ouch...OUCH -- David Von Pein! Dr. Gary Ag does it to VB....
aeffects
New review of Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" published in the Nov/Dec
issue of "The Federal Lawyer", Can Vincent Bugliosi be trusted on the
Kennedy case?
aeffects
> http://www.ctka.net/bug_aguilar.html
>
> Gee, what a shocker! A CTer actually disagrees with Bugliosi and the
> "LN" scenario!
>
> Never would have imagined a thing like that occurring in a million
> years.
>
well its clear you haven't been authorized by daBug to comment
regarding content.... and that makes you WHAT with daBug group again?
Has to be a tremendous, mega-slam by Bug's own fraternity
<snip the half hearted Lone Nut PR>
David Von Pein
http://www.ctka.net/bug_aguilar.html
Gee, what a shocker! A CTer actually disagrees with Bugliosi and the
"LN" scenario!
Never would have imagined a thing like that occurring in a million
years.
Gary Aguilar, as expected, spends an inordinate amount of time trying
to prop up the idea that Guinn's NAA data is totally invalid. The
truth is, of course, that the NAA analysis is (and always has been)
merely corroborative in nature and is actually completely unneeded in
order to determine the very-likely origin of the small bullet
fragments associated with the JFK case.
For, I still want to know what the odds are of ZERO pieces of any non-
Oswald bullets (large enough to be tested via traditional ballistics
means, that is) showing up anywhere (car, hospital, victims) and yet
still have bullets from any non-Oswald guns striking any victims in
that limousine?
The ONLY bullets/fragments large enough to be tested ballistically are
linked irrevocably to Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano Rifle #C2766. This
is a FACT that cannot be denied...no matter how many CTers show up in
the future to try and dispute this irreversible fact.
And that irreversible fact about the bullets and fragments is an
absolutely incredible fact IF OTHER GUNS WERE INVOLVED IN HITTING THE
VICTIMS TOO. (Don't you think?)
Is there anyone out there who thinks it's actually LIKELY, given the
above-mentioned fact about the bullet evidence, for multiple non-C2766
guns to have been involved in the assassination? If anyone thinks such
a scenario IS "likely", they must be living in a different galaxy.
Common sense alone solves the bullet "mystery" (which isn't a mystery
at all, of course, if you're a reasonable person).
And I'm guessing that the chances were mighty, mighty low indeed for
Dr. Guinn to have arrived at a "2 Bullets From C2766" conclusion in
1977-78, even based on 1970s standards, IF MULTIPLE OTHER TYPES OF
BULLETS/GUNS had really been in the bullet mix that Guinn examined for
the HSCA.
That's yet another "absolutely incredible" one-gun-favoring conclusion
if THREE different guns had actually fired bullets that struck JFK &
JBC on 11/22/63 (as almost all anti-SBT advocates MUST believe, due to
several factors).
So, per those anti-SBTers, bullets from THREE different guns (at
least!) entered the victims and yet the only pieces of bullet large
enough to be tested ballistically (in order to exclude or include
Oswald's C2766) just happened to be a whole bullet and two fragments
from that exact gun--C2766.
(Is this truly higher math....or brain surgery? To me, it's obvious.
But to many CTers, it's completely up in the air. Go figure.)
Regarding CE399.......
I thinks it's quite humorous that many CTers have "switched" to a "The
Bullet Was Switched Instead Of Planted" mindset with respect to CE399
(as Dr. Aguilar mentions having occurred over the last several
years).
Maybe it's akin to David Lifton's conspiratorial mindset -- i.e., if
one theory falls flat, just move on to the next wholly-unsupportable
one.
Mr. Lifton has seemingly utilized that motto on various occasions
since his mind-numbing piece of tripe called "Best Evidence" was
released and gobbled up with glee by a lot of CT-Kooks in 1980 and
1981.
But the idea of a "switched" bullet is every bit as silly as a
"planted" 399....if for no other reason, it just about totally
demolishes ANOTHER long-held belief of the anti-SBT CTers -- that
being: the belief by theorists that NO BULLET (399 or otherwise) could
have ended up in the near-perfect condition that 399 was in after
being discovered on Governor Connally's stretcher by Darrell
Tomlinson.
But the "switched" theory includes a WHOLE, INTACT, and (per most
CTers I've encountered who love this "switched" theory) POINTY-NOSED
bullet being found by Tomlinson instead of CE399.
So, per that "switched" scenario, I guess a bullet remained pretty
much INTACT and (just exactly like CE399) suffered no damage at all to
the "business end of the bullet--the tip" (to use the verbatim words
of Dr. Gary Aguilar from the above-linked article), because that
"pointy" bullet was still "pointy-nosed" when discovered by Tomlinson
(per many conspiracists).
It makes me wonder HOW those same CTers can possibly accept the idea
of a pointy-nosed bullet remaining "pointy-nosed" after having done
THE VERY SAME DAMAGE TO GOVERNOR CONNALLY that CE399 is said to have
done per the Warren Commission and the HSCA?
Or do those "switched"-favoring CTers think that the "pointy" bullet
wasn't really the bullet that was inside John Connally either? Was
THAT bullet "planted", and then "switched" for Oswald's 399?
Seems to me it's a "six of one, half-dozen of the other" type of
argument here. Either a pointy bullet remained intact and without a
crushed nose after going through Connally's body and ended up on that
stretcher inside Parkland Hospital....or CE399 did. And the best
evidence is that JBC was hit by just a SINGLE bullet, not two or three
missiles.
Either way that argument is sliced and theorized, it would appear that
a decent-sized number of CTers are going to have to jettison a theory
they've held so dear for a long, long time -- that being the theory
that a bullet could not possibly end up in a whole, unfragmented, non-
mutilated condition after breaking the bones it must have broken in
John Connally's body.
In the final (and logical) analysis, Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming
History" will probably remain the JFK Bible for many decades to come,
despite the CTers who have a desire to pick apart every evidence-based
sentence within it.
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bceb46435b39817f
aeffects
forgot to add.... re your blog, after all these months and not one
visitor comment, David? Is it ANY wonder daBug failed with his
internet RCH-Public Relations blitz ( that YOU headed up) You should
be ashamed..... LMFAO
David Von Pein
moderate them and decide whether to publish them on the blog or not.
I've rejected the few I've gotten thus far, because they've been
worthless, including the two comments from the kook named Healy
(today's and his other useless comment from a while back).
robcap...@netscape.com
> http://www.ctka.net/bug_aguilar.html
>
> Gee, what a shocker! A CTer actually disagrees with Bugliosi and the
> "LN" scenario!
>
> Never would have imagined a thing like that occurring in a million
> years.
>
> Gary Aguilar, as expected, spends an inordinate amount of time trying
> to prop up the idea that Guinn's NAA data is totally invalid. The
> truth is, of course, that the NAA analysis is (and always has been)
> merely corroborative in nature and is actually completely unneeded in
> order to determine the very-likely origin of the small bullet
> fragments associated with the JFK case.
Dr. Guinn did not offer up the whole picture of what he tested for the
HSCA, but luckily Wallace Milam has looked into it for us.
First he over reaches in regards to the SBT bullet:
WOLF. You can...today state for the first time scientifically that
CE-399 [stretcher bullet] did cause the injuries to Governor
Connally's wrist?
GUINN. Yes sir, those two match so closely that I would say that such
was the case. (HSCA, Vol. I, P. 504)
Sources close to the committee reported that Guinn's test results
weighed heavily in HSCA's decision to endorse the single-bullet theory
in its conclusions. Chief Counsel Robert Blakey was said to have been
greatly impressed by Guinn's findings. Since 1979, Blakey, David Belin
and others have spoken of the single-bullet theory as a fact, and have
stated that it is the "scientific proof" from Guinn's neutron
activation analysis which elevated the theory to its new status. In
several television debates, Blakey refered to Guinn's conclusions as
the "linchpin" which held the single-bullet theory together. His
characterization went unchallenged.
Guinn's neutron activiation analysis provides the strongest
"scientific" proof of the validity of the single-bullet theory.
1. Dr. Guinn was given fragments with the same CE and/or Q numbers
which the FBI had used in its 1964 NAA tests, but none of these "same"
fragments weighed the same!
2. HSCA implied that this was due to alteration of the fragments
during the previous tests:
a. "There are differences in the count and weight of the materials
examined by the FBI and Dr. Guinn. This is attributable to the
character of the FBI tests and to the fact that the FBI disposed of
the samples examined after the tests." (HSCA Report, p. 599, note 33)
b. No footnotes or other citation offers proof of this explanation.
c. The implication here is that the FBI's tests were of a kind which
destroyed some of the samples being tested. However,
Dr. Guinn's testimony clearly disputes this explanation:
FITHIAN. You have said this whole process that you go through does not
destroy the material, is that correct?
GUINN. That is correct.
FITHIAN. Now, then, did you test exactly the same particles that the
FBI tested in 1964?
GUINN. Well, it turns out, I did not, for reasons I don't know,
because as they did the analysis, they DID NOT destroy the samples
either. [emphases added]
FITHIAN. So?
GUINN. The particular little pieces that they analyzed, I could just
as well have analyzed over again, but the pieces that were brought
from the Archives-which reportedly, according to Mr. Gear--were the
only bullet-lead fragments from this case still present in the
Archives-did not include any of the specific little pieces that the
FBI had analyzed. Presumably those are in existence somewhere, I am
sure nobody threw them out, but where they are I have no idea.
FITHIAN. And the 1964 equipment wouldn't have consumed them either?
GUINN. No. (HSCA, I, pp. 561-562. emphases added)
Thus, we have these improbable circumstances:
a. The FBI tested certain metal fragments with certain identification
labels (CE's/Q's) in 1964.
b. The FBI's tests were not of a kind which would have used up any of
the fragments.
c. The National Archives passed on to Dr. Guinn an entirely different
set of fragments-with the same CE and/or Q numbers, alleging them to
be related to the Kennedy case.
d. The Archives told Dr. Guinn that these were the only bullet-lead
fragments remaining there from the case.
e. HSCA's explanation for this remarkable state of affairs is
contradicted by Dr. Guinn and unsupported by any documentation
whatsoever.
After his testimony before the committee was completed, Dr. Guinn
talked with several people in the hallway outside the committee room.
His remarks were recorded on tape, and they are noteworthy. Among
other things, Dr. Guinn said:
a. It was not until the fragments from the National Archives arrived
at his California lab that he discovered he was testing fragments
different from those tested by the FBI.
b. None of the weights matched those of the 1964 test fragments.
c. It would have been easy to deliberately falsify the evidence to be
tested:
"Possibly they would take a bullet, take out a few little pieces and
put it in the container, and say, 'This is what came out of Connally's
wrist.' And naturally, if you compare it with 399, it will look
alike... I have no control over these things."
Another con job by the government.
aeffects
none, NONE, Dave.... gotta be a hughly expensive blog, thousands of
hours of work and what? NO comments? Your handlers can't be happy,
Dave!
YoHarvey
Of course our resident idiot mentions Wallace Milam from Tennessee who
has ABSOLUTELY NO BACKGROUND IN THIS FIELD. As for Aguilar, he's way
to much in love with himself. It's called character NON-development.
Now Jesus should surely be an expert in this arena.
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:311b5b5e-03ac-432e...@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...