Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Throw out the NAA...throw out ALL witness testimony.....LHO IS STILL GUILTY AS HELL!!!!

9 views
Skip to first unread message

YoHarvey

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 1:39:38 PM12/22/07
to
Logic and the Killing

Of John Kennedy

By Gary Sumner (c)2002

There is not the slightest chance on earth that a conspiracy was
involved in the assassination of President John Kennedy.

While such a bold statement may shock and infuriate true believers in
the Kennedy conspiracy, I intend to support it with what I believe is
a new approach: an appeal to reason. (I believe it's a new approach,
but considering that more than 2,000 books and God knows how many
articles have been written on the assassination, I can't possibly know
that for sure.)

Anyone acquainted with the real evidence in the case knows that it all
points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. Beyond question, he
shot Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository
as the presidential motorcade moved down Elm Street below him. And he
was the only shooter. However, I'm not going to deal with evidence in
this analysis. The evidence is there, it is overwhelming, and it has
already been massively written up. That hasn't prevented unscrupulous
(or misguided) writers and at least one movie maker from trying to
convince people that Kennedy's death was the result of a mysterious
conspiracy. Probably more nonsense has been written about the Kennedy
assassination in the past 40 years than on any other subject.

There is something as important as evidence--as long as it is not
contradicted by it--and that is reason. Was there a group of men who
planned and carried out the murder? (Excuse me, ladies, I don't think
any women would have been involved in those days.) By following out
certain logical processes, we should be able to determine the
likelihood of that. Don't underestimate reason. It can be a powerful
tool in uncovering the truth. Evidence is certainly vital and in some
situations can make a conclusive case all by itself. But evidence can
also be manufactured, distorted and misinterpreted--which it certainly
has been in the Kennedy case--while reason is pure. It's right there in
front of us and it can't be faked or twisted.

At the outset let's be clear that there is a large difference between
a lone assassin and a group of conspirators. The lone killer will
generally have an irrational motive that appeals only to him. John W.
Hinckley Jr. shot President Reagan in 1981 with the bizarre notion
that actress Jody Foster would admire him and even fall in love with
him because of it.(1) Arthur Bremer shot presidential candidate
George Wallace in 1972 to make a name for himself and also because he
thought it would be a riotously fun thing to do.(2) (Wallace was
permanently paralyzed from the waist down.) Sirhan Sirhan, a
Palestinian immigrant, fatally shot Sen. Robert Kennedy in 1968 in a
Los Angeles hotel because of the senator's backing of Israel in its
conflicts with its Arab neighbors.(3) Oswald, who was himself shot to
death two days after the Kennedy assassination, never explained his
motive, but it's known that he was a communist who was filled with
hatred of the United States and who had defected temporarily to the
Soviet Union. He was also an antisocial loner in a bad marriage and a
dead-end job who had nothing to lose.

Each of these assassins had his own twisted motive that would appeal
only to him. As Jim Bishop, author of The Day Kennedy Was Shot,
observed, "A history of assassins is a glossary of persons sick and
obsessed."

Nature of Conspiracies

But for a group of conspirators to come together to plot the death of
the president, there must be a rational motive, however evil and
immoral. The president's death must result in some clear-cut,
practical benefit to all the members of the group. And the benefit
must be so great, the motive so powerful, that the conspirators are
willing to risk everything--imprisonment, death, disgrace, loss of
career and family--to reach their goal. These mysterious men in our
hypothetical conspiracy had to know that the odds were heavily against
them. In Lincoln's day, presidential assassination was easy. But since
at least the middle of the Twentieth Century, it has been a task of
the most extreme difficulty. Getting away with it is probably
impossible. Men intelligent and capable enough to plan and carry out
an assassination would be aware of the odds against them. What would
drive them to undertake a mission that would almost certainly fail and
bring them to ruin? And whatever benefits they thought they would
obtain, wasn't there some simpler, less risky path to the same goal?
Did they really have to kill the president? These questions would
apply as much to foreign conspirators acting for a government as to
domestic ones.

We could try to discover the motive by asking "cui bono," who
benefited from the murder. You could say that Vice President Lyndon
Johnson benefited because Kennedy's death vaulted him into the
presidency. And there have been suggestions that, indeed, Johnson was
the mastermind who plotted the assassination.

Let's deal with that allegation. The mere fact that a man is in the
office of vice president when a president is assassinated hardly
constitutes evidence that he was involved in the killing. The last
president to be assassinated before Kennedy was William McKinley, in
1901. (Shot by another nutcase, an anarchist named Leon Czolgosz.)(4)
McKinley's vice president, Theodore Roosevelt, succeeded to the
presidency. As far as I know, nobody has suggested that Roosevelt was
involved in the murder. And as for Johnson, was he so power crazed
that he couldn't wait for the election of 1968, when he might well
have become president in his own right? The idea is supported by
neither evidence nor reason.

But for the sake of argument, let's pursue it briefly. Any plot
masterminded by LBJ would have required the collusion of a great many
people. He couldn't have pulled it off by himself or even with a
handful of loyal associates. Some of Kennedy's closest advisers, in
fact, would have to have been involved in the plot. Kennedy's entire
trip, including the motorcade route through Dallas, would have to have
been arranged so as to get the President in the gunman's crosshairs.

At this point the whole idea of a Lyndon Johnson conspiracy collapses.
The theory that Johnson was part of some deep-cover network including
some of Kennedy's own people who manipulated the president into going
to Dallas, where their assassin waited, is so silly that only a true
paranoiac could believe it. If there was massive evidence to support
it, of course we would have to accept it--but there isn't any.

Motives and Men

Who are the other suspects that have been suggested by various
theorists as forming the deadly conspiracy? The FBI, the CIA, the
Secret Service, the U.S. military, the Mafia, anti-Castro Cubans,
Jews, the "Communist Conspiracy," Big Oil men, the Dallas police, and
some combination of these. One writer even claimed that TV newsmen Dan
Rather and Robert MacNeil were involved.(5) It's hard to imagine what
benefit the individual members of these groups thought they would
realize from attempting such an audacious undertaking as the
assassination of the President of the United States. They had to be
aware that the odds against them were close to prohibitive. Yet they
went ahead--and (if there really was a conspiracy) succeeded beyond
their imaginings.

The absence of a believable rational motive that couldn't be satisfied
any other way than killing the president is itself a powerful argument
against the existence of a conspiracy. Various motives have been
suggested, and I have no intention of going down the list and refuting
them one by one. Some are fantastic and some merely mundane, but none
are believable. None describe a goal that couldn't have been achieved
in far easier and less risky ways than killing a president.

And think about the men who planned this presidential assassination,
prevented any leaks, executed it to perfection, and escaped. They
would have to be highly intelligent, knowledgeable men of the world,
men who know how to kill, who know guns and explosives, who know
military and paramilitary operations, who know law enforcement and how
to evade it. They would be the cream, the smartest of the smart, the
toughest of the tough. Before proceeding, they would devise an
airtight plan that would ensure the success of their operation.

(Incidentally, some theorists hold that Oswald was part of the
conspiracy, but didn't do the actual shooting, or that he did shoot,
along with one or more additional gunman, but that he was set up by
other members of the group to take the fall while they got away. Some
have even argued that Oswald was a patsy, a nice young man who had
nothing to do with the crime.)

A Double Objective

Now let's consider the conspirators' goals, which were twofold. One
was to kill the president--not wound him, not scare him, but kill him.
For whatever reason, they wanted Kennedy dead. The other goal was to
get away with the crime. We assume that this was not a suicide
mission. (After all, unless you count Oswald, the conspirators got
away, didn't they?)

Now, when you set out to kill a president, you don't want to try
something haphazard and hope for the best. What you want is something
close to a foolproof plan that will result in the success of your
mission and your escape. So what plan did these mysterious
conspirators come up with?

Let's start with their choice of weapon, a gun. Is there anything
foolproof about the use of a gun? Hardly. A gun, in fact, is a very
unreliable means of killing a person. Certainly a gun will kill, and
sometimes one quick shot is all it takes. Many people have died that
way. But a gun will kill reliably only when the shooter is in a
controlled situation, has the victim cornered in some way and has the
time to shoot and shoot again until the person is unquestionably
dead.

Otherwise, especially in a public place where the gunman may have a
window of opportunity of only a few seconds, he is likely to miss his
target altogether. There are no statistics on how many people have
been shot at and missed, but the number must be huge. Second, even if
the gunman hits his target, the shot is most likely to be nonlethal.
As far as I have been able to determine, the FBI doesn't keep
statistics comparing the number of people who are wounded by gunshots
with those who are shot fatally. However, all it takes is the daily
reading of a newspaper for several years to teach anyone the truth
that most gunshot victims recover from their wounds.

I think true believers in the Kennedy conspiracy--as opposed to those
who pretend to believe it for the sake of monetary gain--are people who
have had little or no experience with firearms, who have no idea how
difficult and tricky guns are to use in real life, especially at long
range. These people see cowboys and detectives on TV casually dropping
their victims with a single shot at a distance and it looks easy. All
you have to do is pull the trigger and, poof, your victim bites the
dust. You want to kill the president? Sure, just shoot him and he's
gone.

In real life, the thing is somewhat more difficult. Hinckley's
attempted assassination of Reagan perfectly illustrates the difficulty
of killing with a gun, especially in a public place. Actually,
Hinckley was lucky to get as close to the president as he did. Secret
Service agents are well trained to spot a concealed weapon and are
constantly running their eyes over a crowd. But there is always that
chance event that isn't supposed to occur. Hinckley did get close, on
March 30, 1981, when Reagan was walking from the Washington Hilton
Hotel, where he had given a luncheon speech, to his limousine. The
President reached the car, turned, smiled and started to wave to the
crowd.

There was Hinckley's window. It lasted perhaps three seconds.

He jerked out his .22-caliber revolver and began firing explosive
"Detonator" bullets. Presidential press secretary James Brady, Secret
Service agent Timothy McCarthy and Washington police officer Thomas
Delahanty were all wounded--Brady the most seriously--but all survived.
Of the six rounds Hinckley fired, only one hit the President, and that
was a ricochet from the limousine. The bullet ended up in Reagan's
left lung and he was whisked away to George Washington Hospital.
Hinckley was wrestled to the ground and taken off to jail.(6)

The point here is that neither of our conspirators' twin goals--
assassination and escape--was met. Reagan fully recovered from his
wound, was reelected by a landslide in 1984, and at this writing, 21
years after the attack, is still living. And Hinckley, far from
escaping, remains in custody. Of course, he wanted to be caught, or at
least identified. Otherwise he wouldn't have become famous and in a
position to impress Jody Foster.

In fact, it's typical of lone assassins that they don't expect to get
away with their crime. Their motive may be to achieve notoriety, e.g.,
Hinckley and Bremer. Or they may be so fanatically devoted to their
cause that they are willing to trade their life or freedom for the
life of their victim, e.g., Sirhan. That's why lone assassins aren't
bothered by another disadvantage of using a gun--i.e., that the shooter
has to be close to his victim, making escape all but impossible. Even
a high-powered rifle with a telescopic sight requires the shooter to
be close enough to his target that detection of the marksman's
location is certain and escape virtually impossible. So--wherever you
have a lone assassin with an irrational motive for killing a
president, there you can expect the absence of a getaway plan. And
there you have Lee Harvey Oswald.

One more point about guns before we analyze our conspirators' plan: A
moving target, even a slowly moving one, is much harder to hit than a
stationary one. The gunman has to lead the target the exact right
amount so that victim and bullet converge on the same point
simultaneously. Oswald didn't have to concern himself with much, if
any, lead because the presidential limousine would be moving almost
directly away from him as he looked down from the sixth floor of the
school-book depository. (The car may have been trending very slightly
to his right.)

If there were additional gunmen, however, such as the one that has
been claimed to have shot at the oncoming president from the infamous
"grassy knoll," they would have been obliged to calculate lead--
probably a good bit. They would have to have been positioned some
distance to either the side of the street rather than being directly
in front of or behind the president's car. Furthermore, any gunman at
ground level would have faced the difficulty of shooting at precisely
the right moment, to coordinate with the shots from the depository,
while keeping himself concealed from the numerous spectators lining
the motorcade route--an impossible task.

Some authors have theorized that there were assassins in other
buildings as well as on the ground. One writer of a popular book said
there were three shooters, each of whom fired a "volley" at the
limousine.(7) Another claimed that there were nine gunmen.(8)
Imagine it! Nine men out there banging away at the president in full
view of the public and nobody saw anybody but Oswald leaning out the
window of the book depository with a rifle.

To sum up what we've discussed so far. A rational motive for killing
President Kennedy that would produce enormous benefits for a group of
conspirators cannot be found. A gun is an unreliable means of killing
a person. And the use of one requires the shooter to be so close to
his victim that--especially if the victim happens to be president--
escape is all but impossible. (I leave it to the reader to determine
what would be a reliable means of killing a president and getting away
with it. Probably there isn't one.)

The Master Plan

Now let's consider the plot. On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy
was going to be riding through Dallas in a convertible and he would be
visible from about the chest up--a small, moving target, with other
people in the car. Huge crowds would be watching--the Secret Service,
the press, the public, with TV cameras set up along the way. So what
brilliant plan did our conspirators come up with? The plan was to
shoot Kennedy as the motorcade passed by. Oh, of course. That way his
death would be certain and the conspirators would all get away with
it.

Such a plot seems more likely to be concocted by the Three Stooges--
perhaps working with Bozo the Clown--than a coldly intelligent,
knowledgeable group of men. Yet one thing nobody can deny: if there
was a plot, that was it. And on that hard rock all the conspiracy
theories must sink. Nothing else matters. Bullet trajectories, the
number of seconds that elapsed during the shooting, the supposed puff
of smoke from the grassy knoll, the three tramps supposedly running
down the railroad tracks, the fact that Jack Ruby murdered Oswald
"before he could talk." None of it matters. The plot--to fatally shoot
Kennedy in a moving car out there in front of the whole world and get
away with it--is so laughable that nobody with an IQ above the moron
level would believe it would work. Certainly no group of worldly men
would gamble their lives and careers on such a preposterous scheme.

But an individual might try it, if he was a hate-filled loner with
nothing to lose and a practiced marksman who discovered that the
president was going to cruise right by the building where he worked.
No complicated planning would be necessary, no coordination with
others, no concern about somebody with a loose tongue giving away the
plot in advance. All that would be required would be a high-powered
rifle and a reasonably secure place to shoot from. What the hell, fire
off a few rounds at the presidential limousine and see what happens.
You might get lucky and suddenly be transformed from a nobody into the
most prominent personage in the world, the Man Who Killed the
President of the United States.

Perfection Achieved

Now let's apply reason to two additional aspects of the Kennedy
assassination: the perfection of the operation and the unbroken
silence of the killers. According to well-known Murphy's Law, if
anything can go wrong, it will. Imagine all the things that could have
gone wrong in attempting a difficult, dangerous operation such as
killing the President of the United States. Considering the idiotic
nature of the plan, the slightest mishap, the tiniest unforeseen
circumstance, could have brought the operation to ruin. But nothing
went wrong. The killers achieved perfection.

And since then they have successfully resisted the urge to talk about
it. Various authors have postulated anywhere from a couple of dozen
conspirators to several hundred. At this writing the assassination
took place 40 years ago, yet no conspirator has talked. Not one has
gotten drunk and revealed the murder to his wife or mistress, who has
then gone to the authorities or the media. Not one has made a death-
bed confession. Not one has left behind a letter of explanation in his
lawyer's safe to be opened after his death.

Think about it. These mysterious men, many of whom must not even have
known one another before the plot was hatched, got together, planned
and carried out the crime of the ages, in public and on television,
then vanished ghostlike into history. Nobody saw them and they didn't
make any mistakes. None of them ever talked. They committed the
perfect crime, using the stupidest plan imaginable, and got away with
it. (All except poor Oswald, who of course was set up by the others.)
Now, reason may not tell us that such a flawless operation is
impossible, but it does tell us that the odds against it are millions
to one. Reason, in fact, tells us that it never happened.

The principle in logic known as Occam's Razor holds that in choosing
among the possible solutions to a mystery, the simplest one--if it is
in accord with the facts--is most likely to be correct. The simplest
solution to this "mystery"--and in fact there is no mystery--is that Lee
Oswald shot John Kennedy with his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from a
sixth-floor window of the school-book depository and that he acted
alone.

The Judgment of Reason

The contribution I have tried to make to the Kennedy assassination
saga in this essay has been to apply reason to it rather than
quibbling over evidentiary minutiae. Using this technique, I believe I
have made a strong case that there was no conspiracy. The truth of the
following four statements I consider to be certain:

· No believable motive powerful enough to lead a group of
rational men to kill the president can be produced.

· Intelligent, knowledgeable men determined to kill wouldn't
have chosen an unreliable weapon such as a gun.

· Having made that bad choice, they wouldn't have compounded it
by planning to hit a small, moving target.

· They wouldn't have planned to assassinate the president in
full view of a huge crowd, including a television audience, and
expected to get away with it.

The truth of the final two statements, if not certain, I consider to
be of the highest probability:

· The conspirators would have made mistakes, or encountered
unexpected situations, that would have caused their operation to fail,
or at least would have led to their apprehension.

· In all the years that have gone by, at least one of them
would have talked or left behind a confession at death.

This concludes my application of reason to the Kennedy assassination.
I have tried to create a framework of logic showing that, in the
circumstances, a conspiracy could not have been responsible for the
murder. I believe the logic is impeccable and I challenge anyone to
refute it. If you want to refute it, don't start talking about
evidence. What you need to do is explain how a bunch of imbeciles,
operating with the silliest plan on record, could have brought off a
presidential assassination without a hitch and gotten away with it.
Also explain how they were able to make themselves invisible. After
you have pinned down these two points, then you can start telling me
about the evidence.

I know that many people will not be satisfied with logic, no matter
how irrefutable. They have been exposed to so many lies and half-
truths about the assassination that they can be forgiven for believing
vaguely that there must have been a conspiracy. Otherwise, why would
all these accusations keep circulating on the Internet and elsewhere
on an almost daily basis? People who have been subjected to this brain-
washing naturally want certain questions answered. For example:

· Was there a bullet (the "magic bullet") that had to change
directions three or four times to accomplish what was attributed to it
in the assassination?

· Was the well-known photograph of Oswald holding the
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle faked?

· Was Oswald's mini-biography accidentally leaked to the press
before he was even charged with a crime?

· Was Oswald photographed standing in front of the depository
when he was supposed to be up on the sixth floor shooting a rifle out
the window?

· Did a mysterious man finger Oswald for the police in Texas
Theater, then vanish?

· Did Jack Ruby kill Oswald to keep him from talking?

· Was Ruby himself murdered in jail?

· Have numerous men who seemed to have a connection to the
assassination, and might have revealed the conspiracy, died
mysteriously?

The answer to all these questions is NO and I can do no better than to
refer you to the book that proves it, Gerald Posner's masterly Case
Closed. If you want evidence, the real evidence, this is where you
will find it. Other good and true books have been written about the
Kennedy assassination--notably two by David Belin--but one of the great
values of the Posner book is that it was published 31 years after the
murder, in 1993. By then, all the lies, distortions, rumors, errors
and myths had had time to surface and circulate, and Posner demolishes
them all.

Whatever conspiracy theories you hold about the Kennedy assassination,
they will not be able to stand up under Posner's relentless assaults.
Read his book if you dare. Or if you're afraid, hide from it and sneer
at it. If you don't want to read all 499 pages (including the
appendix), go to the index and find the subjects you want to check.
They are all there. Many libraries have the book and all bookstores
can order it.

As much as I admire Posner, I want to make it clear that he did not
influence me in my use of reason to explode the idea of conspiracy.
That idea came to me about a year before Case Closed was published. I
had read a couple of other books, including one of Belin's, and had
done a good deal of thinking about the assassination. I was already of
the opinion that there had been no conspiracy. Then one night in 1992
as I was watching a TV documentary on the 30th anniversary of the
assassination, all the circumstances surrounding it came together to
form a whole in my mind. And out of that whole there rose before me a
clear, pure logic by which I suddenly saw that Kennedy's death was not
the result of a conspiracy and could not have been. The next year Case
Closed was published and I was gratified to see that all the evidence
supported my logic.

The case against Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin is as open and
shut as anything could possibly be. There is simply no reasonable
doubt about it. But there are those who will never accept this truth.
They want there to have been a conspiracy. I admit I felt the same way
when my interest in the assassination was rekindled during a trip to
Dallas in 1975, when I stood in Dealey Plaza and took pictures of the
school-book depository, Elm Street and the grassy knoll. I determined
to read up on the subject when I got back home, and I had visions of
encountering traces of a shadowy, mysterious conspiracy of evil
geniuses who had killed the president and were still lurking out
there. If Oswald did it by himself, that was boring. But if there was
a conspiracy, now that would be fascinating!

However, I finally realized, to my disappointment, that the whole
conspiracy idea was nothing but a fantasy. As for those who are
determined to believe in it, I sympathize with them. But there comes a
time when all little boys and girls must grow up and put away their
conspiracy theories, just as they gave up their bubble gum, comic
books and yo-yos when they were growing up the first time.

Notes

1. Deborah Hart Strober & Gerald S. Strober, Reagan, the Man and His
Presidency, p. 120. Also http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/HBIO.HTM

2. Arthur H. Bremer, An Assassin's Diary.

3. Evan Thomas, Robert Kennedy, His Life, p. 386. Also
http://w.who2.com/sirhansirhan.html

4. Dictionary of American Biography, p. 109

5. www.skolnicksreport.com by Sherman Skolnick This material is hard
to find on the site now, but on 10/9/01 it read, in part: "With flimsy
excuses, several reputedly venal and for-sale reporters were right
there, available in the murder zone, to be later rewarded for false
reports, opening the way for their promotion to highly-lucrative TV
network status, such as Dan Rather, later CBS Network anchor face, and
Robert MacNeil, later PBS co-anchor and co-owner of his own network
program with Jim Lehrer."

6. Lou Cannon, Reagan, pp. 403-404.

7. Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy.

8. Penn Jones, author of four self-published books on the
assassination, cited by Posner, p. 483.

Sources

Belin, David W. November 22, 1963: You Are the Jury. New York:
Quadrangle/The New York Times Books, 1973.

_______. Final Disclosure, New York: Scribner's, 1988.

Bishop, Jim. The Day Kennedy Was Shot. New York: Funk & Wagnalls,
1968.

Bremer, Arthur H. An Assassin's Diary (Introduction by Harding Lemay).
New York: Harper's Magazine Press; published in association with
Harper & Row, 1972, 1973.

Clarke, James W. American Assassins. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1982.

Cannon, Lou. Reagan. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1982.

Dictionary of American Biography

Volume VI

CR 1933, New York

Charles Scribner's Sons

Marrs, Jim. Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy. New York: Carroll
& Graf, 1989, 1990.

Posner, Gerald. Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination
of JFK. New York: Random House, 1993.

Strober, Deborah Hart, and Strober, Gerald S. Reagan, the Man and His
Presidency. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998.

Thomas, Evan. Robert Kennedy, His Life. New York: Simon & Schuster,
2000.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 7:27:25 AM12/23/07
to
Typical scumbag post. No evidence or testimony to support the poster's
case. Only opinion and insults, and even THOSE were cut-and-pasted
from someone else.

Total waste of bandwidth.

Bugliosi would be proud.

Chuck Schuyler

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 8:49:01 AM12/23/07
to

It was an interesting and good post.

You probably didn't read it.

The author takes the angle of solving the case using logic and not
getting lost in the morass of details that are endlessly argued over.

Funny that you call it a typical scumbag post and claim it offers no
evidence or testimony...failing to realize the irony in that you just
did the same thing you claim YoHarvey did.

You 'imply' that John or Nellie Connally shot JFK.

You accuse (oops...better use the word 'imply') a political friend
and ally of the president (or his WIFE) of whipping out a pistol on
Elm St. and firing at the President.

Any proof?

Any evidence/testimony?

You conveniently waited for Nellie's body to turn room temperature
before you started spouting your vile and disgusting slander.

You've got problems. Hours and hours and hours of pirating videos and
posting them on YouTube, all the while uttering your spittle-faced
'implications' that John or Nellie Connally was involved in JFK's
death.

You puff yourself up to be a 'researcher'...what a joke...this is an
excuse for you to avoid looking for a job, right? You and Holmes and
Rossley and Healy are going to 'crack' the JFK assassination
'mystery'.

Tips for Gil:

1.) Clean up your clutter. Sell the junkers in the yard.

2.) Shave.

3.) Find a job.

4.) Do something productive with your life. Kennedy is dead. The right
guy was arrested. Go get a 'clue' about life. Conspiracy isn't around
every corner, and you control your own destiny. Stop listening to
Black Ops Radio and watching reruns of TMWKK.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 9:19:58 AM12/23/07
to
Good article, Yo. I could have sworn I wrote it. Never heard of Mr.
Sumner though, but maybe we were separated at birth or something.

This seems like a good place to re-print this essay again, in light of
the CS&L exhibited in the first post above......

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

"Why Do So Many Conspiracy Theorists Believe In A JFK Assassination
Plot That Could Not Possibly Have Been Successful?":

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7448f602cc9b26e3


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

By David V.P. (c)2006


The question that never seems to go away......

Who assassinated President John F. Kennedy in 1963? .... Was he killed
as the result of a large-scale conspiracy, as depicted in Oliver
Stone's 1991 motion picture? .... Was Lee Harvey Oswald merely an
innocent "Patsy", being manipulated and handled by a group of evil
conspirators? .... Was it just a small conspiracy involving only two
or
three individuals? .... Or did Oswald, all by himself, murder the
President?

One of the most popular theories is that a massive conspiracy took
place in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, resulting in not only the death of
the American President, but also resulting in so many supposed
conspiratorial loose ends that a cover-up team of thousands probably
wouldn't have provided enough manpower to accomplish the burdensome
task of re-arranging all of the various pieces of evidence surrounding
JFK's murder in order to conceal the true facts and bumbling
inadequacies of the harebrained "Patsy Plot" that many a-CTer
advocate.

And yet -- somehow, some way -- that's exactly what a goodly number of
CTers think occurred in 1963. .....

I.E.: Despite the illogic of it all, and despite the massive
roadblocks
in the conspirators' path, somehow ALL of the physical evidence that
was actually being created by all of these OTHER KILLERS who were busy
firing away and pelting President Kennedy with rifle bullets in Dallas
on November 22 (physical evidence such as .... guns, bullets, bullet
fragments, bullet shells, and fingerprints) found a way to ALL get
placed on the plate of only Lee Harvey Oswald.*

* = And people think the parting of the Red Sea was a "miracle". Heck,
the Red Sea trick was nothin' compared to what this ultra-clever gang
of infallible assassination plotters and cover-up operatives pulled
off
in late '63. Perhaps Moses was in Dallas on November 22, helping out
with this JFK mess after THREE OR FOUR different assassins decided to
take aim at JFK, even though the desired end result of this "plot" was
to frame just ONE LONE PATSY in the Book Depository for the murder.
(~LOL~ at the thought of such a Patsy plot actually be dreamed up in
the weeks prior to 11/22/63.)

It seems to me as though a lot of CTers have never met a conspiracy
theory they haven't fallen in love with and accepted with wide-open
arms, no matter how silly it sounds (the "Zapruder Film Hoax"
balderdash being a prime example, which is one of the Crown Jewels of
"Nutty JFK Theories").

My answer, however, to the "Who Shot JFK?" question is a little less
complicated -- Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK and another man (J.D.
Tippit) on 11/22/1963 A.D., in Dallas, Texas, USA. ~Mark VII~

The string of evidence lending credence to Oswald's lone guilt is a
mile-and-a-half long -- particularly with respect to Officer Tippit's
murder, which is a second November 22nd killing that many, many
conspiracy theorists (for some odd reason I've never been able to
figure out at all) seem to think Oswald had nothing to do with. Such
an incorrect notion by CTers only makes me more skeptical about any
other "conclusions" such conspiracists might have reached with respect
to other aspects of the JFK murder investigation as well. Because
Oswald's guilt in Tippit's death couldn't be more obvious, even if Lee
Harvey had been photographed firing the four bullets into the
policeman's body.

And speaking of JFK assassination theories that are deserving of a
large dose of "skepticism" -- I'd like to know what's wrong with
casting a good-sized hunk of doubt upon by far the most-popular and
most widely-accepted-as-fact conspiracy theory in the whole JFK case
--
i.e., the "Multi-Gunmen, One-Patsy, Frontal Head Shot" theory?

Every piece of physical evidence in the case supports the Lone-
Assassin
conclusion arrived at by the Warren Commission and supports Lee Harvey
Oswald's guilt in the two murders LHO was accused of committing.
Evidence such as: guns, bullets, bullet cartridge casings, JFK's
autopsy report, and fingerprints.

And is it truly reasonable to think that ALL of this stuff pointing
only to Oswald's guilt was "faked" by a bunch of conspirators who were
attempting to frame Oswald? I say no, it is not reasonable, especially
if the CTer(s) making the claim of evidence fakery truly believe(s)
that most or all of the bullet evidence was monkeyed-around-with by
local and federal authorities after the assassination.

Because there is no way on this Earth that all of those various Dallas
cops were "planting" evidence within minutes of JFK's murder (and
Tippit's too), as some CTers seem to think. That notion is not only
nutty and lacking any actual proof that it ever happened, it's also a
rather vile and despicable allegation against such DPD and Sheriff's
Office members like: Eugene Boone, James Leavelle, Luke Mooney, M.N.
McDonald, Gerald Hill, Will Fritz, Jesse Curry, Seymour Weitzman, J.C.
Day, Herbert Sawyer, Bob Carroll, Glen King, and dozens of others as
well.

Given the known physical evidence surrounding the Kennedy case -- and
the fact that a large percentage of this evidence was collected by an
organization (the DPD) which had MANY members who were actively
involved in this evidence-gathering process -- Lee Harvey Oswald is as
guilty as sin.**

** = And the Dallas Police Department couldn't have possibly in a
million years have had on its force that Friday in 1963 nothing but
evil, lying, crooked "cover-up agents" who wanted to frame an innocent
person for the murder of two men .... all the while these many, many
officers apparently don't give a damn that the real killers got off
scot-free for the murder of not only the President of the United
States, but also for the murder of one of Dallas' own police officers,
11-year DPD veteran J.D. Tippit. And if there's one thing that cops
hate with a passion, it's a cop killer. To believe that many different
DPD members would deliberately want to let Officer Tippit's "real
killer" just drift off into the sunset, unpunished, is something too
silly to even talk about.

Given the above common-sense knowledge about the DPD, if the very
popular "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy" conspiracy theory isn't worthy of being
skeptical of, then I don't know what would be. And I have yet to
encounter a single CTer who will admit out loud that the crackpot
"Multiple-Shooter Patsy Plot" they have placed their faith in was,
indeed, the wisest and most well-thought-out of all assassination
plans
for this band of Patsy Framers to attempt to carry out in Dealey
Plaza.

It's my firm opinion that NOBODY, no matter how insane they might have
been, would have deliberately placed three, four, or five different
riflemen (and possibly a dart-thrower with a loaded umbrella as well,
who was in full view of tons of witnesses [~"LOL!" break~]) in Dealey
Plaza to shoot President Kennedy and somehow expect to pull off a
perfect "framing" of one single "Patsy" named Oswald.

Such a foolish Patsy Plot would never have been considered for even
one
solitary minute by any group of people who were concocting some sort
of
scheme to rid the world of President John F. Kennedy. Which, in my own
opinion, is the BIGGEST reason of all to know that it never happened
that way on November 22nd, 1963!

Because the ONLY possible way that such a Multiple-Gun, Single-Patsy
pre-planned assassination plot could have been successful is if the
Almighty Himself had a hand in "fixing" every single thing that would
have undoubtedly revealed the conspiracy very quickly afterwards via
such a cuckoo scheme.

There's also this important fact to consider when discussing possible
"evidence tampering" -- If Oswald was framed as a Patsy and if all of
the ballistics evidence had been "planted" and/or "manipulated" by the
authorities in some way to make Oswald look guilty, there would have
to
have been THREE separate law-enforcement agencies involved in
willingly
falsifying evidence in the "Oswald Frame-Up" (and I'm referring to
JUST
the bullet/ballistics evidence alone here).

Why?

Because .... People from three different organizations (two federal
agencies and one local in Dallas) were responsible for collecting the
rifle, the bullets, the bullet fragments, and the bullet shells in the
JFK murder case and placing those items into the official record of
the
case. Those organizations being:

1.) The Dallas Police Department .... which initially found the
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald, as well as
having found and collected the three spent rifle shells (from that
same
Oswald weapon) in the Depository's Sniper's Nest just after the
assassination.

2.) The U.S. Secret Service .... which was the organization that first
handled "Stretcher Bullet CE399" (a bullet that was positively fired
from Oswald's rifle) after it was handed over to the Secret Service by
Parkland Hospital employee Darrell C. Tomlinson on the afternoon of
11/22/63.

3.) The FBI .... which was responsible for investigating JFK's murder
after taking control of the physical evidence in the case from the
DPD.
The evidence that was seized by the FBI shortly after 11/22 included
the Oswald rifle, which means that if the two front-seat bullet
fragments that were initially discovered by the Secret Service on
11/22/63 had been "faked" or "replaced" in some manner to implicate
only Oswald and his weapon, it would have had to have been the FBI who
"faked" these fragments -- because the SS was not in possession of
Oswald's rifle at any point prior to the SS handing over CE567 and
CE569 (the two front-seat limousine bullet fragments) to FBI Agent
Orrin Bartlett. Bartlett then delivered these fragments to FBI Special
Agent Robert A. Frazier at 11:50 PM on the night of November 22, 1963,
in Washington.

Therefore, via the CT-perceived point-of-view of ---> "All Or Most Of
The Authorities Who Came Within A Country Mile Of Any Of The
Assassination Evidence Were All Lying Crooks Who Were Trying Their
Best
To Frame An Innocent Young Man By The Name Of Oswald" (which is a
post-assassination posture that has, indeed, been adopted by several
paranoid assassination researchers) --- if a "Frame The Patsy" plot
actually did occur in 1963 with respect to John Kennedy's death, it
was
an absolutely PERFECTLY-coordinated, multi-organizational cover-up
job,
whose participants in said plot ran the gamut from the DPD, to the
Secret Service, and right on up to the FBI as well.

To think that such a "blanket", across-the-board cover-up and "Oswald
Frame-Up" operation was underway within literally minutes of JFK's
death, and was carried out without a hitch by members of all of the
various entities mentioned previously, is akin to believing in the
tooth fairy. It just simply could not have happened.

And, given the vast amount of physical evidence that would have needed
to be placed into a perfectly-arranged "Lee Harvey Oswald Really Did
This Instead Of These Two Or Three OTHER Assassins Who Were Aiming
Rifles At John Kennedy" basket after the shooting, it's a pretty safe
bet that the following sentence is 100% accurate ---

If the CTers are correct about this "Oswald Was Only A Patsy"
business,
then it must have been an act of God that enabled the success of the
conspirators' plot.

Because nothing short of Divine Intervention could have rescued such
an
inane assassination plan. Nothing.

David Von Pein
February 2006

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 3:23:16 PM12/23/07
to
On Dec 23, 9:19 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Good article, Yo. I could have sworn I wrote it. Never heard of Mr.
> Sumner though, but maybe we were separated at birth or something.
>
> This seems like a good place to re-print this essay again, in light of
> the CS&L exhibited in the first post above......
>
> ==========================================
>
> "Why Do So Many Conspiracy Theorists Believe In A JFK Assassination
> Plot That Could Not Possibly Have Been Successful?":
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7448f602cc9b26e3
>
> ==========================================
>
> By David V.P. (c)2006
>
'The question that never seems to go away......'

...is why does DVP think asserting his opinion a million times will
make LHO guilty when he has no real proof? Let's look, shall we?

"Who assassinated President John F. Kennedy in 1963? .... Was he
killed as the result of a large-scale conspiracy, as depicted in
Oliver Stone's 1991 motion picture? .... Was Lee Harvey Oswald merely
an innocent "Patsy", being manipulated and handled by a group of evil
conspirators? .... Was it just a small conspiracy involving only two
or three individuals? .... Or did Oswald, all by himself, murder the
President?"

Good questions. Let's see how DVP handles them in usual "objective"
fashion.

"One of the most popular theories is that a massive conspiracy took
place in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, resulting in not only the death of
the American President, but also resulting in so many supposed
conspiratorial loose ends that a cover-up team of thousands probably
wouldn't have provided enough manpower to accomplish the burdensome
task of re-arranging all of the various pieces of evidence surrounding
JFK's murder in order to conceal the true facts and bumbling
inadequacies of the harebrained "Patsy Plot" that many a-CTer
advocate."

DVP's lack of knowledge and understanding of how the intelligence
world, and the political world for that matter, works is evident in
his naive look at the world in large, and this case in particular. He
thinks, and all the LNers think, that there was a convention where all
the participants in the conspiracy "got together" to drink, womanize
and plan the assassination. He doesn't get how they handle these
things due to their unwillingness to read anything about covert
operations. What really happens is each piece or part of the
assassination is handled by a person or group, and they DO NOT know
the rest of the plan. It is called compartmentalizing, and it is what
all the official "investigations" did as well. This way each person
or group only knows their part of the big plan, and this has two major
affects on them. Firstly, they only know their tiny part and nothing
else, i.e. who else may be involved. Secondly, they are in a plausible
denial situation, meaning they are motivated to keep their mouths shut
to stay alive, or to protect their part in the big plan. Either way
it is very good at keeping people quiet for a long time.

"And yet -- somehow, some way -- that's exactly what a goodly number
of CTers think occurred in 1963. ....."

DVP also is naive in believing all "plots" go according to plan like
in James Bond movies. There is always slip-ups or mistakes,
especially in large ones, that is why the layer of cover is needed in
terms of the investigation cover-up. Thus the WC served a vital role
along with the FBI, SS, CIA and military intelligence.

"I.E.: Despite the illogic of it all, and despite the massive
roadblocks in the conspirators' path, somehow ALL of the physical
evidence that was actually being created by all of these OTHER KILLERS
who were busy firing away and pelting President Kennedy with rifle
bullets in Dallas on November 22 (physical evidence such as .... guns,
bullets, bullet fragments, bullet shells, and fingerprints) found a
way to ALL get placed on the plate of only Lee Harvey Oswald.*

* = And people think the parting of the Red Sea was a "miracle". Heck,
the Red Sea trick was nothin' compared to what this ultra-clever gang
of infallible assassination plotters and cover-up operatives pulled
off in late '63. Perhaps Moses was in Dallas on November 22, helping
out with this JFK mess after THREE OR FOUR different assassins decided
to take aim at JFK, even though the desired end result of this "plot"
was to frame just ONE LONE PATSY in the Book Depository for the
murder. (~LOL~ at the thought of such a Patsy plot actually be dreamed
up in
the weeks prior to 11/22/63.)"

DVP naivety is showing again folks. He doesn't get when you control
the "investigation" you control all the "evidence" as well, therefore,
if things are turned in, and they were in many cases, that DO NOT
match the pre-conceived outcome they are discarded without any
fanfare. He doesn't get this part. He thinks all investigations have
no shenanigans I guess, it helps him sleep at night. He doesn't get
that heavy-hitters like Hoover (considered top man in crime fighting
in his time), the S.S., CIA and military intelligence had the POWER to
cover all of this is up, he instead thinks this premise is=to aliens
visiting our planet. He is obviously a science fiction reader instead
of a crime fan.


"It seems to me as though a lot of CTers have never met a conspiracy
theory they haven't fallen in love with and accepted with wide-open
arms, no matter how silly it sounds (the "Zapruder Film Hoax"
balderdash being a prime example, which is one of the Crown Jewels of
"Nutty JFK Theories")."

This is of course a gross generalization of all CTers (which most
people are by the way) as we all do not believe in the same scenario,
but what we all do believe in due to being so obvious is this, none of
the official governmental investigations were really that. They were
a blatant attempt to cover-up what happened to JFK, not just to avoid
WWIII as we are told, because many of the people involved didn't care
about this outcome during the Bay of Pigs or the Cuban Missile Crisis
when they tried to force JFK into this scenario, but rather to cover-
up the changing of our political process. It is obvious to anyone
with common sense, the only ones who benefit from a cover-up is the
ones who are guilty, not the rest of us. So the government's
involvment in this cover-up shows some where involved in the crime in
the beginning, and now they are all for their obstruction of justice.

"My answer, however, to the "Who Shot JFK?" question is a little less
complicated -- Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK and another man (J.D.
Tippit) on 11/22/1963 A.D., in Dallas, Texas, USA. ~Mark VII~"

This is a personal assertion and opinion for all you reading who may
not know all the evidence. There is NO proof conclusively linking LHO
to EITHER crime, so he is just saying what he BELIEVES, not what
happened.

"The string of evidence lending credence to Oswald's lone guilt is a
mile-and-a-half long -- particularly with respect to Officer Tippit's
murder, which is a second November 22nd killing that many, many
conspiracy theorists (for some odd reason I've never been able to
figure out at all)  seem to think Oswald had nothing to do with. Such
an incorrect notion by CTers only makes me more skeptical about any
other "conclusions" such conspiracists might have reached with respect
to other aspects of the JFK murder investigation as well. Because
Oswald's guilt in Tippit's death couldn't be more obvious, even if Lee
Harvey had been photographed firing the four bullets into the
policeman's body."

Again, readers, this is all bluster, as there is NO real evidence
showing LHO murdered officer Tippit at all. The bullets removed from
him DID NOT match LHO revolver. The casing found at the scene were
from an AUTOMATIC pistol, not a revolver. A revolver DOES NOT eject
empty shell casings, so if LHO did shoot JDT, and it is obvious he DID
NOT, he would have to open his pistol and DROP the shells on the
ground along with is wallet so the police could find it. Sound
reasonable to you? NO eyewitness with any creidibility could ID LHO as
the shooter, period. There are also many time restrictions showing LHO
could not have covered the ground necessary to do this shooting in the
first place, thus the WC ALTERED the timeline to make it fit, over the
objections of people there.

"And speaking of JFK assassination theories that are deserving of a
large dose of "skepticism" -- I'd like to know what's wrong with
casting a good-sized hunk of doubt upon by far the most-popular and
most widely-accepted-as-fact conspiracy theory in the whole JFK case
-- i.e., the "Multi-Gunmen, One-Patsy, Frontal Head Shot" theory?"

The frontal shot was confirmed by many eyewitnesses in Dealy Plaza,
supported by the acousitical evidence - i.e. the dictabelt recording
of the shooting, and by the HSCA itself in 1979. Due to the amount of
shooting skill needed, NO expert could ever match it, it is common
sense there were more than man rifleman in DP that day. Add in all the
additional casings, bullets and fragments found in various parts of
the plaza, all .30 caliber which is the type of rifle several
witnesses said they saw, and it is very obvious to anyone who is
honest there were more than one shooter. More proof came from Robert
West, Dallas City surveyor, and Charles Brenaman, another surveyor,
that from the angles all of the shots could NOT have come from the
sixth-floor of the TSBD. Numerous studies looking at all the misses
that caused street, curb, sign or manhole damage have shown their
angles indicated they came from other locations (most notably the Dal-
Tex bldg. and the grassy knoll).

"Every piece of physical evidence in the case supports the Lone-
Assassin conclusion arrived at by the Warren Commission and supports
Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the two murders LHO was accused of
committing. Evidence such as: guns, bullets, bullet cartridge casings,
JFK's autopsy report, and fingerprints."

More incorrect information based on LIES of the Warren Report and
later panels and committees. They have NO real proof, and this lead
the HSCA to admit there was a conspiracy in 1979. The official theory
supporters are in a time-warp, as they totally ingnore the findings of
the HSCA committee and the ARRB findings. What is the motivation for
most LHO did it believers, money. Those that back the official theory
(maybe not everyone on a board like this, but the Posners, and
Bugliosis) make way more money suppoting the official LIE, even if
they don't believe it, and in most cases they don't. Case in point,
DVP, he is so verbose to get "material" for his blog, and perhaps he
makes money off this in some way, I don't know, and I don't want to
accuse, but his long post are full of inaccurate material constantly.

"And is it truly reasonable to think that ALL of this stuff pointing
only to Oswald's guilt was "faked" by a bunch of conspirators who were
attempting to frame Oswald? I say no, it is not reasonable, especially
if the CTer(s) making the claim of evidence fakery truly believe(s)
that most or all of the bullet evidence was monkeyed-around-with by
local and federal authorities after the assassination."

The "evidence" being faked came about due to much of it being so
poorly collected and totally lacking any chain of evidence procedure
required by all law enforcement organizations. The LNers like to say
we are crazy when in fact, the official groups did such a poor job
with the evidence that it begs to be called "planted" or "faked." I
urge anyone to start with the official version of the "evidence" and
see how they got it to decide for yourselves.

"Because there is no way on this Earth that all of those various
Dallas cops were "planting" evidence within minutes of JFK's murder
(and Tippit's too), as some CTers seem to think. That notion is not
only nutty and lacking any actual proof that it ever happened, it's
also a rather vile and despicable allegation against such DPD and
Sheriff's Office members like: Eugene Boone, James Leavelle, Luke
Mooney, M.N. McDonald, Gerald Hill, Will Fritz, Jesse Curry, Seymour
Weitzman, J.C.
Day, Herbert Sawyer, Bob Carroll, Glen King, and dozens of others as
well."

Most CTers never said the DPD planted all the evidence, but rather the
shooters and handlers involved in the conspiracy planted the evidence
to be found. So this statement is way off base. Most of these
officers mentioned were very honest in saying what they found was NOT
what was later called the "evidence" by the WC. They were bullied, in
fear of their jobs or worse, to go along with the program. There is
NOT one piece of evidence that shows the people that killed JFK and
JDT were one in the same, NOT one. The WC went along with it to make
LHO look more violent, but the truth is these men were killed by
different killers, and none were LHO. This is not to defend LHO for
any reason, but rather is what the so-called "evidence" and "proof"
says happened.

"Given the known physical evidence surrounding the Kennedy case -- and
the fact that a large percentage of this evidence was collected by an
organization (the DPD) which had MANY members who were actively
involved in this evidence-gathering process -- Lee Harvey Oswald is as
guilty as sin.**

** = And the Dallas Police Department couldn't have possibly in a
million years have had on its force that Friday in 1963 nothing but
evil, lying, crooked "cover-up agents" who wanted to frame an innocent
person for the murder of two men .... all the while these many, many
officers apparently don't give a damn that the real killers got off
scot-free for the murder of not only the President of the United
States, but also for the murder of one of Dallas' own police officers,
11-year DPD veteran J.D. Tippit. And if there's one thing that cops
hate with a passion, it's a cop killer. To believe that many different
DPD members would deliberately want to let Officer Tippit's "real
killer" just drift off into the sunset, unpunished, is something too
silly to even talk about."

Please keep in mind the "case" against LHO was wrapped-up in 48 hours
and the mindset was in place by Sunday (11/25) morning as Katzenbach
(Dept. AG) wrote a memo saying it was imperative to make it look like
LHO was guilty of the killings and that he had NO help whatsoever.
Some investigation, huh? Yes, cop killers are hated, but to say cops
have never been killed by powerful forces is a not being true, and
this was a powerful group, so retribution was out of the question
against them, their goal was to kill LHO in the Texas Theater in
retribution for the alleged shooting of JDT. This would have silenced
LHO before he could spill anything he knew, but they failed, and Ruby
had to do the job instead. The two ironies here are: 1) they
responded in force to LHO not paying a 75 cent ticket price, and based
on a description that matched the PRESIDENT'S killer NOT JDT's killer,
and 2) the one cop said, "Kill the President will you?" when LHO would
not be charged for this crime for many hours (in fact, he was not even
charged with Tippit's killing yet).

"Given the above common-sense knowledge about the DPD, if the very
popular "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy" conspiracy theory isn't worthy of being
skeptical of, then I don't know what would be. And I have yet to
encounter a single CTer who will admit out loud that the crackpot
"Multiple-Shooter Patsy Plot" they have placed their faith in was,
indeed, the wisest and most well-thought-out of all assassination
plans for this band of Patsy Framers to attempt to carry out in Dealey
Plaza."

The DPD had many pending allegations of corruptness, and had the same
reputation for many years, so to act like they were the pillars of law
enforcement is to mislead. Read for yourselves the background of the
DPD, but in all fairness, many did say many things that day that would
not jive with the later official theory. Same things with D.A. Wade,
as he made mention of a Mauser being found several times and a frontal
head shot early on, so to say they were all bad would be unfair. They
just succumbed to the pressure exerted by the higher powers.

"It's my firm opinion that NOBODY, no matter how insane they might
have been, would have deliberately placed three, four, or five
different riflemen (and possibly a dart-thrower with a loaded
umbrella as well, who was in full view of tons of witnesses [~"LOL!"
break~]) in Dealey Plaza to shoot President Kennedy and somehow expect
to pull off a perfect "framing" of one single "Patsy" named Oswald.
Such a foolish Patsy Plot would never have been considered for even
one solitary minute by any group of people who were concocting some
sort of scheme to rid the world of President John F. Kennedy. Which,
in my own opinion, is the BIGGEST reason of all to know that it never
happened that way on November 22nd, 1963!"

Why not? IF you were alive in 1963 then you KNOW it was a different
country as people believed what the official sources told them to be
true without a doubt. Furthermore, they probably did not foresee so
many movie cameras capturing the killing so well either. They
expected limited evidence beyond witnesses (and these are the easiest
to discredit) and they figured it would be accepted and dropped. And
it would have if a few people like Weisberg, Salandria, Meagher,
Thomson, and Lane to name just some did not highlight soon after the
report was released all the discrepancies and lies that were in the
offiical conclusion. Simple things got them interested, Salandria,
for example was a Philadelphia lawyer who knew Arlen Specter (a low
A.D.A. in Philly) and he was not of a high opinion of him, so out of
curousity he read the report and the 26 volumes.

"Because the ONLY possible way that such a Multiple-Gun, Single-Patsy
pre-planned assassination plot could have been successful is if the
Almighty Himself had a hand in "fixing" every single thing that would
have undoubtedly revealed the conspiracy very quickly afterwards via
such a cuckoo scheme."

DVP's naivety is showing again, as he doesn't realize most
assassinations (meaning political in nature) use teams, not one man,
for a better chance of success, and to make it less clear for each
shooter to be certain about them being the one who fired the "kill"
shot.

"There's also this important fact to consider when discussing possible
"evidence tampering" -- If Oswald was framed as a Patsy and if all of
the ballistics evidence had been "planted" and/or "manipulated" by the
authorities in some way to make Oswald look guilty, there would have
to have been THREE separate law-enforcement agencies involved in
willingly falsifying evidence in the "Oswald Frame-Up" (and I'm
referring to JUST the bullet/ballistics evidence alone here). Why?"

He acts like this is so difficult when the heads of each group were
probably on-board, or at least the main man was, Hoover.

Because .... People from three different organizations (two federal
agencies and one local in Dallas) were responsible for collecting the
rifle, the bullets, the bullet fragments, and the bullet shells in the
JFK murder case and placing those items into the official record of
the case. Those organizations being:

"1.) The Dallas Police Department .... which initially found the
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald, as well as
having found and collected the three spent rifle shells (from that
same Oswald weapon) in the Depository's Sniper's Nest just after the
assassination."

No, they initially found a 7.65 Mauser, and several signed affadavits
to this effect, and several others told the media they found a Mauser
too. There is no real evidence showing LHO ordered the rifle, or most
importantly, received the rifle from his PO box when the alias
supposedly used was NOT listed as someone who could receive mail
there. Three spent shells in a perfect row, which is impossible for a
bolt-actioned rifle. Furthermore, it proves nothing as the rifle and
the shells bared NO LHO fingerprints when discovered. They failed in
their basic duty in this case as well, which was to ensure the body
stayed for an autopsy in Texas which was the state law, they allowed
the Secret Service to illegally take the body to Washington.

"2.) The U.S. Secret Service .... which was the organization that
first handled "Stretcher Bullet CE399" (a bullet that was positively
fired from Oswald's rifle) after it was handed over to the Secret
Service by Parkland Hospital employee Darrell C. Tomlinson on the
afternoon of 11/22/63."

This bullet was NOT found for sure on JBC's stretcher, and according
to the findee, was not even the same bullet that he found. In other
words, he could not state the bullet rolled off of JBC's stretcher,
the WC decided for him and said it did, and the bullet was different
in terms of one being a pointed tip and the other a rounded tipped
bullet. The SS is highly suspect as well for their extrememly poor
performance on this day, and it is not out in left field to assume
some of them were involved in at least not providing the normal
protection observed in other motorcades on this trip alone.

"3.) The FBI .... which was responsible for investigating JFK's murder
after taking control of the physical evidence in the case from the
DPD. The evidence that was seized by the FBI shortly after 11/22
included the Oswald rifle, which means that if the two front-seat
bullet fragments that were initially discovered by the Secret Service
on 11/22/63 had been "faked" or "replaced" in some manner to implicate
only Oswald and his weapon, it would have had to have been the FBI who

"faked" these fragments -- because the SS was not in ..."

Hoover admitted many things, despite many feeling he was involved to
the point of not stopping the killing and/or helping to cover-up the
crime. He admitted the bullet found at the hosptial (CE399) was
probably from JFK's stretcher based on two FBI agents with Dr. Humes,
this by itself would destroy the ridiculous SBT, he also admitted the
lead composition of the bullets and fragments were only "similar" not
identical. This is a major admission. He further said in a memo that
the evidence against LHO was very weak at best. He admitted in memos
(since released) how many mistakes his men made in watching LHO and
these could have possibly lead to stopping the killing.

I encourage all readers to find out all of this information for
yourselves and make your own decisions, but I am confident when you
read the Warren Report you too will see how weak it is.

YoHarvey

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 3:56:10 PM12/23/07
to
On Dec 23, 3:23 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:
> More incorrect information based on LIES of ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Typical scumbag post. No evidence or testimony to support the
poster's
case. Only opinion and insults, and even THOSE were cut-and-pasted
from someone else.

Total waste of bandwidth.


Bugliosi would be proud.


Jesus/Robcap's use of the word "scumbag" is getting tiring. He
appears to "enjoy" the word. He uses it in everything he writes.

What he misses, and this is no surprise is the writers up front
statement that he is going to appeal to reason. Reason is NOT
something Jesus or any other intellectually challenged CT
understands. To respond to our resident pathogical liar on OUR LN
newsgroup is a waste of time. Being this is the Christmas season,
I'll just simply say: Jesus? STFU and go clean up your lawn. Your
car parts are rusting.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 4:01:53 PM12/23/07
to
There's no need to highlight the idiocy in Robcap's latest batch of
worthless pro-conspiracy nonsense.....every bit of it is a howl and
worthy of scorn (as per that kook's norm).

But Robby-boy makes sure he gets his own "5-Star" vote in for his
insane posts (like the one above). We wouldn't want a single hunk of
kookshit spewed by this nutcase named Robby to slip by without a self-
stamped "5 star" ranking, now would we?


Re. "the grand plot".....


ANYONE who would think that the Oliver Stone-like "3-Gun, ONE-Patsy"
plan was a GOOD plan to use while attempting to kill a US President in
a busy American city should be introduced to a strait-jacket asap.
Simple as that.


Rob just can't be for real. Because most "real" people have some idea
when they are making total jack-asses out of themselves. That
realization doesn't seem to ever affect Mr. Caprio.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 4:25:47 PM12/23/07
to
On Dec 23, 4:01 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

"There's no need to highlight the idiocy in Robcap's latest batch of
worthless pro-conspiracy nonsense.....every bit of it is a howl and
worthy of scorn (as per that kook's norm)."

This means he can't debate the comments because they are TRUE! He
thinks we like telling them the truth and common sense outlook on the
case thousands of times, kinda like a parent lecturing their misguided
child, I guess. It's gets old for us people like DVP are so dense, but
we hang in there.


"But Robby-boy makes sure he gets his own "5-Star" vote in for his
insane posts (like the one above). We wouldn't want a single hunk of
kookshit spewed by this nutcase named Robby to slip by without a self-
stamped "5 star" ranking, now would we?"

Hey, I'm just doing what your ilk does on a consistent basis, give
themselves 5-star ratings, and at least I discuss the JFK
assassination. They give themselves a 5 for insults and slander.

"Re. 'the grand plot'.....

ANYONE who would think that the Oliver Stone-like '3-Gun, ONE-Patsy'
plan was a GOOD plan to use while attempting to kill a US President in
a busy American city should be introduced to a strait-jacket asap.
Simple as that."

That is your opinion, but you obviously lack any knowledge on how real
assassinations are carried out. They never rely on one man. What are
the odds of three lone-nuts popping up in a five year period and
wiping out the main competition to the war in Vietnam (not to mention
many other things)? You are certifiable if you think this was just a
freak accident.

"Rob just can't be for real. Because most "real" people have some idea
when they are making total jack-asses out of themselves. That
realization doesn't seem to ever affect Mr. Caprio."

Notice readers when you really challenge DVP he always does the same
thing, he attacks the other person, rather than debate the issues. He
had nothing and his "message" only works on the people who don't know
much about this case. Us CTers are here to keep him in line with his
uncorroborated allegations.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 5:05:57 PM12/23/07
to
>>> "Notice, readers, when you really challenge DVP he always does the same thing, he attacks the other person, rather than debate the issues. He had nothing and his "message" only works on the people who don't know much about this case. Us CTers are here to keep him in line with his uncorroborated allegations." <<<


I've debated the evidence with Rob The Kook dozens of times since he
crawled into this room in early October 2007 and he knows it. And I
have every post archived here to prove it.....

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

Just because you don't like the evidence in the case or my factual
answers to your fanciful inquiries and suspicions, that's certainly no
fault of mine....or the evidence.

And the vast majority of the "LHO Is Guilty" evidence is, indeed,
"corroborated" in one way or another. The various pieces of "BULLET
EVIDENCE" being a good example of this --- because I wonder what the
odds would be of ALL of the following ballistics stuff coming together
in the way it did in 1963 (and in THREE different locations!) and yet
have Oswald's MC rifle actually NOT being involved in the
assassination?......


1.) CE399 found in the hospital where the victims were taken.*

2.) Two bullet fragments from Oswald's gun found in the limo where the
victims were shot.*

3.) Three bullet shell casings from Oswald's rifle found beneath the
same window from where an Oswald-like individual was seen physically
firing a rifle at the President.*


* = Notwithstanding, of course, the proverbial "It Was All Planted" CT
argument that inevitably follows any discussion about the above three
items of Oswald-implicating evidence. But that argument is just flat-
out moribund, due to a total lack of substantiation for it -- let
alone the CT-Kooks of the Earth being able to substantiate the
phoniness of ALL THREE of the above ballistics items.


But, as usual, since 24 hours or more have passed since my many posts
that totally trash all of Rob's nonsense, he'll just pretend I haven't
debated any of the issues in the case at all, and he'll continue to
say stupid shit like this verbal gem from December 23rd, 2007.....

"DVP think[s] asserting his opinion a million times will make
LHO guilty when he has no real proof." -- Rabid Robert


And O.J. wasn't a double-murderer either....right Mr. Super-Kook?

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 5:26:50 PM12/23/07
to
On Dec 23, 5:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "Notice, readers, when you really challenge DVP he always does the same thing, he attacks the other person, rather than debate the issues. He had nothing and his "message" only works on the people who don't know much about this case. Us CTers are here to keep him in line with his uncorroborated allegations." <<<

"I've debated the evidence with Rob The Kook dozens of times since he
crawled into this room in early October 2007 and he knows it. And I
have every post archived here to prove it....."

You have, and you have failed to show LHO's guilt.
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>

"Just because you don't like the evidence in the case or my factual
answers to your fanciful inquiries and suspicions, that's certainly no
fault of mine....or the evidence."

Oh, I like the evidence as it shows conspiracy through and through.
NOTHING proves conspiracy better than the WCR and its 26 volumes of
paper weights. It is necessary for all CTers to know this stuff as it
supports our case better than anything else, but not because it is
honest and definite in its assertions, but because it is full of
distortions, ommissions and lies.

"And the vast majority of the "LHO Is Guilty" evidence is, indeed,
"corroborated" in one way or another. The various pieces of "BULLET
EVIDENCE" being a good example of this --- because I wonder what the
odds would be of ALL of the following ballistics stuff coming together
in the way it did in 1963 (and in THREE different locations!) and yet
have Oswald's MC rifle actually NOT being involved in the
assassination?......"

Extremly good since you cannot link the MC or the bullets/fragments to
the victims. Saying a rifle was fired is different from saying a rifle
was USED to kill and/or wound someone. You have NO evidence tying
those discovered items to the victims. Then you have no evidence that
LHO fired the weapon. You're sunk.

"1.) CE399 found in the hospital where the victims were taken.*"

Say you and the WC say, but the man who found it, Tomlinson, says
differently. Shouldn't he know better than the WC who was not there?
He said he found a different type of bullet from the one displayed as
CE399, is he a liar?

"2.) Two bullet fragments from Oswald's gun found in the limo where
the victims were shot.*"

These were found 12-16 hours AFTER the crime, and in the meantime the
car was moved from Dallas to D.C. Anything could have caused them
being there, and when you add the fact they had no blood or tissue
from either victim on them you are left with nothing really.

"3.) Three bullet shell casings from Oswald's rifle found beneath the
same window from where an Oswald-like individual was seen physically
firing a rifle at the President.*"

Oswald-like and Oswald are two different things! NO ONE saw LHO in
the window, in fact, more people saw him on the lower floors of the
TSBD. NO ONE said they saw the rifle being fired as Brennan was
quoted initially as saying he saw a rifle, but it did NOT fire. Only
much later did he lie and add this info. A rile poking out means
nothing if it doesn't fire, as it could have been there for a
distraction to draw attention away from the west window where the real
shooter was.


"* = Notwithstanding, of course, the proverbial "It Was All Planted"
CT argument that inevitably follows any discussion about the above
three items of Oswald-implicating evidence. But that argument is just

flat-out moribund, due to a total lack of substantiation for it -- let


alone the CT-Kooks of the Earth being able to substantiate the
phoniness of ALL THREE of the above ballistics items."

As I said recently in another posts, the WC opened this door up and
made it so easy to assert this issue by their poor report. They made
it very obvious they did not use evidence that did not convict LHO,
therefore, it is a biased opinion, and that is all it is, and not a
true representation of what happened that day. I thinkd there is
plenty of substantiation for it, if you would ever read Weisberg,
Lane, Meagher, and Salandria as these folks basically only use the WCR
and 26 volumes to show what a lie it was. They show brilliantly how
the witnesses were bullied, or distorted to meet the required
outcome. It is all very much COMMON SENSE stuff. Your theory is the
one that is full of fantasy.

"But, as usual, since 24 hours or more have passed since my many posts
that totally trash all of Rob's nonsense, he'll just pretend I haven't
debated any of the issues in the case at all, and he'll continue to
say stupid shit like this verbal gem from December 23rd, 2007....."

Sure, if it makes you feel good to say this, fine, but you have not
trashed me on anything. You have no real proof, just government
theory despite what the real evidence said. You have no conviction so
you should stop acting like you have something we don't. Your case did
not pass the test of a court and jury.

>       "DVP think[s] asserting his opinion a million times will make
> LHO guilty when he has no real proof." -- Rabid Robert

"And O.J. wasn't a double-murderer either....right Mr. Super-Kook?"

Not in the court's opinion he wasn't. We can say we "know" all we
want, but without a conviction he is free and clear on those charges.
This is not the same scenario as LHO never got his right to a trial
and he WAS NOT FOUND GUILTY by a jury, so your example is not the same
thing.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 6:29:25 PM12/23/07
to
>>> "A rifle poking out {of the SN window} means nothing if it doesn't fire, as it could have been there for a distraction to draw attention away from the west window where the real shooter was." <<<

LOL. What a great addition to the "Lone Patsy" plot this was, huh?

I.E.,

The plotters trying to frame poor schnook Oswald decided to stick TWO
rifles out of opposite ends of the TSBD, and they just hoped and
prayed that nobody would notice the rifle that was REALLY firing the
bullets and MAKING ALL THE NOISE (on the WEST end)....right Mr. K?


What a kook you are. And what (double) kooks your retarded patsy-
framing plotters were! They tried to complicate an extremely-easy
assassination with multiple guns all over the place, including (per
Kook Rob) a rifle that was used JUST AS A USELESS PROP on the east end
of the building!

Ya can't beat that for retarded! Not with a stick ya can't beat it.

But at least you've got one other kook who will jump in the sack with
you on the "Prop Rifle" theory -- Donald "ARCE KILLED THE PRESIDENT"
Willis. You'd love his theories...they're every bit as stupid and
retarded as you are.

LOL replay!


>>> "The WC opened this door up and made it so easy to assert this issue by their poor report." <<<

The WC Report is excellent. It's you kooks who are severely messed up.
Simple as that. The WC came to the ONLY possible conclusion they could
have come to.

Did you expect the Warren Commission and its associated staff and
counsel members to act like you CT-favoring retards and totally IGNORE
the huge pile of evidence against Oswald, while they pretended that
some other people were involved in the shooting and/or pretended that
Oswald might have been "set up" to take the lone fall by a team of
stealth-like conspirators prior to November 22?

Maybe some crackerjack CTer who belongs to the "Anybody But Oswald"
club can rewrite the WCR, and call it "The WCR: The Retarded,
Everything-Was-Fake Edition".

>>> "They made it very obvious they did not use evidence that did not convict LHO, therefore, it is a biased opinion, and that is all it is, and not a true representation of what happened that day. I thinkd there is plenty of substantiation for it, if you would ever read Weisberg, Lane, Meagher, and Salandria as these folks basically only use the WCR and 26 volumes to show what a lie it was. They show brilliantly how the witnesses were bullied, or distorted to meet the required outcome. It is all very much COMMON SENSE stuff. Your theory is the one that is full of fantasy." <<<

Your "moron" colors are shining through once more. Because only a
total moron could believe that such a widespread cover-up operation
was being conducted by the WC and its counsel and its staff of lawyers
AND (later) the HSCA (with respect to the ONE PERSON--Oswald--whom the
HSCA said hit the victims with any bullets on Nov. 22).


>>> "You have not trashed me on anything." <<<

Oh, yes....I have. And even you know I have. You just won't admit it,
because you're buried too deep in your ridiculous unsupportable
theories to give common sense and "reasoned thinking" a fighting
chance. A pity. But expected.


>>> "You have no real proof..." <<<


Yeah....only every gun, every bullet, every shell, every print, every
"I'm Guilty" action acted out by Oswald on Nov. 22nd, and every
eyewitness to any killer on Elm Street or Tenth Street.

That's all. Just that stuff.

Must ALL be "fake" (somehow), huh?

~shrug~

>>> "You have no conviction, so you should stop acting like you have something we don't. Your case did not pass the test of a court and jury." <<<

In the only Oswald "trial" of any kind -- the 1986 TV Docu-Trial -- a
jury said your beloved "patsy" was guilty as all get out. And they
relied on--gasp!--that stuff that you say I have none of -- "real
proof" of Lee H. Oswald's guilt (namely: the evidence in the case).


I guess that jury of 12 in 1986 was "coerced" by the long arm of the
WC too, huh?

>>> "LHO never got his right to a trial and he WAS NOT FOUND GUILTY by a jury." <<<


In 1986 he was. But just keep pretending that that jury never
convicted your sweetheart. That way Lee Harvey can remain squeaky
clean....even via all "mock" trials too.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 6:50:24 PM12/23/07
to
On Dec 23, 5:57 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "A rifle poking out means nothing if it doesn't fire, as it could have been there for a distraction to draw attention away from the west window where the real shooter was." <<<

"LOL. What a great addition to the "Lone Patsy" plot this was, huh?"

Your witness was the one who said the rifle did NOT fire in the
beginning. What other conclusion can we draw. Besides, the owner of
the TSBD, D.H. Byrd, took the WEST window as a souvenior, I wonder
what he knew? Hmmm.

"I.E.,

The plotters trying to frame poor schnook Oswald decided to stick TWO
rifles out of opposite ends of the TSBD, and they just hoped and
prayed that nobody would notice the rifle that was REALLY firing the
bullets and MAKING ALL THE NOISE (on the WEST end)....right Mr. K?"

Ever hear of silencers? You should read up on it as the CIA was in
possession of 1,000 .30 caliber M-1 carbines and .303 Springfields
(remember the .30 caliber bullets found?) WITH silencers in 1963. The
guy on the west end could have had a silencer, maybe, maybe not, but
Carolyn Walther said she saw TWO men on the 4th or 5th floor. Back to
the topic, Arnold Rowland said he saw TWO men on the 6th floor and the
white one was in the WEST window and the black one was in the EAST
window, perhaps he was just there as a distraction. The big tree in
the way would make this a plausible theory as NO real professional
would shoot THROUGH a tree. The silencer issue raises another good
point, the number of shots heard, and this amount differs among the
ear-witnesses, may NOT indicate the true number of shots fired since
some may not have been heard.

"What a kook you are. And what (double) kooks your retarded patsy-
framing plotters were! They tried to complicate an extremely-easy
assassination with multiple guns all over the place, including (per
Kook Rob) a rifle that was used JUST AS A USELESS PROP on the east end
of the building!"

They weren't complicating anything as this is how a professional,
military-style, occurs. You are the one kidding yourself and calling
me kook all the time is just making you less trustworthy to the
readers who stumble onto this board or your blog. My thinking is
hardly kooky as most people feel the same way when they are exposed to
the information. You are really helping us by calling us kooks all
the time, thanks! Nothing kooky about this as I just said someone was
on the east end so they could have just dropped it there, but the real
answer is we don't know where the rifle was found, do we? The
original rifle found in the eastern part of the building (6th floor)
was a 7.65mm Mauser, not a Mannlicher-Carcano, so who knows were they
found the M-C. My guess is what the ATF agent said, the fifth-floor,
as it matches what Walther saw.

"Ya can't beat that for retarded! Not with a stick ya can't beat it.

(But at least you've got one other kook who will jump in the sack with


you on the "Prop Rifle" theory -- Donald "ARCE KILLED THE PRESIDENT"

Willis. You'd love his theories...theiy're (sic) every bit as stupid


and retarded as you are."

Crazy talk, DVP is going off the deep end. He can't deal with his
lack of proof I guess. It is tough to say only a M-C was found when
there are statments and affidavits saying a Mauser was located, and a
local film crew captures another rifle being taken out of the building
AFTER the alleged Carcano left. It was surmised to be a Springfield .
303, remember the silencer?

"LOL replay!"

Laugh away, you have NO proof so at least you should have a good time.

> >>> "The WC opened this door up and made it so easy to assert this issue by their poor report." <<<

"The WC Report is excellent."

It sure is, if propaganda is what you are looking for, remember, it
was written by one of the 26 major historians for Adolph Hitler. And
the Nazis knew from propaganda, didn't they?

"It's you kooks who are severely messed up. Simple as that. The WC
came to the ONLY possible conclusion they could have come to. Did you

expect for the WC to act like you CT-favoring retards and totally
IGNORE the evidence against Oswald while they pretended that some
other people were involved in the shooting?"

Sure they did, and they ignored so much to reach that conclusion.
They didn't even look at the autopsy photos and X-rays that is how
serious they were in finding the truth. What evidence? They came to
the conclusion that was decided BEFORE the assassination, that a
patsy would be found guilty. I challenge anyone to read the WCR and
its 26 volumes to see for themselves, as I know most people will
realize how full of lies it is.

"Maybe you can rewrite the WCR, and call it "The WCR: The Retarded,
Everything-Was-Fake Edition""

That is the ORIGINAL version, I would have to come-up with a new name.

> >>> "They made it very obvious they did not use evidence that did not convict LHO, therefore, it is a biased opinion, and that is all it is, and not a true representation of what happened that day.  I thinkd there is plenty of substantiation for it, if you would ever read Weisberg, Lane, Meagher, and Salandria as these folks basically only use the WCR and 26 volumes to show what a lie it was.  They show brilliantly how the witnesses were bullied, or distorted to meet the required outcome.  It is all very much COMMON SENSE stuff.  Your theory is the one that is full of fantasy." <<<

"Your "moron" colors are shining through once more. Because only a


total moron could believe that such a widespread cover-up operation
was being conducted by the WC and its counsel and its staff of lawyers

AND the HSCA (with respect to the ONE PERSON--Oswald--whom the HSCA


said hit the victims with any bullets on Nov. 22)."

Name call all you want, it doesn't change the fact that your THEORY is
poorly founded. You have no evidence for the most part. It is all
opinion and guesswork. I guess you didn't see the post I did awhile
back where they made all the staff of the HSCA sign stating they would
be held responsible for any costs assosciated with them being taken to
court IF they dare discuss the case with anyone. It went into other
threatening verbage as well. Saying and proving are two different
things.

> >>> "You have not trashed me on anything." <<<

"Oh, yes....I have. And even you know I have. You just won't admit it,
because you're buried too deep in your ridiculous unsupportable
theories to give common sense and "reasoned thinking" a fighting
chance. A pity. But expected."

The Supertramp song "Dreamer" comes to mind here. You have not
trounced me since you have no evidence or proof to trounce me with.
You have weak opinon and theory, that is all. My theories are more
supportable than yours since most of the people quoted in your favor
have said on the record with someone in the CT community (multiple
researchers in many cases) that they were misquoted or what appeared
is totally untrue. Common sense is on OUR SIDE of the fence, not
yours. ANYONE who believes in the SBT can't claim to have common
sense.

> >>> "You have no real proof..." <<<

"Yeah....only every gun, every bullet, every shell, every print, every
"I'm Guilty" action acted out by Oswald on Nov. 22nd, and every
eyewitness to any killer on Elm Street or Tenth Street."

Please, more bluster, you have no proof and you KNOW IT.

"That's all. Just that stuff."

Please you have none of that, the shells don't match, when they do
they have no LHO prints, they don't match any of the victims due to NO
blood or tissue, every witness you have is not credible in the least.
You have a very weak case like Hoover said.

"Must ALL be "fake" (somehow), huh?"

Not necessarily fake, just not matching LHO in terms of proving he
fired the rifle or the pistol that killed the two men and wounded the
third.
>
> ~shrug~

> >>> "You have no conviction so you should stop acting like you have something we don't. Your case did not pass the test of a court and jury." <<<

"In the only Oswald "trial" of any kind -- the 1986 TV Docu-Trial -- a


jury said your beloved "patsy" was guilty as all get out. And they
relied on--gasp!--that stuff that you say I have none of -- "real

proof" of Lee H. Oswald's guilt."

Please, if they WC, Church Committee and the HSCA were controlled do
you really think this "trial" was any different? Please. Of course
they did, as it was a phony, rigged trial to further support a
dilapidated theory. NO one with any common sense believed Jerry
Spence conducted the defense the way a real laywer would have in
1964. To quote you: "LOL!"

"I guess that jury of 12 in 1986 was "coerced" by the long arm of the
WC too, huh?"

Maybe, but more likely, they were paid well for their "verdict." This
has given Bugman a big head too, that is the real funny part, as he
walks with a swagger since he "convicted" LHO. That is like saying
you got a conviction of an anti-Hitler person in the "Peoples' Court"
of the Third Reich. Wow! That was hard! You again: "LOL!"

> >>> "LHO never got his right to a trial and he WAS NOT FOUND GUILTY by a jury..." <<<

"In 1986 he was. But just keep pretending that that jury never
convicted your sweetheart. That way Lee Harvey can remain squeaky
clean....even via all "mock" trials too."

And I'm the kook? He believes Television docu-drama trial proceedings
are the same as the real thing. What a joke. Again: "LOL!" You are
priceless, really.

~shrug~

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 7:06:31 PM12/23/07
to

>>> "That is the ORIGINAL version. I would have to come-up with a new name." <<<

Really? The WC determined that all the evidence was fake, huh?

News to me.

But, then again, you're the kook...not I. So I guess you must know
best when it comes to kooky shit like your above assertion about what
the WC determined.

>>> "But more likely, they {the 12 jurors who "convicted" LHO at the 1986 Mock Trial in London} were paid well for their "verdict"." <<<


Great! More people being "bribed" and "paid off" and "coerced" to tell
lies. Lovely.

Your merry-go-round of silliness never stops turning does it, Mr. Wack-
Job?

aeffects

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 7:10:35 PM12/23/07
to
On Dec 22, 10:39 am, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Logic and the Killing
>
> Of John Kennedy
>
> By Gary Sumner (c)2002
>
> There is not the slightest chance on earth that a conspiracy was
> involved in the assassination of President John Kennedy.
>

no you're a moronic comedian -- LMFAO

[...]

Walt

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 7:11:46 PM12/23/07
to
On 23 Dec, 16:05, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Notice, readers, when you really challenge DVP he always does the same thing, he attacks the other person, rather than debate the issues. He had nothing and his "message" only works on the people who don't know much about this case. Us CTers are here to keep him in line with his uncorroborated allegations." <<<
>
> I've debated the evidence with Rob The Kook dozens of times since he
> crawled into this room in early October 2007 and he knows it. And I
> have every post archived here to prove it.....
>
I've debated the evidence with Rob The Kook dozens of times ......

Von Pea Brain you couldn't de-bait a fish hook with the barb
removed.....

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 8:04:42 PM12/23/07
to
On Dec 23, 7:06 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "That is the ORIGINAL version. I would have to come-up with a new name."

"Really? The WC determined that all the evidence was fake, huh?"

Not exactly, they faked all the evidence is a better description.

"News to me."

Of course it is, that is why you believe in fairy tales.

"But, then again, you're the kook...not I. So I guess you must know
best when it comes to kooky shit like your above assertion about what
the WC determined."

Whatever you say, you still have NO proof worth anything.

> >>> "But more likely, they {the 12 jurors who "convicted" LHO at the 1986 Mock Trial in London} were paid well for their "verdict"." <<<

"Great! More people being "bribed" and "paid off" and "coerced" to
tell lies. Lovely."

You are priceless! LOL! The term "bribe" is used to mean pay off an
official or someone in authority to get a certain result. Coerce
means force someone to do something they don't want to do. This was a
t.v. show, they simply "paid" these actors who were portraying a jury
member. Just like "Law & Order." You thinking this joke of show has
any validity is the hilarious part. You are the "kook."

"Your merry-go-round of silliness never stops turning does it, Mr.
Wack-Job?"

Yeah, because I think a "television" conviction is the same as a real
conviction, right? Did Bugman sub for Jack McCoy on that episode of
"Law & Order?"

aeffects

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 8:26:38 PM12/23/07
to
On Dec 23, 4:11 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On 23 Dec, 16:05, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:> >>> "Notice, readers, when you really challenge DVP he always does the same thing, he attacks the other person, rather than debate the issues. He had nothing and his "message" only works on the people who don't know much about this case. Us CTers are here to keep him in line with his uncorroborated allegations." <<<
>
> > I've debated the evidence with Rob The Kook dozens of times since he
> > crawled into this room in early October 2007 and he knows it. And I
> > have every post archived here to prove it.....
>
> I've debated the evidence with Rob The Kook dozens of times ......
>
> Von Pea Brain you couldn't de-bait a fish hook with the barb
> removed.....

LMFAO!

Walt

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 8:30:22 PM12/23/07
to
On 23 Dec, 17:29, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "A rifle poking out {of the SN window} means nothing if it doesn't fire, as it could have been there for a distraction to draw attention away from the west window where the real shooter was." <<<

The rifle that was photographed protruding from the east end window on
the sixth floor of the TSBD can be seen in several photos that were
snapped BEFORE the motorcade arrived on Elm street. One of them was
taken by an Army intelligence agent named James Powell. The idea was
it was supposed to trick Castro's agents into thinking that Oswald had
actually fired at JFK DURING the shooting. ( Just as the back yard
photo ( CE 133A) was supposed to trick them into accepting Oswald as a
bona-fide communist revolutionary ) The schemers said that nobody
would doubt that it was an authentic photo that had been taken DURING
the shooting eventhough it had actually been snapped several minutes
BEFORE the motorcade arrived. It was snapped when the crowd's
attention was diverted. The photo with the rifle sticking out of that
window can be seen on page 158 of Robert Groden's book, The Killing
of a President.

Walt

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 8:59:27 PM12/23/07
to
>>> "Not exactly, they {the evil bastards in the WC} faked all the evidence is a better description." <<<


Ahhh, yes. Of course...how silly of me to forget about that.


Of course, you're contradicting your OTHER "fakery" theory if you now
want to assert that it was the WC who "faked all the evidence" in the
case, for pity sake & for cryin' out loud.

I thought it was the ultra-slick PRE-ASSASSINATION PATSY-FRAMERS who
"faked all the evidence", Mister Mega (Robert) Kook?

Which is it? The WC...or the dastardly pre-11/22 Patsy-Framers?

You don't know which end of the Hillerich-Bradsby to hit with, do ya,
you idiot? Never did.

~~El-Oh-El Break~~


>>> "Whatever you say, you still have NO proof worth anything." <<<


I can prove you're an idiot when it comes to the assassination of John
Fitzgerald Kennedy. And that makes me feel all warm inside.

>>> "You are priceless! LOL! The term "bribe" is used to mean pay off an official or someone in authority to get a certain result. Coerce means force someone to do something they don't want to do." <<<


Oh, I'm quite sure you think BOTH terms apply to the Mock-Trial jury.
Surely. Because you're an ABO kook. So you'll believe anything as long
as the letters "LHO" don't enter into the proceedings.

>>> "This was a t.v. show, they simply "paid" these actors who were portraying a jury member. Just like "Law & Order." You thinking this joke of show has any validity is the hilarious part. You are the "kook."" <<<


You're an idiot (as usual).

Vince Bugliosi used the EXACT same witnesses in front of that mock-
trial jury in '86 as he would have at a real trial of Oswald. And
Spence did too.

The jury was comprised of 12 actual Dallas citizens, taken from the
Dallas County "jury rolls". And the witnesses were sworn to tell the
truth.

If you think the verdict would have been any different at a "real"
trial....you'd better take an extra hit off that reefer that Healy
just passed you.

"That {mock} trial was the closest thing that Oswald ever had to
a real trial, and the closest he ever will get." -- Vince Bugliosi;
1986 (paraphrased)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BONUS QUOTE FOR THE DAY:


"Rob Caprio is the closest thing to a pure, unvarnished, made-to-
order moron that the third planet from the sun has housed (in a double-
wide) in the last 500 years...at least." -- DVP; 12/23/2007 AD

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 9:15:48 PM12/23/07
to
Nobody's listening to you Walt. Go get some more coal for your
stocking, you freakin' ABO kook. You're making my eggnog curdle.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 9:51:05 PM12/23/07
to
On Dec 23, 8:59 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Not exactly, they {the evil bastards in the WC} faked all the evidence is a better description." <<<

"Ahhh, yes. Of course...how silly of me to forget about that. Of
course, you're contradicting your OTHER "fakery" theory if you now
want to assert that it was the WC who "faked all the evidence" in the
case, for pity sake & for cryin' out loud."

These are two seperate issues, not one. The planting was done by the
conspirators in their effort to set-up the patsy. The fakery came in
during the investigation, and most importantly, the reporting stage.
Keep what makes LHO look guilty (and this includes distorting, lying
or omitting what didn't fit, i.e. Tomlinson, Whaley and Markham had to
be told what really happened even though the WC wasn't there to know
for sure themselves) and throw out anything that looks like
conspiracy. Of course this was most of the true evidence, why else are
we left with a muddled report that so easily crumbles under the glare?
They were building a premise with a piece here, and a piece there, as
once the main weight of evidence was thrown out due to it showing
conspiracy, they were building a theory with a mix and match
approach.

"I thought it was the ultra-slick PRE-ASSASSINATION PATSY-FRAMERS who
"faked all the evidence", Mister Mega (Robert) Kook?"

No, they planted the evidence, i.e. the Carcano, the shells, the
bullet fragments, CE399, etc... to make it look like LHO. The WC
faked the evidence by removing all the stuff that showed a conspiracy
and inserting other evidence that made LHO look guilty alone. True,
when looking at physical evidence, this occured more in the JDT case
as the real killers were better at leaving damaging "evidence" against
LHO in the JFK case.

"Which is it? The WC...or the dastardly pre-11/22 Patsy-Framers?"

Read above.

"You don't know which end of the Hillerich-Bradsby to hit with, do ya,
you idiot? Never did."

I'm the idiot, huh? I don't believe in t.v. docu-dramas convicting
anyone like you. LOL!

> ~~El-Oh-El Break~~
>
> >>> "Whatever you say, you still have NO proof worth anything." <<<

"I can prove you're an idiot when it comes to the assassination of
John Fitzgerald Kennedy. And that makes me feel all warm inside."

You wish, you can't even prove your theory makes any sense. You are
warm inside, maybe, because you had an "accident."

> >>> "You are priceless!  LOL! The term "bribe" is used to mean pay off an official or someone in authority to get a certain result.  Coerce means force someone to do something they don't want to do." <<<

"Oh, I'm quite sure you think BOTH terms apply to the Mock-Trial jury.
Surely. Because you're an ABO kook. So you'll believe anything as long
as the letters "LHO" don't enter into the proceedings."

The opposite is true, and this is what I said, they were paid like all
actors are paid for their "performance."

> >>> "This was a t.v. show, they simply "paid" these actors who were portraying a jury member. Just like "Law & Order."  You thinking this joke of show has any validity is the hilarious part.  You are the "kook."" <<<

"You're an idiot (as usual)."

Maybe, but based on the writings here I KNOW WHO the readers will
think is the idiot.

"Vince Bugliosi used the EXACT same witnesses in front of that mock-
trial jury in '86 as he would have at a real trial of Oswald. And
Spence did too."

Sure, and Spence really gave a rat's butt because? It is not the same
thing as it was a t.v. show. I'm amazed you would think so.

"The jury was comprised of 12 actual Dallas citizens, taken from the
Dallas County "jury rolls". And the witnesses were sworn to tell the
truth."

Sure, and they had 23 years of hearing the offiical theory to go on,
right? I'm sure they were real impartial. They knew what verdict was
expected, the producers told them so. It would never see the light of
day if showed LHO innocent and the t.v. people didn't invest money to
see their project never be aired or seen.

"If you think the verdict would have been any different at a "real"
trial....you'd better take an extra hit off that reefer that Healy
just passed you."

Sure, the old pass off tactic, you say something ridiculous and now
because I don't believe it, I must be high? He would believe a t.v.
docu-drama as being factual for a court proceeding? Unreal. I know a
real trial would have been different, if not, the powers that be would
have fixed it. They obviously were afraid of LHO talking as I'm sure
in their minds they felt they could get the guilty verdict if they
wanted, not because he was, but because they have the POWER TO MAKE IT
HAPPEN. Therefore, the obvious conclusion one reaches on why he had
to be killed before a trial is plain to see, they were pertrified
about what he would say and what would come out. They were afraid for
their own necks. This one act, the killing of LHO before a trial
could start, shows there was a conspiracy, if not, there was no need
to have him slaughtered. Don't give me the ususal Ruby crap, we all
know him getting a gun into the DPD basement, the police waiting until
he got in place (LHO's transfer was held-up until Ruby got there), the
car horn going off as LHO is taken out and the fact that Ruby's lawyer
just happens to be right there for him. Please.

"That {mock} trial was the closest thing that Oswald ever had to a
real trial, and the closest he ever will get." -- Vince Bugliosi; 1986
(paraphrased)"

Boy this guy is a genius. I guess so since he was gunned down like a
rabid dog, but anyone with any common sense know the mock trial is not
the same as the real one.


> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> BONUS QUOTE FOR THE DAY:
>
"Rob Caprio is the closest thing to a pure, unvarnished, made-to-order
moron that the third planet from the sun has housed (in a double-wide)
in the last 500 years...at least." -- DVP; 12/23/2007 AD"

EXTRA BONUS QUOTE FOR THE DAY:

"A mock t.v. docu-drama conviction makes a man guilty not."

Rob Caprio 12/23/2007

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 10:08:05 PM12/23/07
to
>>> "They {i.e., the always-unnamed "they" that kooks imagine were behind the assassination} were pertrified about what he would say and what would come out. They were afraid for their own necks." <<<


So they wait for 2 days to snuff out the patsy, huh?

Brilliant.

Why was he allowed to live for 46 minutes after 12:30 on Friday...let
alone 46 hours?


Wriggle out of that one, kook. I'm sure you can make something up out
of whole cloth...just like all the other "Nothing Is What It Seems To
Be" theories that are imagined to exist by you idiots.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 10:48:10 PM12/23/07
to
On Dec 23, 10:08 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "They {i.e., the always-unnamed "they" that kooks imagine were behind the assassination} were pertrified about what he would say and what would come out.  They were afraid for their own necks." <<<

"So they wait for 2 days to snuff out the patsy, huh?"

You are right, it wasn't brilliant. The plan was to kill him before
he left the TSBD, but he gave them the slip. Next was Tippit's job to
wipe him out, but he couldn't or wouldn't do it, so he was shot
instead. LHO was then due to be gunned down in the Texas Theater, but
his quick thinking, "I'm not resisting arrest", caused this to go down
the tubes. This was the most high-profile case in a the last 98 years
(since Lincoln's assassination) so they couldn't just shoot him in the
DPD headquarters. It took time to arrange the Ruby scenario and the
transfer.

"Brilliant."

Not at all, but in the final analysis it worked because the right
people made sure it worked.

"Why was he allowed to live for 46 minutes after 12:30 on Friday...let
alone 46 hours?"

Incompetence I guess. Several witnesses (and Willis took a picture)
saw a man who looked a lot like Ruby hand LHO a pistol when he left
the TSBD, so the thought is Ruby was supposed to shoot him then as he
was "fleeing" the scene, but he chickened out. Giving him the gun
would have made him "armed and dangerous" so it would have seemed
believable. The JDT shooting was near the Ruby apartment (or close
by) so again one can be lead to believe that Ruby was given a back-up
plan if he missed him earlier. I haven't read anything about the TT
but who knows, he could have been around there. It is likely LHO
survived as long as he did due to the fact that the man given the task
to silience him, Ruby, kept chickening out. Add in the fact that Ruby
was around the station all weekend and you can see he was the man with
the task of killing LHO, but it took the last opportunity for him to
finally do it.

"Wriggle out of that one, kook. I'm sure you can make something up out
of whole cloth...just like all the other "Nothing Is What It Seems To
Be" theories that are imagined to exist by you idiots."

Wiggling out of this is not needed as you have no real proof on your
side, so if you look at what people say you can start to understand
what really happened. You should have said, "Nothing is What the WC
says it is", to be more accurate.

YoHarvey

unread,
Dec 24, 2007, 4:31:12 AM12/24/07
to

YoHarvey

unread,
Dec 24, 2007, 4:32:13 AM12/24/07
to
0 new messages