets went into the two victims (not
> counting the head shot to JFK), and then all of these bullets just
> vanished. And yet you think my question is a "trick" question of some
> kind? Are you senile? It's a perfectly-logical question that needs to
> be answered in a coherent manner by the CTers who think the official
> "SBT" version of events is incorrect."
>
> ROB SAID:
>
> "They didn't all vanish Dave. We have the one {bullet} found at
> Parkland..."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:

"Which is CE399 (which came out of Lee Oswald's rifle "to the
exclusion")."

No, I was talking about the .38 they found there and never mentioned.
Let's see, you control the autopsy and coverup and this guy is
incapable of grasping no non-LHO alleged 6.5mm bullets showed up?
Amazing.

> ROB SAID:
> "...Fragments in Kennedy's brains (left over from an explosive
> bullet)..."

"DVP NOW SAYS:

This is more CT-Kook-spun conjecture (the part about the "explosive
bullet", that is).

"A fragment taken from Kennedy's head was matched to CE567 (one of the
front-seat fragments) via NAA. Naturally, you (being a kook) will have
to totally reject Dr. Vincent Guinn's NAA findings re. the 5 bullet
specimens he analyzed in 1978."

But as I showed above a military jacketed bullet was not designed to
break into fragments. During his testimony, Col. Pierre Finck, who
participated in the autopsy as a consultant to Dr. Humes, was asked
about the nature of the bullet's fragmentation within the head.
Commissioner Gerald Ford, apparently feeling that he had asked one
question too many, cut Finck off at the vital point and did not permit
him to elaborate:

Mr. Ford: Is it typical to find only a limited number of
fragments as you apparently did in this case?
Dr. Finck: THIS DEPENDS TO A GREAT DEAL ON THE TYPE OF
AMMUNITION USED. There are many types of bullets, jacketed, not-
jacketed, pointed, hollow-nosed, hollow-points, flatnose, roundnose,
all these different shapes will have a different influence on the
pattern of the wound and the degree of fragmentation.
Mr. Ford: That is all. (II,384; emphasis mine)

The Report does not cite any of the above-quoted testimony. Instead,
it discusses ballistics which, it asserts,

"showed that the rifle and bullets identified above were capable of
producing the President's head wound. The Wound Ballistics
Branch . . . at Edgewood Arsenal, Md., conducted an extensive series
of experiments to test the effect of . . . the type [of bullet] found
on Governor Connally's stretcher and in the Presidential limousine,
fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the
Depository. . . . One series of tests, performed on reconstructed
inert human skulls, demonstrated that the President's head wound could
have been caused by the rifle and bullets fired by the assassin from
the sixth floor window." (WCR87)

"But, even if you do reject the NAA study done by Guinn (and you do
reject it, of course), think about the bullet evidence this way for a
change.....

"Even if the new findings {from 2002 to 2004, not the 2007 study} were
to render NAA, and hence Guinn's conclusions, invalid, we DO know that
the stretcher bullet was fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of
ALL other weapons."

Big deal. First of all you haven't proved it is LHO's rifle.
Secondly, you have proved it was fired at 12:30 p.m. on 11/22/63 from
the TSBD by LHO. Thirdly, you have not proved it was ever in JFK and
JBC. So basically, you haven't proved anything.

"Since THAT is definite, what is the likelihood that a bullet found on
CONNALLY'S stretcher, which we know was fired from Oswald's gun, is
not the same bullet that deposited its missing fragments in Connally's
wrist? Next to nothing."

Bill Davy is right, your math skills leave a lot to be desired. You
have proven NOTHING. It wouldn't have even been allowed in court due
to no chain of custody.

"In other words, when all is said and done, what difference does it
make if it turns out that the NAA tests are completely invalid? But
there is a more important point to be made. Let's not forget that the
NAA conclusions by Guinn...are COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with all the
other evidence showing that Oswald was at the sniper's nest window and
it was his Carcano rifle that fired the only bullets that hit
Kennedy."

You make leaps bigger than Evil Kneival. None of what you mentioned
proves LHO was in the window firing a rifle. Period.

> ROB SAID:
>
> "...A bullet down near where Tague was..."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:

"And you've SEEN that bullet, eh?"

I like how Dave chops these posts up, why not put the whole point I
was making?

"This sub-topic was about bullets that I said that CTers think had all
"vanished" and were not recovered, with your response being "They
didn't all vanish Dave". But now you're including the Tague bullet as
a bullet that did NOT vanish? This can only prompt me to say --
"Huh?!"

I don't think I was saying that, and you know it, that is why you
parceled out my response.

"Obviously, even from my "Lone Assassin" viewpoint, the Tague bullet
(which was probably Oswald's first/missed shot) wasn't a bullet that
was recovered, nor was it recoverable. Hence, it's the one single
missing bullet in the LN/LHO/SBT scenario. But the other two bullets
(the ones that actually struck the victims in the limousine) are
present and accounted for, via CE399 and the two large fragments from
the head-shot bullet (CE567/569)."

Unfortunately for you none of the recovered bullets/fragments could be
shown to have been INSIDE either victim, thus they are NOT the bullets
that caused the wounds.

"But CTers need multiple bullets that they claim went INTO VICTIMS
performing a vanishing act on 11/22/63."

I simply need the truth.

> ROB SAID:
>
> "...One {bullet} that was in the limo below the rearview mirror..."

"DVP NOW SAYS:

The chrome damage (which I assume is what you're referring to above)
was almost certainly caused by a fragment from the head-shot bullet
(either CE567 or CE569, both of which were fired from Oswald's gun)."

How about some proof for this assumption? Doubt you have any.

"You now seem to want the chrome/windshield damage to be caused by a
SEPARATE bullet (which, as per the CTer norm, was not recovered)?"

No, I am simply asking what bullet caused this damage to two seperate
areas of the limo. You claim, but cannot prove, it was the two
fragments.

"I ask -- Is it more likely for the TWO damaged areas of the limo
(chrome dent + windshield crack) to have been caused by TWO slowed-
down fragments (from LHO's rifle) that came out of JFK's head, with
those two fragments ending up near that chrome and windshield damage
in the front seat of the car?"

No as the bullet allegedly used by LHO was a military jacketed bullet
which is not designed to fragment like you and the WC claimed.
Furthermore, the windshield had a hole in it, not just a crack.

"Or:

Is it more likely for the chrome and/or windshield damage to have been
caused by one or more non-Oswald bullets that were never recovered
(nor were any non-C2766 bullet fragments recovered in the front-seat
area of the car)?"

So now you are saying there are bullets never recovered? How quickly
you change, after mocking me for this you jump right on board if you
think it will help you wiggle out of your lame theory. Irony at its
best.

"Not a difficult choice by any means....is it?"

No, it was seperate bullets, we all know this, you know it, but you
want those checks.

> ROB SAID:
>
> "...And one {bullet} found in the grass across from the knoll."
>

"DVP NOW SAYS:

No bullet was "found in the grass" in Dealey Plaza. That's merely
"Conspiracy-Flavored Myth #409" and everybody knows it."

So you say, the picture of Buddy Walthers picking it up shows
otherwise. He gave it someone he thought was an FBI agent, but it was
never seen again.

"There's not a single police report (or any report) in existence that
proves that any "bullet" was picked up off of the grass in the Plaza
on 11/22/63."

Of course not as it was NOT a 6.5mm bullet probably.

"There might have been an area of disturbed turf on Elm where some
policemen THOUGHT a bullet might have struck...hence, we have this
photo:

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/slug1.jpg

But one thing's a certainty -- no BULLET (or bullet fragment or bullet
cartridge casing) was ever found or was ever SAID TO BE FOUND in the
grass on Elm Street."

Prove it. How do you know for sure?

DVP SAID:

"The only non-head damage to his {JFK's} body was some very slight
trachea damage (caused by Bullet CE399 and/or by Dr. Perry's trach
incision at Parkland) and a small amount of bruising to Kennedy's
right lung (caused, per the autopsy doctors, by the mere PASSAGE of
the high-speed bullet as it went over the top of JFK's right lung,
prior to exiting out the lower part of his throat)."

> ROB SAID:

> "Wrong. You keep covering the same ground. I guess you think if you
> say it enough times it will become true."
>

"DVP NOW SAYS:

"Okay, Rob....the spotlight's on you now. Tell us what major damage
was documented inside John F. Kennedy's upper back and neck that could
have possibly caused a bullet moving through soft tissue to suddenly
stop inside his body?"

There is none and that is the point. A military jacketed bullet could
not have caused the fragmentation mentioned by the autopsy. As
previously noted, full-jacketed military bullets are constructed so
that they will not fragment in soft tissue. Even if a bone in the neck
region were struck (the official story is that no bone in President
Kennedy's neck region was struck), it is unlikely that this military
ammunition of medium velocity could have produced "several small"
fragments and no large ones. (There was no point on the body from
which a large fragment could have exited. The 5 mm. wound on the
anterior neck, alleged by the autopsy pathologists and the Commission
to have been an exit wound, was entirely too small and regular to have
been caused by a large section of a bullet that had become deformed as
a result of fragmenting.)

That neither the head nor the neck wounds are attributable to the
ammunition Oswald allegedly used would seem to provide persuasive
evidence that Oswald played no part in the shooting of the President.
In fact, the evidence of the neck fragments is clearly exculpatory, as
is illustrated in an actual case presented by LeMoyne Snyder in
Homicide Investigation.[LeMoyne Snyder, pp. 135-39.] Snyder relates
the story of a hunter found dead from a rifle wound in the chest.
Investigation disclosed only two persons who could have shot the man
-- one armed with a military rifle firing jacketed ammunition, the
other with a .30-calibre Winchester firing soft-nosed hunting bullets.
According to Snyder, "The problem was to try to determine whether the
victim had been killed by jacketed ammunition or a soft-nosed bullet."
In reference to an X ray of the victim's chest, Snyder writes: "Notice
the numerous flecks of lead scattered through the tissues, strongly
indicating that the wound was caused by soft-nosed ammunition." The
parallel to the assassination is striking, for the fragments scattered
in the President's neck must "strongly indicate . . . soft-nosed
ammunition," although the government's suspect allegedly fired
jacketed bullets.

In denying the Commission knowledge of the neck fragments, Dr. Humes
denied Oswald the possible proof of his innocence.

DVP SAID:

"My main job here is merely to help make you conspiracy-loving kooks
look like total idiots (which is a job I do very well most of the
time)."

> ROB SAID:

> "In your own mind. Dreamer."

DVP NOW SAYS:
"I don't need to dream about it. You make debunking your make-believe
nonsense so easy that even my neighbor's sick dog could do it with
ease."

Sure, the dog is proabably a better debater than you, so what?

[robcap...@netscape.com]

On Feb 22, 12:22 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/df2adef5fc2b8797

> >>> "I think there were probably two teams of two men in the west and east windows. One spotter and one shooter per team." <<<

"There's nothing better than making stuff up incessantly, with zero
shreds of evidence to support your wishful-thinking, is there Robby?"

Zero shreds of evidence NEVER stops you does it?

"FOUR assassins (strangers to all TSBD employees, I would assume) all
manage to sneak IN and OUT of the Depository without being seen going
IN or coming OUT."

I don't even remember what we were talking about, but in a reality I
think there was one team in the TSBD (west window), one team in the
Dal-Tex building, and one or maybe two teams on the grassy knoll. Many
think there was a team on the roof of the County records building as
well. Of course we won't know as the WC failed to ask 123 witnesses
were they thought the shots came from.

"Not a single employee of the TSBD saw any "strangers" on the upper
floors on 11/22. And I think only one "stranger" was seen on the first
floor all day by any employees, and he was seen leaving the building
well before the assassination."

This is baloney as some of the workers were there to lay the floor and
had only been there a short while. Also, many of the workers didn't
know LHO either as he was quiet and kept to himself. Therefore, not
every worker knew every other worker, like any decent size company,
yet you are making it sound like a 10 person office. The shooters
used the back freight elevator as well.

"I guess that quartet of killers either ALL looked exactly like Lee
Oswald (and MERGED into one "Oswald Entity" on 11/22), or those 4 guys
just lucked out when they cloaked themselves and escaped a semi-busy
building on a workday (Friday) sight unseen."

With this kind of logic no wonder you still believe the WC.

> >>> "This is how professionals do it and everything about that killing was professional. No amateur like LHO could do it." <<<

<chuckles warmly at this thought>

"It's interesting to me that many of you kooks think that JFK's murder
could have ONLY been pulled off by "professionals".....and yet WHO IS
IT THAT THESE "PROS" ARE ATTEMPTING TO FRAME? -- Yes, a NON-
professional named Lee Harvey Oswald....the same Lee Harvey Oswald who
was (per you kooks) a piss-poor shooter and who was unable to hit the
broad side of the broadest barn in Texas."

How about some evidence in LHO's guilt then, we have been waiting 44
years.

"So, I guess the "pro" plotters/assassins must not have counted on
sleuths like you CT-Kooks who keep spouting "Oswald Couldn't Have Done
It On His Own", huh?"

I don't think they thought anyone would question the government, and
if not for a few brave people showing how wrong they were, who knows
they may have gotten away with it.

"Otherwise, those real killers would have a bit of a problem, don't
you think? I.E.: Trying to frame this Barney Fife-like boob named
Oswald as a LONE shooter, while doing so in a way that (per you kooks)
couldn't POSSIBLY have been pulled off by just that solo patsy."

They had no problems, when you take charge of the presidency you have
NO worries.

"But, when we return to a thing called "Reality" and "The Evidence In
The Case", a reasonable person doesn't have the slightest bit of
trouble believing that Lee Oswald could have pulled off the non-
difficult shooting that LHO did, in fact, pull off in Dallas (per ALL
of the physical/ballistics evidence in the case)."

Promises, promises, you never mention any evidence.

"Oswald only hit the target (JFK's head) with 33% of his shots that
day; and he totally missed the target (and the whole car) with another
33% of his shots.

Some "professional" hit there."

Again, you have NO proof LHO fired a weapon that day.

> >>> "Excellent. Thanks for the info {re. Lovelady's Dec. '61 date of hire}. That means we have a look-alike already there." <<<

"No prob. Like I told you previously, I occasionally specialize in
making stuff easier to find for super-lazy and clueless CT-Kooks like
yourself.

But, of course, if you suspect Billy N. Lovelady of being part of the
"Let's Frame Oswald" plot, then you should be asking yourself this:
Should I believe Lovelady's Dec. 1961 hiring date that he gave the
WC?"

I never said I believe he was part of the active coverup, I believe he
was a tool used, but the fact he looked like LHO couldn't have been
overlooked by the plotters.

>If he lied about being in the doorway...don't you think he'd be willing to lie about >other stuff too?

"Rob, you are so "all over the map" in almost every post you make,
it's pathetic. No wonder it's hard to follow your fairy tales from one
day to the next."

If I'm "all over the map" it is because I'm responding to the LNers
post and they are always all over the map.

"Rob's daily Fable Sessions are rather entertaining, though. I just
wonder how many more days will pass until he has J.D. Tippit firing a
rifle at President Kennedy from the Grassy Knoll. (I'll give him
another week....tops.)"

Some have claimed this, but I'll wait for more proof first to make a
decision.

[YoHarvey]

On Feb 22, 4:02 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:

Read the above statement. Stated as FACT. "The shooters used the
back freight evevator as well". Any evidence for this? Of course
not......and this is why we KNOW AS FACT Jesus/Robcap is the SAME
person. How? Simply, NO TWO INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE are this stupid!!!
Except, Jesus/Robcap.

[Gil Jesus]

Watch out Rob.

He's linking to previous posts of his opinion as "evidence" again.

As Bugs Bunny said to Wile E. Coyote:

"I am giving myself up because I cannot stand against such genius."

Nor can we.

[YoHarvey]

Nor can we.

First intelligent thing you've EVER said on this newsgroup.
Unfortunately, as usual, you said it to yourself lol

[robcap...@netscape.com]

This conclusion, using the back freight elevator, was arrived at by
the investigators with the HSCA. Of course you didn't know this.

[robcap...@netscape.com]

On Feb 22, 4:41 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:

I know Gil, that is why I usually ignore YoHarvey as he never says
anything of substance.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "This conclusion, using the back freight elevator, was arrived at by the investigators with the HSCA." <<<

Please provide a citation for this silly assertion (something Rob The
Kook never, ever does, of course; providing cites, that is).

Are you saying that the HSCA, which is an entity that had just ONE
gunman (LHO) located in the TSBD, determined that Oswald (or a make-
believe assassin of your/their choosing) used a freight elevator that
was NOT LOCATED ON THE 6TH FLOOR WHEN OSWALD NEEDED EITHER ONE OF THEM
to escape the sixth floor on 11/22?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "I know Gil, that is why I usually ignore YoHarvey as he never says anything of substance." <<<

Rob can't even get this right. He thinks Gil was referring to "Yo"
here. But Gil was obviously talking about me, not Yo.

Still batting a perfect .000, Rob. (Zero-for-the-whole-season/
assassination.)

Good going.

[robcap...@netscape.com]

On Feb 22, 12:29 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e17d23718ec4b649

Let me just say up front how flattered I am for all this DVP
attention. I'd like to thank the academy.

> >>> "The best analogy I can make is this -- Mike Stivic made a lot of sense, but when you are dealing with Archie Bunkers (LNers) you aren't going to make any headway. You think every single thing you are told is 100% fact. No thought of double checking to make sure." <<<

"Talk about a classic Pot/Kettle statement coming from the lips of a
conspiracy kook....the one above takes the prize (and the cake too)."

You are wrong as I check all the things I read many times to make sure
they are corraborated. For example, JDT being on the knoll and
marching the tramps off to jail. This has been put forth recently and
it is compelling, but until I read more on it I don't chalk it up as
being accurate. You on the other hand, you believe everything your
government says Archie. :-)

"I guess Rob really DOESN'T mind looking like a complete fool, 24/7.
Go figure that, kids o' the corn. ~shrug~"

Hey, looking like a fool to 10% or less of the population isn't so
bad.

"Anyway, you CT-Kooks believe pretty much EVERY single thing that CT
authors write, without any checking for verification or truth re.
those beliefs."

Nice try, but you can't make generalization about all CTers. I know I
don't do this.

"As VB has said so very well (and it's never been more true than in
the case of this kook named Robert):"

LOL!!!!!!! Talk about the pot/kettle statements above, all of this
from a man who believes EVERYTHING VB says as gospel!!!

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

He wishes that is all we hung on to, i.e. "slips of the tongue",
unfortunately for you and your ilk it is lack of evidence that does
you in.

"Good case in point: The "automatic" shells that some CTers think were
found at the Tippit murder scene."

And why do we think this? Because two officers on the transcripts say
the suspect is armed with an automatic pistol. Silly us.

"A kook hears that there was some initial, knee-jerk talk about the
gunman possibly having an "automatic" weapon on Tenth Street....and
the kooks latch onto that info and refuse to ever let go of it, even
when it's been PROVEN to them that the initial knee-jerk statements
re. an "automatic" were just that--initial knee-jerk (and incorrect)
statements. (The first such statement coming from a WITNESS, btw--Ted
Callaway--not a policeman.)"

You are full of it as two officers, one of the Gerald Hill, said it
was an automatic weapon. Automatic casings are very different from
revolver casings so a man with his experience it is unheard of for him
to be so wrong.

"But LNers can go BEYOND the initial knee-jerk statements and look at
the whole picture. .....

1.) If an "automatic" was used to kill Tippit, then NO GUNMAN (no
matter WHO he was) would have been seen physically shaking bullet
shells out of a gun just after Tippit was shot. The "shaking of
shells" indicates right there that a REVOLVER, not an automatic, was
the Tippit murder weapon. And there's no evidence at all to indicate
that more than just a SINGLE gun was used on Tenth Street on
11/22/63."

Agreed, so why would any killer shake out there empty casing to leave
behind evidence? The shaking was done for emphasis so people would
see it and remember it and take the thought off of an automatic
actually being used. Plus, the framers knew LHO was going to be found
with a revolver, so they were setting the stage.

"2.) MANY witnesses IDed (positively) Lee Harvey Oswald as the ONE and
only killer of Officer Tippit (or as the ONE and only man who fled the
scene of the crime just after the murder)."

You are so full of it, only one, Markham, gave a very shaky ID, how
about pasting all of these positive IDs for us?

"3.) Oswald, when arrested, had on him a REVOLVER, not an automatic."

This is backwards logic. So he was found with a revolver so the
killer had to use a revolver, despite you never proving the killer was
LHO? Think outside the box, you have NO proof it was LHO so it had to
be someone else with an automatic pistol.

"4.) The revolver taken off of Oswald just half-an-hour after Tippit
was killed was determined by multiple firearms experts for the FBI and
an independent expert from Illinois (Joseph Nicol) to be the weapon
that was used to kill Officer Tippit (based on the four spent shell
casings, which were all linked to Oswald's gun, and also based, in
part, on Mr. Nicol's independent examination of the bullets in J.D.
Tippit's body, an examination that revealed--in Nicol's personal
opinion--that one of the four bullets recovered from Tippit's body
could be positively matched to Oswald's revolver "to the exclusion")."

This is more malarky. The bullets extracted from JDT could NOT be
tied to LHO's .38 special and all bullets fired from it by the FBI
could NOT be matched to it as the work on the barrell made this ID'ing
impossible. The combination of types of ammo was off and
DeMohrenschildt noted in his diary LHO owned a BARETTA pistol, how
come? The other thing that has always bothered me is there is NO
evidence of him purchasing any ammo for the rifle or the pisol, where
did he get it as stores do not sell it like bulk candy (you have to
buy a whole box).

"Now, what were you saying about "automatic" shell casings, Mr. Kook?"

Exactly what I have always said, those found at the scene and intialed
by Poe and Barnes are NOT the same ones presented by the WC.
Furthermore, all who have seen the shells in the National Archives say
they match a .38, NOT a .38 special.

> >>> "Of course he {Lyndon Johnson} was stacking the deck." <<<

LOL.

"So Johnson "stacked the deck" with a person (Richard Russell) who
later went on the record with his belief that a conspiracy DID exist
with respect to JFK's death and his DISbelief in the WC's SBT???"

I guess he thought he would play ball, he was wrong as Russel pointed
out all the wrongs the WC did.

"Is that the kind of "stacked deck" that LBJ (who many kooks think was
deeply involved in the proverbial post-Nov. 22 "cover-up", of course)
was putting his trust and faith in? Lovely."

He assumed he could control him, and back in 1964 they thought NO ONE
would question this report so it was not thought of I'm sure.

Instant Replay -- "LOL!"

"Oh, just so you'll know, I like Archibald Bunker (and "The Meathead"
and "The Dingbat") very much.

You, though, Rob, seem more like the "Stretch Cunningham" type to me
(i.e., probably a pretty nice guy, but the ol' elevator doesn't quite
reach the top floor....or even the 6th Floor of the 7-story Depository
Building). ;)"

I love "All in the Family" too because it makes a mockery of both the
extreme wings (right and left) and how unrealistic they can be. My
elevator is fine, believe me, I can think for myself, but you are a
good little Archie who needs a tricky Dick (Nixon) to think for you.

[robcap...@netscape.com]

Source by Richard E. Sprague. Background:

In 1966, Mr. Sprague commenced an intensive program of research into
the photographic evidence associated with the assassination of John
Kennedy. He served a year as photographic expert advisor in the
investigations conducted by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison
and had amassed and analyzed a majority of the known evidence on film
by 1968 when he co-founded the Committee to Investigate
Assassinations. He served with CTIA as an active researcher, board
member and Secretary from 1968 to 1974.

Following numerous radio and television appearances and
extensive lecture tours of the United States and Canada (where slides
and films were used to demonstrate the basic evidence of conspiracy),
he began, in 1974, working toward a Congressional investigation of all
four major political assassinations and the cover-ups and links among
these interrelated events. He was an advisor to Representative Henry
B. Gonzales (D-Texas) on House Resolution 203 which proposed the
appointment of a committee to investigate the circumstances
surrounding the deaths of JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King and the attempt
upon the life of Presidential Candidate George Wallace. He served as a
consultant to Richard A. Sprague and G. Robert Blakey, the first and
second General Counsels of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations and served through the end of the Committee's
existence.

This is what Richard E. Sprague in "The Taking of America 1-2-3",
chapter 5:

Dealey Plaza

"On the day of the assassination four men with rifles,
accompanied by their radio men and several other team members, moved
into Dealey Plaza. Seymour and a radio man entered the TSBD Building
through the **freight entrance** and worked their way to the roof.
Santana and Braden went into the Dal Tex building through the freight
entrance on Houston St. and up a back staircase to the second floor.
Lawrence, Frenchy, Crisman and the tall tramp took up two positions on
the grassy knoll. Lawrence was inside the westernmost cupola after
parking his car in the parking lot behind the knoll. Frenchy, Crisman
and the tall tramp were near the fence. Jim Hicks was in the Adolphus
Hotel a few blocks away, testing the two-way radio communication with
the four radio men, until he proceeded to the Plaza and mingled with a
large crowd (near the corner of Houston and Elm Streets). The umbrella
man stood near the Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm Street accompanied by
his radio man.

The other team members stationed themselves in the crowd (along
Elm Street). After the shots were fired, they circulated through the
crowd in front of the TSBD on Elm Street, on the grassy knoll, and
behind the TSBD Building, identifying themselves as Secret Service
agents and asking witnesses and officials questions to find out
whether the assassins had been detected. There are clear photos of one
of these men. One other man was at the corner of the wall on the
grassy knoll."

[robcap...@netscape.com]

Like it matters, you and Yo are probably the same person anyway.

[YoHarvey]

On Feb 22, 6:17 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:

roflmao, roflmao....stupidty CAUGHT ONCE AGAIN. roflmao, roflmao.
When will you CT's learn?????? There is NO truth in conspiracy. This
is why you fuck up EVERY single time you attempt to post your
ludicrous theories roflmao.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Let me just say up front how flattered I am for all this DVP attention. I'd like to thank the academy." <<<

You do provide a nice service to my growing files. Never before have I
encountered a CTer who kept coming back for more bloody beatings as
often as Rob-Kook continues to do. He's beaten to a pulp on each and
every occasion and keeps coming back to be embarrassed some more.

Amazing indeed.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "You and Yo are probably the same person anyway." <<<

The proverbial CT motto peeks out again -- i.e.,

"NOTHING IS *EVER, EVER* WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE REGARDING THE JFK CASE,
RIGHT DOWN TO PEOPLE IMPERSONATING OTHER PEOPLE FOR NO GOOD REASON
WHATSOEVER ON A USELESS INTERNET SITE KNOWN AS GOOGLE-GROUPS.COM".

Still batting triple-oh, Rob. But keep coming back for those beatings.
I'd miss hitting a home run every single time at bat if you ever left
me.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "This is what Richard E. Sprague in "The Taking of America 1-2-3", chapter 5: "On the day of the assassination four men with rifles, accompanied by their radio men and several other team members, moved into Dealey Plaza. Seymour and a radio man entered the TSBD Building through the **freight entrance** and worked their way to the roof. .... <REMAINDER OF THIS TRIPE IS BEING EXCISED BY D.V.P.> ...." <<<

I need a basket of "LOL" icons for this one!

Kook Rob thinks that Sprague's sheer speculation is KNOWN FACT.
(Naturally Kook Rob would think this way, seeing as how Sprague is
purporting a "pro-CT" scenario, despite the fact that this scenario
has no evidence whatsoever to give it any legs.)

And Rob's next hunk of CTer speculation will be.....?

(Tune in soon to find out the answer. For Rob seems to like to feast
on being pummelled incessantly. Go figure.)

[robcap...@netscape.com]

Amazing indeed."

This statement sums up nicely why you believe in the WC so fully as
you have no contact with CS&L at all. You are one of the most
delusional people I have ever met, you provide no proof or evidence
yet you think you "bloody me to a pulp?"

Amazing indeed.

[robcap...@netscape.com]

You must be a fantasy writer by trade. I guess you penned the
"Supertramp" hit song of 1979 too, "Dreamer" as you are totally
delusional.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "You provide no proof or evidence, yet you think you "bloody me to a pulp?" " <<<

I guess all of those links that I have provided within MANY, many
different posts that lead directly to WC exhibits, WCR pages, and
witness testimony (etc.) must all be a "mirage", huh Robby?

Still @ .000. Your team's manager should have benched you months ago.

[robcap...@netscape.com]

I love how Dave needed to delete his background, especially the part
where he was with the HSCA throughout their tenure. Sure, it was all
speculation. They also used the 1965 report a private detective
agency in NYC did for Jackie O. that told them the four assassins.
You never heard or saw this report because the cowards threatened her
childrens' lives if she went public with it. Seymour by the way was a
LHO look-alike and he went into the TSBD.

[robcap...@netscape.com]

LOL!! Links to WC exhibits, WCR pages and McAdams's site proves
nothing as it is all falsehoods. Amazing he thinks this is real
evidence.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "I love how Dave needed to delete his {Sprague's} background, especially the part where he was with the HSCA throughout their tenure." <<<

Who cares?

DID the HSCA ultimately decide that "four gunmen" were present in DP
on 11/22?

Answer--Of course they didn't.

The HSCA said that Oswald was the ONLY gunman who fired from the TSBD
and was the ONLY shooter who hit any limo victims.

Quite obviously, the HSCA (as a whole) knew that Mr. Sprague's theory
was silly and untrue. Or did Sprague come up with his "four gunmen"
theory only after the HSCA disbanded in January 1979? I really don't
know, and don't really care. Because anybody that says junk like this
is a kook, period (with "Umbrella Man" inserted as a plotter even;
lovely):

"On the day of the assassination four men with rifles,
accompanied by their radio men and several other team members, moved
into Dealey Plaza. Seymour and a radio man entered the TSBD Building

through the freight entrance and worked their way to the roof. Santana

and Braden went into the Dal Tex building through the freight entrance
on Houston St. and up a back staircase to the second floor. Lawrence,
Frenchy, Crisman and the tall tramp took up two positions on the
grassy knoll. Lawrence was inside the westernmost cupola after parking
his car in the parking lot behind the knoll. Frenchy, Crisman
and the tall tramp were near the fence. Jim Hicks was in the Adolphus
Hotel a few blocks away, testing the two-way radio communication with
the four radio men, until he proceeded to the Plaza and mingled with a
large crowd (near the corner of Houston and Elm Streets). The umbrella
man stood near the Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm Street accompanied by
his radio man. The other team members stationed themselves in the
crowd (along Elm Street). After the shots were fired, they circulated
through the crowd in front of the TSBD on Elm Street, on the grassy
knoll, and behind the TSBD Building, identifying themselves as Secret
Service agents and asking witnesses and officials questions to find
out whether the assassins had been detected. There are clear photos of
one of these men. One other man was at the corner of the wall on the
grassy knoll."

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

Current Rob Avg. -- His usual .000.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Links to WC exhibits, WCR pages and McAdams's site proves nothing, as it is all falsehoods. Amazing he thinks this is real evidence." <<<

No evidence is "real" to an ABO kook like Rob Caprio unless it is
obtained out of a KookBook written by a conspiracy-spouting author/
(nutjob).*

* = Except, of course, if an occasional piece of testimony/evidence
from the WCR is deemed to be "pro-conspiracy" in its tone by the kook
examining it. In that case, the WCR is magically changed from "all
falsehoods" (Rob's words) into a truthful document.

Go figure that picking of cherries.

Current Caprio Avg. -- .000. (Sans even a check-swing foul-tip.)

[David Von Pein]

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a268f57cc869ea38

>>> "You need to start showing some proof that I'm a kook..." <<<

I don't need to show any further proof of that particular fact, my
friend. Your idiotic "Anybody But Oswald" type of posts perform that
"He's A Kook" task all by themselves.

I merely add the "K" word constantly (for effect...and emphasis). But
it's obvious, even without my participation.

Oddly, though, Robert C. doesn't seem to realize this fact. Curious.

But, I guess it's kind of like being an alcoholic....they usually
don't realize what they are either. Maybe the same thing applies to
JFK Conspiracy-Loving Morons/Kooks.

>>> "Everything I write is supported by nearly 90% of the population." <<<

LOL #1 for the day.

Robby actually thinks (or seems to think) that "90% of the population"
can "support" (his word, "SUPPORT") his incredibly-stupid "LHO Shot No
One" notions regarding the 1963 murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit.

LOL #2.

In the first place, of course, the "90%" figure continually cited by
Rob and his ilk is drastically over-inflated.

And in the second place, as we all know (except Rob evidently), the
percentage of "well-informed" people re. the evidence in the JFK/JDT
murder cases (when it comes to ANY percentage of Americans who fall
into the "It Was A Conspiracy" category via the polls that have been
conducted on the subject) is extremely low.

Which means, as fellow LNer Bud has correctly pointed out to various
other people on this forum in the past, that anyone who likes to prop
up the high percentage of Americans who believe in some sort of "plot"
or "conspiracy" in the JFK case are propping up the stats of mostly-
ignorant people when it comes to the details and the SUM TOTAL OF
EVIDENCE connected to this case.*

* = Before I get jumped on here by Rob (in case his mind moves in this
direction)....I will also state here that even the poll respondents
who believe in the "Lone Assassin" scenario also probably fall into
the "Not Well-Informed" category, the same as the higher percentage of
"Pro-Conspiracy" respondents in those polls.

But, even so, I have a gut feeling that the 19% of people who (as of
the Nov. 2003 Gallup Poll) believe the Warren Commission got it right
are probably a tad bit better informed on the facts of the case than
are the 75% who believe in a conspiracy (as of the same 2003 poll).

>>> "The speed {of the motorcade}...was key, as he {LHO} chose a window with a HUGE tree in the way, so if the car was traveling at 44 mph as usual, it would have blown right by." <<<

LOL #3.

I'm not entirely sure if the "44 MPH" rule for the minimum speed of a
President's car was in effect as of 11/22/63. But even if it was, it's
a rule that cannot possibly be strictly maintained and followed during
every portion of a particular motorcade.

Can you just envision JFK's heavy stretch limo making the hairpin turn
at Elm & Houston (or ANY turn for that matter!) at 44 MPH or more?!
The car would have probably been on two wheels. (LOL #4.)

Along similar "44 MPH"/Security lines --- Can Rob (or anyone) provide
proof that a strict "MPH" speed restriction had been utilized and
FIRMLY ADHERED TO during ANY previous pre-11/22/63 motorcade drive
involving President Kennedy?

Via several films that exist of JFK's previous motorcades, it's quite
obvious that the car which contained the President was NEVER moving at
a speed which exceeded "44 MPH" in those filmed motorcade excerpts,
including JFK's Inaugural parade through the streets of Washington on
01/20/61.

The "44 MPH" rule is just not a realistic one for the Secret Service.
It's a nice rule/restriction "on paper", but is it a "doable"
restriction all of the time in EVERY motorcade involving an American
President? I kinda doubt it.

>>> "...Police protection being reduced to just four motorcycles and told to stay away from the sides of the limo so the crowd could see the President (wink-wink)." <<<

Stop flirting with me, kook. You're not my type.

As for the motorcycles and JFK's "protection", CTers love to talk
about how the security for JFK was lax on 11/22/63. Maybe those same
CTers ought to search through the many pictures taken of JFK during
the various motorcades that he drove in throughout his nearly 3 years
as President.

And while you will find some pictures of the SS agents riding the
bumpers of JFK's limo, like here....

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/Kennedy%20Photo%20Album/JFK_Riding_In_SS-100-X.jpg?t=1203714797

....Many photos can also be located which show JFK's car completely
clear of Secret Service agents (and without any motorcycles riding
right next to the President's car door). Random examples:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/Kennedy%20Photo%20Album/Inauguration_Day_1961_2.jpg?t=1203709747

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/Kennedy%20Photo%20Album/JFK_In_Albuquerque_12-7-62.jpg?t=1203715027

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/Kennedy%20Photo%20Album/JFK_In_Tampa_11-18-63_8.jpg?t=1203715213

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/51642665.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=9778EB765F56930CA3246F88177F351D284831B75F48EF45

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Hawaii2.jpg

So, quite obviously, the security procedures on 11/22/63 were NOT
UNLIKE SECURITY PROCEDURES THAT EXISTED IN PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL
MOTORCADES.

This type of "JFK SHOULD HAVE HAD MORE PROTECTION" argument reminds me
of two other similar type of arguments that are often propped up by
conspiracy theorists as "proof" that something "shady" or
"conspiratorial" was occurring with respect to JFK's murder:

1.) The fact that the Dallas Police Department did not transcribe or
record any of Lee Harvey Oswald's twelve hours of interrogations after
he was arrested.

It might seem a little odd for the words of accused double-murderer
Oswald to have not been officially transcribed in some manner. But
what I think CTers need to do to take this argument any further would
be to establish as FACT that the DPD (or the FBI or the USSS, for that
matter) had a policy in place of transcribing and/or tape recording
the statements made by a suspect while in police custody.

If no example can be found of the DPD (or FBI, etc.) ever having
recorded the words of a prisoner/suspect prior to 11/22/63, then WHY
WOULD ANYBODY EXPECT THE DPD OR FBI TO CHANGE THEIR HABIT OF *NOT*
RECORDING A SUSPECT'S STATEMENTS when November 22 rolled around?

"No, sir; I don't have a tape recorder. We need one, if we had
one at this time we could have handled these conversations far
better." -- J.W. FRITZ

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm

-And:-

2.) Earlene Roberts' testimony about a police car stopping in front of
the roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff and honking
its horn while Lee Oswald was inside his room.

This supposed "horn-honking" incident is often used by CTers to try
and show that something shady and conspiratorial was going on
involving the horn-honking cop(s) and Lee Harvey Oswald on November
22nd.

But the CTers who like to use this argument almost always forget the
FACT that it was not UNCOMMON at all for that EXACT same type of
activity (i.e., a police car stops in front of Roberts' house on
Beckley and honks its horn) to occur PRIOR TO THE DAY OF THE
PRESIDENT'S ASSASSINATION.

Roberts testified that officers would occasionally stop in front of
the roominghouse and tap the horn lightly (just like what Roberts said
occurred on 11/22).

If 11/22 had been the ONLY instance reported by Earlene Roberts of the
horn-honking police car, then perhaps CTers might have a better
argument in the "Something Seems Shady Here" department.

But since that EXACT same occurrence had transpired prior to the date
of the assassination, in the very same way Roberts said it happened on
November 22, it seems to me to be pretty much a non-issue altogether.

"It {a Dallas police car} stopped directly in front of my house
and it just 'tip-tip' and that's the way Officer Alexander and Charles
Burnley would do when they stopped." -- EARLENE ROBERTS

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/robertse.htm

>>> ..."And the President being gracious enough to ride to his death exactly at lunch time for the workers of the TSBD, so no one would be {on} the upper floors for the most part. Boy, that does make perfect sense." <<<

LOL #5.

Spoken by the kook as if President Kennedy HIMSELF decided on the
exact time he would drive by the Texas School Book Depository on
November 22.

LOL #6!

And: Seeing as how the President's main speech in Dallas on 11/22 was
scheduled to be a LUNCHtime speech, it seems likely that the President
would most likely drive through Dealey Plaza at approximately
LUNCHtime.

But maybe we should utilize some of Robby's logic here. Perhaps the
Secret Service should have taken the extra precaution of driving JFK
to the Trade Mart luncheon at DAWN on November 22nd, i.e., before
anybody showed up for work in the TSBD.

That would have made for a pretty sparse crowd along the motorcade
route, of course. But to be on the safe side, the SS should have taken
JFK to the Trade Mart when the rooster crowed...don't ya think Rob?

BTW, as an aside to this "lunchtime" issue (and extending to the
additional "luck" for Oswald of having JFK drive by the Depository on
a workday, instead of a weekend day), I've offered up some more of my
thoughts on those "luck" factors in the previously-penned articles
linked below:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/64195df0086af9b4

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/d08aceecc89689c6

>>> "Again, how incredibly luck for a non-driving assassin to have the President come to him with hardly any protection and at very SLOW speeds, huh? Luckiest assassin in history of mankind." <<<

Yes, Oswald was very lucky indeed on November 22. He was lucky when
the President came right by the building (very slowly). He was lucky
enough to be employed in the building. He was lucky enough to own a
rifle that was capable of killing the President. And he was lucky
enough to have had enough Marine training in firearms to be skilled
enough to be able to hit the President and kill him with one or more
of the shots he fired that day.

Yes, Oswald was one "lucky" SOB on November 22nd. I've always said
that, in fact (scroll about 75% of the way down this webpage):

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4b8dae7b150da043?lnk=st&q=damn+lucky+one+day+in+late+1963+when+he+happened+to+find+himself+alone+on+the+6th+Floor+of+the+Texas+School+Book+Depository+Building+at+just+the+right+moment+in+time#88c741da3120ddce

But....so what?

How does his overall "luck" change the "OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY" evidence
in the case at all?

CTers think that all of this "luck" was pre-arranged by other people
who wanted the President dead, right Robby?

Good luck proving that ANY of the items on Oswald's "lucky" list were
manufactured by any non-Oswald individuals. You'll need a truckload of
"luck" yourself in proving anything like that, because there is no
proof that Oswald was anything than what he appeared to be -- i.e.,
one lucky Presidential assassin who happened to find him all alone on
the 6th Floor with his own rifle in his hands at 12:30 when JFK rode
past the TSBD.

>>> "...The police would determine in a few minutes the shots came from his {LHO's} workplace, and NOwhere else, in a plaza that was equivalent to a [sic] echo chamber. Sure, that makes a bunch of sense." <<<

It makes sense to a sensible person. Especially when considering how
the THREE SHOTS that the huge majority of witnesses said they heard
line up perfectly, numbers-wise, with the number of bullet shells
(THREE) found in that workplace of Oswald's.

>>> "Yeah, how lucky that the President came to him out of all the places in Dallas, huh? If only Connally and others in on the assassination would have left the luncheon at the Women's club instead." <<<

Time for LOL #7. So now the kook seems to be asserting (at least via
the "and others" verbiage utilized above) that John Connally was "in
on the assassination".

Other kooks have pointed an accusing finger of guilt at John B.
Connally Jr. too. And, of course, such an accusation is complete crap.
For Connally, if involved in any plot to kill JFK in Dallas, was a man
who KNEW he'd be pretty much directly in the line of fire as a result
of sitting in front of the intended target in the Presidential
limousine. And, of course, as things turned out, Mr. Connally WAS,
indeed, very nearly killed himself in Dealey Plaza.

And yet I've heard several CTers offer up their opinions that John
Connally was a key "conspirator" in a plot to kill President Kennedy.
Just ridiculous beyond all belief.

LOL replay -- #8 of the day (just for those keeping a scorecard).

REPLAY:

>>> "If only Connally and others in on the assassination would have left the luncheon at the Women's club instead." <<<

If the Women's Club had been selected as the luncheon site, it's very
likely that JFK would have lived to see the dawn of November 23, 1963.

Or, perhaps the "CONNALLY WAS PART OF THE PLOT TOO" kooks would prefer
to believe that if the luncheon site had been someplace other than the
Trade Mart, Governor Connally HIMSELF would have packed a rod during
the motorcade and would have rubbed out the President, in lieu of the
active participation of a Depository sniper or a Grassy Knoll gunman.

What about it, Robby? You can surely find some make-believe evidence
in your bag of unsupportable CT tricks in order to put a gun in
Connally's hands on November 22nd, right?

After all, a good "ABO" kook never lets the real evidence (and the
laughable nature of a particular theory) get in his way of throwing
such a theory on the CT table for consideration. Right? (Right.)

>>> " {Lee Harvey Oswald} Wasn't suicidal? Since when? You have him leaving shells, poorly hiding the rifle (which wasn't his by the way) {yes, it was; but, being a kook, you're forced to think otherwise}, leaving his wallet at the JDT scene {very unlikely}, leaving more shells, getting on a bus that was heading back the way he just walked...and you say he wasn't suicidal?" <<<

If Lee Oswald had been suicidal on 11/22/63, the police would have
found him lying in a pool of his own blood in the Sniper's Nest.

And it's obvious that he had a desire to NOT GET CAUGHT when he shot
J.D. Tippit four times at nearly point-blank range on Tenth Street.

And it's also obvious that Lee wasn't in a mood to go to jail (or to
bite the dust) when he was confronted by Officer McDonald in the Texas
Theater either....seeing as how he pulled his gun on McDonald and
attempted to use it on the policemen that were surrounding him. (Or
was Oswald merely reaching for the revolver in his waistband in order
to take it out for "Show & Tell" purposes, with no intention of
pulling the trigger of the gun?)

Oswald left a popcorn trail behind him, yes. But he also told us (in
various ways) that he wanted to live to see another day too.

>>> "Every piece of evidence you put forth says he {Oswald} didn't want to get away, but then when arrested he denies it all? Talk about making NO sense at all." <<<

Oswald's escape plan was crappy, yes. I admit that. And always have.
(Who couldn't possibly say otherwise?)

And Oswald leaving behind his literal popcorn trail of evidence wasn't
exactly well-thought-out or wise either. I cannot deny that either.
(Who could?)

But it's also obvious (from the sum total of evidence) that Oswald DID
KILL KENNEDY AND TIPPIT. And it's obvious to me that he was not
particularly anxious to join the world of dead people either.

Oswald's secretive manner about things possibly provides a hint as to
the reason he denied killing the President. He seemed to like to have
secrets. And he liked to be in control of things.

And he no doubt enjoyed "playing" with the DPD and the FBI (whom he
despised, because of the Feds always checking up on him after he
returned from Russia).

In short -- Oswald didn't NEED to confess to the crime. He knew the
evidence trail he left behind would tell the world who the real killer
of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit was -- Lee Harvey Oswald (aka:
A.J. Hidell / D.F. Drittal).

Another thought I've had recently regarding the "popcorn trail of
evidence" (as I like to call it) is this:

It's just possible that Oswald, in a pre-planned manner**,
DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY left behind that trail of physical
evidence that he HAD TO KNOW would convict him ten times over for the
murder of President John F. Kennedy.

** = At least as far as the JFK shooting was concerned; but not
necessarily in the Tippit killing, since he couldn't possibly have PRE-
planned that murder before November 22nd too.

In any event, Lee Harvey Oswald got the attention he desired for
killing the President of the United States. Even by NOT CONFESSING he
got that attention. And he's still getting it today.

>>> "After 44 years you still can't put LHO in the SE 6th floor window at 12:30 p.m. on 11/22/63 with a rifle in his hands." <<<

Sure I can. The evidence performs that task quite nicely. From
Brennan's observations, to Fischer's, to Edwards', to Rifle C2766
being where it was found (the 6th Floor) after the shooting, to the
three shells from that same gun being found in the same place where
Brennan puts Oswald, to LHO's own prints being all over various
objects in that same Sniper's Nest (2 boxes and the empty paper sack),
to Oswald's own guilty-like actions after the assassination, and then
to Oswald's many provable lies that he told after his arrest.

The above SUM TOTAL of evidence (plus other bits and pieces as well)
tell a reasonable person that Lee Oswald was firing rifle bullets out
of a 6th-Floor TSBD window on 11/22/63.

Care to join the ranks of "reasonable people", Rob?

No?

Didn't think so.

Well, at least I made the offer.

Plus:

Only 7% of the population (per a 2003 poll which asked the specific
question about Oswald being a "gunman") sides with you Anybody-But-
Oswald kooks on this topic. 83% of the 1,031 people asked think that
Oz was a gunman. Naturally, you, being a kook, will ignore this
interesting stat:

www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

>>> "So LHO had to be the "workplace assassin", huh? He was ahead of the curve from future Postal workers I guess. EVERY other assassin in history used a knife or hand gun up to this point, but LHO decided to break the mold I guess and make it as hard as possible and hope to get lucky." <<<

Shame on Ozzie for not living up to a kook's expectations on how he
SHOULD have approached the task of assassinating a U.S. President.

Since other assassins used knives and handguns, Robby The Kook thinks
that that is how Oswald HAD to try and kill President Kennedy.

Wow, Rob. That's using your noodle alright, while at the same time
ignoring all of the evidence that says Oswald used his Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle to kill the President from his place of employment.

Good job. Your record is still intact. You're still batting .000,
without even a foul tip to your credit.

>>> "Naive was being nice, we all know what you really are, don't we?" <<<

Yep. A non-kook who actually looks at the hard evidence in the JFK
case and reaches logical conclusions based on that evidence.

Go figure the logic of a non-kook like me, who isn't prone to jumping
on the "ALL THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FAKED" bandwagon. An astounding
mindset, huh?

>>> "JFK, MLK, and RFK to start with?" <<<

None of the killings above were conspiracies, of course. So, you're
still perfect -- not a single base hit in 2007-2008. Good man.

>>> "Lincoln, McKinley and Garfield come to mind in just American history. NO one man wants the President dead so bad he will take the risks necessary to do this; it is always a matter of groups wanting to take control of the process." <<<

Now Robert is really sinking deep into the CT-Kook Pit with the above
hilarious hunk of tripe.

What about John Hinckley, Rob? Who was "behind" his act of shooting
Ronald Reagan in March 1981? (Was Jodie Foster the mastermind of that
one-gunman shooting? Was Hinckley working for the CIA? The Mafia? The
Teamsters? Or maybe angry members of the Screen Actors Guild, who
might have had some sort of beef with Reagan from years earlier?)

Also: Who was "behind" Squeaky Fromme's attempt on Gerald Ford's life
in 1975?

And who was "behind" Sara Jane Moore's attempt on Ford's life, also in
1975?

Did Charlie Manson, from his jail cell, tell Fromme to "rub out Ford"?

Please tell us, oh Great Kook, how the three Ford/Reagan assassination
attempts in 1975 and 1981 were the result of conspiracies?

And if you can't tell us how those three attempts add up to
conspiracy, then I get to reserve the right to come back into this
thread and throw the following verbatim quote of Robby's back into his
kooky face (which I'll do right now anyway, just for fun).

Yes, kids, Rob The Kook (who apparently always types BEFORE he thinks
about what he's typing, actually said the following words on
02/22/2008 AD. (An automatic 45-minute laugh break will be permitted
after re-reading this hunk of idiocy authored by Mr. Caprio.)....

"NO one man wants the President dead so bad he will take the

risks necessary to do this; it is always a matter of groups wanting to

take control of the process."

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

Thank you, Rob, for affording me this additional opportunity of
pounding your wholly-unsupportable and weak-sister conspiracy-flavored
garbage into the ground once more.

For some inexplicable reason, Rob doesn't seem to mind having himself
revealed again and again as the Mega-Kook he so obviously wants
everyone to think he is.

Whether this is merely an "act" on his part, I cannot say. (I never
have been able to figure out the inner workings of a kook. ~sigh~ Oh,
well.)

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

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1FDW1SPYKB354

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

[robcap...@netscape.com]

On Feb 22, 8:37 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I love how Dave needed to delete his {Sprague's} background, especially the part where he was with the HSCA throughout their tenure." <<<
>
> Who cares?
>

"DID the HSCA ultimately decide that "four gunmen" were present in DP
on 11/22?"

It is called a coverup.

"Answer--Of course they didn't."

Exactly, despite all the investigators telling them it was a
conspiracy they ruled it was a "probable" one but only LHO hit
anything, what a bunch of cowards.

> The HSCA said that Oswald was the ONLY gunman who fired from the TSBD
> and was the ONLY shooter who hit any limo victims.
>

"Quite obviously, the HSCA (as a whole) knew that Mr. Sprague's theory
was silly and untrue. Or did Sprague come up with his "four gunmen"
theory only after the HSCA disbanded in January 1979? I really don't
know, and don't really care. Because anybody that says junk like this
is a kook, period (with "Umbrella Man" inserted as a plotter even;
lovely):"

NONE of this was his theory as much of it was gathered by the money
Onasis paid on Jackie O's behalf and those fine, very expensive,
detectives discovered four assassins were involved. As for the
"Umbrella Man" this wasn't theory either:

"The techniques and weapons fall into several classes. First, there
are sophisticated weapons developed by the CIA. An example of this is
the umbrella poison dart gun used in Dealey Plaza to shoot JFK in the
throat. Such a weapon was postulated by Robert Cutler and the author
in mid-1975 as the one that fired the first shot from near the
Stemmons Freeway sign.["The Umbrella Man," R.B. Cutler, & R.E.
Sprague, Gallery Magazine, June, 1978.] This seemed incredulous to
most observers and so wild an idea that the author and Cutler did not
discuss it with many researchers. **Then Mr. Charles Senseney, a CIA
weapon developer at Fort Detrick, Maryland, testified before the
Senate Intelligence Committee in September 1975 and described an
umbrella poison dart gun he had made.** [New York Times, September 19,
1975.] He said it was always used in crowds with the umbrella open,
firing through the webing so it would not attract attention. Since it
was silent, no one in the crowd could hear it and the assassin merely
would fold up the umbrella and saunter away with the crowd. (That is
almost exactly what happened in Dealey Plaza. The first shot had
always seemed to have had a paralytic effect on Kennedy. His fists
were clenched and his head, shoulders and arms seemed to stiffen.
There was a small entrance wound in his neck but no evidence of a
bullet path through his neck and no bullet was ever recovered that
matched that small size.)

Senseney testified that his Special Operations Division at Fort
Detrick had received assignments from the CIA to develop exotic
weaponry. One of the weapons was a hand-held dart gun that could shoot
a poison dart into a guard dog to put it out of action for several
hours. The dart and the poison left no trace so that examination would
not reveal that the dogs had been put out of action. The CIA ordered
about 50 of these weapons and used them operationally. Senseney said
that the darts could have been used to kill human beings and he could
not rule out the possibility that this had been done by the CIA. He
said he had developed a dart-launching device that looked like an
umbrella.

A special type of poison developed induces a heart attack and
leaves no trace of any external influence unless an autopsy is
conducted to check for this particular poison. The CIA revealed this
poison in various accounts in the early 1970s."

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Despite all the investigators telling them it was a conspiracy they ruled it was a "probable" one but only LHO hit anything, what a bunch of cowards. .... NONE of this was his theory as much of it was gathered by the money Onasis paid on Jackie O's behalf and those fine, very expensive, detectives discovered four assassins were involved. As for the "Umbrella Man" this wasn't theory either...<USUAL C.T. TRIPE CUT OUT>..." <<<

Spare me. Please. I just ate.

Rob doesn't even take a bat up to the plate anymore. He is content to
strike out every time up by watching the three strikes inevitably zoom
past him.

What a kook. And proud of being one too evidently. Go figure.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "You make mistakes all the time, as you said the SBT was not vital to the LN case, remember?" <<<

Nope. I sure don't. In fact, I've always maintained just the opposite
-- i.e., I've always said the SBT is positively required in order to
have Oswald acting alone. And I still stick by that.

Please provide the quote from me saying "the SBT was not vital to the
LN case". You won't find such a DVP post, because I've never written
one like that.

What you're probably skewing & mangling is this post (below) that I
wrote on a similar subject concerning the WC and the way CTers like to
think that the WC was hamstrung and forced at all costs to promote
some kind of false SBT because of the Tague wounding, which they were
not. But this is totally different from MY thinking re. the necessity
of the SBT:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/37f3d8b97790b9e4

>>> "You recently said LHO fired 4 shots." <<<

Now you're just being a Super-Idiot (or an outright liar, I'm not sure
which).

I have never ever said that LHO "fired 4 shots". Never happened.
Oswald fired three shots at JFK, and I've never once wavered on my
belief regarding this fact.

Please provide the quote from me saying "LHO fired 4 shots". You won't
find such a DVP post, because I've never written one like that.

I have said that it's my opinion that the number of shots LHO fired at
Tippit on 10th St. might not be only 4. He might have very well fired
5 shots at Tippit, with one of the 5 missing the officer.

But I have never ONCE even hinted that Oswald "fired 4 shots" at
President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza. And you're nuts if you think I ever
did say such a thing.

Rob Stats: Still @ .000.

[YoHarvey]

On Feb 22, 9:18 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

Jesus/Robcap? You're beaten AGAIN. Accept it. Accept your
shortcomings. You do no research. You accept ANY and ALL conspiracy
theories....and then you do the dumbest thing of all. Even when
beaten into the ground, you attempt to fight back with NOTHING. Admit
your loss, move on and get a fucking life.

[aeffects]

running your sorry ass all over town isn't he? LMFAO.... Whose the
fuck-up, toots-e-roll? ROTFLMFAO! You're paying the price for
defaulting on those student loans, fuck-up!

[aeffects]

On Feb 22, 6:14 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Despite all the investigators telling them it was a conspiracy they ruled it was a "probable" one but only LHO hit anything, what a bunch of cowards. .... NONE of this was his theory as much of it was gathered by the money Onasis paid on Jackie O's behalf and those fine, very expensive, detectives discovered four assassins were involved. As for the "Umbrella Man" this wasn't theory either...<USUAL C.T. TRIPE CUT OUT>..." <<<
>
> Spare me. Please. I just ate.

spare you what? Hey, did you ever get that daBugliosi commission
check, yet? Or, did YOU have to pay HIM for your services (which I
think more-the-likely)

> Rob doesn't even take a bat up to the plate anymore. He is content to
> strike out every time up by watching the three strikes inevitably zoom
> past him.

you know anything about baseball, Dave? Tell the truth now son, or
else I'll fill the crowd in.... talk about "Lone Nut Kooks"

[David Von Pein]

www.amazon.com/review/R3AA0Q4J7OEFWG

[Gil Jesus]

> On Feb 20, 6:16�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>

> "And in 2784, do you think that all of the more than 12 witnesses that
> fingered Lee Oswald as being the lone person involved in J.D. Tippit's
> murder will somehow ALL be discredited to the point where Oswald's
> innocence in that crime is assured?"

It's already begun, professor. Watch it and weep.

Two of YOUR Oswald-did-it witnesses describing the Tippit shooter and
how he escaped :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjiOolyy_0I

[robcap...@netscape.com]

On Feb 22, 9:18 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "You make mistakes all the time, as you said the SBT was not vital to the LN case, remember?" <<<

"Nope. I sure don't. In fact, I've always maintained just the opposite
-- i.e., I've always said the SBT is positively required in order to
have Oswald acting alone. And I still stick by that.

Please provide the quote from me saying "the SBT was not vital to the
LN case". You won't find such a DVP post, because I've never written
one like that."

It is NOT that important to me to go digging a month or two back for
this quote, but you said it, I remember. I even kidded about calling
the head of the "Troll" program at the DOJ to complain that our tax
money was being wasted as you made a huge gaffe. You even admitted to
making a mistake, and now of course you deny it. I'm not surprised,
but there is nothing in it for me to show you are dishonest as you
prove that every day with your inaccurate posts.

"What you're probably skewing & mangling is this post (below) that I
wrote on a similar subject concerning the WC and the way CTers like to
think that the WC was hamstrung and forced at all costs to promote
some kind of false SBT because of the Tague wounding, which they were
not. But this is totally different from MY thinking re. the necessity
of the SBT:"

Perhaps, but I remember calling you on it and making a joke about
it.

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/37f3d8b97790b9e4
>
> >>> "You recently said LHO fired 4 shots." <<<

"Now you're just being a Super-Idiot (or an outright liar, I'm not
sure which)."

No, I'm not as you did say this in a post a few weeks ago. I looked
and looked but couldn't find the exact one, but again, I remember
kidding with you that you were seeing the light finally. I don't need
to put words in your mouth as the evidence is on my side.

"I have never ever said that LHO "fired 4 shots". Never happened.
Oswald fired three shots at JFK, and I've never once wavered on my
belief regarding this fact."

You did, and I was very surprised to read it, but I don't remember
which string it was in. We were covering about three different ones
at the time. I wouldn't fib about this as it is not my style, and as
I said, the evidence is on my side.

"Please provide the quote from me saying "LHO fired 4 shots". You
won't find such a DVP post, because I've never written one like that."

You did, but I couldn't find it. It was about two weeks ago.

"I have said that it's my opinion that the number of shots LHO fired
at Tippit on 10th St. might not be only 4. He might have very well
fired 5 shots at Tippit, with one of the 5 missing the officer."

I have read only four were fired.

"But I have never ONCE even hinted that Oswald "fired 4 shots" at
President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza. And you're nuts if you think I ever
did say such a thing."

You did, I'd swear on a bible about it, but it doesn't matter as you
probably made a mistake as this happens to all of us. Besides, this
is the least of your problems, you have NO proof or evidence on your
side of the ledger.