Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 37)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From January 2005,
February 2005, February 2007, and March 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- I don't think you can comprehend just
how high up this operation went.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- No, and YOU can't either. It's pure CT
speculation all the way, and always has been. You, in effect, are
GUESSING -- guessing in the dark with only a blurry and far-from-
reliable "Badge Man" to point to as "the assassin".
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- You think his {Oswald} being in the TSBD was an accident? I
will remind you of the power wielded by the men behind this operation.
DVP -- So this must mean "they" controlled Wes Frazier, Linnie Randle,
and Ruth Paine as well as the rest of the conspiracy team, correct?
Because if you want to argue over whether Oswald got his job through
the "plot", you have no choice BUT to implicate all three of the
above. And that's just plain loony talk.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/64195df0086af9b4
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- No, he {Connally} was not responsible for JFK going to Dallas.
I doubt that he was even exclusively responsible for there being a
motorcade. Have you proof that he was involved in the operation?
DVP -- I never said it was Connally who was responsible for JFK
visiting Dallas. I said Connally had a great deal to do with there
being a motorcade through that city. And he did. If Connally had nixed
the idea, there probably would have been no one to override that
decision.
When Governor Connally called the White House on October 4th, 1963, to
discuss the details of the Dallas visit, it was agreed that the
planning of events in Texas would be left largely to Governor
Connally.
At the White House, Kenneth O'Donnell, special assistant to the
President, acted as coordinator for the trip. Everyone agreed that, if
there was sufficient time, a motorcade through downtown Dallas would
be the best way for the people to see their President.
When the trip was planned for only one day, Governor Connally had
opposed the motorcade because there was not enough time. The Governor
stated, however, that "once we got San Antonio moved from Friday to
Thursday afternoon, where that was his initial stop in Texas, then we
had the time, and I withdrew my objections to a motorcade".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fbacd51dfe2f074c
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- I suspect that he {Oswald} was told he was going to be paid
well for his part in the operation, and may have even been given some
money up front.
DVP -- Where did this money go then? Virtually every dime that Oswald
made in the last year-and-a-half of his life was accounted for by the
Warren Commission, and itemized in detail. Right down to the $170 he
left on the dresser for Marina; and the $13.87 in his pocket when he
was arrested. .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0383a.htm
.....And there's no entry in there for "Cash Received From Plotters".
(That's a joke, in case you didn't realize it.)
Did Lee hide this "up front" cash in his back yard someplace?
You are reaching ever deeper into the CT Hole for answers.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- We don't know whether he {LHO} tried to implicate someone else
or not.
DVP -- Sure we know. He didn't implicate anybody. Because if he HAD,
the DPD and FBI would have acted upon such a tip. To believe otherwise
is to go even deeper into your morass of nonsense and start accusing
ALL of the people who talked to Oswald of "hushing up" the truth re.
the real killers Oswald might have spoken of when questioned.
(Officials such as Wade, Fritz, Curry, Hosty, Leavelle, and others.)
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- He {Oswald} had to be removed at some point. And he was.
DVP -- Yes, on nationwide TV in front of an audience of MILLIONS! When
it could have been accomplished in an infinitely easier and quieter
manner by just plugging Oswald on 11/22/63 (and without the killer
being caught immediately, if at all).
But no, "they" wait until Sunday, November 24th (after Oswald could
possibly have talked his head off)....and "they" kill him with gobs of
cops all around and on national television, to boot.
Yeah, that plan makes MUCH more sense. LOL!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42364b9e887a0213
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- At least CTers have options when it comes to explaining
something that the extant evidence doesn't support.
DVP -- What options? Do you call pure "speculation" and out-and-out
GUESSES "options"? If you do, then yes, you have options. But those
options are far from being FACTS; nor are they based on the overall
evidence in the case.
Such as your off-the-wall GUESS re. Oswald possibly getting some
"money up front" for his "part" in the JFK killing. Where on Earth did
that come from? Answer -- A wild guess, with ZERO basis in FACT.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The LN scenario has sunk so low that it is about to disappear.
With each passing investigation, or lack thereof, new evidence is
unearthed that causes it to sink further. Mr. B had better hurry up
with his book or he will be too late to pull you out of the quicksand.
DVP -- This is an inaccurate statement to be certain. Because the
simple truth of the matter is that if the "Lone Assassin" equation was
sinking into the Black Hole of space, Mr. Vincent Bugliosi would NOT
be writing an LN book on the subject. Period.
The "LN scenario", in actuality, has been rock-solid from Day 1. And
has only been STRENGTHENED by the likes of greater leaps in
technology, such as: computer animations like Dale K. Myers' work,
enhanced copies of the Zapruder Film (where it can be pinpointed
precisely when John Connally is hit by a bullet), and the great work
done on the SBT by that Australian team of scientists in 2004.
Even though it's ignored and/or spat upon by CTers, that test proved
an awful lot about bullet CE399 and the viability of the Single-Bullet
Theory. Continue to disregard it if you wish. But that's your loss;
not an LNer's.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6f6c34dca27986d7
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl.htm
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- It can have happened in more than one way.
DVP -- And therein lies a built-in and inherent CT problem: Too damn
MANY theories. They all get muddied-up by one another, IMO. And pretty
soon, NONE of them seems the least bit plausible. At least that's my
view.
But the FACT is the assassination DID NOT HAPPEN IN MULTIPLE WAYS. It
happened only ONE way.
So, from THAT standpoint alone, the LN stance "stands up" better than
ANY wild, purely-guessed-at CT scenario. With the LN standpoint being
one of consistency for the most part and NON-conjecture, except when
talking about the one missed shot, which can only be "guessed" at to a
degree, because nobody was struck by that bullet -- except bystander
James Tague, and he wasn't altogether positive WHEN he was struck
either.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6577daadba0e46a4
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- I'll admit that a shot at Z160 does solve the myriad of
problems for the LN, but again you must support it with some solid
evidence and testimony, or it really doesn't solve those problems.
DVP -- Well, it's a bit more difficult to back up a MISSED shot with
PHYSICAL evidence....since said shot went wild and the bullet was
never found.
There are two visual pieces of circumstantial evidence, of course, to
back up a Z160 shot:
1.) John Connally's right turn that begins at approximately Zapruder
frame #164.
2.) Rosemary Willis stopping dead in her tracks and turning around to
look in the direction of the Book Depository. Rosemary, in Gerald
Posner's book "Case Closed", said she "stopped when I heard the shot".
Now, the CTers can also argue, I suppose, that she was stopping due to
the first shot at Z202 (or so). But I'd argue that this can't be true,
because Rosemary has ALREADY COMPLETELY STOPPED RUNNING BY Z200, and
has her head turned directly toward the Depository at the Z200 point
in time.
Regarding James Tague being wounded by the one missed shot (whenever
it occurred) --- Upon reading Mr. Tague's very brief, yet informative,
chapter in Larry Sneed's book "No More Silence", it can easily be
determined by his account in that publication that he hadn't the
slightest idea he'd even been hit in the face by debris until several
minutes AFTER the assassination (when Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers
pointed out the few drops of blood on Tague's cheek).
Per Tague's written account in Sneed's book, it was only at that post-
assassination time that Tague realized something stung him "during the
shooting". Exactly WHEN, or which shot, he never even vaguely hints at
in Mr. Sneed's book.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- What evidence or testimony can he {Vincent Bugliosi} possible
dig up about a shot at Z160 that hasn't already been produced over and
over again?
DVP -- And yet his massive pro-LN tome is still on the table and
coming to a store near you. That fact, alone, tells me he has SOME
reasonable and logical explanation for the whole shooting timeline. He
has to have.
Many times while reading Mr. Bugliosi's O.J. Simpson book ("Outrage"),
I found myself with mouth agape and saying to myself, "Why didn't I
think of that? It's so obvious!"
I have a feeling we're in for a lot of those same exclamations when
VB's hefty JFK volume comes out. For, as Vincent has said -- Many
times, the obvious only becomes obvious once someone else has pointed
it out. And Vince seems to be the one to have done a lot of that type
of "pointing out" when it comes to his written works (in his Manson
and O.J. books in particular).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/450518c94e5e8ded
http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/pdf/1283.pdf
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- As for the backyard photos, I have no idea whether they are
legitimate or not. What's the difference?
DVP -- A better question from a CT POV would be: Why in the world
would the plotters feel the need to fake ANY backyard pictures of
Oswald at all?
So, in a very real sense, your question ("What's the difference?")
indeed does apply and is very accurate. Because there was no reason at
all to go to any "backyard photo fakery" (which, of course, would have
been yet another high-risk task taken on by this seemingly army-sized
and fool-proof team of plotters and patsy-framers).
Faking those photos is a totally empty gesture, and would have been
nothing more than an exercise in redundancy.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/abf2ea54c9dddca4
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The wound was not in "the back of the neck", but in the back,
and could not have been caused by a bullet fired from above, {which}
then exited out the front of the neck.
DVP -- Yes, the wound is in the upper BACK (not specifically in the
"neck"). It's 5.5 inches (14 cm.) below the tip of the Mastoid
Process, just like Dr. Boswell said on his Face Sheet, which makes the
"dot" on the very same Sheet pretty much meaningless, because it
wasn't drawn to scale.
The WORDS and the precise anatomical measurements written in by
Boswell on the Sheet are much more accurate, of course, and should be
used by any researcher to arrive at the exact location of the wound,
instead of relying on the "dot" drawn in on the Face Sheet.
But, no, of course I do not agree that the back wound and the throat
wound could not have "lined up" to meet the SBT requirements. The
wounds line up beautifully, and always did. And the throat wound is
positively LOWER than the back wound (as the two autopsy photographs
linked below vividly demonstrate).
If you start at the throat wound and work your way toward JFK's upper
back via a 17-degree angle.....where would the back wound be? I
contend it would be right where we see it here (in the top autopsy
photo):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/zeroang.jpg
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- There will never be an end to this story. The better animation
gets, the better the LNers will think they can present their case.
DVP -- Several animations have come to light (especially Dale Myers'
work) that have unquestionably supported the SBT (at least to the
extent that it's fairly obvious that the SBT is, at bare minimum, a
"possibility" to be considered), but does that faze the CT crowd? Nah.
Not a bit.
Instead, ALL the animations are "flawed", "faked", "manipulated by the
animator", blah-blah-blah. Sound familiar?
Just like with everything else, it seems, in this case -- lacking
another explanation, just say "It's faked" or "It's phony" and the
conspiracy theorists are off the hook. Incredible. (Not to mention
stupid.)
I truly believe that a staunch/rabid CTer wouldn't accept the SBT even
if the bullet had been captured ON FILM (somehow), showing the missile
going methodically through both victims.
In such a case, the standard CT reply would probably be -- "Nah, that
SBT Film is fake too!"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Even without Gordon Arnold, there is still compelling
testimony about a shooter in the Badge Man location, including
Zapruder, who heard a shot from that direction.
DVP -- That's not exactly what Abe Zapruder said. He said that shots
perhaps had come from behind him (he used the words "from back of me"
at one point during his WC interview). But he also said he really
couldn't tell precisely where the shots came from. Zapruder actually
is an "undecided" witness with respect to specific shot
location. .....
MR. LIEBELER -- "Did you form any opinion about the direction from
which the shots came by the sound...?"
MR. ZAPRUDER -- "No, there was too much reverberation. There was an
echo which gave me a sound all over. In other words, that square is
kind of--it had a sound all over."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zapruder.htm
Plus -- Mr. Zapruder's "from back of me" testimony still wouldn't add
up to the so-called "Badge Man" location, which WASN'T "behind" (or in
"back of") Zapruder. The "BM" location was to his RIGHT, not behind
him.
If he had heard shots from the purported "BM" location, Zapruder
certainly wouldn't have said such shots came from "behind" him (or
"from back of me"). He would have said they had came from his right.
The enclosed "shelter" edifice was "behind" Zapruder (as we can easily
see via the Moorman photograph), NOT the picket fence. .....
http://jfkassassination.net/moorman/3Moorman_20Whole_20Frame5.jpg
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Common sense should tell us that Zapruder meant that shots
came from behind him and from one side or the other.
DVP -- Which, to be quite accurate, most certainly ALSO includes the
TSBD -- which was actually more "behind" Mr. Zapruder than was the
"Badge Man" location. Just look.....
http://jfk.iefactory.com/galeria/dealey2.jpg
And the photo linked below illustrates that fact even better. It shows
a "page" from CE875 (which is a multi-item WC exhibit), with this
photo providing a very good view of Elm Street and Dealey Plaza from
Lee Harvey Oswald's Sniper's-Nest window on the 6th Floor of the Book
Depository.
This photo from CE875 also depicts Abraham Zapruder's pedestal, and
verifies that the picket fence and retaining wall atop the Grassy
Knoll are actually not BEHIND Zapruder's pedestal at all (as many
people seem to believe).
The fence and wall were, in fact, to the RIGHT (west) of Zapruder's
pedestal and actually even a little FORWARD (south) of Zapruder's
position:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0460b.htm