MISC. JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
David Von Pein
>>> "Ah, he attempted a previous political assassination with his rifle, and then someone else committed a political assassination with his rifle from his work?" <<<
Excellent observation, Bud (as usual).
The "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy kooks of the world never, EVER
think this logically.
1.) Lee Oswald, via a fake name, received Rifle C2766 in the mail just
a matter of days before General Walker was shot at in 1963. We know
this for a fact (CTer denials notwithstanding, of course).
2.) That same rifle, 52 minutes after JFK was shot, was found in the
building where Oswald worked and where Oswald WAS LOCATED when Kennedy
was shot.
3.) That same rifle was later linked to JFK's shooting via the bullets
and bullet shells found in THREE different areas (TSBD, limo, and
Parkland).
4.) Oswald admitted to his wife that he took a shot at Walker.
5.) Oswald lied to the DPD and FBI about owning a rifle.
All five of the items above are normally mangled or distorted in some
way by rabid conspiracists...or they are all merely tossed out the
window by the CT-Kooks. ALL FIVE of them!
But those five items--when viewed in tandem with one another--can only
lead a reasonable person to one logical conclusion. And it's certainly
not a conclusion that includes the two words that many CTers love so
much -- "Innocent Patsy".
awthr...@gmail.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/9e78e...
There's a reason David has retreated back to this nonsense.
David Von Pein admitted a biggie...and then bailed out on the
thread...so I'm going to put it in big letters for you...
>But since I know
>that NONE of the autopsy pictures or X-rays are phonies or fakes,
> can be quite confident of the fact that SOME reasonable and non-
> conspiratorial explanation DOES exist with respect to ANY photographic
> discrepancy that might crop up regarding the autopsy photos and X-rays
> of John F. Kennedy -- EVEN IF I, MYSELF, DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT REASONABLE >EXPLANATION IS.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_frm/thread/589cd6e065961cbc?hl=en
There it is, folks. But don't worry if you're a lone nutter. David
hasn't given up. David has fallen on his sword with the ultimate
defense when he quotes Vincent Bugliosi (in the same thread):
> "With respect to the [John F.] Kennedy assassination, once you
> establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you
> also NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the answer is
> known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged
> discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists
> have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- VB
In other words: The photos are true because Oswald did it.
So remember that, LN'ers. No matter what the evidence might show, just
keep repeating, "The photos are true because Oswald did it. The photos
are true because Oswald did it.The photos are true because Oswald did
it."
David is doing it in this thread all about Oswald. It's as if he
forgot all about his not having a reasonable answer...it's all Oswald
all the time because, you see, he did it regardless of the man
standing behind the curtain and photos that don't match.
bigdog
>
> So remember that, LN'ers. No matter what the evidence might show, just
> keep repeating, "The photos are true because Oswald did it. The photos
> are true because Oswald did it.The photos are true because Oswald did
> it."
No, the photos are true because there is corroborating evidence that
they are real. A negative of one of the three photos was found and it
was proved conclusively to have been taken by Oswald's camera to the
exclusion of all other cameras in the world. One of the photos
contained a handwritten from Marina which she testified she had
written and which handwriting experts say was written by her.
awthr...@gmail.com
My post might have understandably confused you...the original thread I
was referring to was discussing the autopsy photos, namely the A-P x-
ray vs. the Death Stare photo.
David admitted he couldn't explain the huge disparity between the two
autopsy photos. My response to him here is pointing out....as he noted
in the other thread...that he would run back to Oswald. David's stance
is now that the autopsy photos HAVE to be okay because Oswald is
guilty. That's his prism: Oswald is guilty, so all evidence supports
that conclusion even if it doesn't.
David Von Pein
Where is your argument about the discrepancy in the photos taking you
(ultimately), "awthraw"?
Do you want to believe that your goofball "plotters" decided to insert
a FAKE autopsy X-ray picture of SOMEBODY ELSE BESIDES JOHN KENNEDY
into the official record...with this FAKE X-ray totally conflicting
with the other pictures?
That's one great batch of brain-dead plotters you've got there, aw.
FACT -- All of the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of
PRESIDENT KENNEDY at the time of his autopsy on 11/22/63 -- and ALL of
those autopsy photos and X-rays were deemed genuine and unaltered "in
any manner" by the HSCA in 1978.
That's the official record you are forced to overcome with your
speculation about differing autopsy photos/X-ray, Mr./Mrs. "Awthraw".
Think you can overcome this impressive paragraph below, Mr. Kook? Of
course you can't. But that won't stop kooks like you from trying, will
it?:
"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA; VOLUME 7; PAGE 41
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/9e78e...
>
>
> Excellent observation, Bud (as usual).
Another lie!
> The "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy kooks of the world never, EVER
> think this logically.
>
> 1.) Lee Oswald, via a fake name, received Rifle C2766 in the mail just
> a matter of days before General Walker was shot at in 1963. We know
> this for a fact (CTer denials notwithstanding, of course).
Proof please. Where is the PROOF he ordered a 40" Carcano and
received it again? Where is the PROOF he fired a shot at Gen. Walker
again?
> 2.) That same rifle, 52 minutes after JFK was shot, was found in the
> building where Oswald worked and where Oswald WAS LOCATED when Kennedy
> was shot.
Where is the proof it was found at 1:22PM again? Where is the proof it
was LHO's weapon again? Where is the proof LHO was at the SN at
12:30PM again?
> 3.) That same rifle was later linked to JFK's shooting via the bullets
> and bullet shells found in THREE different areas (TSBD, limo, and
> Parkland).
Where is the proof LHO owned the rifle that was allegedly the murder
weapon? (I love how the media uses the word "alleged" for Plaxico
Burress - football player accused of carrying an unlicensed handgun in
NYC - but with LHO it is NEVER used despite him NEVER being convicted
of these crimes in a court of law!)
Where is the proof he fired the shots at 12:30PM? Where is the proof
any of the stuff found you mentioned was EVER INSIDE JFK or JBC?
> 4.) Oswald admitted to his wife that he took a shot at Walker.
Hearsay evidence protected under the spousal privledge, it would NOT
have been allowed in a court of law. Thus, the prosecutor would have
had to come with other evidence. Where is this evidence Dave? Where
is your proof LHO fired at Gen. Walker?
> 5.) Oswald lied to the DPD and FBI about owning a rifle.
Did he? Where is the proof that shows he lied again?
> All five of the items above are normally mangled or distorted in some
> way by rabid conspiracists...or they are all merely tossed out the
> window by the CT-Kooks. ALL FIVE of them!
I guess "mangled" and "distorted" equals telling the TRUTH with Dave!
What a joker he is.
> But those five items--when viewed in tandem with one another--can only
> lead a reasonable person to one logical conclusion. And it's certainly
> not a conclusion that includes the two words that many CTers love so
> much -- "Innocent Patsy".
Sure if one is braindead and they believe everything they are told
regardless of there being any PROOF for it one could conclude it shows
guilt. But enough about the LNers, us CTers require proof and we have
very active brains, so we don't just accept what we are told without
checking it out first and making sure there is proof behind the
claims.
David Von Pein
>>> "[Zapruder frame] 207 is the last frame before he completely disappears behind the sign." <<<
Yes, you're correct there. Only the top of Kennedy's head is visible
in Z207. And then the next 4 frames are missing (on most copies of the
film), due to the LIFE accident which resulted in Z208-Z211 being
destroyed.
>>> "You know that Kennedy was hit [by a bullet] at Z207, right?" <<<
So, you think you can tell that JFK was struck by a bullet at exactly
Z207 via the crappy, blurry quality of the top of Kennedy's head that
we see in Z207?
And even the most-enhanced and cleared-up version of the film (the
1998 MPI Home Video copy on DVD) doesn't really help the anti-SBTers
too much, because the early frames of the film are just too blurry and
indistinct.
Along these same lines:
If you'd like a really large laugh, I invite you to have a look (and a
listen) at a JFK conspiracy kook who thinks he can see positive proof
of JFK being hit at about Z190 or Z195, based on the fact that this
particular kook (Jim DiEugenio) saw an unspliced version of the Z-Film
several years ago (with Z208-211 re-inserted into the film, via Bob
Groden's copy).
And Jim thinks the "reaction" by JFK in those 4 frames (which are
frames when Kennedy is almost completely HIDDEN by the Stemmons
Freeway sign!) is proof of a shot hitting him at Z190-195.
It's hilarious to see the lengths that some conspiracists will go to
in order to avoid the obvious.
At the 3:15 mark here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPxKvg8L114&fmt=18
============================================
BATTLING KOOKS:
www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=27B8F8BC48764EF9
www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6AAA2EE050C18E31
============================================
David Von Pein
A "YOU TUBER" SAID:
>>> "[John] Connally himself said he was shot after the second shot!" <<<
DVP SAID:
Wrong. Governor Connally never once said that. He always maintained he
was not hit by the FIRST shot, and was hit by shot #2.
Connally also readily admitted on CBS-TV in 1967 that the SBT could be
true....but it would have to be the SECOND shot equating to the SBT.
And he's right. It was shot #2.
From 1967's "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report":
JOHN CONNALLY -- "The only way that I could ever reconcile my memory
of what happened and what occurred, with respect to the One-Bullet
Theory is....it HAD to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit us
both."
EDDIE BARKER -- "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first
bullet could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the
third one hit President Kennedy?"
CONNALLY -- "That's possible. That's possible."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
>>> "He [JBC] should know WHEN he got hit!" <<<
Sure, but Connally couldn't possibly have known when President Kennedy
was first hit....because Connally always said he never saw Kennedy at
any time after the shooting started. So how can Connally, HIMSELF,
possibly know that the SBT is not true? In two words: he couldn't.
>>> "[Connally's] shattered wrist cannot hold a hat." <<<
Wrong again. He held that hat ALL THE WAY TO THE HOSPITAL.
Are you suggesting, therefore, his wrist was never hit by a bullet on
11/22/63?
>>> "Ever think he [JBC] was reacting to the shock wave of a bullet over his left shoulder?" <<<
No, because it's so obvious he was reacting to a bullet hitting him at
Z224 (just as the film clip below vividly illustrates). Any other
conclusion is just willful ignorance on the part of any anti-SBT
conspiracy theorist.
David Von Pein
A "YOU TUBER" BABBLED THIS IDIOCY:
>>> "Shot #1: Miss--no one seems to dispute that. Shot #2: Throat [JFK]--much dispute from Parkland doctors citing it as wound of entry. Shot #3: Connally's, almost the same time as JFK's head shot. He is thrown forward and does not get up again. Shot #4: Fatal headshot." <<<
DVP:
Nice...you're one of the (approx.) three silly people on the planet
who actually thinks Connally wasn't hit until about Z313.
You, naturally, will just ignore all of the signs of JBC being hit at
Z224. Even Connally himself, when he looked at the film, knew he was
hit well before the head shot. That fact couldn't be more obvious. But
I'm sure you like your retarded theory much better, right?
As far as Governor Connally's Stetson hat -- read what Nellie had to
say about JBC holding that hat all the way to the hospital (in his
right hand...unless you actually want to think that JBC switched the
hat from his right hand to his left hand just after he was shot in his
right wrist; you don't really want to go down that stupid road, do
you?):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nellie.txt
BTW, you seem to have forgotten about JFK's back wound in your ultra-
stupid and impossible 4-shot scenario. Don't you think JFK was even
shot in the back from the rear? Or does your "throat" shot go through
his back? (Was the gunman a midget on the floorboards of the limo
perhaps?)
Give it a shot -- dazzle me with your JFK case-solving brilliance
(again).
tomnln
frames 231-234.
Volume IV page 145.
JBC's Dr., Dr. Shires said JBC was hit at frame 236.
Voliume IV page 114.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:61aa58df-8456-4c57...@u14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "Go back to berating children to make yourself feel superior." <<<
I've been doing that ever since I started talking to you.
The SBT is obviously true. The WC concluded it was true. And the HSCA
concluded it was true. But you know much more than those 2 Govt.
bodies who were assigned the task of investigating the case....right?
As far as the HSCA's determination of 2 shooters -- You should know
very well that the evidence on which that was based was totally
destroyed 3 years later by the NAS.
But you still want to believe that there were sounds of gunshots on
the Dictabelt....right? Feel free to do so. But it won't undo the NAS
conclusion that the sounds are certainly not gunshots. But conspiracy
kooks like you often like to hang on to discredited information. In
fact, it's the only way they can satisfy their goal of a JFK
Conspiracy.
BTW, have you ever located all those extra bullets that supposedly
were riddling the bodies of JFK & JBC? Didn't think so.
Happy conspiracy hunting, Mr. Kook.
David Von Pein
>>> "Again, trying to insult someone to make yourself feel superior is [a] damning indictment of your own feeling of inferiority. You can't insult me[,] because I do not respect the person you are. You are a nothing, a no-one who is trying to get attention due to your own dull life." <<<
I'm hurt beyond repair. A conspiracy-loving kook doesn't respect me.
How will I ever survive?
>>> "At a guess[,] I suspect you are brow beaten by your wife, if you actually are able to form a relationship, and at work a jumped up little man who takes pleasure in trying to exert what little power you have at your menial job." <<<
Does this mean I can forget about that card and expensive gift from
you next Christmas?
>>> "The Warren Commission was a farce." <<<
You, obviously showing signs of being a conspiracy-loving kook who has
never studied the actual physical evidence in the case, naturally have
to believe in the absurd notion that "the Warren Commission was a
farce".
That's always a good six-word mantra to fall back on when you're left
with zero pieces of physical evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK and
J.D. Tippit murder cases. You can wipe out all the evidence (in your
conspiracy-happy mind) with those six simple words: "The Warren
Commission was a farce".
Well, I guess uttering those six words is better than actually trying
to reconcile all the junk that you seem to believe about the evidence,
huh?
>>> "[Gerald] Ford himself admitted he altered findings[,] including the position of the back wound[,] raising it to his neck." <<<
If you can put your conspiracy on hold for two minutes, I'll offer you
up solid proof (with the help of esteemed author Jean Davison, who
gushes forth basic common sense and REAL evidence every time she
discusses the JFK assassination) that Gerald Ford's on-paper "move" of
Kennedy's wound did not (and does not now) help the "Single-Bullet
Theory" in any way, shape, or form:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
>>> "The surgeon who operated on Connally removed more material from the wrist wound than could have possibly come from the 'pristine' bullet." <<<
100% wrong. Dr. Charles Gregory removed "2 or 3" very, very small
fragments of metal from John Connally's wrist. And as far as the
available records and testimony are concerned, I can find no firm and
established indications that any of those fragments were ever
officially measured or weighed. All we have are Dr. Gregory's
statements made in front of the Warren Commission in 1964, which are
these statements concerning those extremely-small metal fragments:
DR. CHARLES GREGORY -- "I would identify these fragments as varying
from five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately two
millimeters in diameter. And each fragment is no more than a half
millimeter in thickness. They would represent, in lay terms,
flakes...flakes of metal. .... I would estimate that they would be
weighed in micrograms, which is [a] very small amount of weight. I
don't know how to reduce it to ordinary equivalents for you. It is the
kind of weighing that requires a micro-adjustable scale; which means
that it is something less than the weight of a postage stamp. ....
Their greatest dimension would probably not exceed one-eighth of an
inch. They were very small."
ARLEN SPECTER [Later in Gregory's testimony session] -- "For the
purpose of this consideration, I am interested to know whether the
metal which you found in the wrist was of sufficient size so that the
bullet which passed through the wrist could not have emerged virtually
completely intact or with 158 grains intact, or whether the portions
of the metallic fragments were so small that that would be consistent
with having virtually the entire 6.5-millimeter bullet emerge?"
DR. GREGORY -- "Well, considering the small volume of metal as seen by
X-ray, and the very small dimensions of the metal which was recovered,
I think several such fragments could have been flaked off of a total
missile mass without reducing its volume greatly."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gregory1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gregory2.htm
TOO MANY CE399 BULLET FRAGMENTS IN JOHN CONNALLY? HARDLY:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7bf79593cce78406
Halfway down the following webpage there's more information regarding
the incredibly-small amount of metal taken out of (and left inside of)
John B. Connally's body:
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200860-post.html
>>> "The bullet [CE399] that did all that damage[,] yet the armys [sic] own ballistic expert who was charged by the WC with one hundred rounds to test fire oswalds [sic] gun could not duplicate a bullet being undamaged even by going through a rib OR a wrist bone--nevermind both." <<<
And that was one of the few mistakes made by the Warren Commission's
people -- they should have test-fired a WCC/MC bullet (like Oswald's
CE399) through TWO simulated bodies, instead of merely firing bullets
straight into ribs and wrist bones.
Quite obviously, if a WCC/MC bullet like Oswald's hits a wrist bone at
full velocity, it's going to end up more damaged than CE399. That's
just common sense, for Pete sake.
The WC/Army should have not only test-fired through a simulated JFK
"upper back and neck" (which would have slowed down the bullet
considerably), but then the bullet, after exiting the simulated JFK
neck, should have gone into a simulated Connally torso/chest (which
would have significantly slowed down the bullet a lot more) before
then striking a simulated wrist bone.
Instead, the WC/Army fired a bullet directly into a simulated wrist
bone. How can such a test be considered "SBT"-like in nature at all?
Obviously it wasn't duplicating the path of the real CE399 at all.
In the long run, those Army tests involving bullets being fired
directly into ribs and wrist bones (which are tests that Dr. Cyril
Wecht loves to prop up so much as proof that the SBT is bunk) are
essentially worthless as far as proving or disproving the Single-
Bullet Theory.
>>> "And who mentioned the dictabelt? I referred to the Z film as silent." <<<
You mentioned the fact that the HSCA concluded there was a
"conspiracy". And since the Dictabelt/acoustics evidence is the ONLY
physical evidence that the House Select Committee utilized in order to
arrive at their "95% or greater chance of conspiracy" conclusion, I
then mentioned the "Dictabelt" evidence (which is evidence, as I said
before, that has been totally discredited since 1979).
>>> "[Lyndon] Johnson himself never believed the SBT. HE is heard saying so on tape." <<<
Yep, right here:
But, so what?
LBJ obviously had not studied all the evidence in the case when he
made his anti-SBT statement to Senator Richard Russell on 9/18/64.
Johnson's opinion was quite obviously no more informed (or better)
than the opinion of any Tom, Dick, or Harry you might pick off the
street.
Plus: To those theorists who really think LBJ was one of the main
"plotters" who had JFK killed, it was sure a great move on Johnson's
part to put his anti-SBT beliefs ON TAPE, wasn't it?
Was Johnson just being smart there....by deliberately saying something
of a "conspiratorial" nature so that people wouldn't suspect him? I
guess many "LBJ Did It" kooks must think so. Otherwise, Lyndon would
have been agreeing with every last thing uttered by his WC boys.
>>> "The HSCA disagreed on the SBT time frame, another red herring." <<<
But the HSCA's main conclusion was still exactly the same -- i.e., ONE
bullet (CE399) struck both victims in the limousine. Naturally, the
kooks have to ignore the fact that BOTH Government panels came to that
exact same conclusion regarding a single bullet hitting both men at
the same time.
>>> "The facts are the facts--eyewitness testimony versus a prat [that's me, DVP] trying to make himself feel superior due to the lack of his own insight." <<<
And you, being a conspiracy-happy kook, will naturally ignore the best
evidence, in favor of the murky and shadowy junk that you couldn't
possibly build into a cohesive and believable conspiracy plot if your
life depended on it.
In other words -- You think your mush somehow trumps the Warren
Commission's concrete foundation of "Oswald Did It Alone" stuff.
You're not alone, of course -- there are many kooks just like you.
Just go here to see them in all their retarded splendor:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/topics
>>> "Extra bullets? I deal with facts. I do not need to find other bullets[,] because evidence was destroyed[,] so it is impossible." <<<
That's another useful (but wholly-unprovable) tactic used by
conspiracy nuts -- i.e., just say "evidence was destroyed" and you
kooks think you're off the hook. Right?
Of course, as always, you conspiracy theorists can't come within sixty
miles of proving that ANY evidence was "destroyed" as part of some
kind of "Let's Frame Oswald" plot or cover-up.*
* = And that includes the only piece of evidence that was PROVABLY
destroyed--the James Hosty note. The note Hosty destroyed, however,
was flushed down the toilet for one reason only--to save Shanklin and
Hosty and the Dallas FBI office from the potential wrath of big boss
J. Edgar. The note certainly wasn't flushed because of some "Let's
Frame An Innocent Oswald" plan.
>>> "The car [JFK's SS-100-X limousine] was whisked away and totally rebuilt." <<<
It wasn't rebuilt until a whole year later. And even though it was
moved from Dallas to Washington very quickly, it was still examined
(and photographed) in great detail at the White House garage on the
morning of Saturday, November 23rd, 1963.
You, being a kook, I suppose must think that gobs of conspiracy-
proving evidence was destroyed in the interim....right?
Here's a novel idea -- Prove it.
>>> "But I suppose you would not consider the eyewitness testimony of George Whittaker[,] the man who supervised glass lamination at Ford[,] who saw the hole in the windshield." <<<
No such "hole" existed. And the limo was not spirited away to Dearborn
on November 24 or 25 for emergency conspiracy-concealing repairs
either. To believe that is to be -- well -- a retarded kook. Simple as
that.
>>> "A hole [in the windshield] from front to back. That is fact." <<<
Total bullshit (of course). There was only a crack in the windshield.
No hole. And the bullet that struck the windshield hit the INSIDE part
of the glass, not the outside portion.
You, being a kook, must think Robert Frazier of the FBI is a worthless
liar, right?.....
ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "The inside layer of the glass was not broken,
but the outside layer immediately on the outside of the lead residue
had a very small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute
particle of glass missing from the outside surface." ....
ARLEN SPECTER -- "What do those characteristics indicate as to which
side of the windshield was struck?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "It indicates that it could only have been struck on
the inside surface. It could not have been struck on the outside
surface because of the manner in which the glass broke and further
because of the lead residue on the inside surface."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm
>>> "The fact is the SBT does not work." <<<
You haven't been paying attention at all. The fact is: the Single-
Bullet Theory works perfectly:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
>>> "There is a delay between JFK and JC being shot[,] which is unexplainable." <<<
Why not invest in a comma key? That'd be nice.
Fact is: there is no "delay" in the reactions of JFK and JBC at all.
Just look:
>>> "Connally is not shot where you morons suggest. He is reacting to a bullet striking the interior of the car and the shockwave of that bullet as it passed over his left shoulder." <<<
Where's the damage to the "interior of the car" then? No such interior
damage (from a missed shot, as you suggest) existed.
The limo damage must have been one of the hundreds of things "covered
up" by the evil Government after November 22nd. Right, Mr. Conspiracy?
Also -- You must think that all of that stuff that I talked about
earlier (i.e., JBC's obvious involuntary reactions to his being hit by
Bullet CE399) is as a result of Connally merely HEARING the sound of a
gunshot.
In other words -- You'll deny the obviousness of the SBT until you
draw your last breath.
Typical anti-SBT kook behavior.
>>> "He [JBC] is shot about 1.16 seconds later." <<<
At a point on the film where Connally is showing nowhere NEAR the
signs of initial distress as he is in frames Z224-Z232??
Keep believing that craziness if you want. But the Zapruder Film will
always prove you dead-wrong....every time:
>>> "You cannot explain it, the WC and HSCA cannot explain it[,] yet it exists." <<<
Such a later "hit" to JBC only "exists" in the minds and imaginations
of conspiracy-hungry theorists. Nowhere else.
>>> "The man who was shot, John Connally, knows when he was shot, so does his wife." <<<
They were supposedly watching the Zapruder Film at the EXACT TIME John
Connally was being shot through the back, eh? Gee, that's news to me.
John Connally, in fact, is really THE WORST possible eyewitness when
it comes to trying to prove or disprove the SBT.
WHAT DID JOHN CONNALLY SEE? AND WHAT DIDN'T HE SEE?:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1cc5d266271efb4b
>>> "Eyewitness's [sic] and victims are far more credible than anything else." <<<
LOL.
Yeah, let's just pretend all the physical evidence against Oswald
doesn't exist at all. Right? Great idea (if you're an "Anybody But
Oswald" nutjob, that is).
>>> "The Z film supports what he [John Connally] said, he turns to his right, then goes to turn left--then he is shot." <<<
Yes. Exactly. And we see those exact things in the Z-Film starting at
Z164. Maybe you'd better look again:
>>> "You[,] on the other hand[,] are a twit." <<<
But at least I'm a "twit" with all the bullets on my side (and a
functioning comma key). You, however, being a conspiracy-thirsty
retard, have zero bullets and zero pieces of physical evidence to
support any of your conspiracy fantasies.
But you don't care about physical (ballistics) evidence. After all,
the witnesses who support your multi-shooter beliefs is the place
where you'd rather stop your investigation. The lack of non-Oswald
bullets can easily be explained via the words "evidence was
destroyed". Right, Mr. Conspiracy?
>>> "You were not there. Fact. I do not believe any moronic conclusion you come to." <<<
Even though my "moronic" conclusions are fully backed up by the two
major Government organizations assigned the task of arriving at the
truth regarding the JFK murder case.
Oh, I forgot....the Government (the WC and the HSCA) is filled with
nothing but liars (15 years apart).
Good luck proving that BOTH the WC and the HSCA were 100% wrong when
they BOTH concluded that only one man--Lee Harvey Oswald--struck
Kennedy and Connally with any rifle bullets on 11/22/63.
Back to bed with Fetzer, Marrs, Lane, and Groden now. I'm sure their
feet are getting cold without you.
David Von Pein
January 2009
aeffects
<snip>
hey ya fuckin Lone Nut *KOOK*..... they want to know who you be on the
Education Forum.... old Tom P. summed you up to a 'T'.... ROTFLMFAO!