DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART #32)
David Von Pein
DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 32):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From February 2005 and
February 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- NO ONE ever put Lee Harvey Oswald on
the 6th floor at the time of the shooting. It's a lie to assert
otherwise.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- Howard Brennan's existence makes the above
statement a complete falsehood.
But the CT-Kook who wrote that nonsense doesn't WANT Brennan to be
right....so we'll continue to have to contend with such stupid
statements as the one quoted above.
But as hard as the CTers try to discredit Brennan's testimony....they
can never do it. Because...based on the totality of the evidence in
this case, the odds that Howard L. Brennan saw anyone other than Lee
Harvey Oswald shooting from that 6th Floor are almost totally
nil. .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a83751f6ce319004
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d26167f23399f7d6
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- No LNT'er was willing to answer any of the posts in this
series. It's funny to see dead silence from the LNT'er crowd.
DVP -- That CTer seems to actually think that if LNers don't crawl out
of the woodwork to attempt to "debunk" each and every one of his pro-
CT assertions and allegations....that must mean that a conspiracy is
still alive and well.
The plain truth of the matter is that ANY kook can easily pick apart
the Warren Report (they've had ample time, and desire, to do this of
course) and then isolate some things that (on the surface) appear to
lead down Conspiracy Avenue.
But what these CTers fail to EVER do is place those isolated items
back into a COHESIVE WHOLE that adds up to a logical and reasonable
and workable and DOABLE "Assassination Conspiracy Plot To Kill JFK".
Have we EVER seen such a COHESIVE WHOLE from the CTers? Ever? I sure
haven't. Their theories are scattershot and piecemeal (at best); and
utterly laughable (at worst).
A good case in point is a certain CTer's constant harping on Officer
James Chaney of the DPD. That CTer's exact question for LNers (via his
"21 Questions" series) was this:
"Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder, who just
coincidently would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, was
never questioned by the FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR?"
Per that conspiracist, Chaney ALONE could easily have debunked the SBT
with his testimony...testimony that was never elicited by the WC, of
course....so how that CTer KNOWS what Chaney would have said to the WC
is anyone's guess.
But, in all his kooky grandeur, that CTer announces to the world that
the "SBT is dead via Chaney alone!" (paraphrasing the kook there).
Of course, only a true kook of the First Order would make such a
stupid and incorrect declaration to the masses; because Chaney's
(non)-
testimony does not debunk the SBT in any way, shape, or form.
(That is to say that what Chaney told non-WC people in interviews
after the assassination does not indicate in any way that the SBT has
had its legs knocked out from under it. To think that Chaney HAS, by
himself, accomplished that task re. the SBT is just silly to begin
with.)
But that's a perfect example of how these CT-Kooks will "handle" the
evidence (or even the NON-evidence in Chaney's instance, since he
never was called to testify). The CTers will manipulate things to the
maximum degree of distortion, in order to promote their non-existent
conspiracy.
We've learned to expect this type of CT deception and the oddball CTer
skewing of CS&L by now, of course....because we're dealing with people
who probably could not continue to exist without a conspiracy of some
kind to latch onto daily.
And, of course, I myself have already dealt with a lengthy series of
CT questions from that list-loving conspiracy theorist. .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6db9ac1c27e26e32
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- How many shots do you "hear" {during} a 21-gun salute?
DVP -- So, you actually want to think that 13(!) shots (per the God-
awful "JFK II" documentary which that CTer is referring to when he
asked the above question) were melded into the THREE that all the
initial broadcasts reported...and the THREE that perfectly match the
number of spent bullet shells found on the 6th Floor of the Book
Depository?
Good luck with the jury on that "13 Sounded Like Only 3" theory (if
there had actually been a jury to appeal to, of course, sans the
shooting of Lee Oswald).
Unless you've got the O.J. jury on hand there....you'll need some
major help on passing that one off as anything close to reasonable (or
believable).
Not to mention the fact that it'd be just flat-out goofy to shoot at
the President THIRTEEN times within a ONE-patsy frame-up plot. That
gets the biggest "LOL" of all.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d5a5eeae1e135fd1
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- {James} Powell was there to capture a picture of "Oswald"
firing his rifle from that window during the shooting.
DVP -- LOL. More "Magical" powers being exhibited by a rabid CTer I
see -- a CTer who seems to know things that no JFK assassination
investigator has EVER learned.
Go figure.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- He {Powell} snapped his picture just a couple of minutes
BEFORE the motorcade arrived when "Oswald" stuck his rifle out of that
window.
DVP -- Okay, kook. Where's the rifle?
The Powell photo:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4392.jpg
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4241.jpg
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- I think those particular witnesses felt that two shots came
from the area of the picket fence. So when they mention shots as
plural, I don't think they are saying that "all the shots" fired that
day came from the fence.
DVP -- That might very well be what Simmons and Price meant, indeed.
But that is NOT what was implied by Mark Lane in his film {"Rush To
Judgment"}.
When asked "Where did you think the shots came from?", there was
nothing to prohibit either Simmons or Price from declaring that they
thought at least ONE shot (or more) had come from the Depository area.
But neither man ever said this in Lane's filmed interviews with them.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- {Quoting Bill Newman}: "I thought the shot had come from the
garden directly behind me, that it was on an elevation from where I
was, as I was right on the curb. I do not recall looking toward the
Depository. I looked back in the vicinity of the garden."
DVP -- This is very similar to the Price/Simmons "all from one
direction" point I was making earlier.
Newman says "shot" (singular) above -- but what about the OTHER shots
that WE KNOW FOR A FACT came from behind Kennedy? (We KNOW this,
obviously, due to the entry wounds in the backs of both victims, JBC
and JFK.)
Newman, via his WFAA-TV comments on 11/22/63 re. shots coming from
"the garden on the mound of ground there on the Knoll", seems to be
implying (just like Price and Simmons in Mark Lane's movie) that shots
came from just ONE PLACE (to the front of the limo).
Why? And how? When we know a majority of the shots came from the rear
(or at the least, even from a CT POV, an EQUAL number of shots came
from the rear and not the front).
NOT hearing REAR shots (or shots that would be discernible from
MULTIPLE directions), along with the frontal shots they've spoken
about, tells me that it's very likely that Newman, Price, and Simmons
(et al) were mistaken as to the origin of ALL the shots they heard.
For, HOW could ALL of these people have ONLY heard the frontal shots,
and NOT any multiple rear shots? I would say that this is highly
unlikely in a small bowl-like "Plaza" like DP. Especially from MANY
different witnesses. The Plaza is just simply not very big.
To say that all rear shots (and we KNOW there were some) would have
been completely inaudible (somehow) to many witnesses on the West End
of Dealey Plaza is just not a highly-logical conclusion, IMO.
A rifle blast is easily going to travel the short 100-yard (or so)
distance from Oswald's Sniper's Perch to Newman's eardrums, and Jean
Hill's, and James Simmons', and Richard Dodd's, et al.*
* = Unless silencers were utilized for ONLY the REAR shots -- which is
highly unlikely, since that's exactly where the "Patsy" resides (per
the common CT POV), and any TSBD shots would be the LAST shots any
"plotters" would want "silenced".
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- How hard is it to understand that the shooter closest to you
will drown out other shooters further away who may be firing at the
same time.
DVP -- Yes, true. But, the proverbial CT problem is -- there is NO
such provable evidence in the record (or otherwise) to suggest that
shots were fired "at the same time".
If there were shots being fired from the front AND rear at identical
times, then ALL of the frontal shots MISSED COMPLETELY, without
question. And how likely is that (via a "professional killers"
scenario)?
You're inventing that tidbit of data regarding shots fired "at the
same time" to suit your needs, and for no other reason, IMO.
And if the shots were SEPARATED by several seconds (which Oswald's
were from the TSBD), logic dictates to me that the people less than
100 yards west are going to certainly hear those blasts.
I have heard of the "tests" done in DP, where some people heard this
or that (depending on positioning in the Plaza). But it's still hard
for me to accept as fact the idea that Newman, or Jean Hill, or
whoever to the west of Oswald's position, would somehow NOT hear any
shots from the LHO location, and ONLY hear what sounded like shots
from the Knoll (which even CTers will probably admit were smaller in
numbers than any REAR shots).
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- David, that was not speculation; that reply was based on my
experience as a hunter.
DVP -- It WAS "speculation" with regard to the JFK case though.
Because you don't KNOW any shots were fired "at the same time".
Your past hunting experience is nice to hear about, but as far as what
happened in Dealey Plaza, your post about shots being fired "at the
same time" IS pure speculation.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- This means that if the kill shot came from the front, then the
{front-seat} fragments were from a missile hitting the chrome strip
without wounding anyone in the car.
DVP -- I'm very dubious about this possibility, for the reason that if
the chrome was damaged by a MISSED shot, that hit nothing else en
route to its chrome "meeting", why didn't the ricochet (that sent the
large fragments down into the limo) cause more damage to the front
seats or floorboards of the vehicle?
As far as I am aware, the two large bullet fragments were NOT
accompanied by ADDITIONAL FLOOR/SEAT DAMAGE; they were just lying
there, and never penetrated the floor or seats.
I'd therefore ask: How could this occur, when the bullet (if it was a
"miss") obviously would have been travelling at full velocity when it
struck the chrome and certainly ricocheted at (probably) a pretty good
speed?
Even if you don't accept the idea that such a full-velocity missile
could have PENETRATED whatever material was underneath the chrome
strip, the bullet certainly went SOMEPLACE after striking the chrome.
And if it was a missed shot, I think much more damage to the limo's
interior would have resulted from this missile.
However, in a "head-shot ricochet" scenario, this bullet is ALREADY
pretty much "spent" by the time it has reached the chrome. Therefore,
it's perfectly logical to assume that additional seat/floorboard
damage would not necessarily have resulted.
Plus, I'll also throw in the fact that, of course, the two front-seat
fragments were scientifically linked to Oswald's rifle (a rifle which
just happened to be found on the 6th Floor of the Depository 52
minutes after the shooting, along with the three spent Mannlicher-
Carcano shells).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9f9db2052413d59d
David Von Pein
DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 12):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From February 2006, March
2006, June 2006, November 2006, and March 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- {Lee Harvey} Oswald's ties with the
Soviet Union make me suspicious that they put him up to killing
Kennedy.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- And via such a plot, Oswald was just willing
to use his own rifle to murder the President, huh? And was willing to
leave that traceable weapon in the building after doing the deed?
Now, yes, I believe Oswald did do those two things -- but it ONLY
makes sense if he was acting alone, with nobody pulling his strings.
In the context of Oswald willingly going to the 6th Floor of the Texas
School Book Depository and murdering a U.S. President at the behest of
another party/entity/Government, there is no way he's going to use his
own gun in the crime.
In the "LN" scenario, however, Oswald merely used what was available
to him (which was his own traceable Mannlicher-Carcano rifle).
Via the "Soviet" scenario, you'd have to believe one of two things
occurred on 11/22/63:
1.) Oswald was dumber than the dumbest box of rocks (and willingly
stepped right on in to the Soviet Union's perfect "Patsy" plan).
-- Or: --
2.) In a Non-Patsy-Framing scenario, these crackerjack Soviet Union
behind-the-scenes assassination-planners were so impoverished and
destitute they just simply could not afford to furnish their assassin
(Oswald) with a weapon with which to shoot their U.S. adversary....and
forced Oswald, instead, to use his own 21-dollar and somewhat-shabby
bolt-action carbine to pull off the most important "hit" these Russian
bums will ever attempt in their rotten lives.
I ask -- Is either choice above within the realm of reasonable
probability?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8845d85a86407d31
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- "The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was
because I could not have done it," said former Marine sniper Craig
Roberts.
DVP -- Yeah, I love meaningless comments like that.
"Oswald couldn't do it because I couldn't."
-- or: --
"Oswald couldn't do it because he missed General Walker."
-- or: --
"Oswald couldn't do it because he was born on a Wednesday."
In other words: The conspiracy buffs choose to just ignore ALL THE
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that leads back to one man (the man who "couldn't do
it").
I have my doubts that the New York Mets actually won the 1969 World
Series ... because they'd never won before. No way they won that
Series! Couldn't have happened! And Oswald couldn't have shot JFK
either. He'd never shot a President from 60 feet up before; so he
couldn't have done it in '63. Right?
In a word -- Horsefeathers!
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- {Tippit witnesses Virginia and Barbara Davis} did indeed call
the police first, after hearing gunfire.
DVP -- That idea stems from Virginia Davis' testimony, when she said
that a phone call to the police had already been made from her house
before the two Davis ladies saw Lee Harvey Oswald cutting across their
yard following the shooting of Officer Tippit.
Virginia seemed a bit confused as to the exact time when the police
were called from the Davis residence....but let's examine this thing
logically, step-by-step:
1.) Both Davis women heard gunshots from outside their home.
2.) A man whom both Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis later positively
identified as Lee Harvey Oswald was then seen (by both Davis women)
walking briskly through the Davis' yard as he dumped empty bullet
cartridges onto the property.
3.) The police were called from the Davis house at some point after
the women heard the gunshots.
Now, unless Oswald was crawling on his hands and knees and moving
slower than Grandma Moses on crutches, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY
(realistically) that the Davis women could have had time to call the
police PRIOR to their seeing Oswald cut across their lawn. No way.
There was simply not enough time available.
Given the fact that Oswald obviously didn't just stand around on 10th
Street for a few minutes picking lint out of his belly-button after
killing a policeman in front of multiple eyewitnesses, the phone call
to the police from the Davis abode must have occurred AFTER Oswald had
cut through the Davis' yard.
Of course, in reality, it doesn't make a solitary bit of difference
exactly when the police were phoned from the Davis residence, because
both women later IDed Oswald as the man they had seen unloading a gun
while cutting across their front and side yards on November 22, 1963.
CTers like to paint any slight inconsistency in witness testimony as
something "shady" or "conspiratorial"....even when they haven't a leg
to stand on when so doing. (Like in this totally-meaningless "When
Were The Police Called?" instance.)
Let me also add this.....
Based on each of the two Davis ladies' 11/22/63 affidavits, it's
crystal-clear that the police were called from the Davis apartment
house only AFTER the Davises had seen Oswald cut across their yard.
Let's have a look at the key portions of these two affidavits:
"I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my
shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking across my front
yard unloading a gun. A woman was standing across the street screaming
that 'he shot him, he killed him' and pointed towards a police
car. ... I ran back in the house and called the operator and reported
this to the police. ... The #2 man in a 4-man lineup was the same man
I saw in my yard, also the one that was unloading the gun." -- Signed,
Barbara Jeanette Davis; 11/22/63
~~~~~
"We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at
Patton Street. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was
unloading his gun. We walked outside and a woman was hollering 'he's
dead, he's dead, he's shot'. This woman told Jeanette {Barbara Davis}
to call the police; and she did. I saw the officer that had been shot
lying on Tenth Street after Jeanette had called the police. Jeanette
found {an} empty shell that the man had unloaded and gave it to the
police. ... The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw
tonight as number 2 man in a lineup." -- Signed, Mrs. Virginia Davis;
11/22/63
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0130a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0130b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0128b.htm
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- What about the other guys who brought their rifles to work?
DVP -- And just how many of those other boys brought their rifles to
work ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION, broken down into pieces, and
wrapped in brown paper?
And how many of those warehouse boys claimed their rifles were
"curtain rods"?
Was there any reason for Oswald to tell lies about the contents of his
package if he was merely bringing his gun to work for "show-and-tell"
purposes?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- More witnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll than
from the TSBD.
DVP -- Totally untrue. On a simple "Front vs. Rear" basis, there were
certainly more "Rear" witnesses than "Front" ones. With "Rear", of
course, including the Book Depository.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
And one major fact that CTers will never be able to fully (and
believably) reconcile is the incredibly-low percentage of witnesses
who said they heard gunshots from BOTH the front and the rear of the
President's limousine, which is almost a non-existent percentile of
earwitnesses (which is an incredible thing indeed, if we're to believe
Oliver Stone's or Bob Groden's widely-accepted nonsense purporting 3
or 4 separate gunmen spread out all through Dealey Plaza).
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- You are describing evidence against one of the shooters, which
was found in the only building that the police happened to search.
DVP -- Well, yeah, that's correct. (I think a "Duh!" might prove
useful here as well.)
I guess CTers think the police were supposed to start searching every
inch of the Courthouse, the Dal-Tex Building, and the Trade Mart too,
even though there wasn't a single logical reason to do so...right?
Nobody claimed to hear shots from any other locations other than the
TSBD or the Grassy Knoll area; and both were searched....with the only
evidence of a gunman turning up in the Depository Building.
As lawyer Vincent Bugliosi is wont to say -- "What were the police
supposed to do....PRETEND that evidence existed elsewhere other than
where they found it and start chasing unknown, unseen killers? That's
crazy talk!" (Paraphrasing from Vince's O.J. Simpson video series; c.
1999.)
Anyhow, I have a strong feeling that even if every last square inch of
Dallas had been thoroughly searched by Sherlock Holmes himself on
11/22/63, and nothing had been found except in the TSBD, rabid CTers
would still find some convenient excuse to work their make-believe
"conspiracy" into the proceedings.
After all, what good is the truth when a conspiracy can be
manufactured from nothingness by scrutinizing to death every
microscopic detail of the crime, and then have the CT-Kooks highlight
with bold magic marker every tiny discrepancy they find (no matter how
well these discrepancies were explained at a later time in non-
conspiratorial ways)?
Some verbatim quotes from Vince Bugliosi this time:
"It couldn't be more obvious that there was no gunman at the Grassy
Knoll. No one SAW anybody with a rifle in that area. No weapon nor
expended cartridges from a weapon were found there. It didn't happen.
"Let's get into the mechanics -- who was this other gunman who, on the
day of the assassination, made his way into the Book Depository
Building, carrying a rifle....went up to the sixth floor....shot and
killed the President....made his way back down to the first
floor....and escaped without leaving a trace?
"How, in fact, if Oswald were innocent, did they GET Oswald, within
forty-five minutes of the assassination, to murder Officer Tippit? Or
was he framed for that murder too?!!
"As surely as I am standing here, as surely as night follows day, Lee
Harvey Oswald -- acting alone -- was responsible for the murder of
President John F. Kennedy." -- VB; 1986
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b3a8181c73cfa095
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Can you provide a shred of evidence which isolates Oswald as
the only sniper?
DVP -- This must be some kind of trick question. Gotta be. Because
nobody could be serious when asking such a lame question.
But, I guess I'll have to bite....
EVERY "shred" of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE "isolates Oswald as the only
sniper". Every piece.
To turn the tables, I'll now ask: What PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF A
CONSPIRACY (e.g., guns, bullets, bullet shells, fingerprints, and
clothing fibers) can you provide to show that a conspiracy existed
with respect to JFK's assassination in 1963?
I'm still waiting for that first piece of "C.T. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE" to
show up. Will it arrive sometime before the 100th anniversary of the
crime in 2063?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- You ignore the fact that many lone-gunman books do indeed
present conspiracy arguments.
DVP -- With the Warren Commission Report itself being one such
excellent example. 18.5% of the Warren Report is devoted solely to the
subject of "Investigation Of Possible Conspiracy" (164 of 888 pages,
including the 32-page "Speculations And Rumors" Appendix).
I often wonder if many (or any) CTers are aware of the above-mentioned
statistics regarding the WR?
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0134a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0331a.htm
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- What part of "occipital" don't you understand, Davey-boy?
DVP -- And what part of "somewhat" don't you understand, Mr.
Conspiracy Kook?
NONE of the autopsy doctors (in any of their official testimony) ever
placed the large JFK head (exit) wound anywhere except on the RIGHT-
FRONT-TOP area of the head. Never the "rear" or "back".
There's also, of course, the Offical JFK Autopsy Report itself (signed
by all three of the autopsists), which clearly indicates that
President Kennedy was shot only TWICE, with both shots coming from
"behind" and "above" the President.
Allow me to quote from the Autopsy Report directly (a document that
most conspiracy theorists must think is a complete fabrication from
Word One; because if it's not, then there's no doubt whatsoever that
JFK was shot only twice and only from behind).....
"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two
perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles
fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from
a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased. .... The
fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external
occipital protuberance. .... A portion of the projectile made its exit
through the parietal bone on the right carrying with it portions of
cerebrum, skull and scalp." -- Via Official Autopsy Report of
Assassinated U.S. President John F. Kennedy
~~~~~
So, tell me again, Mr. CTer, how all three autopsy doctors were
rotten, lying cover-up agents? I like hearing that theory...over and
over again. It's a howl.
www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/6285ffaa...
>
> DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 12):
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
> Conspiracy" Debate.
>
> FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From February 2006, March
> 2006, June 2006, November 2006, and March 2007.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- {Lee Harvey} Oswald's ties with the
> Soviet Union make me suspicious that they put him up to killing
> Kennedy.
"DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- And via such a plot, Oswald was just willing
to use his own rifle to murder the President, huh? And was willing to
leave that traceable weapon in the building after doing the deed?"
What rifle? The WC never proved he owned a rifle, especially a 40.2
inch M-C rifle. I don't buy the Soviet angle either as he was
employed by the CIA, FBI and military intelligence.
"Now, yes, I believe Oswald did do those two things -- but it ONLY
makes sense if he was acting alone, with nobody pulling his strings."
Why don't you ever prove he did these things? You are working from a
negative or false premise, therefore, you can't act like it is a
positive premise that has been proven already.
"In the context of Oswald willingly going to the 6th Floor of the
Texas School Book Depository and murdering a U.S. President at the
behest of another party/entity/Government, there is no way he's going
to use his own gun in the crime."
What gun? What proof and eyewitness do you have that could positively
ID LHO as the gunmen to the exclusion of all other living human
beings?
"In the "LN" scenario, however, Oswald merely used what was available
to him (which was his own traceable Mannlicher-Carcano rifle)."
How about proving it for once?
"Via the "Soviet" scenario, you'd have to believe one of two things
occurred on 11/22/63:
1.) Oswald was dumber than the dumbest box of rocks (and willingly
stepped right on in to the Soviet Union's perfect "Patsy" plan)."
Sure, he couldn't have been manipulated like he was by the CIA, FBI
and military intelligence right?
"-- Or: --
2.) In a Non-Patsy-Framing scenario, these crackerjack Soviet Union
behind-the-scenes assassination-planners were so impoverished and
destitute they just simply could not afford to furnish their assassin
(Oswald) with a weapon with which to shoot their U.S. adversary....and
forced Oswald, instead, to use his own 21-dollar and somewhat-shabby
bolt-action carbine to pull off the most important "hit" these Russian
bums will ever attempt in their rotten lives."
Why would the Soviets want JFK dead? He was called a commie by all
the right-wing war hawks for his willingness to work on detente, so
why in the world would the Soviets want a war hawk like LBJ to be
President?
"I ask -- Is either choice above within the realm of reasonable
probability?"
I agree that the Soviets had nothing to do with it and they themselves
turned up much in the way of conspiracy as they knew they could be
blamed. My issue with your response is you assert a lot of things
with NO proof.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8845d85a86407d31
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- "The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was
> because I could not have done it," said former Marine sniper Craig
> Roberts.
"DVP -- Yeah, I love meaningless comments like that.
"Oswald couldn't do it because I couldn't.""
I guess having arguably the best U.S. sniper ever, Carlos Hathcock,
say the same thing also means nothing, right? His group of men at the
sniper school could NOT duplicate the feat, but hey, what does that
prove, right? Only a bunch of old men on a phony Commission know the
truth, right?
"-- or: --
"Oswald couldn't do it because he missed General Walker.""
He didn't shoot at General Walker.
"-- or: --
"Oswald couldn't do it because he was born on a Wednesday."
In other words: The conspiracy buffs choose to just ignore ALL THE
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that leads back to one man (the man who "couldn't do
it")."
I like how this started with a Marine sniper saying it wasn't
possible, but somehow he makes it the CTers faulty assertion. We do
NOT ignore the physical evidence, that is why we know that LHO fired
at NO one on 11/22/63!
"I have my doubts that the New York Mets actually won the 1969 World
Series ... because they'd never won before. No way they won that
Series! Couldn't have happened! And Oswald couldn't have shot JFK
either. He'd never shot a President from 60 feet up before; so he
couldn't have done it in '63. Right?
In a word -- Horsefeathers!"
Sure, just disregard professional experts who say the shots were NOT
possible instead of dealing with the results. If you can't go to
experts who can you go to about this shooting feat?
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- {Tippit witnesses Virginia and Barbara Davis} did indeed call
> the police first, after hearing gunfire.
"DVP -- That idea stems from Virginia Davis' testimony, when she said
that a phone call to the police had already been made from her house
before the two Davis ladies saw Lee Harvey Oswald cutting across their
yard following the shooting of Officer Tippit.
Virginia seemed a bit confused as to the exact time when the police
were called from the Davis residence....but let's examine this thing
logically, step-by-step:
1.) Both Davis women heard gunshots from outside their home.
2.) A man whom both Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis later positively
identified as Lee Harvey Oswald was then seen (by both Davis women)
walking briskly through the Davis' yard as he dumped empty bullet
cartridges onto the property."
Well if LHO was wearing a light-brown-tan jacket or a black coat then
they did ID him, but to my knowledge he owned neither type coat.
Also, the cartridges they turned it were NOT the same ones, according
to them, that were later shown to them by the WC.
3.) The police were called from the Davis house at some point after
the women heard the gunshots.
Now, unless Oswald was crawling on his hands and knees and moving
slower than Grandma Moses on crutches, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY
(realistically) that the Davis women could have had time to call the
police PRIOR to their seeing Oswald cut across their lawn. No way.
There was simply not enough time available.
Given the fact that Oswald obviously didn't just stand around on 10th
Street for a few minutes picking lint out of his belly-button after
killing a policeman in front of multiple eyewitnesses, the phone call
to the police from the Davis abode must have occurred AFTER Oswald had
cut through the Davis' yard.
Of course, in reality, it doesn't make a solitary bit of difference
exactly when the police were phoned from the Davis residence, because
both women later IDed Oswald as the man they had seen unloading a gun
while cutting across their front and side yards on November 22, 1963.
CTers like to paint any slight inconsistency in witness testimony as
something "shady" or "conspiratorial"....even when they haven't a leg
to stand on when so doing. (Like in this totally-meaningless "When
Were The Police Called?" instance.)"
We do know the police broadcasted the shooting at 1:06 p.m. as Roger
Craig heard it.
"Let me also add this.....
Based on each of the two Davis ladies' 11/22/63 affidavits, it's
crystal-clear that the police were called from the Davis apartment
house only AFTER the Davises had seen Oswald cut across their yard.
Let's have a look at the key portions of these two affidavits:
"I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my
shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking across my front
yard unloading a gun. A woman was standing across the street screaming
that 'he shot him, he killed him' and pointed towards a police
car. ... I ran back in the house and called the operator and reported
this to the police. ... The #2 man in a 4-man lineup was the same man
I saw in my yard, also the one that was unloading the gun." -- Signed,
Barbara Jeanette Davis; 11/22/63"
This is surprising as the ONLY witness the WC would use is Markham, so
it makes me wonder if this is accurate especially based on the
jackets.
> ~~~~~
"We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at
Patton Street. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was
unloading his gun. We walked outside and a woman was hollering 'he's
dead, he's dead, he's shot'. This woman told Jeanette {Barbara Davis}
to call the police; and she did. I saw the officer that had been shot
lying on Tenth Street after Jeanette had called the police. Jeanette
found {an} empty shell that the man had unloaded and gave it to the
police. ... The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw
tonight as number 2 man in a lineup." -- Signed, Mrs. Virginia Davis;
11/22/63"
Ditto
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- What about the other guys who brought their rifles to work?
"DVP -- And just how many of those other boys brought their rifles to
work ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION, broken down into pieces, and
wrapped in brown paper?"
I don't know what this CTer is driving at either, but the main point
is that there is NO proof LHO brought a rifle to work that day, or any
other day.
"And how many of those warehouse boys claimed their rifles were
"curtain rods"?"
I don't know as the FBI and DPD probably didn't ask them, but the main
point is you only have one man saying LHO said this, Wes Frazier, and
so you have not proved he ever did say it. Besides, NO one at the TSBD
ever saw LHO with a large package.
"Was there any reason for Oswald to tell lies about the contents of
his package if he was merely bringing his gun to work for "show-and-
tell" purposes?"
What package? You are jumping ahead here as the WC NEVER proved there
was a package at all. Prove that and then we can move on.
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- More witnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll than
> from the TSBD.
"DVP -- Totally untrue. On a simple "Front vs. Rear" basis, there were
certainly more "Rear" witnesses than "Front" ones. With "Rear", of
course, including the Book Depository."
Davey doesn't know his details because of the 90 people asked (where
they thought the shots came from) 65 said the grassy knoll! Another
123 were NEVER asked this simple question, why?
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
"And one major fact that CTers will never be able to fully (and
believably) reconcile is the incredibly-low percentage of witnesses
who said they heard gunshots from BOTH the front and the rear of the
President's limousine, which is almost a non-existent percentile of
earwitnesses (which is an incredible thing indeed, if we're to believe
Oliver Stone's or Bob Groden's widely-accepted nonsense purporting 3
or 4 separate gunmen spread out all through Dealey Plaza)."
Of course as the plaza is an echo chamber. The trajectories show
shots came from both locations though. Futhermore, 2/3s of those
asked said the GN, so live with it.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- You are describing evidence against one of the shooters, which
> was found in the only building that the police happened to search.
"DVP -- Well, yeah, that's correct. (I think a "Duh!" might prove
useful here as well.)"
He thinks "duh" might apply here. I guess most police investigations
only search one possible location and ignore 2/3s of the witnesses,
right?
"I guess CTers think the police were supposed to start searching every
inch of the Courthouse, the Dal-Tex Building, and the Trade Mart too,
even though there wasn't a single logical reason to do so...right?"
I think DUH applies here as this is the standard procedure for a crime
like this. I don't think they had to search the Trade Mart, but all
tall buildings in the area of the shooting and the knoll should have
been searched.
"Nobody claimed to hear shots from any other locations other than the
TSBD or the Grassy Knoll area; and both were searched....with the only
evidence of a gunman turning up in the Depository Building."
Not true, they had a bunch of evidence behind the fence to work with.
True they did NOT find a rifle as professionals take theirs with them,
not hide them to be "found" quickly by the police.
"As lawyer Vincent Bugliosi is wont to say -- "What were the police
supposed to do....PRETEND that evidence existed elsewhere other than
where they found it and start chasing unknown, unseen killers? That's
crazy talk!" (Paraphrasing from Vince's O.J. Simpson video series; c.
1999.)"
Some crackerjack lawyer he must have been! LOL!! I'm sure he would
have tanned the hides of any police who conducted an investigation
like the JFK one on his cases. IT is there job to search all possible
locations whether they turn up evidence or not, in fact, most of the
searching will NOT turn up evidence but it has to be done anyway as a
process of elimination.
"Anyhow, I have a strong feeling that even if every last square inch
of Dallas had been thoroughly searched by Sherlock Holmes himself on
11/22/63, and nothing had been found except in the TSBD, rabid CTers
would still find some convenient excuse to work their make-believe
"conspiracy" into the proceedings."
I doubt it as this is standard police procedure, but then again, in
most cases the police don't know which building or spot will be the
"crime scene" ahead of time like this one.
"After all, what good is the truth when a conspiracy can be
manufactured from nothingness by scrutinizing to death every
microscopic detail of the crime, and then have the CT-Kooks highlight
with bold magic marker every tiny discrepancy they find (no matter how
well these discrepancies were explained at a later time in non-
conspiratorial ways)?"
You have it all wrong as usual Dave, the conspiracy thoughts came out
of a horrible investigation by the authorities. IF they had done
their jobs correctly and looked beyond just one man there would be no
conspiracy people in this case in all liklihood.
"Some verbatim quotes from Vince Bugliosi this time:
"It couldn't be more obvious that there was no gunman at the Grassy
Knoll. No one SAW anybody with a rifle in that area. No weapon nor
expended cartridges from a weapon were found there. It didn't happen."
This is an out and out lie as several witness saw smoke and 2/3s of
those asked said the shots came from there.
"Let's get into the mechanics -- who was this other gunman who, on the
day of the assassination, made his way into the Book Depository
Building, carrying a rifle....went up to the sixth floor....shot and
killed the President....made his way back down to the first
floor....and escaped without leaving a trace?"
Professionals who used the back frieght elevator and there were
witnesses who saw them leave the back of the TSBD after the shooting.
They also left their guns there that is why we have a Mauser found,
another rifle on the 4th floor found (confirmed by ATF agent Frank
Ellsworth), and one found on the roof of the building as this was
filmed as it was brought down the fire escape.
"How, in fact, if Oswald were innocent, did they GET Oswald, within
forty-five minutes of the assassination, to murder Officer Tippit? Or
was he framed for that murder too?!!"
Prove he murdered JDT! The physical evidence doesn't show this.
"As surely as I am standing here, as surely as night follows day, Lee
Harvey Oswald -- acting alone -- was responsible for the murder of
President John F. Kennedy." -- VB; 1986"
Well, to bad he didn't say let me struck by lightning instead as we
wouldn't have to hear these silly quotes anymore.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b3a8181c73cfa095
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- Can you provide a shred of evidence which isolates Oswald as
> the only sniper?
"DVP -- This must be some kind of trick question. Gotta be. Because
nobody could be serious when asking such a lame question.
But, I guess I'll have to bite....
EVERY "shred" of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE "isolates Oswald as the only
sniper". Every piece."
WRONG!!!! Not one does.
"To turn the tables, I'll now ask: What PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF A
CONSPIRACY (e.g., guns, bullets, bullet shells, fingerprints, and
clothing fibers) can you provide to show that a conspiracy existed
with respect to JFK's assassination in 1963?
I'm still waiting for that first piece of "C.T. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE" to
show up. Will it arrive sometime before the 100th anniversary of the
crime in 2063?"
Dave just doesn't get the American judicial system at all. The defense
doesn't have to prove someone else did it, unless they want to, they
just have to show the evidence the prosecution has against their
client is not valid. And in this case, NONE of the evidence against
LHO is valid, therefore, it had to be someone else, or some other
group.
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_rdp_s...
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- You ignore the fact that many lone-gunman books do indeed
> present conspiracy arguments.
>
"DVP -- With the Warren Commission Report itself being one such
excellent example. 18.5% of the Warren Report is devoted solely to the
subject of "Investigation Of Possible Conspiracy" (164 of 888 pages,
including the 32-page "Speculations And Rumors" Appendix)."
I was thinking of it for a different reason, like anyone who reads has
to come away with the idea of there having been a conspiracy.
"I often wonder if many (or any) CTers are aware of the above-
mentioned statistics regarding the WR?"
Yes, but they really didn't look into anyone as being guilty, it was
designed to show it was NOT anyone but LHO. IOW, it was designed to
put to rest ideas of conspiracy, NOT really investigate the
possibility of one.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0134a.htm
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0331a.htm
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- What part of "occipital" don't you understand, Davey-boy?
"DVP -- And what part of "somewhat" don't you understand, Mr.
Conspiracy Kook?
"NONE of the autopsy doctors (in any of their official testimony) ever
placed the large JFK head (exit) wound anywhere except on the RIGHT-
FRONT-TOP area of the head. Never the "rear" or "back"."
What part of the autopsy report don't you understand? It describes
the skull defect as continuous, bony right parietal-temporal-occipital
defect. Also, this description would conflict with all the photos and
the X-rays, why?
"There's also, of course, the Offical JFK Autopsy Report itself
(signed by all three of the autopsists), which clearly indicates that
President Kennedy was shot only TWICE, with both shots coming from
"behind" and "above" the President."
Yes, and there is the death certificate, signed by JFK's personal
physician Adm. Burkley, would list JFK's back wound at the T-3
thoracic vertebra.
"Allow me to quote from the Autopsy Report directly (a document that
most conspiracy theorists must think is a complete fabrication from
Word One; because if it's not, then there's no doubt whatsoever that
JFK was shot only twice and only from behind).....
"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two
perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles
fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from
a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased. .... The
fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external
occipital protuberance. .... A portion of the projectile made its exit
through the parietal bone on the right carrying with it portions of
cerebrum, skull and scalp." -- Via Official Autopsy Report of
Assassinated U.S. President John F. Kennedy"
Note high-velocity projectiles as the alleged murder weapon was a low-
to-medium rifle, so I guess bullets weren't the only magic thing that
day. The FBI Summary Report, used to summarize the FBI's findings
before January 1964, showed the following statement on December 9,
1963, in regards to the autopsy findings:
"Medical examination of the President's body revealed that one of the
bullets had entered just below his shoulder to the right of the spinal
column at an angle of 45 to 60 degrees downward, that there was NO
point of exit, and that the bullet was NOT in the body."
This destroys the SBT theory by itself as the bullet was going
downward and there was NO point of exit. It also described the skull
defect as continuous, bony right parietal-temporal-occipital defect.
> ~~~~~
"So, tell me again, Mr. CTer, how all three autopsy doctors were
rotten, lying cover-up agents? I like hearing that theory...over and
over again. It's a howl."
You obviously selectively read, otherwise you would have known about
these:
Jan Gail Rudnicki, lab assistant on the night of the autopsy, told the
HSCA "back-right quadrant of the head was missin."
Phillip C. Wehle, Commanding officer of the military district of
Washington, D.C., was interviewed by HSCA counsel Andy Purdy on
8/19/77. In his memo which was recently released Purdy wrote "(Wehle)
noted that the wound was in the BACK OF THE HEAD so he would not see
it because the President was lying face up."
Of course O'Neill and Sibert said the wound was in the back of the
head and in their early statements both Humes and Boswell noted the
wound as being in the RIGHT REAR and RIGHT ANTERIOR! So when we add
these to the 40 people at Parkland and the morgue, we see the majority
said the wound was in the rear of the head with some damage working up
to the right temple.
David Von Pein
>>> "You obviously selectively read, otherwise you would have known about these {BOH witnesses}..." <<<
Any and ALL "BOH Wound" witnesses are trumped (forever and always) by
the following two pieces of related evidence/information:
1.) This X-ray of the right side of JFK's head:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
-- And: --
2.) This statement from the HSCA:
"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; Vol. 7; Pg. 41
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm
But, Rob, please continue to totally ignore the above 2 critical items
of evidence and "not altered in any manner" information. Being the
kook you are (or are pretending to be), surely you shall continue to
ignore those items. Correct?
Addendum......
Today's "Just For Laughs" Idiotic CT-Kook Quote Of The Day:
"We {THE "ABO" KOOKS OF THE UNIVERSE} do NOT ignore the physical
evidence, that is why we know that LHO fired at NO one on 11/22/63!"
-- Robert Caprio; 03/04/2008 A.D.
David Von Pein
DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 3):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From March 2005 and March
2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- I have chosen to accept what WAS 1st-
day evidence. Witnesses can be coerced in a variety of ways as time
marches on.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- Which brings up another interesting point (re.
"1st Day Evidence") -- If you've ever watched the November 22nd "As-
It-
Is-Happening" news broadcasts from any of the three TV networks, you
will no doubt notice an obvious "LN/Oswald Only" trend right from the
very first bulletins and first-day accounts.
A huge majority of the 11/22 "first-day evidence" and first-day
reporting on the assassination led to three shots being fired (from
behind the President) and only one man (LHO) being a suspect in the
shooting.
Nothing that I heard on any of the 11/22 news coverage led any news
reporter or TV anchor to cry "There was more than one shooter
involved"; or "There must be more to this than just Oswald being the
lone killer".
Nothing like this was uttered EVEN DURING THE INITIAL FIRST-HOUR AND
FIRST-DAY BROADCASTS over national TV and radio.
If a multi-shooter conspiracy was taking place in Dealey Plaza on
November 22, 1963, somebody please tell me HOW all of the initial
reports (being broadcast by non-conspirators, unless you want to
believe that all of the TV journalists of the day were "in" on some
"plot") pointed to just "three shots" and to one single suspect?
How could this possibly have occurred in the world of instantaneous
news (which we were just entering in TV reporting, starting with this
very event -- the JFK murder) if a large conspiracy involving multiple
gunmen and in excess of three gunshots had just taken place only hours
(or minutes) earlier?
Were the cover-up operatives THAT good, that they totally manipulated
and controlled every aspect of the TV and radio (and newspaper)
coverage during those initial hours and days?
Such an amazingly-orchestrated plot, which erased nearly every hint of
initial "conspiratorial" actions, would have been -- in one word --
impossible. It could not have been pulled off that smoothly, and THAT
immediately, so that all news agencies were reporting exactly what the
conspirators wanted them to report during those frenetic and confusing
first minutes and hours following the assassination.
==================================================
11/22/63 -- AS-IT-HAPPENED AUDIO FOOTAGE:
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7x7co2jkkg
==================================================
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Get a clue DVP! The answer is sitting right there in front of
your face. Try opening your eyes (and your brain) and have a look at
it.
DVP -- Once again, only in a CT-infested world could this type of post
by be allowed to flourish. You are so wrong about the network TV
coverage it isn't even funny.
You actually believe that ALL of the many newsmen and reporters who
were travelling in the very same motorcade as JFK (and who heard only
three shots and reported hearing that number to their various
individual affiliates) were all "duped" and somehow "controlled" into
hearing only THREE SHOTS EXACTLY and reporting same within minutes of
the shooting, thus "covering up" the real number of shots and
shooters?
Once the story broke on November 22nd, at 12:34 PM (Central Time),
that a shooting had occurred in Dallas, every major news outlet in the
country was searching and digging for any little tidbit of information
about the killer or killers.
And you think ALL of these tons of no-doubt very good investigative
reporters from all the major news outlets (in Dallas, Chicago, New
York, Washington, L.A., San Francisco, everywhere!) were all led down
a perfectly-orchestrated garden path of LN-ism, even though (per
CTers) a massive conspiracy actually existed involving 2, 3, or 4
gunmen, who fired 5 or 6 (or who knows) how many shots?
And you want to believe that all of these individual investigative
reporters (and there must have been hundreds, or even thousands,
working in newsrooms all over the country -- and around the world),
who would no doubt have loved to have found evidence of a conspiracy
(for it would have been the biggest story of their careers without
question), were ALL duped immediately after the shooting into
believing an LN scenario?
You're the one who needs to "get a clue".
Nobody was "controlling" the information that was being gathered by
HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of different news people and news outlets
worldwide.
Nobody prevented Mr. Zapruder from going on Live TV at WFAA and
relaying his account of the shooting.
Nobody prevented the Newmans from going on WFAA as well (Live) just
after the shooting and telling (in essence) what amounts to a "CT"
version of the assassination.
Jean Hill wasn't prevented from going on TV either. Nor was Charles
Brehm.
And how did the conspirators know for certain that any of these
witnesses (who were practically in the line of fire) wouldn't have
actually seen a second gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll?
And what about Merriman Smith's first bulletin (saying "three shot
were fired...") -- plus Jack Bell's following report to AP minutes
later (also saying three shots and no more)? How could the plotters
have possibly controlled these men, who reported the shooting to the
world practically before the cars left Dealey Plaza?
They couldn't have controlled this initial information, given the
vastness of news reporting even during this early era of instant TV
news. No possible way.
How did these ultra-clever plotters know that Merriman Smith wouldn't
be reporting to the world at 12:34 PM this version of what he could
very well have seen and heard if the type of larger conspiracy in fact
existed as many CTers firmly believe was the case.....
"Bulletin--Dallas, Texas--12:34PM--Six shots were fired today at
President Kennedy's motorcade in downtown Dallas--Two gunmen with what
appeared to be high-powered rifles were seen scrambling on a grassy
slope in Dealey Plaza--two more shooters fired multiple shots at JFK
from behind the President's vehicle--stand by--more to come--".
If a multi-shooter conspiracy had occurred in Dallas, there is no way
that all of the initial reports would have favored only a lone-gunman
scenario. No conspirator is THAT good.
Re. the immediacy of the so-called "Oswald pre-packaged" reports ---
There's nothing mysterious here at all. Why do you think there is? Not
one U.S.A. news outlet uttered the words "Lee Harvey Oswald" until
well after he was arrested by the Dallas Police at approximately 1:50
PM in Oak Cliff.
The info then spread quickly--sure. But so what? That's what good
investigative reporters do. They gather information quickly. Which,
again, is why it's crazy to believe that all of these reporters and
newsmen would (or could) have been duped into believing the false
conclusion of Oswald's lone guilt.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/01377bde4de2b5e4
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- And what part of the motorcade were the newsmen riding in,
DVP? Farrrrr back from the lead car, weren't they?
DVP -- Not so farrrrr back that they couldn't hear and see what was
happening. Those camera cars were already on Houston Street (as we can
easily see in the Dorman Film) and, in fact, the Wiegman Camera Car
was just turning onto Elm when the shots were fired. Why is this
considered so "farrrrr back"? It isn't.
Dave Wiegman, in fact, as we know, actually had time, after hearing
the first shot, to jump out of his camera car and run west on Elm and
actually film the President's car before it ever went through the
Underpass.
So your "farrrrr back" argument will not fly at all.
THE WIEGMAN FILM:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3J0CIlzxw7s
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- As to the info about Oswald that weekend, how was so MUCH of
it learned almost instantly?
DVP -- There is nothing excessively unusual or conspiratorial in this
at all, IMO. As mentioned previously, good investigative journalists
would be able to dig up the info on Oswald (or anybody) if they looked
in the right places. And they obviously did.
And everybody was no doubt trying to outdo each other, and grab the
"scoop" of the day by finding out all they could about the suspected
assassin (Lee Oswald) and reporting it FIRST and FAST to the American
public.
Let's turn the tables for a moment now --- Per your pro-conspiracy
argument that the "Oswald Story" was nicely tied up with a pre-
packaged bow and given to the press by somebody (who did this, btw?),
can you explain why the conspirators were so stupid as to release ALL
of this vital info on Oswald THAT SOON and THAT QUICKLY to the press?
Wouldn't it look just exactly as you suspect -- that it was all "too
pat", and that this detailed information on Oswald was already
processed prior to November 22nd?
Wouldn't the "plotters" have known that this "too soon" release of
info was a mistake and could blow the plot to a large degree?
Shouldn't they have at least suspected that there was going to be a
large number of "Conspiracy Seekers" who wouldn't believe that the
quick info on Oswald was simply due to good and fast research done by
legitimate reporters and newsmen?
Hiding anything of a major nature from the ever-prying eyes of
crackerjack reporters should have been a huge concern for these so-
called plotters. And the very fact that it appeared that the plotters
DID hide virtually all evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK
assassination immediately after the last gunshot was fired tells me
one thing -- a multi-shooter conspiracy never occurred in the first
place.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7448f602cc9b26e3
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Please be advised that the first written reports from Dallas
on 11/22/63 stated, "He {JFK} was shot today by an assassin who sent a
rifle bullet crashing into his temple".
DVP -- Sure. Because given where all of the blood was seen on JFK's
head, the "temple" remark was a logical assumption to make at the time
it was made. (Also note the word "assassin" -- singular -- in that
early 11/22 report. Not "assassins", plural. The report implies ONE
killer, not multiple assassins.)
The entry wound (at the back of the head) wasn't providing any highly-
visible indication of the President's wounds. But the EXIT wound near
the "temple" was providing an indication of where the wound was.
But that certainly doesn't mean the massive bloody area was where the
ENTRY wound was located. Just the opposite, of course. The larger
(much bloodier) wound is the exit, not the entrance point.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/z335.jpg
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Reports also said that as the car sped to Parkland Hospital,
"President Kennedy was on his back and Mrs. Kennedy had his head in
her arms. Blood was pouring from the President's temple".
DVP -- Sure it was pouring from the temple. That's where the bigger
hole in the head was. So what? That description perfectly fits a rear
shot hitting the President in the head.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Malcolm Kilduff then told the press that the president was
"shot right through the head" as he pointed at his right temple area.
DVP -- I always get a big kick out of this foolish argument (which
comes up occasionally, even though it means zilch).
To actually rely on Mr. Kilduff's obvious "general" pointing to the
head as PROOF of some kind that President Kennedy was shot from the
front in the temple is pure nonsense.
Kilduff's quick act of "pointing" to his head (temple) was not meant
to be taken as literally the precise point where the bullet entered.
Anybody thinking this "point to the head" would indicate a detailed
account of exactly where the shot came from (or entered) is not
thinking Kilduff's animated statement through logically.
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/kilduff.gif
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2f4fbc98680c07a3
DVP SAID:
>>> "If only you had an extra non-Oswald bullet to rely on. Too bad." <<<
ROB THEN SAID:
>>> "I've got extra bullets, Dave. Too bad for you. I have the windshield bullet, the curb bullet and the bullet that hit the sidewalk, plus the 3 for JFK and 2 for JBC." <<<
DVP THEN SAID:
>>> "Hidden in your basement, huh?" <<<
ROB THEN SAID:
>>> "Why would they be in my basement? I have a permit for my gun. They are near the gun safe." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Lord H. God! I even need to talk Robby through my "basement" retort.
Well, I'm not going to. Let him figure it out (some month/year).
ROB SAID:
>>> "Where are they {all the extra bullets} indeed?" <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Oh, I can tell you, if you want to know. .... They're all in your
head. And NOWHERE ELSE.
The overwhelming and huge preponderance of evidence indicates that
only 3 shots were fired on 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, with all 3 of
those bullets coming from Oswald's gun and from the TSBD's Sniper's
Nest. (The 3 spent cartridges in that SN just about prove that fact
beyond reasonable doubt, when those shell casings are coupled with
this stat right here re. the number of shots heard by the vast
majority of witnesses.).....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
Robby, of course, has a big problem when trying to reconcile the above
chart's stats into his make-believe "8 or 9 shot" shooting
scenario....because it would mean that more than NINE OUT OF EVERY TEN
witnesses in the Plaza--incredibly--missed hearing up to TWO-THIRDS of
the shots that day (if a kook named Robby is correct).
Or would Rob like to now purport that all but the 3 TSBD/SN shots were
"silenced"? Well, if so, he's got more problems and contradictions in
his theory to iron out...because that would mean that Robby-boy (and
other CT-Kooks who believe these same crazy things) will have to now
disbelieve any and all witnesses who said they DID hear some shots
coming from the FRONT of Kennedy's car.
And I doubt that any CT-Kook would dare abandon great witnesses like
Jean Hill and Skinny "Smoky Knoll" Holland, etc., because those
witnesses are part of a CT-Kook's general mosaic, which forms the
fabric for the standard CTer's dreamed-up multi-shooter conspiracy
that never happened.
So, feast your eyes on this chart once again, Rob. Maybe its
significance will one day sink in. .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
Related link.....
EARWITNESS TABULATION:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
ROB SAID:
>>> "Too bad the pictures of the windshield frame, sidewalk and curb couldn't be done away with as easily as the brain and other bullet traces (save for some fragments from the brain and JBC's wrist)." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Yeah, a few photos would be MUCH harder to dispose of than a WHOLE
BRAIN taken from a dead President's head, huh Mr. K-word? (Geez.)
ROB SAID:
>>> "Talk with your government, but in the meantime check out the sidewalk and windshield bullet photos, as these are two more shots not accounted for." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
I've already fully explained what the official position is (and mine)
re. the "windshield" bullet (actually 2 fragments from Oz's head-shot
bullet, which fully and logically explain both damaged limo items, the
windshield crack and the chrome dent).
Why have you decided to ignore that perfectly-reasonable explanation?
(Silly question, I know; it's because you're an "Anybody But Oswald"
Conspiracy Club member, of course. You HAVE to reject the wheat and
reach for the chaff.)
ROB SAID:
>>> "Check out "The Killing of a President" by Robert Groden. Open to p. 41 and you see a photo for the manhole cover/sidewalk where a bullet hit and was found moments after the shooting..." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
And while you're looking at "TKOAP" by Bob Groden, be sure to check
out Pages 20 through 40, and take note of how Groden has the giant-
sized 'nads to purport that NO SHOTS likely came from Oz's SN window
at all.
He's got only ONE trajectory line drawn from the Oswald window during
his entire 8-to-10-shot shooting spree in Dealey, but even that ONE
bullet from the SN he really doesn't think belongs there. He says that
Shot #4 "more probably" came from the Dal-Tex instead of from the
Depository.
Groden probably just put in the one token "possible" shot from the
ONLY KNOWN SOURCE FOR *ALL* OF THE GUNFIRE (i.e., Oswald's Sniper's
Perch in the Depository) because he knew he might be laughed out of
the country if he didn't include just a LITTLE bit of truth in his
otherwise-tripe-filled narrative in TKOAP.
I will say, though, that TKOAP is probably my favorite "CT" book, but
only due to the good job Groden does with the photos themselves (it's
certainly not based on his always-skewed and misrepresented
interpretation of those pictures, however). But the pictures and films
that are presented in Groden's book ("The Killing Of A President") and
his DVDs are very good.
It's just too bad that all of the written words and Bob's narration
couldn't be excised from his book and video materials. That would
raise them to an A+ grade indeed.
BTW, the picture of the manhole cover on Page 41 of TKOAP does nothing
whatsoever to convince me that ANY bullet (or fragment thereof) struck
that manhole cover. I see absolutely NOTHING in that photo that could
be interpreted as a definitive mark resulting from a "bullet".
And there was most certainly NO BULLET picked up by anybody in Dealey
Plaza on 11/22/63. That's a CT Myth and nothing more. Buddy Walthers'
sheriff's report talks about the mark on the curb, but his report says
NOTHING about a bullet being recovered. Nothing. CTers have made that
story up. Period.
Anyway, the search is apparently over for the other bullets, since Rob
has admitted that he's got them near his "gun safe" in his house.
Please snap a few photos and post them here, Rob. The world's been
waiting to see those bullets for nearly 44 years.
BTW #2, also on Page 41 of TKOAP, Mr. Groden does a nice job of
totally misrepresenting what the Warren Commission said with respect
to the limousine's chrome damage, when Groden claims that the WC
"ignored" the dent in the chrome strip in the limousine, which is a
blatant lie.
Truth is, the Commission confronted the chrome damage head-on, both in
its Final Report (see the bottom of Page 77 of the WCR, linked below)
and via the testimony of the FBI's Robert Frazier, when the WC's Allen
Dulles had this verbal exchange with Frazier:
DULLES -- "...The indentation in the chrome around the
windshield....could that have been caused by a fragment of a bullet?"
FRAZIER -- "Yes, it very easily could have. It would not have been
caused, for instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its full
velocity from a rifle, but merely from a fragment traveling at fairly
high velocity which struck the inside surface of the chrome."
DULLES -- "Could that have been caused by any of the fragments that
you have identified as having been found on the front seat or near the
front seat of the car?"
FRAZIER -- "Yes. I believe it could have by either, in fact, of the
two fragments of rifle bullets found in the front seat."
WCR; PAGE 77:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0051a.htm
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "You obviously selectively read, otherwise you would have known about these {BOH witnesses}..." <<<
"Any and ALL "BOH Wound" witnesses are trumped (forever and always) by
the following two pieces of related evidence/information:"
First of all, which BOH wound are we talking about? The one the
autopsy doctors said or the one the Clark panel moved FOUR inches
higher? Finck wouldn't budge on this move as he felt the autopsy
doctors knew better than people who just examined photos.
"1.) This X-ray of the right side of JFK's head:"
Again the autopsy report contridicts BOTH the photos and the X-rays so
this is moot.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
"-- And: --
"2.) This statement from the HSCA:"
"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; Vol. 7; Pg. 41"
How can the photos and X-rays be valid when they disagree with the
autopsy report and over 40 witnesses from Parkland and the morge? How
can they be genuine when quite a few involved in creating them say
they are different?
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
"But, Rob, please continue to totally ignore the above 2 critical
items of evidence and "not altered in any manner" information. Being
the kook you are (or are pretending to be), surely you shall continue
to ignore those items. Correct?"
I ingore them as I listen to the 40 plus people at Parkland and the
morgue and the autopsy doctors, photographers and X-ray technicians.
"Addendum......
Today's "Just For Laughs" Idiotic CT-Kook Quote Of The Day:
"We {THE "ABO" KOOKS OF THE UNIVERSE} do NOT ignore the
physical
evidence, that is why we know that LHO fired at NO one on 11/22/63!"
-- Robert Caprio; 03/04/2008 A.D."
Darn right!
Robert Harris
David, why do you only go after the WEAKEST arguments for conspiracy?
Post your rebuttal to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
Bad theories often sound good at a glance, but they quickly fall apart
as you go deeper and deeper into the evidence.
What I found out years ago, was that the deeper you go into this the
more solid it becomes. I first learned about that 285 shot, reading
Nellie's testimony although my articles back then referenced a shot at
frame 284.
At that early stage, I had no clue that Alvarez placed the noise at 285,
or even that the huge consensus of witnesses recalled closely bunched
shots at the end.
I hadn't looked at Clint Hill, Charles Brehm, Kellerman, Greer, etc.
etc, all of whom confirmed that shot in a multitude of ways.
Even if you don't buy it now, you need to look at it for the simple
reason, that this is an explanation that you cannot even begin to
refute.
And if you REALLY believe your theory is correct then there are no
plausible challenges that you should ever ignore.
Robert Harris
In article
<e3666258-b513-46d0...@e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/18f532582a1b35c7/
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
>
>
>
>David, why do you only go after the WEAKEST arguments for conspiracy?
>
>Post your rebuttal to this:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
>
>Bad theories often sound good at a glance, but they quickly fall apart
>as you go deeper and deeper into the evidence.
>
>What I found out years ago, was that the deeper you go into this the
>more solid it becomes. I first learned about that 285 shot, reading
>Nellie's testimony although my articles back then referenced a shot at
>frame 284.
>
>At that early stage, I had no clue that Alvarez placed the noise at 285,
>or even that the huge consensus of witnesses recalled closely bunched
>shots at the end.
>
>I hadn't looked at Clint Hill, Charles Brehm, Kellerman, Greer, etc.
>etc, all of whom confirmed that shot in a multitude of ways.
>
>Even if you don't buy it now, you need to look at it for the simple
>reason, that this is an explanation that you cannot even begin to
>refute.
>
>And if you REALLY believe your theory is correct then there are no
>plausible challenges that you should ever ignore.
And yet, Bob - you do *EXACTLY* this. Constantly refusing to support your own
theory that the extant Z-film is authentic.
For it's *FAR* beyond "plausible" that there was a tremendous body of evidence
for the limo stopping in Dealey Plaza that day.
Denying it will get you nowhere...
>Robert Harris
<troll nonsense snipped>
aeffects
> David, why do you only go after the WEAKEST arguments for conspiracy?
>
> Post your rebuttal to this:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
>
> Bad theories often sound good at a glance, but they quickly fall apart
> as you go deeper and deeper into the evidence.
>
> What I found out years ago, was that the deeper you go into this the
> more solid it becomes. I first learned about that 285 shot, reading
> Nellie's testimony although my articles back then referenced a shot at
> frame 284.
these frame numbers and ANY-ALL relationship[s] to same mean EXACTLY
what, IF the Zapruder film is altered, please?
> At that early stage, I had no clue that Alvarez placed the noise at 285,
> or even that the huge consensus of witnesses recalled closely bunched
> shots at the end.
>
> I hadn't looked at Clint Hill, Charles Brehm, Kellerman, Greer, etc.
> etc, all of whom confirmed that shot in a multitude of ways.
>
> Even if you don't buy it now, you need to look at it for the simple
> reason, that this is an explanation that you cannot even begin to
> refute.
>
> And if you REALLY believe your theory is correct then there are no
> plausible challenges that you should ever ignore.
>
> Robert Harris
>
> In article
> <e3666258-b513-46d0-b181-9e2c07ddc...@e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/18f53258...
> >http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
> ...
>
> read more »
Bob Harris
<3437b314-2e6f-45c0...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 10:21 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > David, why do you only go after the WEAKEST arguments for conspiracy?
> >
> > Post your rebuttal to this:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
> >
> > Bad theories often sound good at a glance, but they quickly fall apart
> > as you go deeper and deeper into the evidence.
> >
> > What I found out years ago, was that the deeper you go into this the
> > more solid it becomes. I first learned about that 285 shot, reading
> > Nellie's testimony although my articles back then referenced a shot at
> > frame 284.
>
>
> these frame numbers and ANY-ALL relationship[s] to same mean EXACTLY
> what, IF the Zapruder film is altered, please?
The Zapruder film was not altered.
And the ONLY people to believe otherwise are those who refuse to
seriously analyze their own accusations.
Anyone who has NOT gone to the trouble of using a CAD program to look at
the issues that were raised recently, has no business even voicing an
opinion.
You can go to a local bar and get better advice from the drunks.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
Harris says...
>
>In article
><3437b314-2e6f-45c0...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 6, 10:21 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > David, why do you only go after the WEAKEST arguments for conspiracy?
>> >
>> > Post your rebuttal to this:
>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
>> >
>> > Bad theories often sound good at a glance, but they quickly fall apart
>> > as you go deeper and deeper into the evidence.
>> >
>> > What I found out years ago, was that the deeper you go into this the
>> > more solid it becomes. I first learned about that 285 shot, reading
>> > Nellie's testimony although my articles back then referenced a shot at
>> > frame 284.
>>
>>
>> these frame numbers and ANY-ALL relationship[s] to same mean EXACTLY
>> what, IF the Zapruder film is altered, please?
>
>
>The Zapruder film was not altered.
So you believe.
Yet you're unwilling to defend that position.
Indeed, you *RUN* from the debate on that topic.
>And the ONLY people to believe otherwise are those who refuse to
>seriously analyze their own accusations.
Ad hominem.
>Anyone who has NOT gone to the trouble of using a CAD program to look at
>the issues that were raised recently, has no business even voicing an
>opinion.
Spoken by a man who *refuses* to even name the CAD software he asserts he used,
let alone list the data needed.
>You can go to a local bar and get better advice from the drunks.
Drunks would give you the name of the *same* CAD software and data elements as
Bob has thus far given.