ASSASSINATION DEBATES
David Von Pein
DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 49):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From April 2006, May
2006, February 2007, and March 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- Can you name the officer who testified
about finding the {bus} ticket?
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- You're SURELY not going down the "Bus Transfer
Was Planted" route...are you?
I know that some CTers have indeed proceeded down that ridiculous
path....but the only thing such a CT mindset shows is the sheer
desperation on their part to taint every last piece of evidence in
this case...regardless of how meaningless and silly such claims are.
In the bus transfer "plant" theory, for example .... In the eyes of
those who would have planted such an article, tell us WHAT exactly
would be gained by planting the transfer? How would it make Lee Oswald
any MORE guilty of killing JFK?
And, of course, the "planting of the paper transfer" theory goes
sliding down the tubes forever once it's revealed that Oswald REALLY
WAS ON THAT BUS. Mary Bledsoe's positive IDing of LHO seals that deal.
And she knew Oswald before 11/22/63. She didn't make any mistake re.
his I.D.; she knew him.
But even if Oswald had never been on the bus....it's a "So What?" type
of thing. Who cares? It means zilch in the larger scheme of things,
because we know Oswald DID leave the TSBD at about 12:33 and we know
he DID arrive back home at around 12:59-1:00. The manner of locomotion
that transported him between these two points in Dallas is fairly
immaterial.
Of course, perhaps you were just tossing me a bone to chew on re. the
officer's name who took the transfer off of LHO. Because you seemed to
believe (via an earlier post) that Oswald did have that transfer with
him when he left 1026 Beckley (implying that he moved the item from
one shirt to the other). But with rabid CTers, who can tell what they
might be thinking??
My normal rule with respect to this faction of CTer is to pretty much
think that they think that "Everything Was Planted, Faked, And/Or
Tainted If It Leads In Any Fashion To Lee Harvey Oswald".
Some CTers don't want to believe Oswald was in William Whaley's cab
either. I guess, therefore, Oswald managed to hitch a ride on
Superman's back after leaving work on Friday in order to get to his
roominghouse on Beckley by about 1:00 PM.*
* = Oh, that's right...I forgot...the "Rambler/Roger Craig Theory".
How could I be so stupid?! Mr. DCM gave LHO a ride to Beckley on
11/22....and then Rambler Man/DCM (instead of waiting for Oswald for a
minute or so as Lee picked up his gun) decided to leave his cohort
hanging out in the wind to hoof it over to Tenth Street on his own.
Which, btw, brings up this additional point when applying the "Oswald
In Rambler" theory --- Why did Oswald even NEED to return to his
roominghouse at all on November 22nd (to retrieve his own gun or to
change shirts or otherwise) if he's being given a lift by a fellow
conspirator?
Did Rambler Man forget to bring the appropriate number of weapons with
him too? Hence, Oswald must risk getting caught by police at his
residence to go and retrieve his own gun?
Why wouldn't Oswald have already had his gun and clothing change in
the Rambler prior to 12:30? Wouldn't Oswald, even in an "Unwitting
Patsy Mode" have insisted upon at least that little bit of pre-
planning if he knows he's going to rendezvous with Mr. Rambler Guy on
Elm Street at 12:40?
Seems to be a Dumb-Leading-Dumber getaway plan here. NOBODY involved
has a good escape plan it seems. Oswald gets a ride away from Dealey
Plaza in a Rambler station wagon (per many CTer beliefs)....but then
is dropped like a hooker after sex at his own house and then has to
walk to other getaway locales. Nice arrangement there.
Of course, CTers who feel that Oswald needed to be eliminated
immediately after the shooting always fail to ask the logical question
of -- Why didn't DCM/Rambler Man kill Oswald when he had the chance to
do so?
But, then again, I guess it was a much better plan to let Oswald live
for 46 hours to potentially spill any beans he might know about the
"plot" to the Live TV audience....and then have Ruby kill him while
millions watched on television. (Fair is fair, right?)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4dd73f8e676a5db8
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The graphics {in Mark Fuhrman's book "A Simple Act Of Murder"}
are pretty good.
DVP -- You can't be serious. IMO, those graphics are childish and far
from convincing in any manner whatsoever.
Mr. Fuhrman slapped together that book in a very short time
(relatively-speaking, for a JFK volume that is) -- 2.5 to 3 years
total from its inception (via a 05/12/2006 quote from Mr. Fuhrman
himself on CBS-TV).....
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/earlyshow/main1614016_page2.shtml
In comparison, Vincent Bugliosi's massive JFK volume will be released
after approximately 21 years of studying the case at hand.
That's not to say that a lot of stuff cannot be gleaned in 2.5 to 3
years' time. Certainly, it can be. But most publications on the JFK
assassination are normally only produced after many, many more years
of study and researching the case (including the additional murders of
J.D. Tippit and Lee Oswald, which are two subjects that are barely
even grazed by Mr. Fuhrman in "A Simple Act Of Murder"; plus the
details concerning Jack Ruby, which are also not tackled at all by
Fuhrman).
And the Tippit killing -- unquestionably committed by Oswald -- is,
indeed, a HUGE piece of the "JFK murder" puzzle. And to treat the
Tippit crime as a sidebar (for all intents and purposes) is, IMO, a
large error right off the bat.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c7616a35ac60e22
-------------------------------------------
DVP -- And you're goofy as all get out if you think Oswald's "hurried
state" was not verified in the official record.
CTer -- Feel free to supply all the citation that you can.
DVP -- Okay. Let's take a quick look at what Earlene Roberts had to
say to the Warren Commission on April 8th, 1964.....
MRS. ROBERTS -- "He {Lee Oswald} was walking unusually fast..."
MR. BALL -- "You mean he was walking faster than he usually was?"
MRS. ROBERTS -- "Yes."
MR. BALL -- "Did he run?"
MRS. ROBERTS -- "He wasn't running, but he was walking pretty fast; he
was all but running."
~~~~~~
MRS. ROBERTS -- "He was walking fast; he was making tracks pretty
fast."
MR. BALL -- "What is the only thing you said to him from the time he
came in the house until he left?"
MRS. ROBERTS -- "'You sure are in a hurry'."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/robertse.htm
~~~~~~
So, tell me again how Oswald's "rushed"/"hurried" manner is not part
of the "evidence"? Mrs. Roberts is yet another scheming lying lowlife,
right? Yeah, that must be it.
Because, as we all know by this time...IF IT LEADS TO OSWALD, THERE'S
SOMETHING ROTTEN IN DENMARK (AND DALLAS TOO)! That's the Rule Of Thumb
-- if you're a Conspiracy Kook.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The fact is, one or ten people could have been shooting at JFK
with the amount of buildings and surroundings.
DVP -- Sure. But where's the evidence (the bullets, the guns, the
witness who can claim "There's the killer!"; anything!) that shows
there WERE multiple shooters firing from the other "buildings and
surroundings"?
Answer -- The evidence does not exist...and never did.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Two bullets probably hit Connally.
DVP -- There is ample evidence suggesting that John Connally was
struck by just one bullet. Connally said so...Dr. Shaw said so on Live
TV on 11/22...and the LACK of any bullets inside Connally also
supports the idea that CE399 was the only bullet inside him on
November 22.
Via a 2-bullets-hit-JBC theory, you now have upped the absurdity of
ANY anti-SBT theory to monstrously-silly heights. You do realize that,
right?
You'll need to explain away FOUR disappearing bullets (instead of just
three). Four bullets just vanish, never entering the record in the
case. Logical? Even slightly so? Hardly.
With each misstep, you and other CTers make yourselves look more
foolish in an "anti-SBT" manner.
You're actually saying that FOUR magically-vanishing bullets is a
more-
reasonable conclusion than the SBT (which has all of its bullets {1}
accounted for right in the hospital where the victims were taken).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/00a4ecbb835edc89
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The amount of lead left in {Connally's} body doesn't do well
for the pristine bullet.
DVP -- Bullshit. The amount of lead left in JBC's body wouldn't amount
to a half-a-grain probably. You're spouting another misleading
conspiracy-tinged theory that has no merit at all.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61fe27a14fb7dd35
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7cadae96b63d3d5b
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Parkland doctors said that JFK's throat wound was a wound of
entry. Two doctors there said the bullet was lodged in the chest or
lung.
DVP -- So what? Who cares? It means zilch. Because --- DID a bullet
"lodge in the chest or lung"?
Answer -- No, of course it did not. The entire body of JFK was X-
rayed, and what was discovered in his body?
Answer -- No bullets whatsoever (head to toe).
But...let's just ignore that hunk of Officialdom. It's better for your
CT purposes.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- When the SBT is patently false, it's just one step to knowing
that there is a greater possibility of multiple shooters.
DVP -- Bull. The SBT is a bona fide fact (based on the sum total of
the evidence that supports it, inside and out). And every physical re-
construction and animated re-creation that has been performed since
'63 has had the SBT passing the "It Was Doable" test with flying
colors, and everybody knows it.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/24f8834034ebccf7
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Simply line it up with the hole in the windshield, and follow
the line.
DVP -- And suppose you tell the rest of the world just exactly WHERE
this "frontal" shooter could have been situated (with rifle in tow)
within Dealey Plaza in order to achieve that "BOH" (far right-rear)
wound on JFK's head that most/many CTers believe existed in 1963.
Where was this killer?
On the Overpass, amongst Holland, Dodd, Simmons (et al), plus TWO
Dallas policemen?
On the south side of Elm someplace?
Perhaps James Tague was really the killer. Hey, there's a theory I've
never heard before. You could write a new book!
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Do you even know where the mastoid process is?
DVP -- No....I just took a wild guess. Duh! <chuckle>
http://www.upstate.edu/cdb/grossanat/imgs/sklattp5.jpg
I've been harping on the "Mastoid" measurement for years.
A 2005 example.....
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The location Boswell gave is IN THE BASE OF THE NECK!!
DVP -- Nonsense. 5.5 inches south of the Mastoid in positively in the
upper back, just where the photo shows the wound to be.....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
And all anyone has to do to verify this for themselves is to take a
ruler and measure 5.5 inches (14 cm.) below the bottom of the earlobe
(which equates to the location measured from on JFK's body at the
Bethesda autopsy).
Do this experiment on yourself, or better still, do it on somebody
else (your mom, dad, or fellow CT-Kook of your choosing), and you'll
see where "5.5 inches below the tip of the right Mastoid Process"
really is located (give or take a little bit, since every person's
body is slightly different).
And it's NOT in the neck. It's right here, just as Dr. Boswell said
via his written-in notes on the Face Sheet:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/issues_and_evidence/head_wound/bradford_22_mar_00/Extras/Facesheet.jpg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ec8a92379fee1159
David Von Pein
>>> "Darrell Tomlinson, who found the pristine bullet (CE399) in the Parkland corridor...testified that it had *not* fallen off the stretcher which had been used to transport Gov. Connolly [sic]. The WC...simply ignored Tomlinson and concluded, based on absolutely nothing, that the bullet had been on the Connolly [sic] stretcher. In the name of all that is gracious, IS THAT EVIDENCE?" <<<
Sure it's evidence. It's evidence based on something called "common
sense".
Why, you ask?
Because Governor John Connally's stretcher was THE ONLY STRETCHER IN
THAT PARKLAND HALLWAY THAT COULD HAVE POSSIBLY HAD BULLET CE399 ON IT
(or ANY bullet on it, for that matter).
I.E.,
The ONLY other stretcher which was a candidate for Tomlinson's CE399
discovery was a stretcher that was used by a young boy (Ronnie
Fuller)....and young Mr. Fuller WAS NOT SHOT WITH A RIFLE BULLET (or
ANY bullet) on November 22, 1963.
Therefore, the only possible REASONABLE and LOGICAL conclusion to
reach regarding the discovery of Bullet CE399 is that it was a bullet
that came off of John Connally's stretcher and that Mr. Darrell
Carlisle Tomlinson was a bit hazy about exactly which of the two
stretchers he retrieved the bullet from (and he was hazy about it; see
Tomlinson's March 20, 1964, testimony below):
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher
"A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?"
DARRELL C. TOMLINSON -- "Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be
perfectly honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really
didn't pay that much attention to it. The stretcher was on the
elevator and I pushed it off of there and I believe we made one or two
calls up before I straightened out the stretcher up against the wall."
==========================
"The whole issue of what stretcher the bullet {CE399} was found
on, Connally's or some unknown person's, is a giant nonissue. Since we
know that the bullet was fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle, and we
know it wasn't found on Kennedy's stretcher, it had to have been found
on Connally's stretcher." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 431 of "Reclaiming
History" (CD Endnotes)(c.2007)
==========================
David Von Pein
RE: Robert Stone's JFK film "Oswald's Ghost":
========================================
www.amazon.com/review/R1SSWTURKIBA2O
========================================
>>> "Just how many 'American Experience' films {from PBS-TV} do you see THAT ACTIVELY DISCOURAGE FURTHER PURSUIT OF A TOPIC?" <<<
Robert Stone lets the conspiracy promoters have their say in "Oswald's
Ghost". Lots of "say", in fact....and from people who are regarded
very highly by many conspiracy believers today too, e.g., Mark Lane,
Josiah Thompson, and the late Jim Garrison. (And for many people, you
can't get much more "highly regarded" in the CT community than Mr.
Lane and Mr. Thompson.)
Mr. Stone is telling us (in a nutshell) that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
How much "further pursuit" of this JFK topic is required (without
finding anything close to a smoking gun, or a bullet, or a killer, or
a PROVEN "conspirator") in order for people to say to themselves that
the truth is already on the table -- i.e., Oswald did this and he
probably did it unaided by the goon squad from Cuba, or the CIA, or
the FBI, or the MIC, or any of Michael Paine's pals at Bell Helicopter
either.
Bob Stone's film is a good one. It's not totally comprehensive in
nature, no. (What 82-minute documentary could possibly be completely
comprehensive and all-inclusive when tackling this 44-year-old subject
which involves not just one murder -- but three?)
But "Oswald's Ghost" does provide a good overview of BOTH sides of the
debate, in my opinion....including (as mentioned) the pro-conspiracy
side of the equation.
JFK conspiracy promoters should probably step back for just a moment
and ask themselves the following two questions:
1.) When can I expect some hard evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK
case to show up (instead of having to rely on the current batch of
piecemeal grist from the rumor mill)?
2.) And how long is TOO long to wait for such a revelation?
aeffects
> RE: Robert Stone's JFK film "Oswald's Ghost":
>
> ========================================
>
> www.amazon.com/review/R1SSWTURKIBA2O
>
oh really?
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and
"minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it
isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or
citing sources.
David Von Pein
>>> "Today, no one will go near that book {Gerald Posner's excellent 1993 JFK book, "Case Closed"}." <<<
Not true at all. I certainly go near it. ....
www.amazon.com/review/R3HRQGJ9PFH6EZ
www.amazon.com/review/R6QFDI7SQZF88
Mr. Posner's book is outstanding. It has flaws, yes. But it's a very
good overall study of the case and, more importantly, a good overall
study of JFK's assassin--Lee Harvey Oswald.
Of course, Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" goes far beyond
Posner's book in scope and comprehensive content (which is to be
expected, due to Vincent's 21-year-long research effort and the
resulting 2,800+ pages of content contained within "Reclaiming
History", content which trashes every conspiracy theory and conspiracy
kook author imaginable, and rightly so).
It's time for conspiracy theorists to wake up from their 44-year sleep
and realize that there's no credible evidence of anyone having shot
and killed President Kennedy and Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit
except a screwball named Lee Harvey Oswald, a 24-year-old nuthatch who
was lucky enough (from his warped point-of-view) to have these six
things all align themselves into perfect harmony on November 22, 1963:
1.) He (Oswald) hated America and its Government's representatives.
2.) Oswald owned and had ready access to a rifle in November '63.
3.) Oswald worked in a building which just happened to overlook the
last portion of JFK's motorcade route through Dallas on 11/22/63.
4.) It stopped raining prior to 12:00 noon on 11/22/63 (hence, the
bubbletop roof was left off of JFK's limousine for the motorcade drive
through Dallas). The bubbletop roof was not bulletproof at all, but
it's quite possible that Oswald wouldn't have known that fact on
November 22nd. Seeing the roof in place that day, if it continued to
rain, just might have made Oswald think twice about firing those
gunshots at the limo.
5.) Oswald was lucky enough to have President Kennedy visit Dallas on
a Friday (i.e., a regular workday for Lee Oswald and the other Book
Depository employees), instead of, say, a Saturday or a Sunday.
6.) Another small item that relates to #5 above is something that
could well have played a very big factor in Oswald pulling off the
shooting that Friday -- and that is the fact that not only did
Kennedy's visit to Dallas occur on a workday for Oswald (a Friday),
but the parade route took JFK's limo past the Book Depository Building
RIGHT AT LUNCHTIME as well, which meant that most TSBD employees were
on their normal lunch breaks at that hour of the day (and would have
been even if Kennedy had not been scheduled to drive by the building
at noontime).
The normal time for the warehouse employees to break for lunch at the
Depository was from 12:00 Noon to 12:45 PM, just exactly the time
period when President Kennedy was scheduled to drive through Dealey
Plaza on Friday, November 22nd. That information was confirmed via the
Warren Commission testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier (the 19-year-old
who drove Oswald to work on the morning of the assassination):
WESLEY FRAZIER -- "12 o'clock is when we always eat lunch."
JOSEPH BALL -- "12 to 12:45?"
FRAZIER -- "Right."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
This meant fewer people staying on the upper Depository floors (i.e.,
the "warehouse" floors, which were floors 5, 6, and 7), with those
employees going down to the first-floor "Domino/Lunch Room" or the
second-floor lunch room (or going outside the building to watch the
President pass by) during the exact time when Lee Oswald would require
a VACANT sixth floor in his preparations for shooting the President
during this Friday lunch period.
For Oswald, the above combination of things was simply a made-to-order
combination of factors that just fell into his lap on November 22nd,
1963, including item numbers 4, 5, and 6 mentioned above, which are
things that Oswald HIMSELF could not possibly have had any control
over whatsoever. And even #3 as well, to the extent that Oswald was
hired at the TSBD on October 15, 1963, which was a full month prior to
anyone officially announcing the details of JFK's final motorcade
route through Dallas (which included the turn onto Elm Street in front
of the Depository).
Happenstance (and a kook named Lee Harvey) got John F. Kennedy
killed.
Not conspiracy.
========================================
========================================
HAPPENSTANCE OR CONSPIRACY? (PART 1):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/37cbbcb30fa498c5
HAPPENSTANCE OR CONSPIRACY? (PART 2):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5a5c5eddcc8290c7
HAPPENSTANCE OR CONSPIRACY? (PART 3):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/14626541f1730ecc
WHAT ARE THE ODDS...?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7e70b829247b4a49
========================================
aeffects
oh really?
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by
reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that
forbears any actual material fact.
<snip the nonsense>
David Von Pein
Take some more drugs, Healy. It's a much more pleasant day when you're
out cold due to your overdoses.
aeffects
> Take some more drugs, Healy. It's a much more pleasant day when you're
> out cold due to your overdoses.
oh really?
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and
instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being
critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also
known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
David Von Pein
>>> "Kennedy had an entrance wound on the front of his neck..." <<<
No he didn't.
That's just the continued wishful-thinking of conspiracy
theorists....nothing more.
In order for the bullet wound in the front of JFK's throat to have
been an ENTRY wound, you're going to have to check your common sense
at the door. Because in order for the throat wound to be an entry, it
would mean that not just one, but TWO, bullets simply stopped dead
inside John Kennedy's neck and upper back on 11/22/63, without either
of these bullets causing any significant damage at all.
Plus: Both of these bullets that would have gone into JFK without
exiting the other side would have had to disappear off the planet
prior to the autopsy, without any non-"plotter" seeing a trace of
either missile in question.
Simply....impossible.
Why do so many conspiracy promoters always totally ignore the above
common-sense observations regarding the proposed "Frontal Throat Shot"
argument?
Given the evidence, Kennedy could not possibly have been shot in the
upper back and in the throat by separate bullets. To believe that such
a thing did occur is to believe in stuff that's far more implausible
and improbable than the Single-Bullet Theory.
But the SBT, however, explains EVERYTHING -- including:
1.) The lack of damage in Kennedy's neck/back regions (which is to be
expected if just one bullet sailed right through him).
2.) No "missing" bullets to account for. CE399 is the one and only
bullet that needs to be accounted for via the SBT....and it is
accounted for (right down to the NAA analysis, which, while not 100%
foolproof and definitive, gives any reasonable person a pretty good
idea as to what the source bullet was for the small fragments that
were recovered by Dr. Gregory from the right wrist of Governor
Connally).
3.) The reactions of Kennedy and Connally as seen on the Zapruder
Film. Yes, the Z-Film can be a very subjective viewing experience,
depending on who's doing the viewing; but when looking at these
toggling clips (linked below), it can't be any more obvious that both
JFK and Connally are reacting at the EXACT SAME TIME to some kind of
external stimulus.
And since that "stimulus" is probably a rifle bullet (seeing as how
rifle bullets were being fired at the car during the few seconds in
question here), it's quite likely that both mens' "reactions" seen
below are due to THE SAME BULLET PIERCING BOTH VICTIMS:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif
4.) The "lining up" of the wounds on the two different victims (which
pretty much perfectly matches the way the two men were seated in the
limousine, in relation to one another), with both men being hit in the
BACK with a bullet....and Kennedy having a bullet hole in his throat
AND NO BULLETS LEFT INSIDE HIM AT AUTOPSY.
If one bullet didn't hit both men, then I think it's safe to say that
the THREE DIFFERENT GUNMEN who would have had to be involved in
peppering the two victims with THREE different bullets at virtually
the exact same time were THE LUCKIEST ASSASSINS ever to shoot at a
President. Especially when the widely-believed "Oswald Was Being Set
Up As The Lone Patsy" plot that is favored by many conspiracy kooks is
factored into this equation as well --
I.E.,
The THREE shooters* just got lucky when their three bullets hit JFK
and JBC in all the right places, so that at a later date in 1964 the
Warren Commission can determine that just ONE bullet very likely
struck the victims, rather than the three that actually did hit them
(per this insane anti-SBT theory that many CTers place their faith
in). It's just plain idiotic. No other way to look at it.
* = And the anti-SBT brigade definitely needs THREE different gunmen
to accomplish what CE399 did, too. That's because of the tight
timeline shown on the Zapruder Film. Two guns just aren't enough to
get this anti-SBT job done. No way. You'd need two separate shooters
in the rear (to account for Kennedy's separate back wound and
Connally's separate back wound); and a frontal shooter to account for
JFK's throat wound.
And some CTers like to increase the absurdity of their own make-
believe anti-SBT theories by claiming that Connally was really hit by
TWO bullets, instead of by just the one (CE399) that any reasonable
person would determine he was hit with.
That latter "Connally Was Hit Twice" option ups the total of anti-SBT
bullets to four (all of which vanish into thin air immediately after
the shooting, per most CTers, since most CTers like to cling to the
idea that CE399 was a "planted" or "substitute" bullet and actually
hit nobody at all on 11/22/63).
Such anti-SBT scenarios involving three or four bullets in lieu of
CE399 are scenarios that belong in the file marked "Totally Ridiculous
And Impossible JFK Conspiracy Theories".
>>> "{Kennedy had} an entrance wound on his right temple at the hairline..." <<<
Says who? Certainly not the three different autopsists at Bethesda who
examined the body of President Kennedy first-hand.
But a rabid conspiracy promoter ALWAYS knows more than Doctors Humes,
Boswell, and Finck. Right?
Via JFK's Official Autopsy Report:
"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 traversed the
cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion
of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp." -- Signed:
Drs. Humes, Boswell, & Finck
www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
Conspiracy theorists are forced to actually believe that the above
autopsy summary is nothing but a pack of lies. And the theorists who
love to tout imaginary "frontal shots" that hit JFK in the head (or
elsewhere) also have to actually believe the fairy tale that includes
ALL THREE autopsists continuing to tell lies for decades on end
whenever they have discussed the autopsy with members of the media or
during the various follow-up Government investigations (such as the
HSCA and ARRB hearings).
And then there's the 1967 TV appearance of Dr. James J. Humes. CTers
must believe that Dr. Humes, who was certainly not being forced at
gunpoint to appear on television, VOLUNTEERED--on his own!--to go on
CBS-TV in June of 1967 and tell the following blatant falsehoods:
DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"
DR. JAMES HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head;
yes, sir."
RATHER -- "And that was where?"
DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to
the right of the mid-line posteriorly."
RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the
front and right side of the President's head."
RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you
describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and
incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed
the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a
characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the
skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from
behind and passed forward through the President's skull."
RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific
evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."
RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the
President's head was the entry wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae
Logical follow-up question: WHY would Dr. Humes volunteer to appear in
front of the CBS cameras and utter the above remarks if the above
remarks weren't the absolute truth as Humes saw them?
If Humes had been a rotten, deceitful liar from the get-go in November
1963 (as many CTers believe him to be), he would never have appeared
on CBS-TV in 1967 and made the above-quoted comments. Simple as that.
To believe otherwise is just dumb.
>>> "{Kennedy had} an exit wound on the right rear of his head." <<<
And this X-ray (linked below) proves beyond all possible doubt that
the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses who claimed that JFK had a gaping
wound in the back of his head were all 100% wrong.
The back portions of President Kennedy's head are completely intact.
There is no hole in the right-rear of the skull whatsoever. In fact,
there aren't even any fracture lines on this X-ray in the area of
JFK's head where the Parkland witnesses said there was a large hole.
Just look:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
Is the above X-ray a "fake" too? The conspiracy crowd has no choice
but to believe that it is a fake or a fraud (if they want to promote
the idea that a large hole was located at the right-rear of Kennedy's
skull).
Which, in turn, of course, means that those CTers now must travel even
further down Conspiracy Avenue and also must accuse every single
member of the HSCA's Photographic Panel of being either liars or
incompetent boobs....because that panel (which consisted of almost 20
members if I recollect correctly) declared the following in 1978 with
respect to the autopsy photos and X-rays (including, of course, the X-
ray linked above, which shows no hole present at the back of JFK's
skull at all):
"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
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/be46d0872dbcf3c6
It's readily apparent how silly the position of conspiracy theorists
truly is when we start factoring in all of the various "layers" of
conspirators and after-the-fact "cover-up" agents and rotten liars
that the CTers need to have firmly (and forever) in place in order for
any of their theories to work out properly.
Per CTers, the Warren Commission was filled with nothing but rotten
liars and cover-up agents....and evidently so was the HSCA for the
most part (since they came to the same identical "OSWALD WAS THE ONLY
GUNMAN WHO HIT ANY VICTIMS" conclusion that the WC came to).
In addition, according to many conspiracists, the DPD, the USSS, the
FBI, the CIA, LBJ, and the autopsists were also "in" on either a plot
to kill Kennedy or a plot to cover up the truth afterward. Plus God
knows how many other fringe participants that the CTers think were
also involved in the massive decades-long and still-continuing cover-
up and/or plot to kill JFK.
See how stupid all of this "JFK Conspiracy" stuff sounds when you say
it out loud (or write it out in longhand)?
It's just laughable (at best).
>>> "When you line up those {make-believe} shots, they HAD to have come from inside the car." <<<
Only three letters required here (so that's all I'll use):
L.O.L.
>>> "It even seems possible that the driver shot Connally. At the very moment he was shot in the back, Connally was actually turned to the rear of the car looking at Kennedy and with his back turned to the driver." <<<
I wonder what Mr. Connally is doing in the Z-Film clip below then (if
not showing involuntary signs of reacting to a bullet that has just
struck his body)?
Maybe the Governor just had an uncontrollable desire to jerk his soon-
to-be-injured right arm upward really quick at this exact moment in
time. Ya think?:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif
>>> "A shot from the driver could have entered his {Connally's} back and made the wounds he experienced." <<<
And there's a giant Martian, who is wearing a grass skirt and selling
Avon products, standing on your front porch right this very minute.
(That's just about as likely to be true as Connally being shot by
William Greer anyway.)
aeffects
> www.amazon.com/TV-and-the-SBT/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx1YSP01LF3V5LS/2...
>
> www.amazon.com/TV-and-the-SBT/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx1YSP01LF3V5LS/2...
>
> >>> "Kennedy had an entrance wound on the front of his neck..." <<<
>
> No he didn't.
>
> That's just the continued wishful-thinking of conspiracy
> theorists....nothing more.
oh really?
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and
"minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it
isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or
citing sources.
<snip the nonsense>
David Von Pein
>>> "The throat wound was probably not an entrance wound." <<<
Which means you agree with LNers that the bullet exited Kennedy's
throat after entering his upper back. Correct?
So....where did the bullet go?
Or do you want to climb on board Mark Fuhrman's train? In his 2006
book, Mr. Fuhrman has the bullet going through JFK but somehow not
hitting Governor Connally. Fuhrman's "magic" type bullet suddenly goes
from a 24-degree downward angle to an upward trajectory after exiting
Kennedy's neck (per Fuhrman's way-too-early shot at Z186 that he says
hit JFK).
But, for some inexplicable reason, Mark felt he needed to disagree
with the perfectly-logical SBT...so a new theory was born that has LHO
doing all the shooting but the SBT being incorrect. Silly, IMO.
>>> "As presented by the "experts" from Specter on down, it {the SBT} is garbage!" <<<
And yet you AGREE that ONE BULLET passed clean through John Kennedy's
back and neck, right? And this bullet obviously was travelling FORWARD
and DOWNWARD after it left Kennedy's throat at tie-knot level (i.e.,
travelling DIRECTLY TOWARD JOHN CONNALLY'S BACK).
And this bullet which exited JFK's throat did not hit any other limo
occupants, and did not rip up the interior of the car in any way.
And yet the SBT is "garbage"?
A new Magic Bullet is born. And, evidently, another anti-SBT theory is
born too. CTers, including Dr. Cyril Wecht, can label their anti-SBT
theory with this lengthy (but accurate) moniker:
"I DON'T HAVE THE SLIGHTEST IDEA WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT BULLET
WHICH WENT CLEAN THROUGH PRESIDENT KENNEDY....BUT, BY GOD, I KNOW
(SOMEHOW) THAT IT POSITIVELY DIDN'T GO ON TO HIT THE PERSON WHO WAS
SITTING ALMOST DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE MAN THAT THE BULLET JUST CAME
OUT OF."
~shrug~
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/2c3eddcf37ed8dc1
TONY MARSH SPEWED (CRAP, AS USUAL):
>>> "Nonsense." <<<
DVP UTTERED BACK:
Naturally.
(Kook.)
>>> "We could also make fun of you by asking why the bullet which went through Kennedy's head did not hit Connally who was sitting almost directly in front of the man that the bullet just came out of." <<<
The two shots are not at all the same in this regard (of course you
already know that).
Do you expect a bullet hitting hard bone/(skull) to remain on the
exact same trajectory line after hitting said bone head-on and at full
speed?
(Kook.)
>>> "And don't say "almost directly" {when referring to Connally's seated position in the limo in relation to President Kennedy's}. That is what the conspiracy believers say and the WC defenders criticize them for." <<<
Why?
"Almost directly" is more accurate. So why shouldn't I use those
words? They're correct ones.
>>> "We can't tell whom you are talking about when you constantly snip out the context." <<<
Click the Amazon links provided. That's why I included them.*
* = Such links are included mainly for my own archives and future
reference, of course. But also for others to peruse (i.e., that one
"lurker" per month that wanders in here).
And as can be evidenced by the chats at Amazon, the RCTD disorder
(Rabid Conspiracy Theory Disease) is not just confined to the regular-
style kooks and mega-kooks that reside in our lovely little group here
at aaj and acj.
That's kinda nice to know....isn't it Anthony?
aeffects
> P. SPEER SAID:
>
> >>> "Guaranteed fact: Vincent Bugliosi will never debate me on this stuff. .... I call that cutting-and-running." <<<
>
> DVP:
>
> I would call it not wanting to waste one's time on some CTer's
> unsupportable anti-SBT theory.
[...]
by the page, by the pound, by the REAM... quoting yourself (or daBug)
doesn't cut it, Davey-me-boy!
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx1YSP01LF3V5LS/3/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=58&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx3IEJAK9THANM0#Mx3IEJAK9THANM0
www.patspeer.com/chapter20%3Aconclusionsandconfusions%3A
PAT SPEER WROTE:
>>> "Guaranteed fact: Vincent Bugliosi will never debate me on this stuff. He's been challenged elsewhere and said he was too busy writing a new book to discuss the case any further. I call that cutting-and-running." <<<
I would call it not wanting to waste one's time on some conspiracy
theorist's unsupportable anti-SBT theory.
Another "guaranteed fact":
The CTers will never ever come up with a scenario that comes anywhere
close to matching the SBT in every important category (if you can even
get a CTer to spell out their theory on a bullet-by-bullet basis, that
is, which rarely occurs, because when it does, the CTer is laughed out
of town, due to the absurdity of their miraculous bullet-disappearing
conspiracy-slanted conjecture that has multiple bullets behaving in
ways that so closely mimicked Mannlicher-Carcano Bullet #CE399 that
every official Govt. investigation was fooled into thinking these
multiple bullets that riddled the victims full of holes could be
reconciled into the SBT).
But instead of accepting the obvious (i.e., the SBT) as a fact, CTers
like Pat Speer will go to great lengths and write thousands upon
thousands of words on Internet websites attempting to discredit a rock-
solid fact (i.e., the SBT).
Go figure.
VB Instant Replay (deservedly so):
"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the
"single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient
stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is
now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible
mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet
that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did
not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 489-490
of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
==========================
Bonus VB-isms:
"The whole issue of what stretcher the bullet {CE399} was found
on, Connally's or some unknown person's, is a giant nonissue. Since we
know that the bullet was fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle, and we
know it wasn't found on Kennedy's stretcher, it had to have been found
on Connally's stretcher." -- VB; Page 431 of "RH" Endnotes
~~~~~~
"We can have all the confidence in the world, by an examination
of the physical evidence and the utilization of common sense, that {a
single bullet wounded both JFK and Governor Connally}. When you can
establish the single-bullet theory by reference to evidence other than
the {Zapruder} film, you necessarily know that the film itself cannot,
by definition, show something else. .... Since we KNOW Kennedy and
Connally were not hit by separate bullets, we know, before we even
look at the film, that it CANNOT show otherwise." -- VB; "RH" Pages
457-458
==========================
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY -- A COMMON-SENSE LOOK:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05
==========================
David Von Pein
www.patspeer.com/chapter20%3Aconclusionsandconfusions%3A
PAT SPEER WRITES (AT THE ABOVE WEBPAGE):
>>> "A New Perspective on the Shots That Killed The President. .... Shot #1. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 188. Hit Kennedy in back around 190, fell out in limousine. (Possibly a hand-loaded bullet.) From: the sixth floor window of the TSBD." <<<
DVP SAYS:
The above scenario totally ignores the fact that the oak tree was
obscuring the view of any assassin in the 6th-Floor southeast corner
window at precisely Z188. (And I assume that Mr. Speer is talking
about the "Sniper's Nest" window above when he says "sixth floor
window of the TSBD", and not a different window on the 6th Floor of
that building.)
Among other things, the oak tree snafu is one of the main reasons I
disagree strongly with the HSCA's conclusion that JFK and John
Connally were struck by the SBT shot at approx. Z-Film frame 190.
The Warren Commission's May 1964 exacting tests and reconstructions of
the shooting and the trajectory from Oswald's sixth-floor window
indicated (and are so noted in plain English on Page 98 of the WCR)
that the oak tree totally blocked a shooter's view of the passing
limousine at Z188 and all following Z-Film frames until Z210, with the
exception of Z186 (which is why author Mark Fuhrman uses that exact
frame for his version of the first shot fired by Oswald, via his
incorrect anti-SBT/LN scenario purported in his 2006 book "A Simple
Act Of Murder").
Z188, according to the only official report available on this precise
timeline issue (the Warren Report), was not a viable shooting frame
for Oswald (or anyone else whom a CTer wants to invent as having fired
the shots from the TSBD in lieu of the man who so obviously did--Lee
Harvey Oswald).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0061b.htm
You should have sided with Mr. Fuhrman's timeline, Pat, and used Z186.
It would have been better for your theory. Unless you want to think
that a gunman just went ahead and fired through the tree at Z188
anyway, and got lucky (somehow) when the passing bullet went right
through the tree branches and managed to hit the target of JFK's body
anyhow, despite the foliage being in the bullet's path???*
* = Although, to be fair, Mr. Speer does say, per his above-referenced
article, that he thinks Z188 was the "approximate firing time" for
shot #1. And since Z186 is only two-eighteenths of a second away from
Z188, I guess he can always fall back on that word, "approximate".
And, to be honest, I've fallen back on that same word on several
occasions too when discussing various aspects of the JFK
case....aspects that can only be reasonably assessed by prefacing the
discussion with that word "approximate", since certain variables will
forever be "unknowns" as far as being able to nail down some things to
the Nth degree or to the exact "square inch"; e.g., the precise
positioning of victims John Kennedy and John Connally in the limousine
at the exact instant each man was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald's single
bullet (CE399).
>>> "Shot or shots #2. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 222. Hit Kennedy in hairline at frame 224, exited his throat. Connally wounded in his chest, wrist, and thigh. Wounds seem instantaneous, but most probably came from separate bullets fired from an automatic weapon. From: most likely the upper floors of the Dal-Tex Building." <<<
Of course the above is nothing but pure outright conjecture coming
from a conspiracy theorist bent on trashing the official version (ANY
"official" version) of how the two victims were really wounded on
November 22, 1963.
The above silliness authored by Patrick (involving a make-believe
bullet that struck President Kennedy at the "hairline") totally
ignores, of course, Page #117 of the Warren Commission Report and Page
#43 of the HSCA Report and the Autopsy Report signed by all three
autopsists, which all declare that JFK was struck by ONLY TWO BULLETS.
Not three and not any other number except TWO. .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0037a.htm
But CTers who like to invent their own brand of "evidence" and
disappearing bullets and made-up-from-whole-cloth wounds on President
Kennedy's body will, naturally, not have a desire to stick with the
facts that were arrived at by such uninformed, fly-by-night people and
organizations such as the Warren Commission, the House Select
Committee on Assassinations, and the three autopsy doctors who had
their hands on the dead President in November 1963.
Right, Patrick?
>>> "Shot #3. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 310-311. Hit Kennedy near the temple at frame 313. Bullet fragmented. One piece of its core may have continued on to cause the wound to Tague around 319. From: the sixth floor window of the TSBD." <<<
This is a new one! A CTer has the fatal head shot coming from the
correct place (Oswald's Sniper's-Nest window in the Book Depository),
but the CTer has the bullet (somehow) striking President Kennedy "near
the temple", instead of the entry point for the bullet being where it
positively was located--in the BACK of JFK's head!
Now THAT sure sounds like a "magic" head-shot bullet to me.
>>> "Sound or Shot #4. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 320-327. Missed or possibly not even a shot. Quite possibly a loud firecracker used as a diversion device. From: somewhere west of the Texas School Book Depository, possibly the railroad yards." <<<
More pure CTer speculation, being based on the reactions of a few
(very few) confused and terrified witnesses in Dealey Plaza.
The "sum total" of all the evidence is that Shot #3 from Lee Harvey
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (the fatal head shot) was the last
gunshot fired or the last loud gunshot-like noise heard by the vast
majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.
Even the HSCA's since-destroyed "4th Shot" scenario based on the
Dictabelt police radio tape has the head shot being the last shot
fired (among the 4 shots included in that now-debunked two-assassin
theory).
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5a2c37b0a094ce90
>>> "Harold Norman's statements, so often used to prove that Oswald was the lone assassin, not only reflected that Kennedy was hit by the first shot, but that only two shells dropped to the floor in the firing sequence." <<<
Via Harold Norman's session on the witness stand in London, England,
in July 1986, during the television Docu-Trial, "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY
OSWALD":
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "So you heard a total of three shots?"
HAROLD NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
BUGLIOSI -- "Did it sound to you like a rifle was being fired directly
above you?"
NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any OTHER reason, in addition to the sound of
the rifle, any other reason why you believed the shots were coming
from directly above you?"
NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
BUGLIOSI -- "And what is that?"
NORMAN -- "Because I could hear the empty hulls--that's what I call
them--hit the floor; and I could hear the bolt action of the rifle
being pushed back and forward."
BUGLIOSI -- "You're familiar with a bolt-action rifle?"
NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
BUGLIOSI -- "And by 'hulls', you mean cartridge casings?"
NORMAN -- "Cartridges."
BUGLIOSI -- "How many did you hear falling to the floor?"
NORMAN -- "Three."
BUGLIOSI -- "Is the sound of that bolt action, and the ejection of the
cartridge casings, and their falling to the floor something that
you're going to remember for the rest of your life?"
NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
BUGLIOSI -- "One more question....at any time on the morning of the
assassination did you see any stranger or strangers in the Book
Depository Building?"
NORMAN -- "No sir."
=============================
=============================
David Von Pein
A CONSPIRACY KOOK NAMED DAVID JOHNSON SAID:
>>> "I found that Bugliosi was not an accurate reporter of events." <<<
DVP THEN ASKED:
>>> "Like what?" <<<
DAVID JOHNSON THEN GUSHED:
>>> "One example, among thousands, would be his mention of shooting eyewitness Hugh Betzner. Betzner said in his sworn statement on November 22, 1963: "I also remember seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in the President's car or somewhere immediately around his car." Bugliosi never mentions this, even when he is refuting the claim {that} Greer was the shooter." <<<
DVP THEN SAID:
Why should Vince mention it? It's an idiotic theory to begin with (and
that's a kind term to describe the "GREER DID IT" nonsense).
The Zapruder Film all by itself tells everybody that the Greer-Shot-
JFK theory is nothing but malarkey (and "sunlight and glare").
The following still images from the Z-Film show the "gun-shaped" GLARE
on Roy Kellerman's head....but Bill Greer's LEFT HAND IS STILL NEAR
THE STEERING WHEEL (i.e., his left hand is nowhere NEAR the so-called
"gun")!.....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10052.jpg
Did Greer have two left hands? And he certainly would have HAD to have
used his LEFT hand to shoot the President, unless he was some kind of
contortionist and managed to twist his RIGHT arm into a position where
he could have fired a pistol at JFK.
Another view:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10059.jpg
And here's a close-up view of the so-called "gun" that is so obviously
merely sunlight bouncing off of Kellerman's head (note the location of
driver Bill Greer's left hand [the "flesh" tones of his left hand are
clearly evident]; his left hand isn't even close to being on the so-
called "gun grip" near Kellerman's forehead):
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10072.jpg
And yet another good-quality image which proves that Bill Greer never
shot JFK in the head:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10081.jpg
Worth repeating:
Anyone who can possibly believe that William Greer of the United
States Secret Service shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (a man
whom Greer swore to protect with his own life) is a person who is
living in a dream world all his own.
aeffects
> www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx1YSP01LF3V5LS/3/ref=cm_cd_et_m...
>
> A CONSPIRACY KOOK NAMED DAVID JOHNSON SAID:
>
> >>> "I found that Bugliosi was not an accurate reporter of events." <<<
>
> DVP THEN ASKED:
>
oh really?
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and
"minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it
isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or
citing sources (other than himself of course, LMFAO).
Number 8 on the LN disinformation list fits rather nicely, won't you
agree?
robcap...@netscape.com
> DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 49):
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
> Conspiracy" Debate.
>
> FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From April 2006, May
> 2006, February 2007, and March 2007.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- Can you name the officer who testified
> about finding the {bus} ticket?
>
"DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- You're SURELY not going down the "Bus
Transfer
Was Planted" route...are you?"
Show some REAL evidence he boarded the bus DVP, I dare you!
"I know that some CTers have indeed proceeded down that ridiculous
path....but the only thing such a CT mindset shows is the sheer
desperation on their part to taint every last piece of evidence in
this case...regardless of how meaningless and silly such claims are."
Evidence? What evidence? Cecil McWatters (bus driver on said bus)
told the Commission the day after the assassination that he was WRONG
when he ID'd LHO on 11/22/63 as the man who boarded the bus and smiled
when told the news of the President's death. He said LHO resembled
Milton Jones, and that it was Jones, NOT LHO, who boarded the bus on
11/22/63 and 11/23/63. Jones, NOT LHO, who grinned when the news was
passed on JFK's death. Finally, it was Jones, NOT LHO, who McWatters
was trying to ID'd on 11/22/63! (II, pp. 279-283) Commission counsel
then tried to get McWatters to ID LHO as the man who asked for the
transfer, here is what he said:
McWatters: I could not do it...I wouldn't do it (at the lineup) and I
wouldn't do it now...No, sir; I couldn't. I could not identify them.
(II, 270, 279, 283)
"In the bus transfer "plant" theory, for example .... In the eyes of
those who would have planted such an article, tell us WHAT exactly
would be gained by planting the transfer? How would it make Lee Oswald
any MORE guilty of killing JFK?"
By showing he was FLEEING
> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&to...
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- The location Boswell gave is IN THE BASE OF THE NECK!!
>
> DVP -- Nonsense. 5.5 inches south of the Mastoid in positively in the
> upper back, just where the photo shows the wound to be.....
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
>
> And all anyone has to do to verify this for themselves is to take a
> ruler and measure 5.5 inches (14 cm.) below the bottom of the earlobe
> (which equates to the location measured from on JFK's body at the
> Bethesda autopsy).
>
> Do this experiment on yourself, or better still, do it on somebody
> else (your mom, dad, or fellow CT-Kook of your choosing), and you'll
> see where "5.5 inches below the tip of the right Mastoid Process"
> really is located (give or take a little bit, since every person's
> body is slightly different).
>
> And it's NOT in the neck. It's right here, just as Dr. Boswell said
> via his written-in notes on the Face Sheet:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
>
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/issues_and_evidence/head_wound/bradford_...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ec8a92379fee1159
robcap...@netscape.com
> DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 49):
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
> Conspiracy" Debate.
> FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From April 2006, May
> 2006, February 2007, and March 2007.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- Can you name the officer who testified
> about finding the {bus} ticket?
"DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- You're SURELY not going down the "Bus
Transfer
Was Planted" route...are you?"
Show some REAL evidence he boarded the bus DVP, I dare you!
"I know that some CTers have indeed proceeded down that ridiculous
path....but the only thing such a CT mindset shows is the sheer
desperation on their part to taint every last piece of evidence in
this case...regardless of how meaningless and silly such claims are."
Evidence? What evidence? Cecil McWatters (bus driver on said bus)
told the Commission the day after the assassination that he was WRONG
when he ID'd LHO on 11/22/63 as the man who boarded the bus and
smiled
when told the news of the President's death. He said LHO resembled
Milton Jones, and that it was Jones, NOT LHO, who boarded the bus on
11/22/63 and 11/23/63. Jones, NOT LHO, who grinned when the news was
passed on JFK's death. Finally, it was Jones, NOT LHO, who McWatters
was trying to ID'd on 11/22/63! (II, pp. 279-283) Commission counsel
then tried to get McWatters to ID LHO as the man who asked for the
transfer, here is what he said:
McWatters: I could not do it...I wouldn't do it (at the lineup) and I
wouldn't do it now...No, sir; I couldn't. I could not identify them.
(II, 270, 279, 283)
"In the bus transfer "plant" theory, for example .... In the eyes of
those who would have planted such an article, tell us WHAT exactly
would be gained by planting the transfer? How would it make Lee
Oswald
any MORE guilty of killing JFK?"
By showing he was FLEEING the scene of a crime and thus making him
look more guilty. Why would he board a bus that was heading BACK TO
THE PLAZA if he was trying to get away? Answer that one.
"And, of course, the "planting of the paper transfer" theory goes
sliding down the tubes forever once it's revealed that Oswald REALLY
WAS ON THAT BUS. Mary Bledsoe's positive IDing of LHO seals that deal.
And she knew Oswald before 1/22/63. She didn't make any mistake re.
his I.D.; she knew him."
Sure, and Bledsoe like all other aspects of the WC case is the ONLY
one who said she saw LHO to the exclusion of ANYone esle. Here is
what McWatters said to the newspapers:
McWatters: ...I told them (the Dallas Police) that there was one man
in the lineup that was about the size and the height and complexion of
a man that got on my bus, but as far as positively identifying the man
I could NOT do it. (II, 270)
The WC would simply lie about this as they would say in exhibit 2003
that he made a postive ID, yet as we can see based on his statements
he did NOT ID LHO as the man who boarded his bus on 11/22/63. Since
McWatters only gave out two transfers all day, and one was to a woman,
it makes sense the other was to Jones and NOT LHO based on his
tesitmony. Jones was NEVER questioned about the transfer or about
being on the bus AND was NEVER called to testify before the WC, why?
"But even if Oswald had never been on the bus....it's a "So What?"
type of thing. Who cares? It means zilch in the larger scheme of
things, because we know Oswald DID leave the TSBD at about 12:33 and
we know he DID arrive back home at around 12:59-1:00. The manner of
locomotion that transported him between these two points in Dallas is
fairly immaterial."
DVP's admitting he may NOT have been on the bus is his way of saying
the WC lied to all of us. He was NEVER on the bus and it does matter
as the WC said he was, why would they do this if he never boarded the
bus? To frame him and make him look guilty, so this does matter very
much. It is very material as the WC lied to make it seem material so
we should look at this very closely. Show the WC lying here and all
other "evidence" has to be looked at very carefully as they could
have lied in many other places (and did). Bledsoe disliked LHO so her
testimony has to be taken as hostile. She was wrong about many things
too. Again we see an ID with a "glance" as she said she did NOT look
very carefully (ala Wesley Frazier, Weitzman, etc...) Nevertheless,
she was able to say LHO "...looked like a maniac. His shirt sleeve
was out here....His shirt was undone...and his face was so
distorted." (VI, 409) Nobody mentioned a man who looked like a
"maniac" or even looked unduely disturbed. The hole in the right
elbow is questionable at the time of the sighting as the Commission
did NOT show her the shirt until before she was due to testify. She
disliked him, and admitted it, her discriptions of his clothing and
demeanor are at odds with everyone else on the bus, yet the WC
believed her!! Go figure.
"Of course, perhaps you were just tossing me a bone to chew on re. the
officer's name who took the transfer off of LHO. Because you seemed to
believe (via an earlier post) that Oswald did have that transfer with
him when he left 1026 Beckley (implying that he moved the item from
one shirt to the other). But with rabid CTers, who can tell what they
might be thinking??"
Sure why bother to find out either, right? Why learn something new
that might show your fairytale theory to be incorrect, right?
"My normal rule with respect to this faction of CTer is to pretty much
think that they think that "Everything Was Planted, Faked, And/Or
Tainted If It Leads In Any Fashion To Lee Harvey Oswald"."
Maybe because much of it was? I see NO proof or evidence from you LHO
was EVER on that bus so why should we believe he was? ONLY LNers
believe things despite the evidence saying the contrary.
"Some CTers don't want to believe Oswald was in William Whaley's cab
either. I guess, therefore, Oswald managed to hitch a ride on
Superman's back after leaving work on Friday in order to get to his
roominghouse on Beckley by about 1:00 PM.*"
Oh you mean the cab driver the that the WC totally ignored almost
everything he said and made up their own stuff with? That one? The
one who said his passenger got in at 12:30 p.m. (when LHO didn't even
leave the TSBD until 12:33 p.m.)? Their lame excuse of him noting
things in 15 minute blocks despite what time a passenger really
entered was shown to be incorrect as his log showed trips beginning or
ending at 6:20 a.m., 7:50 a.m., 8:10 a.m., 9:40 a.m., 10:50 a.m. and
3:10 p.m. that day. He also testified that the man offered the cab to
an elderly lady, does this sound like a "maniac" on the run to you?
* = Oh, that's right...I forgot...the "Rambler/Roger Craig Theory".
How could I be so stupid?! Mr. DCM gave LHO a ride to Beckley on
11/22....and then Rambler Man/DCM (instead of waiting for Oswald for a
minute or so as Lee picked up his gun) decided to leave his cohort
hanging out in the wind to hoof it over to Tenth Street on his own."
Sure, mock what you are ignorant about and show no sign of even
looking into it.
"Which, btw, brings up this additional point when applying the "Oswald
In Rambler" theory --- Why did Oswald even NEED to return to his
roominghouse at all on November 22nd (to retrieve his own gun or to
change shirts or otherwise) if he's being given a lift by a fellow
conspirator?"
They were two seperate men that is why. There were many men who could
pass for him from a distance and one who was an identical twin.
"Did Rambler Man forget to bring the appropriate number of weapons
with him too? Hence, Oswald must risk getting caught by police at his
residence to go and retrieve his own gun?"
No, RM was on his way out of town like a normal killer, not one who
takes buses headed back to the scene of the crime, offers cabs to
elderly women instead of getting out of there himself, and one who
goes to see a movie rather than fleeing town.
"Why wouldn't Oswald have already had his gun and clothing change in
the Rambler prior to 12:30? Wouldn't Oswald, even in an "Unwitting
Patsy Mode" have insisted upon at least that little bit of pre-
planning if he knows he's going to rendezvous with Mr. Rambler Guy on
Elm Street at 12:40?"
Why didn't the the LHO who worked at the TSBD have his pistol with him
that day? Why didn't he have his change of clothing with him? You
never explained those things to my satisfaction.
"Seems to be a Dumb-Leading-Dumber getaway plan here. NOBODY involved
has a good escape plan it seems. Oswald gets a ride away from Dealey
Plaza in a Rambler station wagon (per many CTer beliefs)....but then
is dropped like a hooker after sex at his own house and then has to
walk to other getaway locales. Nice arrangement there."
You summed up the whole WC case in one sentence, good job. Sure, like
taking a bus headed back to where you just fleed, offering a cab to
someone else and going to see a movie is a real good escape plan, huh?
"Of course, CTers who feel that Oswald needed to be eliminated
immediately after the shooting always fail to ask the logical question
of -- Why didn't DCM/Rambler Man kill Oswald when he had the chance to
do so?"
Because he was a professional and they only kill for two reasons,
money and survival. It was someone else's job to kill LHO before he
got out of the TSBD.
"But, then again, I guess it was a much better plan to let Oswald live
for 46 hours to potentially spill any beans he might know about the
"plot" to the Live TV audience....and then have Ruby kill him while
millions watched on television. (Fair is fair, right?)"
NO it wasn't, it was just messed up. I think Ruby was supposed to
shoot him when he was leaving the TSBD as he was seen and photographed
in front of the building right after the shooting. It also has been
shown that officer McDonald was the man who was tasked with shooting
him at the theater, but LHO outsmarted them.
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.amazon.com/review/R1S95P93PLA7OF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencodi...
>
> www.amazon.com/review/R1S95P93PLA7OF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencodi...
>
> >>> "Darrell Tomlinson, who found the pristine bullet (CE399) in the Parkland corridor...testified that it had *not* fallen off the stretcher which had been used to transport Gov. Connolly [sic]. The WC...simply ignored Tomlinson and concluded, based on absolutely nothing, that the bullet had been on the Connolly [sic] stretcher. In the name of all that is gracious, IS THAT EVIDENCE?" <<<
>
"Sure it's evidence. It's evidence based on something called "common
sense".
Why, you ask?
Because Governor John Connally's stretcher was THE ONLY STRETCHER IN
THAT PARKLAND HALLWAY THAT COULD HAVE POSSIBLY HAD BULLET CE399 ON IT
(or ANY bullet on it, for that matter)."
Big statement in CAPS no less, how about proving it? The WC never
did, maybe you will have better luck. Do you ever discuss evidence in
these long-winded posts of yours?
"I.E.,
The ONLY other stretcher which was a candidate for Tomlinson's CE399
discovery was a stretcher that was used by a young boy (Ronnie
Fuller)....and young Mr. Fuller WAS NOT SHOT WITH A RIFLE BULLET (or
ANY bullet) on November 22, 1963."
How about the President's? Hoover, Siebert, O'Neil and Dr. Humes
thought it was his stretcher? How about some proof it was JBC's?
"Therefore, the only possible REASONABLE and LOGICAL conclusion to
reach regarding the discovery of Bullet CE399 is that it was a bullet
that came off of John Connally's stretcher and that Mr. Darrell
Carlisle Tomlinson was a bit hazy about exactly which of the two
stretchers he retrieved the bullet from (and he was hazy about it; see
Tomlinson's March 20, 1964, testimony below):"
He was hazy, but the WC which was NOWHERE around the hospital is
crystal clear, right?
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher
"A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?"
DARRELL C. TOMLINSON -- "Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be
perfectly honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really
didn't pay that much attention to it. The stretcher was on the
elevator and I pushed it off of there and I believe we made one or two
calls up before I straightened out the stretcher up against the wall."
Enough said, they have NO proof it was JBC's stretcher, and the bullet
found was NOT the bullet presented to have been found.
> ==========================
"The whole issue of what stretcher the bullet {CE399} was found on,
Connally's or some unknown person's, is a giant nonissue. Since we
know that the bullet was fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle, and we
know it wasn't found on Kennedy's stretcher, it had to have been found
on Connally's stretcher." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 431 of "Reclaiming
History" (CD Endnotes)(c.2007)
Nonissue? What kind of lawyer was this bozo again?
David Von Pein
>>> "He {LHO} was NEVER on the bus." <<<
Goodie! More baloney coming from a CTer whom I didn't think could sink
any deeper into his morass of invented kookshit!
So, Robcap thinks that the cops (or somebody) must have PLANTED the
bus transfer in Oswald's shirt pocket on 11/22/63 (complete with the
accurate date and timestamping, plus Cecil McWatters' unique crescent-
shaped hole punch on the paper transfer)....
AND:
....Rob-Kook also must think that witness Mary E. Bledsoe was a liar
when she positively identified Oswald as having been on McWatters' bus
on Nov. 22.
Wasn't it nice and convenient for the cops and (later) the Warren
Commission to be able to come up with so many different witnesses who
were willing to tell lie after lie when they said they saw Lee Oswald
in various places and doing various things on 11/22 that kooks like
Robcap believe are not true at all? ---
E.G.:
1.) Bledsoe and the bus incident.
2.) Virginia & Barb Davis and the Tippit murder. (Plus Markham,
Scoggins, Callaway, Tatum, and all the rest of the witnesses near 10th
Street.)
3.) Howard Brennan and JFK's murder.
AND:
Wasn't it also convenient for the assassination plotters (and for the
CTers later on) to have so many other people tell a string of lies for
years on end, in order to further the continuing "cover-up" that the
CT-Kooks think is still being perpetuated to this day by some people?
---
E.G.:
1.) Humes, Finck, & Boswell and JFK's autopsy. Those three autopsy
doctors ALL lied (per the CT-Kooks) when they ALL agreed that JFK was
shot just TWICE, and both bullets hit the President from ABOVE and
BEHIND.
2.) The various police officers who collected and handled the evidence
in ways which the conspiracy kooks think was suspicious or mysterious
in some manner...with those officers (all of them, save Roger "Big Fat
Liar" Craig) all testifying in ways that can lead to only one possible
conclusion -- i.e., Lee Oswald fired three shots at JFK and four or
five shots at J.D. Tippit on November 22, 1963.
3.) The Warren Commission (which was a panel full of nothing but "I
WANT OSWALD TO BE GUILTY NO MATTER WHAT" clowns, per the CT-Kooks).
4.) The HSCA (which, per CTers, must have been an organization that
was comprised of either complete idiots or WC-backing shills, to a
large degree anyway, since the HSCA agreed with WC regarding Oswald as
the only gunman who hit any victims with any bullets in Dealey Plaza
or on Tenth Street).
Apparently, per the rabid conspiracy theorists who will believe in
anything in order to make Lee Oswald appear totally innocent of any
wrong-doing in Dallas in Nov. 1963, there was an all-encompassing plot
and cover-up in place after the assassination (save Roger "Big Fat
Liar" Craig), engaged in by many different agencies and organizations
and investigative bodies, in order to pull the wool over the
collective eyes of the general public and attempt to make that public
believe that a COMPLETELY INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself,
murdered not only President Kennedy, but also J.D. Tippit as well.
That type of blanket conspiratorial scenario, which is almost
certainly accepted as FACT by many conspiracists worldwide, is just
flat-out idiotic. And always has been. Simple as that.
CTers have their dreams. But LNers, thankfully, have an obviously-
guilty Lee Harvey Oswald (not to mention all of the bullets and all of
the other physical evidence, to boot).
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Jan 25, 4:09�am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 49):
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
> > Conspiracy" Debate.
> >
> > FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From April 2006, May
> > 2006, February 2007, and March 2007.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- Can you name the officer who testified
> > about finding the {bus} ticket?
> >
>
> "DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- You're SURELY not going down the "Bus
> Transfer
> Was Planted" route...are you?"
>
> Show some REAL evidence he boarded the bus DVP, I dare you!
Physical evidence and witness testimony isn`t "real" evidence? What
does the kook demand, a photo of Oz on the bus? Oops, that could be
faked...
> "I know that some CTers have indeed proceeded down that ridiculous
> path....but the only thing such a CT mindset shows is the sheer
> desperation on their part to taint every last piece of evidence in
> this case...regardless of how meaningless and silly such claims are."
>
> Evidence? What evidence? Cecil McWatters (bus driver on said bus)
> told the Commission the day after the assassination that he was WRONG
> when he ID'd LHO on 11/22/63 as the man who boarded the bus and smiled
> when told the news of the President's death. He said LHO resembled
> Milton Jones, and that it was Jones, NOT LHO, who boarded the bus on
> 11/22/63 and 11/23/63. Jones, NOT LHO, who grinned when the news was
> passed on JFK's death. Finally, it was Jones, NOT LHO, who McWatters
> was trying to ID'd on 11/22/63! (II, pp. 279-283) Commission counsel
> then tried to get McWatters to ID LHO as the man who asked for the
> transfer, here is what he said:
>
> McWatters: I could not do it...I wouldn't do it (at the lineup) and I
> wouldn't do it now...No, sir; I couldn't. I could not identify them.
> (II, 270, 279, 283)
Unlikely I could ID a bus driver on a bus I entered. But Bledsoe
said she saw Oz, who she knew.
> "In the bus transfer "plant" theory, for example .... In the eyes of
> those who would have planted such an article, tell us WHAT exactly
> would be gained by planting the transfer? How would it make Lee Oswald
> any MORE guilty of killing JFK?"
>
> By showing he was FLEEING
Is a baserunner on first attempting to steal second running towards
second, or away from first? I prefer to think of Oz has heading
towards his next intended victim, Walker (again).
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "He {LHO} was NEVER on the bus." <<<
>
> Goodie! More baloney coming from a CTer whom I didn't think could sink
> any deeper into his morass of invented kookshit!
>
"So, Robcap thinks that the cops (or somebody) must have PLANTED the
bus transfer in Oswald's shirt pocket on 11/22/63 (complete with the
accurate date and timestamping, plus Cecil McWatters' unique crescent-
shaped hole punch on the paper transfer)...."
Notice readers how the government apologists (a.k.a. Lone Nutters)
work. I showed him, using his own beloved WC report, that McWatters
SAID HE DID NOT GIVE A TRANSFER TO LHO, but DVP now says, "So, Robcap
thinks the cops must have planted it....". He is putting words in my
mouth, but yes, something is amiss here as the bus driver did NOT ID
LHO as ever being on his bus, so how did the police find a transfer
from that bus route on him? Furthermore, as stated earlier, this bus
was headed back to Dealey Plaza, why in the world would LHO get on it
if he was fleeing for his life?
"AND:
....Rob-Kook also must think that witness Mary E. Bledsoe was a liar
when she positively identified Oswald as having been on McWatters' bus
on Nov. 22."
Again, with Robcap must think... of course I think this as it is shown
in the WC itself her statements are incorrect and NOT supported by
anyone else on the bus. What am I supposed to think?
"Wasn't it nice and convenient for the cops and (later) the Warren
Commission to be able to come up with so many different witnesses who
were willing to tell lie after lie when they said they saw Lee Oswald
in various places and doing various things on 11/22 that kooks like
Robcap believe are not true at all? ---"
First of all, they did NOT come up with that many readers, you will
see this for yourself if you read their long-winded report. They have
one major witness for every aspect of the case. For example, Howard
Brennan was their man in DP, Mary Bledsoe took care of the bus, Helen
Markham was their star witness for the Tippit shooting, William Whaley
handled the cab, Johnny Brewer handled Texas Theater for the most
part, etc... The thing is, if you study these "star" witnesses in-
depth you will quickly see they not only don't corroborate what
happened on the day of the shootings, they don't match the testimony
of all the other witnesses in their repsective groups. Secondly,
there was NO investigation as they declared within 24 hours they had
their man, and Hoover stated as much so none of his agents wanted to
bring in anyone or discuss anyone else as they did not want to make
him look bad (or anger him). Most of what was told to them by the
proponderance of witnesses was simply ignored.
"E.G.:
1.) Bledsoe and the bus incident.
2.) Virginia & Barb Davis and the Tippit murder. (Plus Markham,
Scoggins, Callaway, Tatum, and all the rest of the witnesses near 10th
Street.)
3.) Howard Brennan and JFK's murder."
See? I urge anyone interested in this to read these witnesses
statements and you will see none of them positively ID'd LHO as the
shooter in either case, period.
"AND:
Wasn't it also convenient for the assassination plotters (and for the
CTers later on) to have so many other people tell a string of lies for
years on end, in order to further the continuing "cover-up" that the
CT-Kooks think is still being perpetuated to this day by some people?"
Convenient is not the word I would use as they were the planners.
They also have the power to make sure these people kept their mouths
shut. Futhermore, the old saying is correct more times than not,
"Everyone has their price", so threats weren't even needed all the
time as they promised them something to go along. IF you look at the
careers of those who supported the big lie for example you will see
average or worse career men soar to high heights once they lied. IT
is very tempting for many people. ONLY the strong-willed needed to be
threatened.
> ---
"E.G.:
1.) Humes, Finck, & Boswell and JFK's autopsy. Those three autopsy
doctors ALL lied (per the CT-Kooks) when they ALL agreed that JFK was
shot just TWICE, and both bullets hit the President from ABOVE and
BEHIND."
I'm very surprised you went here as the CT side has EVERY DOCTOR AND
NURSE at Parkland who worked on him, pluse Jackie, Kellerman, Hill,
the mortician, the embalmer, his personal physician, the men who
loaded him for the flight to D.C., etc... who say differently than
these three doctors. So who is lying again?
"2.) The various police officers who collected and handled the
evidence in ways which the conspiracy kooks think was suspicious or
mysterious in some manner...with those officers (all of them, save
Roger "Big Fat Liar" Craig) all testifying in ways that can lead to
only one possible conclusion -- i.e., Lee Oswald fired three shots at
JFK and four or five shots at J.D. Tippit on November 22, 1963."
Craig was NOT the only one who said the rifle found was a "Mauser", in
fact, several officers signed affadavits to this fact. Wade and Fritz
were recorded by local t.v. stations saying it was a Mauser so what is
your point?
"3.) The Warren Commission (which was a panel full of nothing but "I
WANT OSWALD TO BE GUILTY NO MATTER WHAT" clowns, per the CT-Kooks)."
Finally, you are seeing the light!
"4.) The HSCA (which, per CTers, must have been an organization that
was comprised of either complete idiots or WC-backing shills, to a
large degree anyway, since the HSCA agreed with WC regarding Oswald as
the only gunman who hit any victims with any bullets in Dealey Plaza
or on Tenth Street)."
They were controlled by the same forces who controlled the WC, thus,
you get virtually the same results. BUT they did reach one major
conclusion the WC did not, and LNers always try to act like this did
not happen, they concluded JFK died as a result of a CONSPIRACY!
"Apparently, per the rabid conspiracy theorists who will believe in
anything in order to make Lee Oswald appear totally innocent of any
wrong-doing in Dallas in Nov. 1963, there was an all-encompassing plot
and cover-up in place after the assassination (save Roger "Big Fat
Liar" Craig), engaged in by many different agencies and organizations
and investigative bodies, in order to pull the wool over the
collective eyes of the general public and attempt to make that public
believe that a COMPLETELY INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself,
murdered not only President Kennedy, but also J.D. Tippit as well."
You'll notice readers the government apologists never discuss real
evidence or proof, just excessive hyperbole. All windage of the hot
variety.
"That type of blanket conspiratorial scenario, which is almost
certainly accepted as FACT by many conspiracists worldwide, is just
flat-out idiotic. And always has been. Simple as that.
CTers have their dreams. But LNers, thankfully, have an obviously-
guilty Lee Harvey Oswald (not to mention all of the bullets and all of
the other physical evidence, to boot)."
They arrived at this "guilty LHO" with NO evidence or proof that would
stand-up in any court of law, unless of course, the powers that be had
that rigged too.
robcap...@netscape.com
> robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 4:09�am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 49):
>
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
> > > Conspiracy" Debate.
>
> > > FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From April 2006, May
> > > 2006, February 2007, and March 2007.
>
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- Can you name the officer who testified
> > > about finding the {bus} ticket?
>
> > "DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- You're SURELY not going down the "Bus
> > Transfer
> > Was Planted" route...are you?"
>
> > Show some REAL evidence he boarded the bus DVP, I dare you!
>
"Physical evidence and witness testimony isn`t "real" evidence? What
does the kook demand, a photo of Oz on the bus? Oops, that could be
faked..."
Where was the "physical evidence" hidden again in DVP's long-winded
post? I didn't see any. Besides the totally inaccurate Bledsoe
testimony, what other testimony showed LHO was on the bus? I missed
that too.
> > "I know that some CTers have indeed proceeded down that ridiculous
> > path....but the only thing such a CT mindset shows is the sheer
> > desperation on their part to taint every last piece of evidence in
> > this case...regardless of how meaningless and silly such claims are."
>
> > Evidence? What evidence? Cecil McWatters (bus driver on said bus)
> > told the Commission the day after the assassination that he was WRONG
> > when he ID'd LHO on 11/22/63 as the man who boarded the bus and smiled
> > when told the news of the President's death. He said LHO resembled
> > Milton Jones, and that it was Jones, NOT LHO, who boarded the bus on
> > 11/22/63 and 11/23/63. Jones, NOT LHO, who grinned when the news was
> > passed on JFK's death. Finally, it was Jones, NOT LHO, who McWatters
> > was trying to ID'd on 11/22/63! (II, pp. 279-283) Commission counsel
> > then tried to get McWatters to ID LHO as the man who asked for the
> > transfer, here is what he said:
>
> > McWatters: I could not do it...I wouldn't do it (at the lineup) and I
> > wouldn't do it now...No, sir; I couldn't. I could not identify them.
> > (II, 270, 279, 283)
>
" Unlikely I could ID a bus driver on a bus I entered. But Bledsoe
said she saw Oz, who she knew."
Your inability to remember faces has nothing to do with the case.
They brought him in on the assumption he could. He probably saw the
same people day-in and day-out for the most part, so someone new would
have registered with him. He never could ID LHO and Bledsoe was a
liar.
>
> > "In the bus transfer "plant" theory, for example .... In the eyes of
> > those who would have planted such an article, tell us WHAT exactly
> > would be gained by planting the transfer? How would it make Lee Oswald
> > any MORE guilty of killing JFK?"
>
> > By showing he was FLEEING
>
"Is a baserunner on first attempting to steal second running towards
second, or away from first? I prefer to think of Oz has heading
towards his next intended victim, Walker (again)."
Now this is kook thinking if I ever saw it. You are totally out in
left field.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
I'm often amused at the trolls who pretend that they agree with the three
prosectors.
Of course they don't.
But that's what trolls do... they lie.
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Feb 5, 5:56 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > > On Jan 25, 4:09�am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 49):
> >
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > > SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
> > > > Conspiracy" Debate.
> >
> > > > FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From April 2006, May
> > > > 2006, February 2007, and March 2007.
> >
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > > CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- Can you name the officer who testified
> > > > about finding the {bus} ticket?
> >
> > > "DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- You're SURELY not going down the "Bus
> > > Transfer
> > > Was Planted" route...are you?"
> >
> > > Show some REAL evidence he boarded the bus DVP, I dare you!
> >
>
> "Physical evidence and witness testimony isn`t "real" evidence? What
> does the kook demand, a photo of Oz on the bus? Oops, that could be
> faked..."
>
> Where was the "physical evidence" hidden again in DVP's long-winded
> post? I didn't see any. Besides the totally inaccurate Bledsoe
> testimony, what other testimony showed LHO was on the bus? I missed
> that too.
You miss a lot. Bledsoe knew Oz, and said she saw him on the bus.
This transfer, found on Oswald when he was arrested, corroborates
her...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/transfer.gif
> > > "I know that some CTers have indeed proceeded down that ridiculous
> > > path....but the only thing such a CT mindset shows is the sheer
> > > desperation on their part to taint every last piece of evidence in
> > > this case...regardless of how meaningless and silly such claims are."
> >
> > > Evidence? What evidence? Cecil McWatters (bus driver on said bus)
> > > told the Commission the day after the assassination that he was WRONG
> > > when he ID'd LHO on 11/22/63 as the man who boarded the bus and smiled
> > > when told the news of the President's death. He said LHO resembled
> > > Milton Jones, and that it was Jones, NOT LHO, who boarded the bus on
> > > 11/22/63 and 11/23/63. Jones, NOT LHO, who grinned when the news was
> > > passed on JFK's death. Finally, it was Jones, NOT LHO, who McWatters
> > > was trying to ID'd on 11/22/63! (II, pp. 279-283) Commission counsel
> > > then tried to get McWatters to ID LHO as the man who asked for the
> > > transfer, here is what he said:
> >
> > > McWatters: I could not do it...I wouldn't do it (at the lineup) and I
> > > wouldn't do it now...No, sir; I couldn't. I could not identify them.
> > > (II, 270, 279, 283)
> >
>
> " Unlikely I could ID a bus driver on a bus I entered. But Bledsoe
> said she saw Oz, who she knew."
>
> Your inability to remember faces has nothing to do with the case.
> They brought him in on the assumption he could. He probably saw the
> same people day-in and day-out for the most part, so someone new would
> have registered with him. He never could ID LHO and Bledsoe was a
> liar.
Of course she was, she said things that interfere with what you want
to believe.
> > > "In the bus transfer "plant" theory, for example .... In the eyes of
> > > those who would have planted such an article, tell us WHAT exactly
> > > would be gained by planting the transfer? How would it make Lee Oswald
> > > any MORE guilty of killing JFK?"
> >
> > > By showing he was FLEEING
> >
>
> "Is a baserunner on first attempting to steal second running towards
> second, or away from first? I prefer to think of Oz has heading
> towards his next intended victim, Walker (again)."
>
> Now this is kook thinking if I ever saw it. You are totally out in
> left field.
Too deep for you, huh? How about "how far can you walk into the
woods?"
robcap...@netscape.com
I was being sarcastic. Feel free to add evidence or proof anytime
Bud, we would all like to see you do this. Since you aren't familar
with her tesitmony and how it relates to other witness testimony in
this area I won't waste my time with you. Who cares what they "found"
on him as the man who would have given him the transfer did not say it
was LHO.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/transfer.gif
>
Again your lack of knowlege regarding the case is showing. Her
testimony interfered with all the other witnesses on the bus!
>
> > > > "In the bus transfer "plant" theory, for example .... In the eyes of
> > > > those who would have planted such an article, tell us WHAT exactly
> > > > would be gained by planting the transfer? How would it make Lee Oswald
> > > > any MORE guilty of killing JFK?"
>
> > > > By showing he was FLEEING
>
> > "Is a baserunner on first attempting to steal second running towards
> > second, or away from first? I prefer to think of Oz has heading
> > towards his next intended victim, Walker (again)."
>
> > Now this is kook thinking if I ever saw it. You are totally out in
> > left field.
>
"Too deep for you, huh? How about "how far can you walk into the
woods?"
Sure, he was going to kill Walker next. How about a motive and some
proof? Oh, that's right, you have none for the other two shootings so
why start now, right?
David Von Pein
>>> "Feel free to add evidence or proof anytime..." <<<
"Evidence" to an "Anybody-But-Oz" kook like Robcap is like a raindrop
to Turtle Wax.
robcap...@netscape.com
This is Dave's way of saying, "You'll never get proof or evidence from
me or any other LNer!"
David Von Pein
>>> "So, David VP, you're saying that your and VB's amateur interpretations of the autopsy photos trumps the "expert" opinions of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel? How does that make you two any better than the looniest conspiracy theorist?" <<<
In this particular narrow-based instance, I will readily admit that it
doesn't make me "any better than the looniest conspiracy theorist",
due to the fact that I am doing what almost all conspiracy-happy
people love to do with virtually ALL of the evidence in the case --
I'm completely ignoring the official conclusion of the HSCA's Forensic
Panel in this particular "height of the wounds" regard.
(I'll bet Pat was glad to hear that admission from an LNer.) ;)
But when referring specifically to Vincent Bugliosi's thoughts on this
matter, you can't really say that Vince and I think alike on this
issue (at least when based on Pages 423 and 424 of VB's JFK
book)....and that's because, based on the text found on those two
pages, Vince says that he totally accepts the HSCA's findings as being
true regarding the wound locations AND he also asserts that he does
not accept the HSCA's conclusions (via his comments on page 424 at any
rate).
But, to summarize, the HSCA's FPP was and is definitely DEAD WRONG
when it comes to their conclusion that the back wound was anatomically
lower than the throat wound. And even Dr. James J. Humes, JFK's
leading autopsy doctor, has said so -- i.e., Humes himself said, in
1964 to the Warren Commission, that JFK's throat wound was "physically
lower" than the wound located in Kennedy's upper back (2 WC 368;
linked below). .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0188b.htm
RELATED ADDENDUM (from my "Reclaiming History" book review):
"Humes told the Warren Commission in no uncertain terms that
"the wound in the anterior [front] portion of the lower neck is
physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly [to the rear],
sir".
"Now, I can only logically assume that Dr. Humes, when he made
the above comment to the WC about the location of JFK's back and neck
wounds, was referring to John Kennedy's body being in an
"anatomical" (upright) position with respect to those comments about
the wounds (although Humes didn't specifically use the word
"anatomical" in his testimony).
"But since JFK was lying flat on his back on a table during the
autopsy, what other posture (other than the "anatomical position")
could Dr. Humes possibly have been referring to when he said what he
said in 1964? Humes, in that quote above, surely wasn't suggesting
that Kennedy's neck (throat) wound was "physically lower" than the
back wound only if the President's body was tilted or leaning in some
strange fashion.
"And yet, in total opposition to Humes' quote cited above (which
is a quote that VB cites in this book as well), and directly
contradicting Bugliosi's stance regarding the wound locations as
depicted in the autopsy photograph previously mentioned and linked, we
find Vince saying this on Page 423 -- "The...bullet track, which is
going downward through the president's body, is traveling upward
anatomically."
"I can only shrug my shoulders and softly mumble three words:
Curious, curious, curious." -- DVP; 2007
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
>>> "And, why, if, as you assert, these imminent pathologists are TOO FREAKIN' INCOMPETENT to figure out the anatomical location of a back wound on a photo, should we trust anything they say, including that there is evidence for but two gunshots on Kennedy's body, both fired from behind?" <<<
I wouldn't compare the two things as being on equal levels. In one
instance, the HSCA was attempting to determine how many bullet holes
John Kennedy had in his body (and from what directions those shots
were fired).
But the other instance is quite different (and a bit more subjective
in nature, given the fact they had no photo to work with that showed
BOTH Kennedy's throat wound and his upper-back wound in the same photo
for direct "relative height" comparison) -- i.e., the HSCA was trying
to answer the "lower or higher?" question regarding those wounds by
utilizing the autopsy photographs and the written record and the
testimony of the autopsists (testimony taken 15 years after the
assassination).
And that's just exactly what other people have tried to do as well,
using the very same pictures and documented testimony. And the HSCA,
for some reason I'll never be able to fathom, came to the cockeyed
determination that the two photos linked below (when viewed IN TANDEM
and when using each of them to compare to the other) depict the upper-
back wound (in the top photo) as being located anatomically LOWER than
the wound in the front of JFK's neck, which is a wound that is fully
visible in the bottom photo.*
* = And this is the type of photo comparison test that I can only
ASSUME that the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel DID perform with
regard to these two critical autopsy photographs. .....
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/jfk_zeroang.jpg
But as anyone with just one good eye can see (when comparing the
individual wounds seen in each of the above photos), the bullet hole
in JFK's upper back (which was determined by the HSCA to be the TOP
SPOT [or "artifact"] in the top photo above) is not even close to
being located anatomically LOWER on Kennedy's body when compared to
the wound in the throat.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
aeffects
the usual nonsense.....
so here's the entire enchilada (take your pick, Von Pain is guilty of
ALL):
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation)
rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional
disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly
by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the
criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you
know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news
anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never
have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and
instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being
critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also
known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all
charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild
accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may
work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press,
because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through
such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the
Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no
basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your
opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you
may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/
opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the
weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way
which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike,
while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also
known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods
qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with
unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-
wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia",
"racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This
makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same
label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your
opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an
answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works
extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments
where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without
having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or
other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any
subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to
imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or
other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on
the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and
"minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it
isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or
citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered,
avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make
any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or
support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the
straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility,
someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily
dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw
man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial
contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new
ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original
charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address
current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was
involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter
or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with
candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that
opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of
proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so."
Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this
can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to
your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of
events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events,
paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those
otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly
without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by
reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that
forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents
to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for
items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative
thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in
place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not
fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other
ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with
abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a
new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions
who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the
discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do
anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into
emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and
overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less
coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first
instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue,
you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive
they are to criticism".
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps
a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be
presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material
irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to
come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be
something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a
murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may
require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as
valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that
statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or
relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues
designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as
useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This
works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the
purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the
fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered
investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion.
Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret
when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting
attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that
the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators.
Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find
the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when
seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered
officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s),
author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new
ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony
which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address
issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be
working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger
news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider
removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so
that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by
their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their
character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper
intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly
illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the
issues, vacate the kitchen.
eof
David Von Pein
>>> "How does it {JFK's back wound} get in the neck several inches higher for the Warren Report?" <<<
The actual WOUND itself never "moved". This is CT Myth #35 (of
hundreds of myths). Gerald Ford is said by the conspiracists to have
literally MOVED the back wound up into the neck.
But this is simply not true, and if anyone would bother to take one
look at Warren Commission Exhibit #903 (which shows Arlen Specter
holding a metal rod up against the JFK & JBC stand-ins for the
camera), you'll easily see that as of May 24, 1964 (the date of that
CE903 photo) the wound on JFK's back is NOT up in the "neck"; instead,
it's positively in the upper BACK, just exactly where the autopsy
photo shows the wound on JFK to be located.
And with the wound as depicted (in the upper back) in CE903, the SBT
BULLET PATH WORKS...right down to the end of Mr. Specter's probe being
inserted into the exact same bullet hole on Governor Connally's jacket
(which was being worn by the JBC stand-in inside the car in CE903).
Take a look.....
http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
>>> "The Warren Report put the head wound near the EOP, yet in 1968 the head wound entrance was moved 4 inches up to the cowlick." <<<
Sure, there's some debate as to what precise square inch on JFK's head
the entry wound was located. But the KEY to this debate is this --
Even WITH a discrepancy re. the exact head-wound location (and I don't
deny that a discrepancy exists among the experts), THERE WAS ONLY ONE
ENTRY WOUND IN JFK'S HEAD...and that ONE entry wound was positively at
the BACK of Kennedy's head...proving that no other shots hit JFK in
the head.
If there was a frontal head shot...where the heck is the entry wound
on the front of the head? And: why does Kennedy's head move very
rapidly FORWARD at Z313, the point-of-impact frame on Zapruder's film?
There's no other "impact point" that can be discerned on the Z-Film.
How is this possible if there was a frontal head shot?
>>> "Have you ever heard of a magic bullet in any other case worldwide, or a neurospasm?" <<<
The only "magic" bullets in the JFK case are the conspiracists'
MULTIPLE DISAPPEARING MAGIC BULLETS. And they've got a bunch of them,
too (per Oliver Stone, Bob Groden, Jim Garrison, and other assorted
kooks).
How on this Earth did THREE separate bullets hit JFK & JBC (per Oliver
Stone's movie) and have those three bullets ALL VANISH and also have
those three separate shots come together in a "magical" fashion so
that Specter (et al) could even BEGIN to propose that this THREE-
bullet event could be explained via a SINGLE-bullet theory?
There's some "magic" for ya. And it's not "LNer" magic. It's "CTer"
magic, to be sure.
>>> "Do you think a bullet traveling between 2000 & 3000 ft. per second is going {to} be overcome by a neurospasm?" <<<
H-h-huh?? WTF is this? The bullet (moving at an estimated 1,908fps
when it struck JFK's head from behind, per the WC experts who did
tests on LHO's WCC/MC ammunition) had already gone through Kennedy's
head (and then some) by the time the muscles begin to propel his head
rearward (plus, the 'jet effect', per Luis Alvarez' logical theory,
also likely contributes to the rear head movement...but all this
movement is only AFTER the INITIAL forward movement of JFK's head AT
IMPACT).
>>> "The closest witnesses to the limo at Z313...indicated a frontal shot." <<<
But a closer look at the witness stats (which must always be looked at
with many grains of salt nearby) shows that a staggeringly-
overwhelming percentage of the witnesses conform to make up the
following two "majority camps" (so to speak):
1.) 91%+ of the witnesses heard three shots or even FEWER (and that
certainly doesn't aid Mr. Stone's 6-shot ambush theory very much).
2.) The huge majority of witnesses (95%+!) heard shots from just a
SINGLE DIRECTION (be it front or rear, but mostly "rear"). IOW: only 5
out of more than 100 in the poll I'm talking about heard shots from
MULTIPLE directions.
That's an impossibly-low % if shots had truly come from BOTH front and
rear. What that stat (chart below) is telling me is: The witnesses who
heard ALL the shots from the FRONT (and there were several, granted)
were confused by the source of ALL the shots they heard.
It's either that type of explanation, or the CTers are going to have a
tough time explaining how virtually all of the "Knoll" witnesses were,
in essence, ALL WRONG and somehow heard all the frontal shots, but
failed to hear ANY of the TSBD shots from the rear (even though Dealey
Plaza is very, very small).
It doesn't add up for CTers. It never does "add up" for that
crowd...because they are wrong, and they also have no cohesive,
reasonable conspiracy theory to put on the table. (Including Oliver
Stone, whose MULTI-GUN, ONE-PATSY plot is probably the most ludicrous
of all the theories in existence...save David Lifton's.)
Shot Location Chart:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
>>> "Murphy, Holland, Dodd & Simmons...Altgens...Brehm..." <<<
You need to get Brehm and Altgens off that "CT" list. Brehm never said
he heard shots from anywhere except from the Elm/Houston corner. Mark
Lane distorted Brehm's comments...just as Mr. Lane did with other
witnesses, including Helen Markham, whose arm was practically twisted
clean off by Lane's "bushy haired" badgering.
And Altgens isn't in any "CT" camp re. the shot location either. More
on those two witnesses at the link below....
http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae
>>> "Sitzman gave an interview {and said}: "JFK was shot between the ear and temple"." <<<
LOL. This is a laugh. Of course Sitzman said something like that.
Because that's where ALL THE BLOOD WAS, for Pete sake! She wasn't
talking about where the bullet ENTERED his head. How could Sitzman
possibly have known exactly where the bullet entered the President's
head? Answer: She couldn't have known.
>>> "J.C. Price..." <<<
Another LOL. Mr. Price also said the shooting took--get this--five
MINUTES to complete. 5 minutes! Maybe he misspoke. Ya think? Price
also claimed that Connally and Kennedy were riding in different cars.
A strange witness indeed. But at least the CTers think Price got the
shot location correct.
But, again, he's a ONE-directional (from the knoll) witness. Which
means what? He was WRONG about something re. the shots he heard,
wasn't he? Because at least SOME shots came from elsewhere.
It's amazing how many people hear ONLY the shots that "prove
conspiracy", but miss hearing the Oswald/TSBD blasts. If you think
about WHY that probably is...the case simplifies quite a bit.
>>> "Jean Hill and Mary Moorman thought at least one of the shots came from the knoll." <<<
They are both ONE-directional witnesses too. And that means what? It
means they were WRONG.
>>> "Bill Newman and his wife heard shots come from the knoll area." <<<
Again, they are both ONE-directional witnesses. Which means the
Newmans, too (incredibly) managed to hear ONLY the conspiracy-proving
shots from the "front"...while completely missing any of the known-to-
have-occurred TSBD gunshots. In a word: Impossible.
In reality, all of these people heard ONLY Depository shots...but due
to the echo pattern in the "bowl" that was Dealey Plaza, these
witnesses thought that ALL the shots originated from a location
further WEST than they did originate from (i.e., from a direction that
Oswald's rifle was pointed--west).
>>> "Bugliosi has become as credible as Dubya & Alfredo." <<<
Vince has written a book that will likely smash all the conspiracy
theories (I'll be reading it and reviewing it shortly too)....and as
Vince has said for years, and it applies to the JFK case too.....
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi
And in this book ("Reclaiming History") we're treated to 21 YEARS
worth of "support" for his lone-assassin beliefs.
God help the lifelong CTers of the world.
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5d1a96d5...
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_md_plRevi...
>
> >>> "How does it {JFK's back wound} get in the neck several inches higher for the Warren Report?" <<<
"The actual WOUND itself never "moved". This is CT Myth #35 (of
hundreds of myths). Gerald Ford is said by the conspiracists to have
literally MOVED the back wound up into the neck.
But this is simply not true, and if anyone would bother to take one
look at Warren Commission Exhibit #903 (which shows Arlen Specter
holding a metal rod up against the JFK & JBC stand-ins for the
camera), you'll easily see that as of May 24, 1964 (the date of that
CE903 photo) the wound on JFK's back is NOT up in the "neck"; instead,
it's positively in the upper BACK, just exactly where the autopsy
photo shows the wound on JFK to be located."
You are not being accurate here Dave, the death certificate located
the back wound at the T-3 thoracic veterbrea, whereas Humes and the WC
note it being at the T-1 level. Also, Humes measured from the head
down which is highly unusual for a back wound, using the veterbrea is
the common way of doing this. Also, the shirt and jacke have holes
that lineup with a T-3 level wound. Please explain this, and don't
use the ridiculous explanation of the jacket and shirt precisely
bunching up together to have holes exactly in the same spots.
"And with the wound as depicted (in the upper back) in CE903, the SBT
BULLET PATH WORKS...right down to the end of Mr. Specter's probe being
inserted into the exact same bullet hole on Governor Connally's jacket
(which was being worn by the JBC stand-in inside the car in CE903).
Take a look....."
Funny Dave doesn't mention JFK's jacket and shirt as the placement by
the WC does NOT match the holes in the jacket. They were lower in the
T-3 area.
> http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
> >>> "The Warren Report put the head wound near the EOP, yet in 1968 the head wound entrance was moved 4 inches up to the cowlick." <<<
"Sure, there's some debate as to what precise square inch on JFK's
head the entry wound was located. But the KEY to this debate is this
-- Even WITH a discrepancy re. the exact head-wound location (and I
don't deny that a discrepancy exists among the experts), THERE WAS
ONLY ONE ENTRY WOUND IN JFK'S HEAD...and that ONE entry wound was
positively at the BACK of Kennedy's head...proving that no other shots
hit JFK in the head."
Debate? Why is there debate if the autopsy report is correct? How
can there be any debate if they truthfully noted the exact locations
of the wounds? Isn't this what autopsys are for? Please prove your
assertion of only one wound in JFK's head (in the front I presume for
exit) since the WC couldn't.
"If there was a frontal head shot...where the heck is the entry wound
on the front of the head? And: why does Kennedy's head move very
rapidly FORWARD at Z313, the point-of-impact frame on Zapruder's film?
There's no other "impact point" that can be discerned on the Z-Film.
How is this possible if there was a frontal head shot?
Right front temple like all the doctors at Parkland and anyone who saw
the body beyond the controlled 3 doctors at Bethesda said.
> >>> "Have you ever heard of a magic bullet in any other case worldwide, or a neurospasm?" <<<
"The only "magic" bullets in the JFK case are the conspiracists'
MULTIPLE DISAPPEARING MAGIC BULLETS. And they've got a bunch of them,
too (per Oliver Stone, Bob Groden, Jim Garrison, and other assorted
kooks)."
Nice tap-dance here Dave. How about answering the question.
"How on this Earth did THREE separate bullets hit JFK & JBC (per
Oliver Stone's movie) and have those three bullets ALL VANISH and also
have those three separate shots come together in a "magical" fashion
so that Specter (et al) could even BEGIN to propose that this THREE-
bullet event could be explained via a SINGLE-bullet theory?"
No bullets came together for the SBT to work as none of the evidence
you have could be PROVED to have EVER been inside the victims. It was
all smoke and mirrors. Also, the other bullets were retrieved from
the bodies and discarded.
"There's some "magic" for ya. And it's not "LNer" magic. It's "CTer"
magic, to be sure."
I like how he NEVER answered the person's question, just put in on the
CTers instead.
> >>> "Do you think a bullet traveling between 2000 & 3000 ft. per second is going {to} be overcome by a neurospasm?" <<<
"H-h-huh?? WTF is this? The bullet (moving at an estimated 1,908fps
when it struck JFK's head from behind, per the WC experts who did
tests on LHO's WCC/MC ammunition) had already gone through Kennedy's
head (and then some) by the time the muscles begin to propel his head
rearward (plus, the 'jet effect', per Luis Alvarez' logical theory,
also likely contributes to the rear head movement...but all this
movement is only AFTER the INITIAL forward movement of JFK's head AT
IMPACT)."
I prefer the question how can a low-to-medium rifle cause a bullet to
hit at a high-velocity since this was listed as the cause of death?
Care to explain that one?
> >>> "The closest witnesses to the limo at Z313...indicated a frontal shot." <<<
"But a closer look at the witness stats (which must always be looked
at with many grains of salt nearby) shows that a staggeringly-
overwhelming percentage of the witnesses conform to make up the
following two "majority camps" (so to speak):
"1.) 91%+ of the witnesses heard three shots or even FEWER (and that
certainly doesn't aid Mr. Stone's 6-shot ambush theory very much)"
So you don't believe in silencers or shots fired close together, which
would happen if multiple shooters were involved, I guess?
"2.) The huge majority of witnesses (95%+!) heard shots from just a
SINGLE DIRECTION (be it front or rear, but mostly "rear"). IOW: only 5
out of more than 100 in the poll I'm talking about heard shots from
MULTIPLE directions.
This is an out-and-out falsehood, as 123 people were never interviewed
or asked where they thought the shots came from, how many would have
give a different location? Who knows, since they were NOT asked, was
it too much to expect from the WC to at least ask ALL the people in
the plaza they had names for (266) where they thought the shots came
from? Dave wants you to think those that were asked, 90 people, were
split on front and back, not true, as 65 said the grassy knoll are
where the shots came from.
"That's an impossibly-low % if shots had truly come from BOTH front
and rear. What that stat (chart below) is telling me is: The witnesses
who heard ALL the shots from the FRONT (and there were several,
granted) were confused by the source of ALL the shots they heard."
Several?? Try two-thirds of the 90 people asked (again 123 were never
interviewed or simply asked) said the grassy knoll. I like how you
are leaving vital info out to make it sound even, this is not
necessary if you are telling the truth.
"It's either that type of explanation, or the CTers are going to have
a tough time explaining how virtually all of the "Knoll" witnesses
were, in essence, ALL WRONG and somehow heard all the frontal shots,
but failed to hear ANY of the TSBD shots from the rear (even though
Dealey Plaza is very, very small)."
Some heard shots from the TSBD, one-third of the 90 people said this
was the source, but the main point is the WC failed to ask and
interview 123 people on where they thought the shots originated from,
why?
"It doesn't add up for CTers. It never does "add up" for that
crowd...because they are wrong, and they also have no cohesive,
reasonable conspiracy theory to put on the table. (Including Oliver
Stone, whose MULTI-GUN, ONE-PATSY plot is probably the most ludicrous
of all the theories in existence...save David Lifton's.)"
Doesn't add up? You are delusional if you think this, the official
theory is the one that doesn't add up. Most witnesses asked said the
grassy knoll was the origin of the shots.
> Shot Location Chart:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
> >>> "Murphy, Holland, Dodd & Simmons...Altgens...Brehm..." <<<
"You need to get Brehm and Altgens off that "CT" list. Brehm never
said he heard shots from anywhere except from the Elm/Houston corner.
Mark Lane distorted Brehm's comments...just as Mr. Lane did with other
witnesses, including Helen Markham, whose arm was practically twisted
clean off by Lane's "bushy haired" badgering."
Perhaps we will never know what Brehm saw as he was NEVER called
before the WC, and his supposed statement to the Sheriff department
disappeared and was NOT invcluded in the 32 statements (by witnesses)
given to the WC, why? Sure, we are kooks for saying the WC altered or
deleted witness testimony, but you can just call Mr. Lane a liar with
no proof, right?
"And Altgens isn't in any "CT" camp re. the shot location either. More
on those two witnesses at the link below...."
Well Altgens did race up the grassy knoll after the shots didn't he?
He would also tell the WC "flesh particles flew out of the side of his
(Kennedy's) head in MY direction from where I was standing..."
Altgens was to the LEFT of the limo as can be seen from his famous
photo, not the right of the limo, therefore, particles could only go
left if the shot came from the right front side.
> http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae
> >>> "Sitzman gave an interview {and said}: "JFK was shot between the ear and temple"." <<<
"LOL. This is a laugh. Of course Sitzman said something like that.
Because that's where ALL THE BLOOD WAS, for Pete sake! She wasn't
talking about where the bullet ENTERED his head. How could Sitzman
possibly have known exactly where the bullet entered the President's
head? Answer: She couldn't have known."
And you know this how? I love how you know how everyone thinks and
how they reach their conclusions, how about some proof? Really,
perhaps Zapruder told her since it is very obvious on the film where
the head shot came from - the grassy knoll.
> >>> "J.C. Price..." <<<
"Another LOL. Mr. Price also said the shooting took--get this--five
MINUTES to complete. 5 minutes! Maybe he misspoke. Ya think? Price
also claimed that Connally and Kennedy were riding in different cars.
A strange witness indeed. But at least the CTers think Price got the
shot location correct.
But, again, he's a ONE-directional (from the knoll) witness. Which
means what? He was WRONG about something re. the shots he heard,
wasn't he? Because at least SOME shots came from elsewhere."
So the 65 out of 90 asked where the shots came from (again 123 were
never asked for some unexplained reason) who said the grassy knoll
were all wrong in your mind, huh? What makes such a large number
wrong? So you are admitting there were multiple locations now?
"It's amazing how many people hear ONLY the shots that "prove
conspiracy", but miss hearing the Oswald/TSBD blasts. If you think
about WHY that probably is...the case simplifies quite a bit."
25 or so of those asked said the TSBD, but again, that was not
counting 123 people who were never asked. Furthermore, the TSBD was a
big building and many of those 25 or so did NOT agree on the floor, as
quite a few said the 4th or 5th floor. Even if all 25 said the SE 6th
floor window, which they did NOT do, it doesn't prove LHO was the
shooter and you have no credible witness to say it was.
> >>> "Jean Hill and Mary Moorman thought at least one of the shots came from the knoll." <<<
"They are both ONE-directional witnesses too. And that means what? It
means they were WRONG."
I love how Dave has no issue with 123 people NEVER being asked for
their opinion on where the shots came from, why?
> >>> "Bill Newman and his wife heard shots come from the knoll area." <<<
"Again, they are both ONE-directional witnesses. Which means the
Newmans, too (incredibly) managed to hear ONLY the conspiracy-proving
shots came from "front"...while completely missing any of the known-to-
have-occurred TSBD gunshots. In a word: Impossible."
So I guess that of the 90 people asked 65 said the grassy knoll means
nothing to a person of denial like yourself, right? How come your 25
people couldn't all agree on the same floor? Explain that one for us,
and while your at it, explain why there ONE DIRECTIONAL status is
okay.
"In reality, all of these people heard ONLY Depository shots...but due
to the echo pattern in the "bowl" that was Dealey Plaza, these
witnesses thought that ALL the shots originated from a location
further WEST than they did originate from (i.e., from a direction that
Oswald's rifle was pointed--west)."
You are full of it. Two-thirds of the 90 asked said the knoll, hard
as you try, you CAN'T explain that away. Neither can you explain why
another 123 witnesses were NEVER asked where they tought the shots
came from. Some investigation, huh?
> >>> "Bugliosi has become as credible as Dubya & Alfredo." <<<
"Vince has written a book that will likely smash all the conspiracy
theories (I'll be reading it and reviewing it shortly too)....and as
Vince has said for years, and it applies to the JFK case too....."
Please, in your dreams and that fantasyland you live in.
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi
And in this book ("Reclaiming History") we're treated to 21 YEARS
worth of "support" for his lone-assassin beliefs."
His book is a bunch of crock, and the HBO channel jumping on it so
fast proves this, as if it pushed conspiracy NO ONE would have touched
it.
"God help the lifelong CTers of the world."
God always rewards those who tell and seek the truth, so don't worry
about us, worry about your efforts to support a bunch of lies.
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/da474dbd...
>
never tire in quoting yourself do ya, Davey....? LMFAO!
David Von Pein
>>> "Of course, I can't state with 100% certainty that no evidence was handled properly, now can I?" <<<
But, being a rabid "ABO" kook, you have no problem at all with calling
a bunch of people liars and evidence-planters and strong-armers
without a single shred of proof to support your accusations. Right,
kook?
And the extra helpings of "Good riddance" from your pathetic e-lips
when referring to David Belin, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford were a
very nice Kook Touch.
Does Jackie go into your disgusting "Good riddance" pile too? How
about Robert Kennedy? Earl Warren? (I'm sure Earl is worthy of a "Good
riddance" from a miserable kook like you, huh?)
Mega pathetic.
>>> "Along with witness testimony that shows they remember or heard or saw things very differently than what is presented." <<<
Like Jean Hill maybe? On November 22, she said she hadn't seen anybody
firing any weapons. But years later, her memory suddenly improves
greatly, to the point where she actually sees with her own eyes a
gunman firing shots from the Knoll, which is something that she
SPECIFICALLY DENIED having seen on the day of the assassination.
I'd be willing to bet, though, that you kind of like Jean Hill's later
account of the shooting better than her November 22 account.
Any takers?
>>> "Why is Fritz moving the shells around before the photo is taken?" <<<
There's no proof he did any such thing, kook. Show me the Alyea Film
which shows Fritz moving the shells before they were photographed.
You, of course, can't show me that film, can you?
>>> "There is ample proof there {were} very poor crime-scene procedures in the TSBD that day." <<<
Actually, the DPD did very well. They collected the majority of the
evidence that proves beyond any and all doubt that every kook's
favorite "patsy" was really a double-murderer after all.
Not a bad day's work, if you ask me.
However, I wish the DPD hadn't decided to remove that police car from
the basement garage at the exact time it was moved on Sunday morning,
November 24th (which resulted in a DPD officer stepping into the
street to block traffic, which gave Jack Ruby a perfect opening to
slip into the basement unnoticed).
Other than that (unintentional) goof, and the stupid way that Fritz
and Curry and Wade were blabbing all kinds of details about Oswald's
guilt being "cinched", etc., to the live TV audience before Oswald was
killed, I'd say that the DPD did a good job in November 1963.
>>> "Also, there is a nice photo of a cop with a bucket cleaning the limo out during its time at Parkland! What is this?" <<<
I've already discussed this with you last month, 60% of the way
through this October 8th post below:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/67f341d225b69ed1?&q=limo+wipe+down
>>> "The car was rushed to Detroit to be fixed, why?" <<<
It wasn't "rushed". That's Conspiracy Myth #409. .....
"The {Presidential} limousine was not, as the buffs allege
without any supporting authority, immediately rebuilt. The rebuilding
of the car did not commence until over a year later in Detroit." --
Vince Bugliosi; Page 1276 of "Reclaiming History"
http://blog.myspace.com/davidvp1961
>>> "JBC's clothes were laundered, why?" <<<
Blood stains maybe? Lint? Or maybe some fuzzballs building up on them?
And you're going to have to call Nellie Connally a prime "conspirator"
if you want to go down this stupid path any further.
Do you want to go down that path, Mr. K?
>>> "X-rays and photos of the body are different from the ones the people taking them remember, why?" <<<
Simple. Memories of human beings are not perfect. Never were. Never
will be.
And you're going to have to go down the "Autopsy Pictures & X-rays Are
Fakes" road if you go much further here.
Is that a road you want to travel down, kook?
Silly question. OF COURSE Robby wants to go down that avenue. Because
he can't trust ANYTHING uttered by anyone in Officialdom, like these
words spoken by the HSCA's photo panel.....
"The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
were authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the
autopsy personnel and providing additional support for the conclusions
of the medical consultants." -- HSCA Volume VII
>>> "The palm print on the gun is a joke and even Liebeler said as much." <<<
Quote Wesley Liebeler saying the Oswald palmprint match is a "joke".
Can you do that?
Anyway, regardless of what Mr. Liebeler may or may not have said in
this regard, that print is positively a palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald
that was lifted off the barrel of Rifle #C2766 by Lt. J.C. Day of the
DPD on 11/22/63, without a sliver of a doubt. .....
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the
wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting
them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint
palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the
barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring
out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the
chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be
released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the
underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this
area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
CE637:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158b.htm
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of
the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day" and also "11/22/63" written on it
in my writing {plus} "off the underside gun barrel near the end of
foregrip, C-2766".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm
>>> "I could go on forever, but why bother? You stopped reading in the first sentence probably." <<<
Your record's still intact. You haven't gotten a thing right yet. But,
then again, a .000 batting average is very easy to achieve when you're
a charter member of the "Anybody But Oswald" and "All Evidence Is
Fake" clubs.
You're not likely to get a base hit all season. And that's even below
the dreaded "Mendoza Line".
>>> "{Those non-Poe bullet shells found by Virginia Davis and Barbara Davis} were from an automatic gun, not LHO's." <<<
You're a fucking evidence-skewing idiot. Those are the two "DAVIS"
shells, and I've never heard a single CTer (not even a Mega-Kook) ever
complain about those two shells having a broken chain of custody.
They went from the Davis girls straight to the DPD and were
appropriately marked. And those two spent cartridge cases were
positively ejected from the Smith & Wesson revolver that was taken off
of Lee Oswald in the Texas Theater.
There's not a speck of wiggle room for the CT nuts of the world with
respect to those two bullet shells.
But, being the freaking moron you are, you'll just PRETEND that those
two shells found by the Davis girls in their own yard were "from an
automatic gun".
I wonder what proof Robby has to back up that bold assertion?
Answer -- None.
>>> "{The three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest were} From a Carcano, but never proven they were from the C2766." <<<
100% wrong, as per usual. (Is it POSSIBLE to be wrong so often about
very important matters surrounding this case? Well, I guess it is.
Because Rob's alive and kicking....and spewing kookshit by the ton.)
All three rifle shells found beneath the SN window were traced
directly and undeniably to Oswald's MC rifle "to the exclusion".
Check out the testimony of Robert Frazier, Cortlandt Cunningham, and/
or Joseph Nicol for verification of this obvious and easy-to-confirm
fact.
(The next thing I expect to hear from Robert is that Marguerite Oswald
was an "Imposter LHO Mother". Robby seems to love John Armstrong's
"Double Oswald" nonsense to a great degree, so I wouldn't be surprised
if something like that did come out of his mouth soon.)
>>> "{C2766} was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt to even belong to LHO. .... You have no real, hard evidence LHO ordered it or ever owned it." <<<
Only if I want to completely ignore the paper trail of evidence that
shows that LHO ordered and paid for Rifle C2766. (Not to mention the
multiple LHO prints found on the gun....the palmprint and the two
fingerprints on the trigger guard.)
But, quite naturally, all CT-Kooks like Rob MUST ignore all of that
evidence. It's part of the incurable disease they are saddled with.
>>> "{LHO's} revolver was a special and it caused the casings to bulge in the middle when fired and none of the casings supposedly tying this gun to LHO had this bulge." <<<
~sigh~
CT Myth #968 is still being adhered to religiously by Robby boy.
Typical.
It doesn't matter to Rob that Oswald's .38 was conclusively and
irrevocably tied to the four bullet shells found by witnesses on Tenth
Street.
Therefore -- REGARDLESS OF LATER TESTS SHOWING ANY "BULGES" ON THE
CASINGS, Lee Oswald's .38 revolver was positively the revolver that
ejected those four spent bullet shells on Tenth Street on November
22nd, 1963.
>>> "The bullets and fragments from JDT do not match this gun either." <<<
Means nothing. The bullets were badly mangled, prohibiting a positive
ballistics match to ANY gun. Except, of course, for Joe Nicol's
positive match that he made on one of the four Tippit bullets.
Naturally, conspiracy-happy kooks would rather ignore that testimony
provided by Nicol. It's just too "official" I guess, even though it
comes from the ONLY NON-GOVERNMENT/INDEPENDENT firearms expert who
examined the bullets for the Warren Commission.
But the kooks probably think Nicol was given a bagful of money to tell
a bunch of lies to the Commission.
>>> "It {LHO's revolver} was said to have a bent firing pin." <<<
Who cares? The gun was certainly in working order when four bullets
came out of it while being aimed at Officer J.D. Tippit.
But you probably ought to stick to the "bent firing pin" crappola.
It'll serve your "Anybody But Oswald" needs much better if you do.
>>> "The man who helped "trace" it to LHO died rather quickly in short order after the assassination." <<<
Goodie, goodie!! A "mystery death" added to Robby's post! A kook's
post wouldn't be complete without one of those!
>>> "They {the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine} are from a 6.5mm round and there are millions of them out there. Can't be linked to C2766." <<<
Via the above idiocy, your status has just been bumped up to "Super-
Duper Mega-Moron".
You actually have the audacity to pass yourself off as a pretty fair
expert on the evidence surrounding the JFK assassination, and yet you
gush forth such obviously-inaccurate statements like this (when
referring to CE567 and CE569, the two bullet fragments discovered in
the limousine) -- "CAN'T BE LINKED TO C2766".
Only one word is truly appropriate here in response -- Bullshit!
CE567/569 were positively linked to Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle "to
the exclusion" of every other rifle on Planet Earth. You should cower
with embarrassment at suggesting otherwise. (But you won't, will
you?) .....
Mr. McCLOY - As a result of all these comparisons, you would say that
the evidence is indisputable that the three shells that were
identified by you were fired from that rifle?
ROBERT FRAZIER (FBI) - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit
399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - And the fragment 567---
Mr. FRAZIER - 567, the one we have just finished.
Mr. McCLOY - Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - You have no doubt about any of those?
Mr. FRAZIER - None whatsoever.
~~~~~
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked
Q-3 admitted as Commission 569? .... Mr. Frazier, did you examine this
bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired
from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this
particular rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0141b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0142a.htm
>>> "You have no fingerprints {of Oswald's on Rifle C2766}, and even if there were some, it doesn't prove he fired it that day, just at some time." <<<
Apart from the obvious lie (or just plain ignorance, it's sometimes
hard to tell which applies when speaking to this idiot named Rob)
regarding "no fingerprints" of Oswald's on the Carcano rifle (which is
dead wrong, of course), there's also a more elementary and garden-
variety type of question that probably should be asked whenever this
topic of Oswald and his rifle comes up.
And that garden-variety question is:
At ANY given point in time after Lee Oswald acquired his Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle via mail-order in March 1963, WHO IS MORE LIKELY to have
used it -- on ANY day, including November 22, 1963 -- than its owner,
LEE HARVEY OSWALD?
While it's certainly true that the above question doesn't really
"prove" anything, I still think it's a reasonable question that needs
to be asked of CTers once in a while, just in a basic "What Are The
Odds?" manner.
For, if rifle-owner OSWALD didn't use OSWALD'S own rifle on November
22nd, then WHO DID use OSWALD'S VERY OWN RIFLE to fire bullets from it
at John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza?
On the basis of OWNERSHIP ALONE, Lee Harvey Oswald is very, very
likely to have been the man squeezing the trigger of Rifle C2766 on
November 22 (or any other day of the year).
If CTers think it's MORE likely for Malcolm Wallace to have been up on
that sixth floor using Oswald's gun on 11/22/63 (or anyone else, for
that matter), they've got a HUGE hurdle to overcome. And that hurdle
is -- NOBODY OWNED THAT RIFLE EXCEPT FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD.
>>> "His {Dr. Vincent P. Guinn} work has been shown to be very faulty. It is not all his fault, as members of the panel were only given "evidence" in segmented format, meaning they weren't getting the whole picture. This was done by the HSCA to manipulate the results they wanted." <<<
LOL break.
The Mega-Kook named Rob actually seems to think (via the above
parameters he spelled out) that the HSCA DIDN'T want to find a
"conspiracy".
That's a howl, because the HSCA was desperate to find a
conspiracy....and ANY conspiracy theory would do, it seems. And that's
why the silly and since-destroyed "4th Shot Heard On The Dictabelt
Recording" conclusion was arrived at by the House Select Committee at
the 11th hour in late 1978.
But AT THE SAME TIME, we're still left with the other (logical and
accurate) parts of the HSCA's conclusions, which were:
LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED THE ONLY BULLETS THAT STRUCK THE TWO VICTIMS
ON 11/22/63 IN DEALEY PLAZA. AND THOSE BULLETS WERE FIRED FROM
MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE #C2766.
>>> "When you are talking about ballistics, there is no such thing as "similar" or "very likely"; it either matches or it doesn't." <<<
Bullshit.
Many times, the general characteristics or composition of bullet lead
can be said to be "similar" or "consistent with" a comparison bullet,
even if the fragment being examined has been badly damaged.
Robert Frazier of the FBI provided just exactly that kind of non-
exacting testimony for the Warren Commission. He testified in such a
manner on multiple occasions, in fact.
With respect to CE842 (a small bullet fragment taken out of Governor
Connally's wrist), we find this testimony given by the FBI's Bob
Frazier.....
Mr. SPECTER - Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for
FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842,
will you describe that fragment for us, please?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which
weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory.
It is a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a
core of a bullet. However, it lacks any physical characteristics which
would permit stating whether or not it actually originated from a
bullet.
Mr. SPECTER - Are its physical characteristics consistent with having
come from Commission Exhibit 399?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it could have.
=========
And we also have Frazier testifying in the following fashion with
respect to the small amount of lead residue that was scraped off of
the limousine's windshield.....
Mr. SPECTER - Was a comparison made of the lead residues on the inside
of the windshield with any of the bullet fragments recovered about
which you have heretofore testified?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. They were compared with the bullet fragment found
on the front seat, which in turn was compared with Commission 399. The
lead was found to be similar in composition.
=========
By the way.....
As an addendum to the first Frazier WC excerpt above (regarding CE842,
the Connally wrist fragment), it's worth highlighting this part of
Frazier's testimony once more:
"This is a small fragment of metal which weighed one-half a
grain when I first examined it in the laboratory."
The key words there being "one-half a grain", which means that almost
TWO FULL ADDITIONAL GRAINS could have been recovered from the bodies
of both John Connally and John Kennedy and still not have TOO MUCH
BULLET LEAD found in the victims to eliminate CE399 as a candidate for
having caused the injuries to both JBC and JFK.
Before it was fired through Oswald's Carcano, Bullet CE399 weighed
approximately 161 grains (which was said by ballistics experts,
including Robert Frazier [see testimony below], to be the average
weight of an unfired MC bullet from two of the four lots of MC bullets
manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company that were used by Lee
Oswald in his own rifle in 1963).....
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the
exhibit-that is, 399?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG - How much weight loss does that show from the original
bullet weight?
Mr. FRAZIER - We measured several standard bullets, and their weights
varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two
grains, from 161 grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161
grains. One weighed--- 160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains.
=========
In addition, Dr. John Lattimer, during his extensive assassination
experiments and tests in the 1970s, weighed 100 unfired MC/WCC bullets
from all four sub-lots used by Oswald (Lot Nos. 6000 through 6003).
Lattimer's data was almost identical with the FBI's from 1963-1964,
with Lattimer's 100 WCC test bullets ranging in weight from 159.80 to
161.50 grains, for a "median" weight of 160.80 grains. [Source: Dr.
Lattimer's 1980 book "Kennedy And Lincoln"; Pg. 287.]
The above testimony from Frazier, when coupled with his other
testimony about the Connally wrist fragment weighing only "one-half a
grain", indicates that close to 2 more full grains of metal could have
been discovered in the victims and still not exceed the approx. weight
of Bullet CE399 prior to its being fired from Rifle C2766. (As Frazier
mentioned in his above testimony, CE399 weighed exactly 158.6 grains
after it was found on a Parkland stretcher on November 22.)
And as far as I know, CE842 represents the LARGEST fragment among the
"2 or 3" (per Dr. Charles Gregory) metallic fragments that were
removed from Connally's right wrist. The ONE single tiny fragment left
inside JBC's thigh wound was microscopic in size. And there were ZERO
pieces of metal of any type discovered in Connally's torso/trunk.
And we also know that zero pieces of metal were discovered inside John
Kennedy's neck or upper-back regions at his autopsy. But even if there
HAD been some very small traces of bullet material discovered inside
JFK (and some people have suggested that a fragment could have existed
in Kennedy's neck), it would still not mean that CE399 would be
eliminated as a source for any such metal fragments, because there's
still nearly 2 more grains that could have been deposited in the
victims and still be within the average total weights of WCC bullets
supplied by the FBI and, later, by Dr. Lattimer.
There's also the following WC testimony from Bob Frazier of the FBI
that is relevant to this sub-topic about "Average Bullet Weights".....
Mr. EISENBERG - In your opinion, was there any weight loss?
Mr. FRAZIER - There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to
the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base
of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is
slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end
of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because
158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at
least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be
approximately 3 or 4 grains.
>>> "The bullets {removed from J.D. Tippit's body} were not consistent with LHO's gun in the least bit, according to 99.9% of the people I have read (hundreds)." <<<
That's because you prefer conspiracy writers instead of the actual
truth.
But the truth is: the four bullets that came out of Tippit's body were
consistent with having been fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's .38
revolver, with "nothing evident that would exclude the weapon" [per
the WC testimony of firearms identification expert Joseph D.
Nicol]. .....
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, finally I hand you a group of four bullets
marked Commission Exhibits 602, 603, 604, and 605, which I state for
the record were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit, and a group
of two bullets marked Commission Exhibit 606, which I state for the
record were fired by the FBI through the revolver, Commission Exhibit
143. .... Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine
whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?
JOSEPH NICOL. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605,
604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of
class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing evident that
would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent
variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the
projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not
good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that
of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest
possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be
positive. However, on specimen 603...I found sufficient individual
characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was
fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to
the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Correct.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nicol.htm
>>> "The {autopsy} photos have been tampered with." <<<
You just said that to prove my earlier point about conspiracy-hungry
kooks needing to believe in fake photos....right?
Well, at least you're not in bed with David Lifton. I guess that earns
you one-half of a dog biscuit anyway. Enjoy.
>>> "Don't doctors usually sign the autopsy report?" <<<
Autopsy reports of the "known to be totally incorrect" nature, you
mean? (Which is what you kooks believe; i.e., Drs. Humes, Finck, and
Boswell EACH signed off on an autopsy report that CTers think is
nothing but a pack of lies, distortions, and/or half-truths.
Do most pathologists in the world sign autopsy reports like that, Mr.
Moron?
>>> "How about the cause of death?" <<<
Let me think a minute....
It'll come to me soon....
I got it! ---
He was "nibbled to death by ducks"???
Did I get it right?
Per many kooks, maybe that guess is not too far afield from
reality. ....
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/80902e3be3034936
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2e4f866100d0d292
>>> "The WC tried to get Randle and Frazier to change their testimony regarding the package's length, but surprisingly, and to their credit, they didn't do it." <<<
And yet some CTers think Buell Wesley Frazier was one of the
conspirators who was "setting up" poor innocent Oswald. Some kooks, in
an indirect kind of kooky way, accuse Randle of the same type of thing
too.
And yet, even though the brother-and-sister team (per some CTers) was
framing LHO for the President's murder, they EACH decided to remain
steadfast and firm when it came to their "27 inch" or "about 2 feet
long" measurements regarding the brown paper bag that THEIR OWN PATSY
was carrying on November 22nd.
Doesn't add up for those kooks' requirements, of course.
But what does add up is this.....
Oswald positively took a bulky paper bag into work with him on
11/22/63.
+
Oswald lied to Wes Frazier about the contents of that paper bag.
+
Both Frazier & Randle observed Oswald carrying a long, "bulky" brown
paper bag on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination.
+
After the assassination, Oswald's rifle turns up missing from its
KNOWN storage location of Ruth Paine's garage.
+
At 1:22 PM CST on November 22nd, Oswald's RIFLE (Serial Number C2766),
with Oswald's own prints on it, was found on the same floor of the
TSBD where the empty paper bag was found.
+
An EMPTY 38-inch-long paper bag (similar in color and style to the bag
seen by Frazier & Randle) turns up in the TSBD's Sniper's Nest, from
where an Oswald-like individual was seen firing a RIFLE at JFK's car.
And the empty bag has--Voila!--Oswald's prints on it. With one of the
prints--the right-hand palmprint--perfectly matching the way Wes
Frazier said that Oswald carried the bag. And fibers matching the
blanket in Paine's garage are found inside the empty bag as well.
+
Oswald, from the weight of all the evidence, carried NO PACKAGE at all
out of the Depository when he left the building at approx. 12:33 PM on
11/22/63.
=
Lee Harvey Oswald carried his Carcano rifle into the Depository on
November 22, concealed inside a homemade paper bag (the length of
which was incorrectly ESTIMATED by witnesses Frazier & Randle), with
Oswald then leaving the empty paper bag (with his prints on it)
underneath the window from where he fired the shots that killed
President Kennedy.
Any other alternative scenario that differs greatly from the above
version of events cannot hold up to any kind of scrutiny (or common
sense) at all.
>>> "So what {if LHO's prints are on the SN boxes}? He worked there." <<<
The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof
of Oswald's guilt, true.
But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of
where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all
of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door,
those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those
prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in
the Sniper's Nest.
It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO
prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the
assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of
"He worked there".
The "He worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy
theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the
boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-
floor window on November 22nd.
>>> "{The fibers found wedged into the rifle} Could have been planted, like the palm print." <<<
Oh goodie! More excruciatingly-complicated and needless "planting"
being (evidently) performed by the very same band of moron plotters
who decided to green-light that ever-popular "MULTI-GUN, ONE-PATSY"
assassination scheme prior to November 22. Lovely.
Or maybe this needless piece of "fiber planting" was being performed
by a rogue "planter", who was working outside the realm of the pre-
arranged "Let's Get Oz" plot.
I'm sure it doesn't matter to a CT-Kook though....just as long as the
kook can cry "PLANTED", he's happy and contented.
>>> "{It's} Not LHO's {jacket}, based on the laundry tags (a place he never went to) and the color. Marina said he had two coats and two coats only, and this was neither." <<<
Dead wrong (as per the CT-Kook norm).
I always laugh at the idea that the laundry tag in the jacket HAS to
mean the jacket wasn't Oswald's. When, in fact, the cheap-ass
skinflint named Lee Oswald might very well have bought the jacket
second-hand with the tag already in it.
Regarding Marina denying all knowledge of CE162 (which is the gray
zipper jacket found under a car at the Texaco station on Jefferson
Blvd.), we have this WC testimony from Marina Oswald.....
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall any of these clothes that your husband was
wearing when he came home Thursday night, November 21, 1963?
Mrs. OSWALD. On Thursday, I think he wore this shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that Exhibit 150?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. It seems he had that jacket, also.
Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0272b.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
>>> "The purchase order that supposedly paid for the gun was purchased at a time LHO was at work. He did not miss a single day from the time he started until the assassination, so where did he get all the time to do all the things the WC claim?" <<<
Yeah, it must have been one of those 24 "Imposter Oswalds" who bought
the money order for the rifle, huh?
The money order couldn't possibly have been purchased by the REAL
Oswald either BEFORE or AFTER his "at work" hours, could it?
Where on this money order (linked below) is there any indication of
the TIME OF DAY when it was filled out by Lee Harvey Oswald (aka "A.
Hidell")? .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352a.htm
Via the date that is prominently stamped on it, the $21.45 money order
for the MC rifle was filled out by Oswald/"Hidell" on Tuesday, March
12, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. But the exact time of day when it was
purchased by Oswald isn't anywhere to be found on that document.
Therefore, LHO could have easily bought the money order either before
or after his work shift on Tuesday, March 12th.
BTW, Rob, Oswald wasn't working at the Book Depository when he sent
off that money order to Chicago in mid-March '63. His TSBD job was
still many months away at the time he acquired the Carcano.
Perhaps I misunderstood you above, but you seemed to be implying that
LHO was working at the Depository at the time he bought the rifle (via
the words "from the time he started"). But "started" where? Which job?
Oswald had several jobs in 1963. I think you probably were implying
that he was already working at the TSBD at the time of the rifle
purchase. But, of course, he wasn't.
>>> "...And the writing on the money order and envelope could have been faked." <<<
Yeah, that's always a good all-encompassing excuse for you kooks to
use when you're stuck for something better -- like PROOF of the
massive plot you love so much.
Just say something "could have been faked" and the CT nuts are off the
hook. Nice tactic.
I wonder how a jury would respond to the never-ending "This could have
been faked but, of course, I can never prove it to you" tactic that is
constantly being employed by retarded JFK conspiracy theorists?
Well, I guess you can always hope that all jury boxes are filled to
the brim with "O.J." jurors. That's about the only ray of hope you'd
have.
>>> "Also, there were many sightings of LHO when we know he was at work, so what was this all about?" <<<
I guess it shows how completely stupid and moronic your "patsy-
framers" were, doesn't it?
Because if those "plotters", who were bent on framing Oswald for
murder, had done a good and thorough job when parading their "Imposter
Oswalds" all over Dallas, would they have deliberately allowed some of
their "imposters" to be seen in public, by various people, at times
when these ace patsy-framers should have known that the real Lee
Oswald was at work in another part of the city?
Or didn't the conspirators who were in the detailed process of framing
Oswald for two future murders give a damn about trivial stuff like
that?
But those same conspirators (per some CT-Kooks) apparently DID care
enough about silly little trivial patsy-framing "details" to want to
have a fake Oswald be seen at a rifle range or at a car lot weeks
before November 22, even though those two "sightings" do absolutely
nothing to further the notion that Oswald was guilty of the two
murders the patsy-framers were attempting to frame LHO for.
Go figure those idiot patsy-framers. (And then try to figure out the
kooks who actually believe in such nonsense.)
Allow me to repeat something I have said previously (and it applies
even more today, after reading Robby's latest post filled with mangled
evidence and kook-invented supposition):
"Rob is a cartoon character. He's an overblown CT joke." -- DVP;
November 2007
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/580d4b6c4917c117
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/580d4b6c4917c117
>>> "Dave, no one is reading you except me..." <<<
<warm chuckle ensues>
I'm well aware of the fact that very, very few people read anything
that ANYBODY writes in this silly asylum, you ignorant mega-kook/
crackhead.
This Forum/NG is a ghost town for the most part (except for the
several idiots who continue to scribble one say-nothing post after
another, including one mega-kook named Healy who seems to surface from
his crack station every morning at approximately 3:30 AM EST/EDT to
post a minimum of six messages of useless insults/drivel in a row).
But my long-windedness on this Forum is designed mainly for my own
"JFK Files". I archive virtually every post I write for future
reference, trying to touch on a wide variety of assassination sub-
topics, so that my personal archive of posts will be varied and wide-
sweeping and, most important of all, "kook-bashing" in nature to the
maximum degree (which is a bashing you rabid CTers deserve, 24/7).
And I want to thank Robert Caprio for his entertaining and idiotic
pro-
CT posts over the last month or two....because he has given me an
ideal opportunity to add significantly to my archive of kook-smashing
JFK Files.
Rob, in fact, seems to have been heaven sent, due to the fact that
he's almost a "caricature" of the "Ultimate CT Kook" that exists in
the world today, providing ample opportunities for me to easily smash
and destroy virtually every single stupid thing he utters, 24/7.
Caprio is almost too good to be true (from my standpoint of wanting to
utilize someone as ignorant of the true facts as he is in order to
build up my archive of conspiracy-destroying articles and posts
dealing with John F. Kennedy's assassination).
He's "ideal" because he seems to believe in just about EVERY moronic,
unsupportable conspiracy-tinged hunk of kookshit that has EVER been
uttered by ANY conspiracy writer since nineteen hundred & sixty-
three.
IOW -- If it spells "Conspiracy", Caprio (and a few others here too)
are eager to jump right into bed with that theory and/or the author
who supports such a theory.
For example, the Cap-man (aka: Robkook), at one time or another over
the last several weeks, has said he believes in ALL of the following
pieces of kookshit......
Oswald shot no one on 11/22.
Oswald was merely an innocent "patsy".
There were "6 to 8 shots" fired in Dealey Plaza.
Multiple gunmen were firing at JFK on 11/22/63 (but, naturally, none
of them was Saint Oswald, even though every scrap of evidence has
LHO's imprint on it).
Virtually ALL of the evidence in the ENTIRE case (including the Tippit
murder) has a broken chain of custody.
The backyard photos are fakes.
The autopsy photos & X-rays are fakes.
Many, many witnesses were coerced by the WC into giving false or
skewed testimony.
The WC was filled with nothing but "old geezers" who "didn't give a
shit" about the murder of their own Chief Executive.
The HSCA was filled with even a greater number of scumbags who also,
per Rob The Kook, "didn't give a crap/shit" about the tragic
assassination of the 35th U.S. President.
A large amount of the evidence has been "planted".
===========
And on and on and on to CT absurdity.
Rob is a cartoon character.
He's an overblown CT joke.
He's a dream come to life for an LNer like myself, who knows beyond
all doubt that virtually EVERYTHING he spews is completely full of
shit and is so incredibly stupid and illogical from almost every angle
imaginable that it would take a "CT Joke" like Rob Caprio to actually
have large enough gonads to actually WANT to expose himself in public
as a total moron and ignorant kook, day after day (albeit only
exposing himself to approx. 6 people per day, since this asylum is a
virtual wasteland and always was).
So, my thanks to all of you (and especially Rob-Kook)...and now it's
on to Chicago and let's win they-a!!
David Von Pein
>>> "A troll's main goal is usually to arouse anger and frustration among the message board's other participants, and will write whatever it takes to achieve this end." <<<
All it really takes for an LNer to "achieve this end" is to cite just
a handful of proven facts with respect to the events of
11/22/63....facts that the CT-Kooks can't possibly UNprove, e.g.:
1.) Oswald was positively on the Floor of Death just shortly before
the assassination and asked a fellow worker to send an elevator back
up to him on that sixth floor (a fact that CTers would probably prefer
not to think about, because it could conjure up ideas of Oswald being
a bit sneaky and "plotting", as he wants to disable one of the
elevators on his SIXTH floor, and then possibly use it for a quick
escape after shooting at the President).
But thoughts like that one re. the elevator must always be
automatically rejected as "crazy" by the CT-Kook crowd, because
letting that kind of thought enter a CTer's head would lend some
credence to the idea that Saint Oswald was possibly involved in some
way with JFK's murder. And THAT would never do.
2.) Oswald's rifle is found on the same 6th Floor, the floor from
where an "Oswald-like" person was seen firing a rifle at JFK's car.
(Amazing co-inky there, huh, if it wasn't BOTH the real Oswald and his
real gun being seen doing the shooting at 12:30?)
3.) Gobs of "Oswald Was Here" evidence is strewn in the exact place
(the Sniper's Nest) from where the Oswald-like individual was firing
at JFK. Plus: Bullets from Oswald's gun are found in JFK's car and in
the hospital where the limo victims were taken right after the
shooting. (Probably all "planted" there or something, per the kooks.
So, let's just dismiss those piddly ballistics tidbits that ALL go
directly toward Oz's weapon.)
4.) Oswald leaves the building within minutes of the most exciting
event in Dealey Plaza history, totally disinterested in the pulse-
pounding activity going on within yards of the doorstep of his working
establishment. Go figure that. (Lee probably just wanted to catch that
movie in Oak Cliff. Yeah, that's a better explanation than an LNer's
scenario any day of the week.)
5.) Oswald spends $1.00 for an unusual cab ride home on November 22.
Obviously, Lee's in a pretty big hurry to get home. But why (if he was
merely leaving work early to go see Van Heflin at the movies)?
6.) Oswald shoots and kills Officer J.D. Tippit on 10th Street. This
was probably just another co-inky though. After all, Oswald probably
always carried around a fully-loaded revolver (plus at least 9 extra
bullets in his pocket when he exits his roominghouse on Beckley) after
leaving work in a hurry (sans permission to do so) within minutes of
U.S. Presidents being killed a stone's throw from where Oswald also
was located just 45 minutes earlier.
Yeah, Tippit's being murdered by Book Depository employee Lee Oswald
was prob'ly just a funny coincidence. Besides, you know how boys are
in Texas, "When they've got a gun, they just carry it".
7.) Oswald enters the Texas Theater without paying. (He was probably
saving the $13.87 in his pocket to buy Junie those shoes and to buy
Marina some flowers to make up with her after their Thursday-night
quarrel; you know what a great husband and daddy Lee was.)
8.) Oswald is nabbed in the theater by police as LHO pulls his gun and
tries to shoot more policemen within the theater. But, here again, it
was probably just a strange coincidence. It was probably merely nerves
on Lee's part. He was just a high-strung boy. And LHO's comments
attributed to him in the theater are probably meaningless too (if
you're a CT-Kook, that is) -- "It's all over now" and/or "This is it".
Either one of those statements is pretty incriminating in my LN book.
But, to the kooks, those words probably indicate Lee's frustration at
the cops for grabbing him in the middle of the feature presentation at
the Texas Theater. And nobody's got a right to interrupt a good war
movie (even if you did sneak in the theater for nothing). Not even the
Dallas Police have any right to do that.
The above items (plus so much more, including LHO's numerous lies that
he told after his arrest) usually manage to raise a tad bit of ire in
the CT-Kooks.
But, to a kook, all of this stuff was "faked" or pre-planned in some
way by OTHER (non-Oswald) people in order to frame poor innocent Lee
Harvey.
Do you think a jury -- ANY jury in the world! -- would even BEGIN to
buy such "He Was Framed" nonsense after hearing the huge list of
evidence against this guy named Oswald?
Apparently, many kooks DO think that every jury is composed of the
"O.J. Twelve".
>>> "One popular trolling strategy is the practice of Winning by Losing." <<<
Now Gil seems to be talking about a CTer's strategy.
>>> "While the victim {i.e., a poor "CTer" in Gil-Kook's mind here} is trying to put forward solid and convincing facts to prove his position, the troll's only goal is to infuriate its prey." <<<
Yeah, "solid and convincing facts" like "JFK was trying to cough up
the bullet that entered from the front but didn't exit" (paraphrasing
a kook).
And other "solid" facts like Walt's insanity about Howard Brennan
"DESCRIBING" the assassin in the "west-end" window instead of the
east-
side window that Brennan TWICE CIRCLED on WC exhibits. (That's one of
my favorite "solid facts" that Gil was probably talking about.)
And then there's also Walt's lovely theory about how JFK was shot in
the throat from the front (with the bullet exiting his back) at
approx. Z-Frame 161....with Kennedy then continuing to wave and SMILE
to the crowd for almost THIRTY more Zapruder Film frames. (Nice one,
Walt.)
And don't forget resident kook Don Willis....who has placed a rifle in
the hands of 18-year-old Danny Arce. Willis said that Arce shot JFK
from the TSBD's FIFTH floor. (Beautiful "fact" there, huh?)
Is there any need to continue? Or can your bladder handle any more of
these "solid and convincing facts" without bursting from the intense
laughfest that results from such made-up "facts"?
Okay. I'll stop then. (But there's plenty more, of course. Just ask
Ben.)
>>> "The troll takes (what it knows to be) a badly flawed, wholly illogical argument, and then vigorously defends it while mocking and insulting its prey." <<<
Yep, Gil's got to be talking about CTers as the "trolls" here. There
is no other entity that fits the above description. That's for dang
for sure.
>>> "The troll looks like a complete fool..." <<<
Yep. CTers indeed. (Has Gil flipped sides here? Kinda sounds like it.)
>>> "The victim becomes noticeably angry by trying to repeatedly explain the flaws of the troll's argument." <<<
I like the way Gil now thinks that he and his fellow kooks have
somehow been transformed into "victims" by the LN crowd. Too cool,
Gil.
But, as is typical with the kook mindset, they've got everything
topsy-
turvy. But I've enjoyed your whining Gil. Please post "Part 2" of this
thread sometime in the future. After all, even us LN/CIA operatives
need a healthy laugh once in a while, right?
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/da474dbd...
>
"But, being a rabid "ABO" kook, you have no problem at all with
calling a bunch of people liars and evidence-planters and strong-
armers without a single shred of proof to support your accusations.
Right, kook?"
Look's who talking! You call everyone who doesn't agree with your
fantasy theory a liar. If they didn't want it to look like evidence
was planted they should have done a better job, it is their fault for
it looking like that.
"And the extra helpings of "Good riddance" from your pathetic e-lips
when referring to David Belin, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford were a
very nice Kook Touch."
These men conspired in a cover-up of a slain President and lied to the
American people repeatedly so why should I be sad at their passings?
I'm sure God will take care of them just fine.
"Does Jackie go into your disgusting "Good riddance" pile too? How
about Robert Kennedy? Earl Warren? (I'm sure Earl is worthy of a "Good
riddance" from a miserable kook like you, huh?)"
Why would they go into the pile? Do you have proof they knew for sure
who murdered JFK? Did they participate in the WC skullduggery?
"Mega pathetic."
Look at the man who calls people horrible names all the time passing
judgement on others. How funny.
> >>> "Along with witness testimony that shows they remember or heard or saw things very differently than what is presented." <<<
"Like Jean Hill maybe? On November 22, she said she hadn't seen
anybody firing any weapons. But years later, her memory suddenly
improves greatly, to the point where she actually sees with her own
eyes a gunman firing shots from the Knoll, which is something that she
SPECIFICALLY DENIED having seen on the day of the assassination."
Like the 65 people who said the shots came from the grassy knoll (and
if the other 123 had been asked who knows how many more would have
said the same thing).
"I'd be willing to bet, though, that you kind of like Jean Hill's
later account of the shooting better than her November 22 account."
I love how he pulls out one name of someone he thinks he can dispute,
how about the 65 who thought the shots came from the GN?
"Any takers?"
I'm not relying on one person like your theory does.
> >>> "Why is Fritz moving the shells around before the photo is taken?" <<<
"There's no proof he did any such thing, kook. Show me the Alyea Film
which shows Fritz moving the shells before they were photographed.
You, of course, can't show me that film, can you?"
Has it been released? I don't think it has, but Alyea is the one who
said under oath that Fritz picked them up so he could film them.
There is your proof. Show Alyea lied. Bet you can't.
> >>> "There is ample proof there {were} very poor crime-scene procedures in the TSBD that day." <<<
"Actually, the DPD did very well. They collected the majority of the
evidence that proves beyond any and all doubt that every kook's
favorite "patsy" was really a double-murderer after all."
Thank goodness you are NOT in crime enforcement! If that is an
example of a good day's work I'd hate to see a bad one. NONE of the
"evidence" gathered shows LHO to be a murderer.
"Not a bad day's work, if you ask me."
Thankfully most of the men and women in law enforcement and our
justice system would disagree with you.
"However, I wish the DPD hadn't decided to remove that police car from
the basement garage at the exact time it was moved on Sunday morning,
November 24th (which resulted in a DPD officer stepping into the
street to block traffic, which gave Jack Ruby a perfect opening to
slip into the basement unnoticed)."
More unsubtantiated gibberish as the officers on duty don't agree with
you and the WC.
"Other than that (unintentional) goof, and the stupid way that Fritz
and Curry and Wade were blabbing all kinds of details about Oswald's
guilt being "cinched", etc., to the live TV audience before Oswald was
killed, I'd say that the DPD did a good job in November 1963."
I love how he always ignores the two affadavits of the officers on the
scene which state the rifle found was a "Mauser."
> >>> "Also, there is a nice photo of a cop with a bucket cleaning the limo out during its time at Parkland! What is this?" <<<
"I've already discussed this with you last month, 60% of the way
through this October 8th post below:"
You are the one bringing this back, NOT me.
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/67f341d225b69ed1?&q=limo+...
> >>> "The car was rushed to Detroit to be fixed, why?" <<<
"It wasn't "rushed". That's Conspiracy Myth #409. .....
"The {Presidential} limousine was not, as the buffs allege without any
supporting authority, immediately rebuilt. The rebuilding of the car
did not commence until over a year later in Detroit." -- Vince
Bugliosi; Page 1276 of "Reclaiming History""
Who is talking about rebuilding the car? We are talking about the
windshield, the windshield frame and any other areas that contained
evidence being fixed. Why was there a rush to have the car fixed?
Didn't we have other limos?
> http://blog.myspace.com/davidvp1961
> >>> "JBC's clothes were laundered, why?" <<<
"Blood stains maybe? Lint? Or maybe some fuzzballs building up on
them?"
So you really think JBC would ever wear that suit again? Standard
procedure calls for it to be secured as evidence, it should NOT have
been cleaned, period.
"And you're going to have to call Nellie Connally a prime
"conspirator" if you want to go down this stupid path any further."
No I don't as she was in shock, the men who are responsible for the
crime scene integrity are the ones I blame (if she really was the one
who allegedly sent it to be cleaned, which I doubt) as they should
have prevented this from happening.
"Do you want to go down that path, Mr. K?"
What path?
> >>> "X-rays and photos of the body are different from the ones the people taking them remember, why?" <<<
"Simple. Memories of human beings are not perfect. Never were. Never
will be."
The ARRB wasn't relying just on peoples' memories, they had more to go
on like this. The HSCA admitted the following:
- They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
- Some of them were taken in such a manner that it is nearly
impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.
- In many of them, scaler references are entirely lacking, or, when
present, are positioned in such a manner that it is difficult or
impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features from
anatomical landmarks.
-**Not one of them contains information identifying the victim, such
as his name, the autopsy case number, and the date and place of the
examination.**
- **Due to their lack of documentation and poor quality, the defense
could have challenged the use of these photos as evidence in a trial,
and even the prosecution might have had "second thoughts about using
certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than
informative."**
- The onus of establishing their authenticity would have rested with
the prosecution. Harrison Livingstone correctly notes that this point
and the previous one can rightly be seen as an admission that the
photos would have been prima facie inadmissable as evidence in a court
of law, and that the prosecution could have used them only after
establishing their validity (Livingstone, HIGH TREASON 2, 315).
Earl McDonald of the National Archives, who trained in autopsy
photography under autopsy photographer James Stringer, has noted other
oddities about the autopsy photos. McDonald has compiled a list of
things that should appear in the autopsy photos but that are not found
in them:
- There are no autopsy tags visible in any of the photographs.
- There are no whole body photographs in the collection.
- There is no photograph of the brain (at autopsy) immediately
following removal from the cranium.
- There is no photograph of the inside of the skull following brain
removal showing its condition.
- There is no photograph of the reassembled skull.
- There is no photograph of the chest cavity.
- There is no extreme close-up of the back wound.
- There is no wide-angle and/or medium field view of the cranium
viewed from the outside.
The HSCA medical panel authenticated the x-rays partly on the basis of
a right frontal sinus, but if the x-rays are composites, or if they
are in fact the originals but have been altered, an authentication
based on sinuses would not automatically prove authenticity.
There are many other reasons as well, but if these things don't make
you suspicious then it is obvious you are in the pay of the master of
the Big Lie.
"And you're going to have to go down the "Autopsy Pictures & X-rays
Are Fakes" road if you go much further here.
Is that a road you want to travel down, kook?
Silly question. OF COURSE Robby wants to go down that avenue. Because
he can't trust ANYTHING uttered by anyone in Officialdom, like these
words spoken by the HSCA's photo panel.....
"The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were
authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy
personnel and providing additional support for the conclusions of the
medical consultants." -- HSCA Volume VII"
See above for more HSCA findings. They based their "authentic"
findings on a few, narrow criteria, and did NOT explain the
indications of fakery in the autopsy materials.
> >>> "The palm print on the gun is a joke and even Liebeler said as much." <<<
"Quote Wesley Liebeler saying the Oswald palmprint match is a "joke".
Can you do that?"
-----Problems with the Latent Palm Print-----
We suggest that additional investigation be conducted to determine
with greater certainty that the palmprint was actually lifted from the
rifle as Lt. Day has testified. The only evidence we presently have on
that print is the testimony of Lt. Day himself. He has stated that
although he lifted the palmprint on November 22, 1963, he did not
provide a copy of the lift to the FBI until November 26, 1963 (9 R
260-61). He also testified that after the lift he "could still see
traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use
photography to bring off or bring out a better print." Mr. Latona of
the FBI testified with respect to the lift of the palmprint, that
"evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing
left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of
such--even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the
rifle" (Id. at 24).
Additional problems are raised by the fact that:
(1) Mr. Latona testified that the poor finish of the K-1 rifle made it
absorbent and not conducive to getting a good print;
(2) None of the other prints on the rifle could be identified because
they were of such poor quality;
(3) The other prints on the rifle were protected by cellophane while
the area where the palmprint had been lifted was not, even through Lt.
Day testified that after the lift the "[palm] print on gun was their
best bet, still remained on there," when he was asked why he had not
released the lift to the FBI on November 22, 1963. (11 HSCA 219-220;
8/28/64 memo)
Mr. DODD. I have just two questions really. You stated in regard to
the rifle, the palm print, and I think on the boxes as well you had a
bit of disagreement over whether or not those prints ought to be--was
it verified or checked out? I wasn't sure what you meant. They had
actually been run already once. There was some question of the
absorption because of the wood. Had there already been a test on them?
Mr. LIEBELER. If I may, I will explain exactly what happened in both
of those cases, it won't take very long. I think particularly the
point on the rifle barrel may be worthwhile. The Dallas Police
Department had gotten to the rifle. Very shortly thereafter they sent
it to the FBI for fingerprint analysis. The FBI reported there were no
prints on the rifle. Four days later the Dallas Police Department
forwarded to the FBI a lift of a palm print that they said had been
taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When they were asked, as
they were, why they had waited 4 days to send this lift to the FBI or
had not told the FBI that they had made this lift from the rifle,
their reply was that even though the print had been lifted, that that
lift had not removed the latent print from the underside of the rifle
barrel and it was still there.
Well, the problem was that the FBI never found it there. **It occurred
to us that it was possible that in fact the palm print never came from
the rifle.** We only had the say-so of the Dallas Police Department to
that effect and we weren't satisfied with that. We wanted the FBI to
establish, if they could, whether that palm print in fact came from
that rifle or not. At the time this question was raised no attempt
whatever had been made to deal with that problem. Now after the
discussion that Mr. Willens and Redlich and I had that was referred to
in the testimony Mr. Rankin invited to his office the chief FBI
fingerprint expert, Inspector Mally of the FBI, who was liaison with
the Commission and I think Mr. Slawson and Mr. Griffin and Mr. Willens
and Mr. Redlich and Mr. Rankin met with them. I suggested to Mr.
Latona, their fingerprint expert, that there might be some distortion
in the lift because it had been taken from a cylindrical surface, sort
of a Mercator projection is here, put your hand on a light bulb and
take the lift and lay it flat, it might distort the lift from what it
might have been on the surface.
Latona went back and looked at the lift. He found that there were
indications in the lift itself of pits and scores and marks and rust
spots that had been on the surface from which the print had been
lifted, and happily they conformed precisely to a portion of the
underside of the rifle barrel and the FBI so reported to us. As far as
I was concerned that conclusively established the proposition that,
that that had come from that rifle.
Mr. DODD. To your knowledge why would not the FBI have been able to
detect it?
Mr. LIEBELER. I have no explanation of that. (11 HSCA 254)
The irony of this is that Senator Dodd ran the congressional
investigative committee in 1962/63 that was looking into the safety of
mail-order rifles and it has been suggested this is how the rifle was
really ordered to frame LHO with.
"Anyway, regardless of what Mr. Liebeler may or may not have said in
this regard, that print is positively a palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald
that was lifted off the barrel of Rifle #C2766 by Lt. J.C. Day of the
DPD on 11/22/63, without a sliver of a doubt. ....."
Regardless of what he said? He was the main lawyer on the Commission
and he had serious doubts about this palm print. Of course he will
show us Day testimony and Liebeler had doubts about him as well.
"Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the
wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting
them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint
palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the
barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring
out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the
chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be
released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the
underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this
area of the gun."
And all we have his is word for it, just like the LNers on this board,
as the man forgot to have pictures taken.
"Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
CE637:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/
WH_Vol17_0...
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of
the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day" and also "11/22/63" written on it
> in my writing {plus} "off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766"."
This is all his word and he REFUSED to sign in writing his statement,
why? Even Hoover didn't like this presentation, why?
> >>> "I could go on forever, but why bother? You stopped reading in the first sentence probably." <<<
"Your record's still intact. You haven't gotten a thing right yet.
But, then again, a .000 batting average is very easy to achieve when
you're charter member of the "Anybody But Oswald" and "All Evidence Is
Fake" clubs.
You're not likely to get a base hit all season. And that's even below
the dreaded "Mendoza Line"."
None of this bothers me when it comes from a man who can't see the
truth when it is staring him in the face.
> >>> "{Those non-Poe bullet shells found by Virginia Davis and Barbara Davis} were from an automatic gun, not LHO's." <<<
"You're a fucking evidence-skewing idiot. Those are the two "DAVIS"
shells, and I've never heard a single CTer (not even a Mega-Kook) ever
complain about those two shells having a broken chain of custody."
See this is the problem I have with you re-posting these comments as
this is taken out of context. I know the shells found by the Davis
sisters were deliberately left by the killer by throwing them from a
revolver (something LHO would NOT do if he was really the killer). It
looks like you have take two seperate comments of mine and merged
them. Not nice Dave.
"They went from the Davis girls straight to the DPD and were
appropriately marked. And those two spent cartridge cases were
positively ejected from the Smith & Wesson revolver that was taken off
of Lee Oswald in the Texas Theater."
So you say, the Davis sisters could NOT identify the shells later
showed to them as being the ones they turned in.
"There's not a speck of wiggle room for the CT nuts of the world with
respect to those two bullet shells."
Of course not when you are dishonest and twist what I said months ago.
"But, being the freaking moron you are, you'll just PRETEND that those
two shells found by the Davis girls in their own yard were "from an
automatic gun"."
I never said that Dave, I said the two shells near the body were from
an automatic and they were initialled by Poe and Barnes. I never said
the shells the Davis sisters turned in were initialed by Poe, you are
trying to make it sound like that.
"I wonder what proof Robby has to back up that bold assertion?
Answer -- None."
Of course not as I NEVER SAID that in the first place!
> >>> "{The three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest were} From a Carcano, but never proven they were from the C2766." <<<
"100% wrong, as per usual. (Is it POSSIBLE to be wrong so often about
very important matters surrounding this case? Well, I guess it is.
Because Rob's alive and kicking....and spewing kookshit by the ton.)
All three rifle shells found beneath the SN window were traced
directly and undeniably to Oswald's MC rifle "to the exclusion"."
I have read their testimony and I don't believe it as most Carcanos
will have the same right-hand twist so it is very difficult to tell
for sure it was this one Carcano. Even if we give you that, so what?
Empty shell casings never convicted anyone as they can't show when
they were fired and by whom. Also, you have a bullet issue as the WC
NEVER showed where LHO purchased this ammo, thus, you can't prove they
were his shells as they had NO LHO prints on them. I'm so tired of
explaining our justice system to you.
"Check out the testimony of Robert Frazier, Cortlandt Cunningham, and/
or Joseph Nicol for verification of this obvious and easy-to-confirm
fact."
Already did, it proves nothing to me.
"(The next thing I expect to hear from Robert is that Marguerite
Oswald was an "Imposter LHO Mother". Robby seems to love John
Armstrong's "Double Oswald" nonsense to a great degree, so I wouldn't
be surprised if something like that did come out of his mouth soon.)"
I wouldn't say this, but what I did find interesting is LHO's desire
to move out of his mother's house real fast when he came back with
Marina, why? Perhaps because she would notice eventually he was NOT
her son, just someone who looked like him?
> >>> "{C2766} was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt to even belong to LHO. .... You have no real, hard evidence LHO ordered it or ever owned it." <<<
"Only if I want to completely ignore the paper trail of evidence that
shows that LHO ordered and paid for Rifle C2766. (Not to mention the
multiple LHO prints found on the gun....the palmprint and the two
fingerprints on the trigger guard.)"
You mean microfilm trail don't you? I mean all the original papers
were destroyed, why? You are so off base it is not funny, the FBI
found NOTHING!
"But, quite naturally, all CT-Kooks like Rob MUST ignore all of that
evidence. It's part of the incurable disease they are saddled with."
Actually we embrace the evidence, it is your lot, the LNers, who
ignore the evidence at every turn.
> >>> "{LHO's} revolver was a special and it caused the casings to bulge in the middle when fired and none of the casings supposedly tying this gun to LHO had this bulge." <<<
~sigh~
CT Myth #968 is still being adhered to religiously by Robby boy.
Typical."
There is one way to dispell myths, offer up real proof, but you can't,
why?
"It doesn't matter to Rob that Oswald's .38 was conclusively and
irrevocably tied to the four bullet shells found by witnesses on Tenth
Street.
Now who is spinning myths? It was never tied to the bullets retrieved
from JDT and you know it.
"Therefore -- REGARDLESS OF LATER TESTS SHOWING ANY "BULGES" ON THE
CASINGS, Lee Oswald's .38 revolver was positively the revolver that
ejected those four spent bullet shells on Tenth Street on November
22nd, 1963."
Your ignorance of firearms is matched only by your ignorance of this
case. The shells have bulges in the middle when fired from a .38
special and NONE of the shells found at the scene (automatic and
conventional .38s) had this distinctive bulge. Nor do the shells in
the National Archives from what I have read.
> >>> "The bullets and fragments from JDT do not match this gun either." <<<
"Means nothing. The bullets were badly mangled, prohibiting a positive
ballistics match to ANY gun. Except, of course, for Joe Nicol's
positive match that he made on one of the four Tippit bullets."
Means nothing? I should add your ingorance of our justice system up
there with the other two. It matters a lot if you can't match the
slugs in a dead body to a specific gun you have no case. You are also
forgetting the slugs do NOT match the shells found. The officers
found two Winchesters and two Remingtons, but they took THREE
Winchesters and only ONE Remington from JDT's body. How does this
happen?
"Naturally, conspiracy-happy kooks would rather ignore that testimony
provided by Nicol. It's just too "official" I guess, even though it
comes from the ONLY NON-GOVERNMENT/INDEPENDENT firearms expert who
examined the bullets for the Warren Commission."
I have read his testimony and it is anything but definitive as is all
the ballistic testimony. All could be, or could have happened but NO
firm did happen or it is beyond all doubt statements.
"But the kooks probably think Nicol was given a bagful of money to
tell a bunch of lies to the Commission."
I think he wanted to keep his pension and saw this as an opportunity
to get promoted.
> >>> "It {LHO's revolver} was said to have a bent firing pin." <<<
"Who cares? The gun was certainly in working order when four bullets
came out of it while being aimed at Officer J.D. Tippit."
Who cares? So how do you fire a gun with a bent firing pin? How did
it get bent from the scene of JDT to the theather as I am assuming
this is what you are saying happend?
"But you probably ought to stick to the "bent firing pin" crappola.
It'll serve your "Anybody But Oswald" needs much better if you do."
I'll change it if you offer up different proof of how it happened, if
not I have to stick with the FBI's statement.
> >>> "The man who helped "trace" it to LHO died rather quickly in short order after the assassination." <<<
"Goodie, goodie!! A "mystery death" added to Robby's post! A kook's
post wouldn't be complete without one of those!"
Of course he can't refute it or explain how over 100 people have died
in this case in clumps too.
> >>> "They {the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine} are from a 6.5mm round and there are millions of them out there. Can't be linked to C2766." <<<
"Via the above idiocy, your status has just been bumped up to "Super-
Duper Mega-Moron".
You actually have the audacity to pass yourself off as a pretty fair
expert on the evidence surrounding the JFK assassination, and yet you
gush forth such obviously-inaccurate statements like this (when
referring to CE567 and CE569, the two bullet fragments discovered in
the limousine) -- "CAN'T BE LINKED TO C2766".
Only one word is truly appropriate here in response -- Bullshit!"
Hey, you are the one who has them denting hardened chrome and smashing
into the windshield, why are they not so mangled they could not be
ID'd? Why are the slugs in the JDT case too mangled when all they did
is go into flesh and bone? Why is there no "magic" bullet in that
case? I thought seven wounds and three broken bones and coming out
intact was natural according to you?
"CE567/569 were positively linked to Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle "to
the exclusion" of every other rifle on Planet Earth. You should cower
with embarrassment at suggesting otherwise. (But you won't, will
you?) ....."
Sure, wink, wink. So say some very suspect people who are apperently
not telling the whole truth in many other areas of the report and
hearings. Even if they were from the Carcano found, so what? They
could NOT be proved to have been inside of either victim, why? How
can you prove they were the cause of death if they were never inside
the victims? Also, the death certificate listed a "high-velocity"
bullet as the cause of death, but the Carcano was low-to-medium so how
could it have come from that rifle?
"Mr. McCLOY - As a result of all these comparisons, you would say that
> the evidence is indisputable that the three shells that were identified by you were fired from that rifle?
ROBERT FRAZIER (FBI) - Yes, sir."
Big deal, why not ask if they were fired at 12:30 p.m. on 11/22/63?
"Mr. McCLOY - And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit
399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - And the fragment 567---
Mr. FRAZIER - 567, the one we have just finished.
Mr. McCLOY - Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - You have no doubt about any of those?
Mr. FRAZIER - None whatsoever."
Again, why not ask about time and day? How about asking if they were
ever inside either victim?
> ~~~~~
"Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked
Q-3 admitted as Commission 569? .... Mr. Frazier, did you examine this
bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired
from the rifle, Exhibit 139?"
Just a quick note here - "Q" stands for "Questionable" and I couldn't
say it better for this evidence.
"Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this
particular rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir."
So what? They have not established they were fired on 11/22/63 at
12:30 p.m. or that they entered either or both victims. In other
words, they proved nothing in regards to the murder and wounding of
JFK and JBC.
> 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...
> >>> "You have no fingerprints {of Oswald's on Rifle C2766}, and even if there were some, it doesn't prove he fired it that day, just at some time." <<<
"Apart from the obvious lie (or just plain ignorance, it's sometimes
hard to tell which applies when speaking to this idiot named Rob)
regarding "no fingerprints" of Oswald's on the Carcano rifle (which is
dead wrong, of course), there's also a more elementary and garden-
variety type of question that probably should be asked whenever this
topic of Oswald and his rifle comes up."
Lie? This is not what FBI agent Latona said:
Mr. LATONA. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However,
examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations
and characteristics, **were insufficient for purposes of either
effecting identification or a determination that the print was not
identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply
was that the latent prints which were there were of no value.** Now, I
did not stop there.
Mr. EISENBERG. Before we leave those prints, Mr. Latona, had those
been developed by the powder method?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; they had.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was that a gray powder?
Mr. LATONA. I assumed that they used gray powder in order to give them
what little contrast could be seen. And it took some highlighting and
sidelighting with the use of a spotlight to actually make those things
discernible at all. Representative FORD. As far as you are concerned.
Mr. LATONA. That's right.
Mr. DULLES. Is it likely or possible that those fingerprints could
have been damaged or eroded in the passage from Texas to your hands?
Mr. LATONA. No, sir; I don't think so. **In fact, I think we got the
prints just like they were. There had, in addition to this rifle and
that paper bag, which I received on the 23d--there had also been
submitted to me some photographs which had been taken by the Dallas
Police Department, at least alleged to have been taken by them, of
these prints on this trigger guard which they developed. I examined
the photographs very closely and I still could not determine any
latent value in the photograph.**
So then I took the rifle personally over to our photo laboratory. In
the meantime, I had made arrangements to bring a photographer in
especially for the purpose of photographing these latent prints for
me, an experienced photographer--I called him in. I received this
material in the Justice Building office of operations is in the
Identification Division Building, which is at 2d and D Streets SW. So
I made arrangements to immediately have a photographer come in and see
if he could improve on the photographs that were taken by the Dallas
Police Department.
Well, we spent, between the two of us, setting up the camera, looking
at prints, highlighting, sidelighting, every type of lighting that we
could conceivably think of, checking back and forth in the darkroom--
we could not improve the condition of these latent prints. So,
accordingly, the final conclusion was simply that the latent print on
this gun was of no value, the fragments that were there.
After that had been determined, I then proceeded to completely process
the entire rifle, to see if there were any other prints of any
significance or value any prints of value--I would not know what the
significance would be, but to see if there were any other prints. (4 H
21)
"And that garden-variety question is:
"At ANY given point in time after Lee Oswald acquired his Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle via mail-order in March 1963, WHO IS MORE LIKELY to have
used it -- on ANY day, including November 22, 1963 -- than its owner,
LEE HARVEY OSWALD?"
Except the FBI said NO LHO prints were on the rifle on 11/22/63!
"While it's certainly true that the above question doesn't really
"prove" anything, I still think it's a reasonable question that needs
to be asked of CTers once in a while, just in a basic "What Are The
Odds?" manner.
For, if rifle-owner OSWALD didn't use OSWALD'S own rifle on November
22nd, then WHO DID use OSWALD'S VERY OWN RIFLE to fire bullets from it
at John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza?
On the basis of OWNERSHIP ALONE, Lee Harvey Oswald is very, very
likely to have been the man squeezing the trigger of Rifle C2766 on
November 22 (or any other day of the year)."
This is the worst thinking I have seen in a long time. I can't believe
anyone would pay you to do this as you make NO sense at all. You have
NOT proved ownership at all! Secondly, even if you did, so what?
That doesn't mean he used the rifle and you have NO proof he did.
"If CTers think it's MORE likely for Malcolm Wallace to have been up
on that sixth floor using Oswald's gun on 11/22/63 (or anyone else,
for that matter), they've got a HUGE hurdle to overcome. And that
hurdle is -- NOBODY OWNED THAT RIFLE EXCEPT FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD."
Wrong yet again. LHO owned NO rifle, but if he did order one it would
have been a 36 inch rifle and NOT a 40.2 inch rifle.
> >>> "His {Dr. Vincent P. Guinn} work has been shown to be very faulty. It is not all his fault, as members of the panel were only given "evidence" in segmented format, meaning they weren't getting the whole picture. This was done by the HSCA to manipulate the results they wanted." <<<
LOL break.
"The Mega-Kook named Rob actually seems to think (via the above
parameters he spelled out) that the HSCA DIDN'T want to find a
"conspiracy"."
Of course they didn't want to as the evidence of a conspriacy is
overwhelming, yet they had to say it in the last minute and then only
say "probable."
"That's a howl, because the HSCA was desperate to find a
conspiracy....and ANY conspiracy theory would do, it seems. And that's
why the silly and since-destroyed "4th Shot Heard On The Dictabelt
Recording" conclusion was arrived at by the House Select Committee at
the 11th hour in late 1978."
Boy, you read nothing of consequence. It was found in the 11th hour
only because the scientist said so and it was too late to bury it.
They had NO interest in finding a conspiracy and that is why they
replaced so many on the panel who would not go along with the WC's
findings.
But AT THE SAME TIME, we're still left with the other (logical and
accurate) parts of the HSCA's conclusions, which were:
LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED THE ONLY BULLETS THAT STRUCK THE TWO VICTIMS
ON 11/22/63 IN DEALEY PLAZA. AND THOSE BULLETS WERE FIRED FROM
MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE #C2766."
And they based this on the same lack of evidence the WC did. You keep
saying "struck the victims" but neither panel could present a single
bullet that was EVER inside either victim.
> >>> "When you are talking about ballistics, there is no such thing as "similar" or "very likely"; it either matches or it doesn't." <<<
"Bullshit.
Many times, the general characteristics or composition of bullet lead
can be said to be "similar" or "consistent with" a comparison bullet,
even if the fragment being examined has been badly damaged."
This is not admissable in court as it MUST match. Furthermore, since
you are saying this then why should we believe the two fragments came
from the same lot of bullets?
"Robert Frazier of the FBI provided just exactly that kind of non-
exacting testimony for the Warren Commission. He testified in such a
manner on multiple occasions, in fact.
With respect to CE842 (a small bullet fragment taken out of Governor
Connally's wrist), we find this testimony given by the FBI's Bob
Frazier....."
A note is necessary here - as more fragments would be taken out of
Gov. Connally's wrist that were MISSING from CE 399, how is that
possible?
"Mr. SPECTER - Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9
for FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842,
will you describe that fragment for us, please?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which
weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory.
It is a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a
core of a bullet. However, it lacks any physical characteristics which
would permit stating whether or not it actually originated from a
bullet."
This was too small to be ID'd beyond all doubt.
"Mr. SPECTER - Are its physical characteristics consistent with having
come from Commission Exhibit 399?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it could have."
Here we see "could have" again, never definitive. Dave "could" present
some evidence some day, but it doesn't mean it will EVER happen.
> =========
"And we also have Frazier testifying in the following fashion with
respect to the small amount of lead residue that was scraped off of
the limousine's windshield.....
Mr. SPECTER - Was a comparison made of the lead residues on the inside
of the windshield with any of the bullet fragments recovered about
which you have heretofore testified?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. They were compared with the bullet fragment found
on the front seat, which in turn was compared with Commission 399. The
lead was found to be similar in composition."
Similar is NOT a match, it means they are similar, NOT identical.
> =========
"By the way.....
As an addendum to the first Frazier WC excerpt above (regarding CE842,
the Connally wrist fragment), it's worth highlighting this part of
Frazier's testimony once more:
"This is a small fragment of metal which weighed one-half a grain when
I first examined it in the laboratory."
The key words there being "one-half a grain", which means that almost
TWO FULL ADDITIONAL GRAINS could have been recovered from the bodies
of both John Connally and John Kennedy and still not have TOO MUCH
BULLET LEAD found in the victims to eliminate CE399 as a candidate for
having caused the injuries to both JBC and JFK."
Nice try Einstein, but JBC had MULTIPLE fragments in his wrists and
their combined weight was 3.2 to 3.4 grains and the amount missing
from the CE399 was 2.4 grains.
"Before it was fired through Oswald's Carcano, Bullet CE399 weighed
approximately 161 grains (which was said by ballistics experts,
including Robert Frazier [see testimony below], to be the average
weight of an unfired MC bullet from two of the four lots of MC bullets
manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company that were used by Lee
Oswald in his own rifle in 1963).....
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the
exhibit-that is, 399?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG - How much weight loss does that show from the original
bullet weight?
Mr. FRAZIER - We measured several standard bullets, and their weights
varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two
grains, from 161 grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of
161."
Exactly, 2.0 to 2.4 grains were missing and they would find a COMBINED
3.2 to 3.4 grains in JBC's wrist.
> =========
"In addition, Dr. John Lattimer, during his extensive assassination
experiments and tests in the 1970s, weighed 100 unfired MC/WCC bullets
from all four sub-lots used by Oswald (Lot Nos. 6000 through 6003).
Lattimer's data was almost identical with the FBI's from 1963-1964,
with Lattimer's 100 WCC test bullets ranging in weight from 159.80 to
161.50 grains, for a "median" weight of 160.80 grains. [Source: Dr.
Lattimer's 1980 book "Kennedy And Lincoln"; Pg. 287.]
The above testimony from Frazier, when coupled with his other
testimony about the Connally wrist fragment weighing only "one-half a
grain", indicates that close to 2 more full grains of metal could have
been discovered in the victims and still not exceed the approx. weight
of Bullet CE399 prior to its being fired from Rifle C2766. (As Frazier
mentioned in his above testimony, CE399 weighed exactly 158.6 grains
after it was found on a Parkland stretcher on November 22.)"
Your math is bad as usual. 161-1.5=159.5 Now 399 weighed 158.6 so
that means only .9 grains was left, NOT the 2 grains you keep saying.
"And as far as I know, CE842 represents the LARGEST fragment among the
"2 or 3" (per Dr. Charles Gregory) metallic fragments that were
removed from Connally's right wrist. The ONE single tiny fragment left
inside JBC's thigh wound was microscopic in size. And there were ZERO
pieces of metal of any type discovered in Connally's torso/trunk."
This is all junk to confuse people as Dr. Finck testified at the Clay
Shaw trial that MORE weight was in JBC's wrist than was missing from
CE399. Period.
"And we also know that zero pieces of metal were discovered inside
John Kennedy's neck or upper-back regions at his autopsy. But even if
there HAD been some very small traces of bullet material discovered
inside JFK (and some people have suggested that a fragment could have
existed in Kennedy's neck), it would still not mean that CE399 would
be eliminated as a source for any such metal fragments, because
there's still nearly 2 more grains that could have been deposited in
the victims and still be within the average total weights of WCC
bullets
supplied by the FBI and, later, by Dr. Lattimer."
Dreamer! This is all poor theorizing as we know there was more in the
bodies than missing from CE399, and it is moot anyway as you can't
prove 399 was ever inside either victim.
"There's also the following WC testimony from Bob Frazier of the FBI
that is relevant to this sub-topic about "Average Bullet
Weights"....."
Oh goodie, more WC testimony!
"Mr. EISENBERG - In your opinion, was there any weight loss?
Mr. FRAZIER - There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to
the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base
of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is
slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end
of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because
158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at
least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be
approximately 3 or 4 grains."
He could not prove this statement, that the weight loss was from the
base, any more than I could say it was from the nose.
> >>> "The bullets {removed from J.D. Tippit's body} were not consistent with LHO's gun in the least bit, according to 99.9% of the people I have read (hundreds)." <<<
"That's because you prefer conspiracy writers instead of the actual
truth.
But the truth is: the four bullets that came out of Tippit's body were
consistent with having been fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's .38
revolver, with "nothing evident that would exclude the weapon" [per
the WC testimony of firearms identification expert Joseph D.
Nicol]. ....."
We covered this as they found 2 Winchesters and 2 Remingtons shells,
but found three Winchesters and only one Remington in JDT, how can
this be explained?
"Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, finally I hand you a group of four bullets
marked Commission Exhibits 602, 603, 604, and 605, which I state for
the record were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit, and a group
of two bullets marked Commission Exhibit 606, which I state for the
record were fired by the FBI through the revolver, Commission Exhibit
143. .... Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine
whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?
JOSEPH NICOL. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. ***Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether
605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon.*** There were
similarity of class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing
evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and
apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the
projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not
good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that
of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest
possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be
positive. However, on specimen 603...I found sufficient individual
characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was
fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to
the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Correct."
He states 3 out 4 could NOT be matched in terms of coming out of the
same gun and you think he supports your point of view?
> >>> "The WC tried to get Randle and Frazier to change their testimony regarding the package's length, but surprisingly, and to their credit, they didn't do it." <<<
"And yet some CTers think Buell Wesley Frazier was one of the
conspirators who was "setting up" poor innocent Oswald. Some kooks, in
an indirect kind of kooky way, accuse Randle of the same type of thing
too.
And yet, even though the brother-and-sister team (per some CTers) was
framing LHO for the President's murder, they EACH decided to remain
steadfast and firm when it came to their "27 inch" or "about 2 feet
long" measurements regarding the brown paper bag that THEIR OWN PATSY
was carrying on November 22nd."
I think Wes Frazier is very interesting and should have been looked at
a lot longer, but he knew he was off the hook so why would he care if
he told the truth here?
"Doesn't add up for those kooks' requirements, of course.
But what does add up is this.....
Oswald positively took a bulky paper bag into work with him on
11/22/63."
Prove it, show us the original bag.
"Oswald lied to Wes Frazier about the contents of that paper bag."
Prove it.
"Both Frazier & Randle observed Oswald carrying a long, "bulky" brown
paper bag on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination."
No one at the TSBD saw any package. Randle saw things far away from
the building so her sighting is not really that important and it was
shown to be inaccurate.
"After the assassination, Oswald's rifle turns up missing from its
KNOWN storage location of Ruth Paine's garage."
It could have been missing BEFORE the assassination, but no one
looked.
"At 1:22 PM CST on November 22nd, Oswald's RIFLE (Serial Number
C2766), with Oswald's own prints on it, was found on the same floor
of the TSBD where the empty paper bag was found."
You are a repetitive one, NO prints per the FBI were on the rifle and
NO paper trail ever showed LHO ordered and received the rifle in
question.
"An EMPTY 38-inch-long paper bag (similar in color and style to the
bag seen by Frazier & Randle) turns up in the TSBD's Sniper's Nest,
from where an Oswald-like individual was seen firing a RIFLE at JFK's
car. And the empty bag has--Voila!--Oswald's prints on it. With one of
the prints--the right-hand palmprint--perfectly matching the way Wes
Frazier said that Oswald carried the bag. And fibers matching the
blanket in Paine's garage are found inside the empty bag as well."
Why is there NO picture of the bag? Why is NOT on the inventory list
of the officer who discovered the SN? Why is it not shown to hardly
anyone and claimed to have been destroyed by chemicals?
"Oswald, from the weight of all the evidence, carried NO PACKAGE at
all out of the Depository when he left the building at approx. 12:33
PM on 11/22/63."
You have NO proof he carried one in, so what does this prove?
=
"Lee Harvey Oswald carried his Carcano rifle into the Depository on
November 22, concealed inside a homemade paper bag (the length of
which was incorrectly ESTIMATED by witnesses Frazier & Randle), with
Oswald then leaving the empty paper bag (with his prints on it)
underneath the window from where he fired the shots that killed
President Kennedy."
Pure speculation with NO proof or evidence.
"Any other alternative scenario that differs greatly from the above
version of events cannot hold up to any kind of scrutiny (or common
sense) at all."
The above version of events is NOT based on the known evidence, thus
it is nothing but guesswork, and bad guesswork at that.
> >>> "So what {if LHO's prints are on the SN boxes}? He worked there." <<<
"The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof
of Oswald's guilt, true.
But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of
where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all
of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door,
those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those
prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in
the Sniper's Nest."
He had partial prints on TWO boxes! How many boxes made up the SN?
Way more than two, so why are there NO prints on them? Why are there
NO prints of anyone else but LHO on those boxes?
"It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO
prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the
assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of
"He worked there"."
Because it makes sense. Why aren't his prints on any other boxes
making up the nest?
"The "He worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy
theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the
boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-
floor window on November 22nd."
No it isn't, it makes great sense. You NEVER answer my question of
why there are no other prints on all those boxes, do you?
> >>> "{The fibers found wedged into the rifle} Could have been planted, like the palm print." <<<
"Oh goodie! More excruciatingly-complicated and needless "planting"
being (evidently) performed by the very same band of moron plotters
who decided to green-light that ever-popular "MULTI-GUN, ONE-PATSY"
assassination scheme prior to November 22. Lovely."
The planting was so bad they planted the shirt LHO had on in the post-
assassination timeframe, rather than the one he wore to work!
"Or maybe this needless piece of "fiber planting" was being performed
by a rogue "planter", who was working outside the realm of the pre-
arranged "Let's Get Oz" plot."
You would think the fact the planted the wrong fibers would wake Dave
up, but readers, he doesn't care about the truth, just his paychecks.
"I'm sure it doesn't matter to a CT-Kook though....just as long as the
kook can cry "PLANTED", he's happy and contented."
Sadly for you, they messed up and made the planting as plain as day.
> >>> "{It's} Not LHO's {jacket}, based on the laundry tags (a place he never went to) and the color. Marina said he had two coats and two coats only, and this was neither." <<<
"Dead wrong (as per the CT-Kook norm).
I always laugh at the idea that the laundry tag in the jacket HAS to
mean the jacket wasn't Oswald's. When, in fact, the cheap-ass
skinflint named Lee Oswald might very well have bought the jacket
second-hand with the tag already in it."
Funny, the WC didn't pursue this angle, so you are guessing yet again.
It was also a color he did not own per Marina and it was a medium, he
wore small.
"Regarding Marina denying all knowledge of CE162 (which is the gray
zipper jacket found under a car at the Texaco station on Jefferson
Blvd.), we have this WC testimony from Marina Oswald.....
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall any of these clothes that your husband was
wearing when he came home Thursday night, November 21, 1963?
Mrs. OSWALD. On Thursday, I think he wore this shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that Exhibit 150?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. It seems he had that jacket, also.
Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.'
Again you have only Marina's word and this would NOT have been allowed
in a real court of law. They could NOT tie this jacket to LHO in any
other way.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
> >>> "The purchase order that supposedly paid for the gun was purchased at a time LHO was at work. He did not miss a single day from the time he started until the assassination, so where did he get all the time to do all the things the WC claim?" <<<
"Yeah, it must have been one of those 24 "Imposter Oswalds" who bought
the money order for the rifle, huh?
The money order couldn't possibly have been purchased by the REAL
Oswald either BEFORE or AFTER his "at work" hours, could it?"
I think it had a time stamp on it that is why we know it was purchased
at the time he was at work so there goes your idea.
"Where on this money order (linked below) is there any indication of
the TIME OF DAY when it was filled out by Lee Harvey Oswald (aka "A.
Hidell")? ....."
Check out "Conspiracy" page 213 for the details (Anthony Summers).
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
"Via the date that is prominently stamped on it, the $21.45 money
order for the MC rifle was filled out by Oswald/"Hidell" on Tuesday,
March 12, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. But the exact time of day when it
was purchased by Oswald isn't anywhere to be found on that document."
Which document? Remember the originals were destroyed.
"Therefore, LHO could have easily bought the money order either before
or after his work shift on Tuesday, March 12th.
BTW, Rob, Oswald wasn't working at the Book Depository when he sent
off that money order to Chicago in mid-March '63. His TSBD job was
still many months away at the time he acquired the Carcano."
Yeah I know, but Summers has tracked this in-depth so I would check
out his book.
"Perhaps I misunderstood you above, but you seemed to be implying that
LHO was working at the Depository at the time he bought the rifle (via
the words "from the time he started"). But "started" where? Which job?
Oswald had several jobs in 1963. I think you probably were implying
that he was already working at the TSBD at the time of the rifle
purchase. But, of course, he wasn't."
I know that as he did not start there until mid-October 1963. He was
working at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall Co. I believe at that time and this
was a day job also.
> >>> "...And the writing on the money order and envelope could have been faked." <<<
"Yeah, that's always a good all-encompassing excuse for you kooks to
use when you're stuck for something better -- like PROOF of the
massive plot you love so much."
Actually the point doesn't have to be made it was faked as your side
could never prove beyond all doubt it was LHO's writing and when added
to the fact the originals are gone, well you get the picture, right?
Just say something "could have been faked" and the CT nuts are off the
hook. Nice tactic.
I wonder how a jury would respond to the never-ending "This could have
been faked but, of course, I can never prove it to you" tactic that is
constantly being employed by retarded JFK conspiracy theorists?"
I wish we could have seen that as the bulk of your "evidence" would
have been thrown out. Like your alleged murder weapon for example,
since it was delivered to the FBI without a DPD rep, the chain of
custody was broken as the DPD had jurisdiction in the case. No murder
weapon, no case.
"Well, I guess you can always hope that all jury boxes are filled to
the brim with "O.J." jurors. That's about the only ray of hope you'd
have."
In this case I would just hope the blind as bat 10% who can't see
where the evidence points is NOT on the jury.
> >>> "Also, there were many sightings of LHO when we know he was at work, so what was this all about?" <<<
"I guess it shows how completely stupid and moronic your "patsy-
framers" were, doesn't it?"
Or more to the point, how bad the cover-up was.
"Because if those "plotters", who were bent on framing Oswald for
murder, had done a good and thorough job when parading their "Imposter
Oswalds" all over Dallas, would they have deliberately allowed some of
their "imposters" to be seen in public, by various people, at times
when these ace patsy-framers should have known that the real Lee
Oswald was at work in another part of the city?"
They succeeded thought didn't they? Despite it being so obvious to
anyone who is honest and open-minded that LHO shot no one he is still
the guilty one in the history books. As long as the government and
media say so there is not much that can be done so why should they
have worried in the first place?
"Or didn't the conspirators who were in the detailed process of
framing Oswald for two future murders give a damn about trivial stuff
like that?"
They didn't care as nothing could be done to stop them and they were
correct.
"But those same conspirators (per some CT-Kooks) apparently DID care
enough about silly little trivial patsy-framing "details" to want to
have a fake Oswald be seen at a rifle range or at a car lot weeks
before November 22, even though those two "sightings" do absolutely
nothing to further the notion that Oswald was guilty of the two
murders the patsy-framers were attempting to frame LHO for."
You are acting like it was all one plan, it wasn't. The LHO sightings
could have been planned by one part - i.e. CIA - and other parts were
handled by different groups. This was a very eloborate plan, and as
long as the WC did it's job (which was to deflect most Americans for
at least awhile) and allowed the coup members to consolidate their
power, who cares?
Go figure those idiot patsy-framers. (And then try to figure out the
kooks who actually believe in such nonsense.)
Allow me to repeat something I have said previously (and it applies
even more today, after reading Robby's latest post filled with mangled
evidence and kook-invented supposition):
"Rob is a cartoon character. He's an overblown CT joke." -- DVP;
November 2007"
Maybe, but at least I'm honest, unlike you. What is worse is you are
paid to be dishonest as you don't even believe all this crap.
Walt
wrote:
In the hand scribbled record notes of the line ups on the afternoon
and evening of the assassination there is the word "positive" behind
Cecil Mc Watters name.
In fact all six "witnesses" listed on the hand written record have the
word "positive" behind there names, indicating that all six had
positively identified Oswald as the suspect they had seen. Five of
those witnesses had information about the Tippit murder. Only
McWatter's was not involved in the Tippit aspect. He testified that
steadfastly REFUSED to identify Oswald as the passenger on his bus but
the cop who scribbled the hand written record wrote that Mc watters
had positively identified Oswald.
It's no mystery why the ONE and ONLY witness to actually see a man
firing a rifle out of a window at the time of the assassination isn't
even recorded in the hand written record. Howard Brennan flat out
told the cops that Oswald was NOT the man he's seen firing a rifle
from the window of the TSBD, just a few hours earlier.
It's pretty obvious that the cops only recorded those questionable
witnesses who said they saw Oswald, and eliminated the record those
who were adamant that Oswald was NOT the culprit.
> shown ...
>
> read more »
robcap...@netscape.com
Yes, he did, but he also went back on Saturday and said he was WRONG
as the man he was thinking of was actually Milton Jones and he
realized this when Jones boarded the bus that day. This is why when
he finally testified months later he said the above comment as he knew
the man was NOT LHO.
"In fact all six "witnesses" listed on the hand written record have
the word "positive" behind there names, indicating that all six had
positively identified Oswald as the suspect they had seen. Five of
those witnesses had information about the Tippit murder. Only
McWatter's was not involved in the Tippit aspect. He testified that
> steadfastly REFUSED to identify Oswald as the passenger on his bus but the cop who scribbled the hand written record wrote that Mc watters had positively identified Oswald."
Well their actual testimony states otherwise, including Markham's, so
I don't put a lot of faith police notes when they conducted these
lineups in ways that are not really legal.
David Von Pein
Subj: "Elm Street: Oswald Killed Kennedy!" (New Book)
Date: 3/6/2008 5:42:26 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Francois Carlier
To: Dave Von Pein (and others)
------------------------------------
Hello everybody,
This is a message from François Carlier.
As you know, I have been a French Kennedy-assassination researcher for
years.
After having read all that was available, I am a defender of the
official version. I follow (and admire) people such as Jim Moore,
Gerald Posner, Kenneth A. Rahn, Vincent Bugliosi, John McAdams,
Vincent [actually "David"] Von Pein, etc.
Well, I have written a book (it took me years). It is completed. It
has been published. It is available.
http://www.publibook.com/boutique2006/detail-3775-new-0-1-PB.html
The title is : "Elm Street. Oswald a tué Kennedy !". It is easy to
translate : "Elm Street. Oswald killed Kennedy !".
The title says it all. My book is much like Bugliosi's. Well, it is
ten times smaller, and not half as well written, and I am nowhere near
as good and competent as he is, but nonetheless, it will serve the
purpose of spreading the truth to the French !
Too much damage was done over here by French conspiracy author William
Reymond (you may remember him : he is the guy who claims the Zapruder
film was a fake and he had seen "the real one").
I had to let the French know that they had been bamboozled by that
conspiracy writer. ....
Best regards to all of you from France.
François Carlier
========================================================
Subj: Re: Elm Street
Date: 3/6/2008 1:43:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: James H. Fetzer
To: Francois Carlier (and others)
------------------------------------
Francois,
Not to puncture your bubble, but since the "magic bullet" theory is
not only false, and provably false, but not even anatomically
possible--as I have explained in the attachment, which was presented
during an inter-national conference held at Cambridge University--how
can you persist in defending the indefensible? Has science forsaken
France? This is very bad and sets an extremely poor example for
scholarship around the world.
Jim
========================================================
Subj: Re: The Single-Bullet Fact
Date: 3/6/2008 5:40:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Dave Von Pein
To: James H. Fetzer (and others)
------------------------------------
Not to puncture Mr. Fetzer's anti-SBT bubble, but even he should
realize that the SBT is the ONLY reasonable, logical scenario to
explain the double-man wounding of JFK and JBC on Elm Street on
11/22/63.
To believe in ANY anti-SBT scenario is to put a great deal of faith in
a whole lot of incredible "SBT-like" coincidences and occurrences that
couldn't have happened in a million years (here on Earth anyway).
But maybe on Mr. Fetzer's "Planet Conspiracy", such incredible multi-
gun shooting feats that could easily be labelled: "3 Bullets Did All
Of This Damage To 2 Victims, But It Looks Like This Damage Could Have
Also Been Caused By Just 1 Bullet" are merely par for the
assassination course in Mr. Fetzer's strange world.
But back here in the world of reality, common sense ALONE almost
proves the SBT to be true. And when we couple common sense with the
physical evidence in the case, then it becomes glaringly obvious that
the SBT is pretty much the ONLY possible way those two victims could
have been wounded in a simultaneous fashion on November 22, 1963.
In short:
The Single-Bullet Theory FITS.
The Single-Bullet Theory WORKS.
The Single-Bullet Theory is a FACT.
Assorted SBT articles:
A COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/88cd14ec6de230eb
IN A (LONE) NUTSHELL -- THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
Regards,
David Von Pein
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
========================================================
Subj: Re: The Single-Bullet Fact
Date: 3/6/2008 5:49:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: James H. Fetzer
To: Dave Von Pein (and others)
------------------------------------
Not that I am surprised anyone who supports the "magic bullet" theory
is going to disregard the evidence, but did you read the study I
attached? I think it is difficult to argue with evidence. Why not take
a look?
========================================================
Subj: Re: The Single-Bullet Fact
Date: 3/6/2008 6:55:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Dave Von Pein
To: James H. Fetzer (and others)
------------------------------------
Yes, Jim. I looked at it. It's the same old, tired, worn-out anti-SBT
tripe that's been spouted by conspiracy-loving kooks like you for
decades now.
www.assassinationscience.com/ReasoningAboutAssassinations.pdf
Every item you mention in your anti-SBT article [linked above], of
course, has already been thoroughly explained in pro-SBT (i.e., non-
conspiratorial) ways many times over the years. But you just don't
like the Occam's-like explanations...so you'll stick with
extraordinary explanations instead.
Good case in point being: The holes in President Kennedy's shirt and
jacket.
When utilizing Occam's handy Razor (and when utilizing just regular
ol' garden-variety common sense as well), the controversy surrounding
the location of Kennedy's clothing holes is a complete non-issue
altogether.
Why?
Because we know that JFK was struck in the upper back by just ONE
SINGLE BULLET....which HAS to mean that that ONE single bullet had no
choice but to have passed through the ONE single hole in JFK's jacket
and the ONE single hole that was located in JFK's shirt....regardless
of exactly WHERE on the clothing those holes are located.
Conspiracy theorists, however, like to argue about the precise
location of the holes in the jacket and the shirt. But WHERE, in the
long run, does that argument really take a CTer?
Does it take them down the path of: "More Than One Bullet Hit JFK In
The Back"?
I doubt that even any rabid CTer believes that.
Or does it take them down the path of: "The Autopsy Pictures Are
Fakes"?
For people like Mr. Fetzer, apparently they want to go down that
latter path, despite these words that appear in Volume #7 of the
HSCA's Report:
"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." -- 7 HSCA 41
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm
Go figure.
Many CTers also enjoy skewing and misrepresenting the majority of
evidence in the case, and they enjoy propping up the "neck" vs. "back"
controversy too, of course. But that's merely a matter of
semantics...and always has been.
The Warren Commission and Gerald Ford never "moved" the wound. It was
always located just where Dr. Boswell said it was located ("14 cm.
below tip of right mastoid process"), which places it just exactly
where we find it in the authenticated-as-unaltered autopsy photo (a
photo that you, Mr. Fetzer, being the kook you evidently are, think is
a fake; which means, of course, that you've now got to include all the
members of the HSCA's photographic panel as being part of a covert
"cover-up" to hide the truth about the President's death).
And that type of talk regarding the House Select Committee is just
plain silly....especially when we consider the fact that the HSCA was
dying to actually FIND proof of a conspiracy in the JFK case.
And if they HAD "found" such proof via altered or faked autopsy
pictures, they most surely would have been shouting out that fact from
every rooftop and soapbox they could climb onto -- instead of telling
the world that all of the autopsy photos and X-rays "had not been
altered in any manner".
Plus:
As author and fellow "LNer" Jean Davison has pointed out so very well
in some of her past posts on the Internet (which I've repeated below
in a January 2007 newsgroup post of my own):
"To my knowledge, {nobody} has ever explained how moving the
back wound up to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it,
because moving the entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT
trajectory, not strengthen it. ....
"I'll refer you to CE 903. Although Specter didn't drill a hole
in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done so,
the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a
string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18
degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during
the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT.
"If the rod is moved up to the neck, the bullet will exit well
above the exit wound under JFK's Adam's apple. .... The claim that
Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not true." -- Jean
Davison; January 2, 2007
GERALD FORD AND THE SBT -- DID HIS "MOVE" REALLY MATTER AT ALL?
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
Regards,
David Von Pein
www.blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520
========================================================
Subj: Re: The Single-Bullet Fact
Date: 3/6/2008 7:53:16 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: James H. (Kook) Fetzer
To: Dave Von Pein (and others)
------------------------------------
The trajectory is not even anatomically possible! The weapon is not
high velocity and cannot have fired the bullets that allegedly killed
him.
He [Lee Oswald] was observed in and around the 2nd floor lunchroom at
11:50 AM, at Noon, at 12:15 and as late as 12:25 by Carolyn Arnold,
the executive secretary to the Vice President of the Book Depository.
Read Roy Truly and Marrion Baker's reports of their encounter with Lee
within 90 seconds of the assassination. He wasn't perspiring, he
wasn't out of breathe, and he acted normally.
Marina even observed that Oswald admired JFK and had no reason to
shoot him. The alleged assassin had neither motive, means, nor
opportunity to have killed the President. But facts mean nothing to
the likes of you, who have no respect for logic or evidence [HUGE
"LOL" REQUIRED AFTER READING THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE PENNED BY MEGA-KOOK
FETZER!].
We know where the man was hit in the back: 5 1/2 inches below the
collar just to the right of the spinal column. That means the wound to
his throat and the wounds to Connally must be accounted for on the
basis of other shots and shooters.
Sorry! The case is that easily closed using readily available
evidence.
========================================================
Subj: Re: The Single-Bullet Fact
Date: 3/6/2008 8:30:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Dave Von Pein
To: James H. (Mega-Kook) Fetzer
------------------------------------
Oh goodie! A bunch of conspiracy-flavored myths being propped up as
new and true once more by a CT-Mega-Kook! How sweet!
And I love the myth about the back wound being located in the make-
believe (and wholly-unsupported by the autopsists) location of: "5 1/2
inches below the collar".
Since when was the "collar" of President Kennedy's shirt utilized as
the place from where the wound was measured by the Bethesda autopsy
doctors?
Jimmy Fetzer, just face it -- you're a freakin' conspiracy-loving
kook. And probably always will be.
Hey, James, isn't it time for another dry-as-dust and evidence-
mangling session with Mr. Osanic over at Black Op Radio? Sure hope so.
Because those sessions provide more laughs than a whole DVD season set
of "The Simpsons".
With no regards at all,
David Von Pein
========================================================
Robert Harris
Fetzer is indeed a crackpot and one bullet almost certainly did pass
through both JFK and Connally. But it was not fired from the 6th floor
of the depository.
Instead of parroting the crackpots on your side of the fence, why don't
you look at the legitimate evidence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY
You are kidding yourself if you don't look at where the trajectory for
that shot pointed, and who it pointed to.
Why can't you do what people like Holmes and Lowry are too stupid and
narrow minded to do? Why can't you make at least a miniscule effort to
examine this case objectively and analytically?
You HAVE to know by not that Oswald didn't do this alone.
Robert Harris
In article
<0b4eb965-118d-4c23...@47g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein
<chuckle>
And that evidence presented in your YouTube programs is much more
"legitimate" than anything I'm likely to get out of the WC or the HSCA
or from Mr. Myers or from Mr. Bugliosi or from the late Dr. Lattimer,
et al....right Bob?
Question: What makes your "evidence" (and subjective anti-WC
criticisms) more "legit"?
(I can hardly wait to hear Bob's answer to that last inquiry.)
>>> "You are kidding yourself if you don't look at where the trajectory for that shot pointed, and who it pointed to. .... Why can't you make at least a miniscule effort to examine this case objectively and analytically?" <<<
<another chuckle>
That's part of your problem, Bob. You look at things WAY too
"analytically", IMO.
You actually think that you can determine (to the Nth "degree") how
many "degrees" of angle the single bullet was travelling that hit both
JFK & JBC (on a lateral, right-to-left basis), based on John
Connally's posture in the limo as shown in the Zapruder Film. Right,
Bob?
And you furthermore think you've "analyzed" these lateral angles so
finely and PERFECTLY that you feel confident enough to actually
ELIMINATE the Warren Commission's SBT conclusion (which was, in part,
based on detailed measurements taken during the FBI reconstruction on
05/24/64). Is that correct, Bob?
Now, granted, those May '64 measurements might not be exactly to the
Nth degree either. But they are certainly as close to being as
accurate as can possibly be determined via such a reconstruction of an
event where not every single angle--to the Nth degree--CAN be
determined perfectly.
Can I at least get you to agree with that last paragraph I just wrote
above, Robert?
If not -- why not?
>>> "You HAVE to know by {now} that Oswald didn't do this alone." <<<
Are you sure you're trying to convince ME of that last (false)
statement....or yourself?
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
>
>
>Fetzer is indeed a crackpot and one bullet almost certainly did pass
>through both JFK and Connally. But it was not fired from the 6th floor
>of the depository.
>
>Instead of parroting the crackpots on your side of the fence, why don't
>you look at the legitimate evidence?
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY
>
>You are kidding yourself if you don't look at where the trajectory for
>that shot pointed, and who it pointed to.
>
>Why can't you do what people like Holmes and Lowry are too stupid and
>narrow minded to do?
LNT'ers frequently go for ad hominem attacks. The evidence they can't handle.
So too with Robert Harris - running from the evidence, and labeling me as
"stupid and narrow minded."
Yet Bob has been provably shown to be a coward when it comes to the evidence,
refusing to address it. Indeed, refusing to even respond to it.
And caught in a number of outright lies... such as his assertion that the *NEXT*
frame shows Main Street... when it's perfectly obvious that Z-369 does as well.
Or his lie about ever having answered my question about how many people he saw
in Z-369.
Or his original lie that "NEVER" did any of the "roughly adjacent" or "across
the road" eyewitnesses refer to a limo stop.
Bob has quite a bit in common with DVP. And *that's* a sad commentary.
>Why can't you make at least a miniscule effort to
>examine this case objectively and analytically?
>
>You HAVE to know by not that Oswald didn't do this alone.
>
>
>Robert Harris
<trolls snipped>
aeffects
> In article <reharris1-BA96D0.01014407032...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >Fetzer is indeed a crackpot and one bullet almost certainly did pass
> >through both JFK and Connally. But it was not fired from the 6th floor
> >of the depository.
"Fetzer indeed ..." and the "almost certainly" perfect combination of
words for the amateur disinfo agent... geeeesh! Are you calling Dale
Myers and his cartoon a liar - fraud. Or simply a misguided KOOK? If
you are, do have you possession of Myer's Lightwave project 3D-2D
files? If the shots did NOT comes from the 6th floor, ther where? A
bit of proof might help, too!
David Von Pein
Subj: Re: The Single-Bullet Fact
Date: 3/7/2008 5:15:42 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David S. Lifton
To: Dave Von Pein (and others)
------------------------------------
Von Pein:
I'm sorry there's no time-machine to send you on a journey back to a
point where you could huff and puff and exercise your thoroughly
misplaced sense of certainty on propositions that were considered
"acceptable" and "true" at that time.
If there was, I'd take up a collection for a one-way ticket to send
you back to the time people thought the earth was flat. I'm sure you'd
be most comfortable there, arguing against those who were getting a
glimpse of simple shadow data, much les other astronomical data that,
at first, seemed to suggest a geocentric universe, and, much later,
one that was heliocentric. Undoubtedly, you'd be wearing your rags,
carrying a club, walking on the beach or from village to village and
exercising what limited brain power you apparently have while arguing
that the earth was flat.
Lottsa luck. Bon voyage.
DSL
========================================================
Subj: Re: The Single-Bullet Fact
Date: 3/7/2008 8:16:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Dave Von Pein
To: David S. Lifton (and others)
------------------------------------
Lifton:
Oh, good! Another conspiracy-happy kook has raced to his computer to
scribble me a semi-hateful (and utterly-senseless) e-mail! Lovely!
Looks like a "Kook Author" pattern is forming here. First Fetzer, now
Lifton. Can I expect a rant-filled letter from Mr. Lane next? And then
one from Mr. Groden after that?
But I really have to wonder what the above Lifton rant has to do with
the JFK case or the obvious logicality of the Single-Bullet Theory?
Anybody got any idea? I sure don't. Maybe Mr. Lifton can enlighten an
unenlightened rag-clad, club-carrying heathen like myself. Eh, Dave?
Lots of luck with your body-altering nonsense, DSL. By the way, have
you gotten anybody except kooks like yourself to believe a single one
of your 747 pages of idiocy yet? (Just curious.)
I'd sooner believe this Earth of ours WAS, indeed, flat than to
believe a single conspiracy theory spouted by a certain Mr. David S.
Lifton.
Incidentally, David L., are you still of the opinion that Vincent
Bugliosi's JFK book was "ghostwritten"? (Just curious.)
For those who aren't aware of one of Dave Lifton's latest hunks of
unsupportable nonsense/crap, Mr. Lifton (on May 24, 2007) decided he
would appear on an Internet radio program and give his wholly-
unsupported (and unsupportable) opinion about Mr. Bugliosi's excellent
2007 book, "Reclaiming History", being the work of a series of
"ghostwriters".
Lifton even had the gall to name one of the authors he was almost
certain had (ghost)-written a goodly portion of Chapter #33 of Mr.
Bugliosi's book (the chapter entitled "Jim Garrison's Prosecution Of
Clay Shaw And Oliver Stone's Movie 'JFK'").
The author named by Lifton was Patricia Lambert, who wrote the 1999
book "False Witness: The Real Story Of Jim Garrison's Investigation
And Oliver Stone's Film, 'JFK'".
Here is a portion of what Pat Lambert had to say about Lifton's silly
"ghostwriting" charges:
"For the record: I did not write one single word of Vince
Bugliosi's book, not even a footnote. I never saw Vince Bugliosi's
manuscript. I never saw any portion of Vince Bugliosi's manuscript. I
didn't even get a peek at the galleys. No comma, colon, semi-colon,
parenthesis, hyphen, apostrophe or period is my doing, to say nothing
of sentences, paragraphs and a whole chapter. ....
"I cannot imagine what prompted Lifton to make such a stunningly
false allegation about me. But false it is. I am not a ghostwriter. I
have never been a ghostwriter. I have no intention of being a
ghostwriter.
"Since I know unequivocally that Lifton is wrong about the role
he assigned to me, I see no reason to believe he is correct about the
other unidentified writers on whom he has bestowed the credit for
having written Vince Bugliosi's book.
"David Lifton owes me an apology. David Lifton owes Vince
Bugliosi an apology.
/s/ Patricia Lambert"
GHOSTWRITTEN, MY ASS!:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/152c32e6339d8670
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a86564f3ef2afca
To go Ms. Lambert one better, I think perhaps David S. Lifton owes the
general book-buying public at-large a big apology too.
Because anyone who has their name at the bottom of a book like "Best
Evidence: Disguise And Deception In The Assassination Of John F.
Kennedy" (a book that suggests to the world that the dead body of
President Kennedy was somehow stolen by evil conspirators, with the
wounds on that body being hastily rearranged before JFK's autopsy) is
a person who should probably drop to his knees and beg the forgiveness
of the many people who actually dug into their pockets and forked over
the cash to purchase such a conjecture-filled publication.*
* = And I am one of those persons. Mr. Lifton's book, in fact, was the
very first book on the JFK case I ever bought or read, in early 1981.
And it remains unchallenged, to this day, as the most absurd book on
the subject I have ever read as well.
I can't recall how much money I spent on Mr. Lifton's fantasy book
back in 1981, but, David, I'll expect a refund check in the mail no
later than May 31, 2008.
David R. Von Pein
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
MUSICAL CASKETS AND LIFTON'S "BODY-ALTERATION" SILLINESS:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0de08844600b8c7a
====================
ADDENDUMS:
"One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an
unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his
colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 1066 of "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" (c.2007)
--------------
"The coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest
pack of malarkey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes
off of it during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie
got up to go to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenny
O'Donnell went with her, but we stayed right there with the coffin and
never let go of it. In fact several of us were with it through the
whole trip, all the way to Bethesda Naval Hospital. It couldn't have
happened the way that fellow said. Not even thirty seconds. I never
left it." -- David F. Powers; June 1987
--------------
"About two years after 'Best Evidence' was published, I in fact
realized there was a much more significant moment in time for getting
the body out of the coffin, and that was the brief period when the
coffin was already aboard the plane, and the entire Kennedy party was
down on the tarmac. And today, that is when I think that event
actually occurred. How they got the body off the plane is another
matter." -- David S. Lifton; November 15, 1997
[DVP INTERJECTION --- In other words, if one stupid-sounding theory
that includes things that never could have happened in a million years
poops out, just move on to the next silly-sounding conspiracy theory
of your choosing. Surely one of these idiotic body-stealing theories
has GOT to be the correct one....right David L.?]
robcap...@netscape.com
"Fetzer is indeed a crackpot and one bullet almost certainly did pass
through both JFK and Connally. But it was not fired from the 6th floor
of the depository."
How can Fetzer be a crackpot when he is an editor of other peoples's
work? Prove one bullet went through JFK and Connally. Which shot was
it? Even Connally said they were hit by seperate bullets.
> Instead of parroting the crackpots on your side of the fence, why don't
> you look at the legitimate evidence?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY
>
> You are kidding yourself if you don't look at where the trajectory for
> that shot pointed, and who it pointed to.
>
> Why can't you do what people like Holmes and Lowry are too stupid and
> narrow minded to do? Why can't you make at least a miniscule effort to
> examine this case objectively and analytically?
>
> You HAVE to know by not that Oswald didn't do this alone.
>
> Robert Harris
>
> In article
> <0b4eb965-118d-4c23-a904-a220ef9e5...@47g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
David Von Pein
>>> "How can Fetzer be a crackpot when he is an editor of other peoples' work?" <<<
Another brilliant retort from Kook-Rob. Hi-lar-i-ous.
So, per Rob, Fetzer can't be considered a "crackpot" because he only
EDITED the books with his name attached to them.
In other words, per Rob-Kook, I guess we're to believe that Fetzer's
own mindset about the JFK case is completely different than the
mindset being exhibited by the work of the authors for whom Fetzer is
"editing".
This, of course, totally ignores the fact that Fetzer (on his own) has
spouted his own kooky beliefs re. the JFK case on TV and radio
interviews and in essays he, himself, has fully written (and not just
"edited").
Good job, Rob. Your fingers once again raced for the keyboard before
your (weak) mind did.
Must be sad to go a whole lifetime without making a single valid point
(and without a single CT base hit in this silly CT game you're
playing).
Kinda makes even me sad.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "How can Fetzer be a crackpot when he is an editor of other peoples' work?" <<<
"Another brilliant retort from Kook-Rob. Hi-lar-i-ous.
So, per Rob, Fetzer can't be considered a "crackpot" because he only
EDITED the books with his name attached to them."
I do know he believes the things he edits, but there are many editors
who do not care one way or the other about what they are editing. They
don't have to agree with the work to be an editor. I want examples of
why he is a "crackpot" from Bob, not you. We already know you are
warped.
"In other words, per Rob-Kook, I guess we're to believe that Fetzer's
own mindset about the JFK case is completely different than the
mindset being exhibited by the work of the authors for whom Fetzer is
"editing"."
You know this is not true, but my point is it could be as an editor
doesn't have to endorse what he edits. Bob is pro-conspiracy, so I'm
interested in why he thinks Fetzer is a crackpot. I could care less of
your opinion.
"This, of course, totally ignores the fact that Fetzer (on his own)
has interviews and in essays he, himself, has fully written (and not
just "edited")."
I know he has written some articles, but the books he is most known
for he has been the editor.
"Good job, Rob. Your fingers once again raced for the keyboard before
your (weak) mind did."
Wrong as usual Dave, I know you are hopeless and warped, but I was
asking someone who says they believe in a conspiracy why he thinks
that way. So but out. Go back to the VB alter you have set-up and do
your butt-kissing ritual.
"Must be sad to go a whole lifetime without making a single valid
point (and without a single CT base hit in this silly CT game you're
playing)."
I guess so, but you will get over it.
"Kinda makes even me sad."
You should but out of other people's conversations.
Bob Harris
<fbfcc98b-7caf-417c...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Fetzer is indeed a crackpot and one bullet almost certainly did pass
> >>> through both JFK and Connally. But it was not fired from the 6th floor of
> >>> the depository. Instead of parroting the crackpots on your side of the
> >>> fence, why don't you look at the legitimate evidence?" <<<
>
> <chuckle>
>
> And that evidence presented in your YouTube programs is much more
> "legitimate" than anything I'm likely to get out of the WC or the HSCA
> or from Mr. Myers or from Mr. Bugliosi or from the late Dr. Lattimer,
> et al....right Bob?
David, almost ALL the data from that video came from the HSCA and WC!
That's why you do not and cannot dispute *specific* evidence and
analysis in that video.
And yes, I'm afraid Myers is absolutely full of doodoo. I don't say that
because he's on your "side". I say it because he is one lying sack of
crap.
>
> Question: What makes your "evidence" (and subjective anti-WC
> criticisms) more "legit"?
It's not about "more legit".
It's about looking at the known and undisputed evidence that has always
been on the books.
>
> (I can hardly wait to hear Bob's answer to that last inquiry.)
If you dispute my claims then be specific. Tell me *exactly* where I
went wrong.
>
> >>> "You are kidding yourself if you don't look at where the trajectory for
> >>> that shot pointed, and who it pointed to. .... Why can't you make at
> >>> least a miniscule effort to examine this case objectively and
> >>> analytically?" <<<
>
> <another chuckle>
>
> That's part of your problem, Bob. You look at things WAY too
> "analytically", IMO.
No, the problem with people in this newsgroup is that they are not
nearly analytical enough.
Almost everyone here bases everything they believe about this case on
what they WANT to believe - not on the facts and evidence.
Go to a good PD sometime and watch what they go through to investigate a
typical murder. They go WAY beyond what I do, and most of the time they
come up with very accurate conclusions.
Why should this case be any different?
>
> You actually think that you can determine (to the Nth "degree") how
> many "degrees" of angle the single bullet was travelling that hit both
> JFK & JBC (on a lateral, right-to-left basis), based on John
> Connally's posture in the limo as shown in the Zapruder Film. Right,
> Bob?
I don't need to go to the nth degree.
The wider angle is just too far to JBC's left. And the difference
between that and where it belongs is beyond any reasonable margin of
error.
And the back wound location seals the deal, David. It needed to enter at
the neckline in order to connect with LHO and it just didn't. It points
to a lower elevation.
>
> And you furthermore think you've "analyzed" these lateral angles so
> finely and PERFECTLY
David, you are exaggerating my statements in order to ridicule them.
That's a great way to pitch doodoo but not the best method for getting
at the truth.
> that you feel confident enough to actually
> ELIMINATE the Warren Commission's SBT conclusion (which was, in part,
> based on detailed measurements taken during the FBI reconstruction on
> 05/24/64). Is that correct, Bob?
I don't care if God himself says the WC SBT works. It just doesn't.
>
> Now, granted, those May '64 measurements might not be exactly to the
> Nth degree either. But they are certainly as close to being as
> accurate as can possibly be determined via such a reconstruction of an
> event where not every single angle--to the Nth degree--CAN be
> determined perfectly.
Let me ask you a question, David.
Do you think that bullet entered at the base of the neck, where the WC
claimed?
If you do, then you need to sign up with the local buffs, because that
could only be true if the autopsy photo of the back wound was bogus.
Even if you accept the higher location, you cannot get your trajectory
up to that 6th floor window - unless you posit JFK leaning considerably
further forward than he was either before or immediately after he
emerged from behind the Stemmons sign.
And like the case of Connally, there is no logical reason to position
him like that, other than to accommodate your theory.
>
> Can I at least get you to agree with that last paragraph I just wrote
> above, Robert?
No, I disagree entirely. These angles are not that complicated.
And the WC had access to that autopsy photo, so there was NO excuse for
misplacing the entry wound.
David, I reference that same FBI reenactment. And they were right on the
money. I have been to DP and shone a laser pointer back through the same
angle the FBI depicted. And I KNOW the trajectory pointed back at that
third floor window.
>
> If not -- why not?
I think you are misunderstanding what the dispute here is all about.
In terms of evidence I agree with almost everything the government has
come up with. It's just the conclusions that are at issue.
And it's a trivial task to confirm for yourself whether I am right or
not.
Would you like some tips on how to do that?
>
> >>> "You HAVE to know by {now} that Oswald didn't do this alone." <<<
>
> Are you sure you're trying to convince ME of that last (false)
> statement....or yourself?
Ok, then refute my arguments.
You attack the goofy/easy stuff all the time. When do I get my come
uppance? And if you aren't up to looking at the SBT then you can start
off with this one:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "David, almost ALL the data from that video came from the HSCA and WC!" <<<
Funny, though, isn't it, that those very two organizations (the WC &
the HSCA) came to the conclusion that the SBT [with 399 as the SBT
bullet] is 100% acceptable and true?
Funny, huh?
>>> "And yes, I'm afraid Myers is absolutely full of doodoo. .... He is one lying sack of crap." <<<
Lovely. I'm sure Mr. Myers is devastated by your attack. (Or, come to
think of it, knowing from whom it came, he'd probably consider it a
compliment...because if a CT-Kook ever actually agreed with his
detailed SBT-favoring work, he'd probably think he had done something
wrong.)
>>> "Go to a good PD sometime and watch what they go through to investigate a typical murder. They go WAY beyond what I do, and most of the time they come up with very accurate conclusions." <<<
You mean like, maybe, the LAPD, circa 1994-1995, when they did a very
good job of gathering all of that SIMPSON-IS-GUILTY evidence...only to
be ridiculed and called liars and evidence-planters in a court of
law??
Can I use the LAPD '94-'95 as a good example of what you're talking
about here?
Funny, I can just envision the very same kind of unfounded and
unsupportable "THEY PLANTED EVIDENCE" garbage being spouted by the
defense in Lee Harvey Oswald's murder trial (had there been one).
Can't you?
>>> "In terms of evidence I agree with almost everything the government has come up with. It's just the conclusions that are at issue." <<<
It's remarkable the sheer lengths that some CTers will go to in order
to promote and prop up their make-believe conspiracies.
Robert Harris just now ADMITTED that "In terms of evidence I agree
with almost everything the government has come up with" -- and yet,
even though he just said he "agrees" with "almost everything" the WC
came up with, evidence-wise,* Bob will go OUT OF HIS WAY to invent a
different (conspiracy-flavored) scenario regarding that evidence that
he "agrees" with, instead of agreeing with the WC with regard to the
person/culprit to whom every scrap of that evidence points--Lee H.
Oswald.
Simply amazing.
Bob gets so CLOSE to agreeing with the WC, but can't quite go that
extra, logical step toward the "IT WAS ONLY OSWALD" conclusion.
I guess that tiny, make-believe "8-degree" difference in the lateral
angle of the SBT trumps all other pro-SBT stuff that the WC purported.
Go figure.
* = Of course, in reality, it wasn't the Government/WC which "came up"
with this evidence at all; they merely inherited (and evaluated) the
evidence which already existed...collected mostly by the DPD.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Mar 7, 1:01=A0am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Fetzer is indeed a crackpot and one bullet almost certainly did pass
>through both JFK and Connally. But it was not fired from the 6th floor
>of the depository."
>
>How can Fetzer be a crackpot when he is an editor of other peoples's
>work? Prove one bullet went through JFK and Connally. Which shot was
>it? Even Connally said they were hit by seperate bullets.
So too did the closest non-limo eyewitness to the murder. One who is considered
a "trained observer" by our court system.
But it's become clear that the eyewitness testimony and statements don't figure
as importantly in Bob's mind as they do to other CT'ers.
>> Instead of parroting the crackpots on your side of the fence, why don't
>> you look at the legitimate evidence?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dqa1C_gwSFMY
>>
>> You are kidding yourself if you don't look at where the trajectory for
>> that shot pointed, and who it pointed to.
>>
>> Why can't you do what people like Holmes and Lowry are too stupid and
>> narrow minded to do? Why can't you make at least a miniscule effort to
>> examine this case objectively and analytically?
>>
>> You HAVE to know by not that Oswald didn't do this alone.
>>
>> Robert Harris
>>
>> In article
>> <0b4eb965-118d-4c23-a904-a220ef9e5...@47g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> =A0David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Subj: "Elm Street: Oswald Killed Kennedy!" (New Book)
>> > Date: 3/6/2008 5:42:26 AM Eastern Standard Time
>> > From: Francois Carlier
>> > To: Dave Von Pein (and others)
>>
>> > ------------------------------------
>>
>> > Hello everybody,
>>
>> > This is a message from Fran=E7ois Carlier.
>>
>> > As you know, I have been a French Kennedy-assassination researcher for
>> > years.
>>
>> > After having read all that was available, I am a defender of the
>> > official version. I follow (and admire) people such as Jim Moore,
>> > Gerald Posner, Kenneth A. Rahn, Vincent Bugliosi, John McAdams,
>> > Vincent [actually "David"] Von Pein, etc.
>>
>> > Well, I have written a book (it took me years). It is completed. It
>> > has been published. It is available.
>>
>> >http://www.publibook.com/boutique2006/detail-3775-new-0-1-PB.html
>>
>> > The title is : "Elm Street. Oswald a tu=E9 Kennedy !". It is easy to
>> > translate : "Elm Street. Oswald killed Kennedy !".
>>
>> > The title says it all. My book is much like Bugliosi's. Well, it is
>> > ten times smaller, and not half as well written, and I am nowhere near
>> > as good and competent as he is, but nonetheless, it will serve the
>> > purpose of spreading the truth to the French !
>>
>> > Too much damage was done over here by French conspiracy author William
>> > Reymond (you may remember him : he is the guy who claims the Zapruder
>> > film was a fake and he had seen "the real one").
>>
>> > I had to let the French know that they had been bamboozled by that
>> > conspiracy writer. ....
>>
>> > Best regards to all of you from France.
>>
>> > Fran=E7ois Carlier
>>
>> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>> > Subj: Re: Elm Street
>> > Date: 3/6/2008 1:43:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> > From: James H. Fetzer
>> > To: Francois Carlier (and others)
>>
>> > ------------------------------------
>>
>> > Francois,
>>
>> > Not to puncture your bubble, but since the "magic bullet" theory is
>> > not only false, and provably false, but not even anatomically
>> > possible--as I have explained in the attachment, which was presented
>> > during an inter-national conference held at Cambridge University--how
>> > can you persist in defending the indefensible? =A0Has science forsaken
>> > France? This is very bad and sets an extremely poor example for
>> > scholarship around the world.
>>
>> > Jim
>>
>> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>> > Subj: Re: The Single-Bullet Fact
>> > Date: 3/6/2008 5:49:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> > From: James H. Fetzer
>> > To: Dave Von Pein (and others)
>>
>> > ------------------------------------
>>
>> > Not that I am surprised anyone who supports the "magic bullet" theory
>> > is going to disregard the evidence, but did you read the study I
>> > attached? I think it is difficult to argue with evidence. Why not take
>> > a look?
>>
>> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-r=
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 "To my knowledge, {nobody} has ever explained how moving the=
>
>> > back wound up to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it,
>> > because moving the entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT
>> > trajectory, not strengthen it. ....
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 "I'll refer you to CE 903. Although Specter didn't drill a h=
>ole
>> > in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done so,
>> > the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a
>> > string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18
>> > degrees -- that's
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
DAVID S. LIFTON GUSHED:
>>> "Mr. Von Pein: Contrary to your ill-informed fulminations, one-third of Bugliosi's book--at least--was ghost written; and as a consequence of paid contracts that Bugliosi had (via his publisher, W. W. Norton) with two ghostwriters." <<<
DAVID R. VON PEIN WROTE BACK:
Mr. Lifton, I think you're full of shit.
I also think that perhaps you need to look up the terms "ghostwriting"
and "ghostwriter". A goodly portion (but not all) of your argument
regarding how Mr. Bugliosi's outstanding book was really written can
pretty much be placed in the "So what?" file drawer.
BTW, did Ms. Lambert get the overdue apology due her by you after your
silly "ghostwriting" charge levelled against her in May 2007? Just
curious.
In reality, no part of Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book was "ghostwritten",
per se, at all. Sure, Vince had a co-author at one point--Fred Haines--
up to about 1998 (with Mr. Haines' name also scheduled to adorn the
cover of the book along with Bugliosi's)....but even without Haines'
name appearing on the cover of the finished product, Bugliosi gives
full credit to Mr. Haines, on page 1515 of "Reclaiming History", for
Haines' "noteworthy writing contributions".
On that same page, VB also gives full credit to author Dale Myers
(which Mr. Lifton knows full well, too, because DSL quotes this same
passage in his long-winded "ghostwriting" rant):
"Dale helped me in the writing of several sections of Book One
[Vince divided his JFK book into 2 so-called "Book" sections], most
notably on acoustics, 'Four Days in November' [which is Chapter 1]
(particularly in the Oswald interrogations), and all matters dealing
with still photography. I am deeply grateful to Dale for lending his
time, energy, and considerable expertise to this literary project." --
Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1515 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
Mr. Bugliosi, therefore, has fully acknowledged the "noteworthy
writing contributions" of both Fred Haines and Dale Myers within the
pages of "Reclaiming History".
If you, Mr. Lifton, want to think that these "noteworthy writing
contributions" (which have been fully acknowledged by VB in the book
itself!) equates to "One-third of Bugliosi's book--at least--[being]
ghostwritten" (as you claimed above) -- then I guess that's your
choice.
But it's a strange choice and a strange belief, IMO, given the fact
that most "ghostwriters" are NOT acknowledged by the person they are
ghostwriting for...isn't this true, Mr. Lifton?
The very definition of "ghostwriter" is as follows:
GHOSTWRITER -- "To write for and in the name of another." ....
[Also:] "To write (as a speech) for another who is the presumed
author." -- Via Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ghostwriter
Plus: Mr. Lifton's comment claiming that "at least one-third" of VB's
book was "ghostwritten" is patently ridiculous (and unprovable), of
course. That would equate to more than 850 pages of VB's book
(including all of the Endnotes on the CD-ROM computer disc) being
written by somebody other than Vince Bugliosi. That, as I said, is
ridiculous.
And your accusation in May 2007 that specifically mentioned Patricia
Lambert as one of Vincent's "ghostwriters" is just an outright blatant
falsehood of the first order, just as Ms. Lambert and VB's secretary,
Rosemary Newton, have already verified via their individual replies on
this matter in early July of 2007. .....
Mr. Lifton, would you care to now apologize to Ms. Lambert for that
incorrect "ghostwriting" allegation you made last May? Or do you think
Patricia is a liar (or maybe some kind of "cover-up" agent for the FBI
or the CIA or for W.W. Norton & Company or something)?
Plus:
Mr. Bugliosi, on several different radio interviews in 2007, also
verified the fact that he had very little help at all when it came to
researching and writing "Reclaiming History", with Vince telling the
radio audience during a few of his interviews that he had researched
and written approximately "99 percent" of the book himself, without
the aid of anyone's assistance.
I guess Vince was merely lying his ass off in several of these various
interviews, huh Mr. Lifton? .....
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7f8im4pic0&v=1
In Summary:
Mr. Lifton doesn't have a leg (or a "ghost") to stand on when it comes
to his absurd and ultra-flimsy allegation that "at least one-third" of
Vincent Bugliosi's magnificently-researched and well-written book
"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"
was "ghostwritten" by a variety of different authors.
And if a book has, indeed, been "ghostwritten" by other authors (in
the literal sense of that term), you're not likely to find those
ghostwriters being acknowledged, in print, within the pages of the
very book that has supposedly been ghostwritten.
Right, Mr. Lifton?
David Von Pein
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Phil Ossofee
hell is he to character assassinate every witness he doesn't like? Damn
damn, and damn again.
David Von Pein
>>> "Bugliosi should be forced to apologize to the world Von Pein. Who the hell is he to character assassinate every witness he doesn't like?" <<<
Oh, you mean stellar, upright, truthful "witnesses" like Jean
Hill...and Judyth Baker...and Roger Craig (among many others)?
Can I throw in conspiracy authors like Lifton, Garrison, Groden, and
Lane too? Okay, I will.
BTW, can somebody--quick!--search the Ossofee forum archives and come
up with some posts where Ossofee conducts some "character
assassination" of his own on some witnesses he "doesn't like"?
If I were a betting CIA Disinfo Agent (oops!), I'd bet anyone
$755,595.49* that I could fairly easily find at least a half-dozen
such "character assassination" type posts authored by Kook-Ossofee
within the next 24-hour period.
Can somebody say "Pot meet Kettle"?
* = That's my monthly CIA check.
David Von Pein
DAVID S. LIFTON BELLOWED:
>>> "If he {Vincent Bugliosi} wants to write about the JFK case, he should stick to the facts." <<<
Can David Lifton REALLY not see the astounding hypocrisy that resides
within the above statement.
Mr. Lifton has no more been able to "stick to the facts" in his book
"Best Evidence" than a snowflake could survive in Death Valley in
August.
Absolutely incredible. (But hilarious.)
>>> "Reclaiming History was written (or perhaps "assembled," is a better word) by someone who wants to take credit for it all, without acknowledging the truth about how the book was written." <<<
I guess it's going to take that lawsuit (which Vince B. hinted at) to
get David S. Lifton to shut his trap about the ghostwriting crap after
all.
But, like any good conspiracy-loving kook, Lifton (whose
"ghostwriting" theory has already been totally debunked) will continue
to spin the story to his own perceived advantage for months or years
to come.
Absolutely pathetic.
I'd remind Mr. Lifton to glance at pages 1514 and 1515 of "Reclaiming
History", where Mr. Bugliosi gives full credit to the "two people who
made noteworthy writing contributions" (VB's direct quote from pp.
1514-1515). Those "two people" being Dale K. Myers and Fred Haines.
So much for not "acknowledging" their "noteworthy writing
contributions".
A few more reminders for Mr. Lifton........
"I am proud to say that I have done 99.9 percent of my own research
for everything I wrote in this book (which is typical for me, not
feeling comfortable relying on others to do research for me)." -- Page
1516; "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F.
KENNEDY"; Copyright "2007 by Vincent Bugliosi"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/8594afea970a9462
~~~~~~
Culled excerpts from Rosemary Newton's response to Mr. Lifton's
charges:
"This is in response to David Lifton's outrageous, malicious and
contemptible lie regarding Vincent Bugliosi's book, 'Reclaiming
History'. .... I say, unequivocally, that NO section of Mr. Bugliosi's
book was ghostwritten. How do I know? Simple. I was the one (as Mr.
Bugliosi's secretary for many years in the writing of this book) who
transcribed a great number of tapes of his dictation and, much more,
and with no exaggeration, thousands of yellow pad sheets of his
handwriting as well as his handwritten faxes on every single section
of the book. I can vouch for the fact that Vincent Bugliosi is a man
of integrity, principle, and I might add, a perfectionist with a
capital "P".
"He is someone who has spent years researching this subject, as
evidenced by the over 10,000 citations in his book (perhaps the most
heavily sourced non-fiction book of any kind ever), which included not
only his countless telephone calls and letters, but personal
interviews as well. Indeed, if anyone looks at the 170 pages of
citations (source notes) in the CD endnote, you will see that at least
99% of the interviews upon which Mr. Bugliosi's book was, in
considerable part, written, were interviews of witnesses he personally
conducted. That, Mr. Lifton, if you are reading this, is what an
author of Vincent Bugliosi's caliber does.
"What could possibly cause you, Mr. Lifton, to tell such an
unmitigated falsehood? ....
"I might add that I took notice of the fact that you did not dwell on
the content of Mr. Bugliosi's dealing with specific issues (e.g.,
autopsy, acoustic, Zapruder film, etc.). Instead, you have made an
allegation that not only is totally false, but completely irrelevant
to the merits of the book. By the way, Mr. Lifton (if you're still
reading this), you called Vincent Bugliosi a "street bully" in his
writing style. But I thought you said ghostwriters wrote his book?"
/s/Rosemary Newton
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/fbd56181ee3c6af1/?hl=en#
~~~~~~
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0de08844600b8c7a
David Von Pein
A FOLLOW-UP...........
============================================
DAVID S. LIFTON SPEWED:
>>> "{Paul} O'Connor's story never changed. And so the answer is: "Yes, Mr. Bugliosi, O'Connor said that repeatedly..." <<<
What difference does it really make WHEN O'Connor told his three-
pronged fairy tale (body bag/no brain/shipping casket), or how many
times he uttered the same crazy triple tale of absurdity? Via scads of
other evidence, O'Connor was still proven dead-wrong each time he told
it.
Yes, Vince made an error when he said O'Connor never told the HSCA his
triple fairy tale prior to 1978. But Vince ACKNOWLEDGES THIS ERROR IN
HIS OWN BOOK. He didn't hide anything. He was being up front
concerning the O'Connor error he made.
But the bigger overall point with respect to Paul O'Connor is:
O'Connor (for whatever reason we can only guess about) said he saw
things that just simply DID NOT OCCUR ON NOV. 22, 1963. And Bugliosi,
rightly so, blasts him regarding those errors.
>>> "I have by no means exhausted my information on the subject of ghostwriting. Nor do I have any real interest in figuring out who wrote the original drafts of each and every chapter..." <<<
But it was nice of you, David, not to slander Patricia Lambert's name
again, as you continue your anti-Bugliosi campaign and your
unsupportable quest to prove that "Reclaiming History" was
"ghostwritten".
Is Patricia off the hook now? And would you care to apologize for your
error with respect to Ms. Lambert? Or would you rather remain wishy-
washy on that particular subject too?
>>> "{The various sections of "Reclaiming History"} do seem to be written in markedly different styles." <<<
This is total nonsense, of course. I've read the whole book cover-to-
cover (and all the endnotes too), and there is positively no
difference in writing "style" or technique throughout the book. It's
ALL VINCE B. from start to finish.
And the next silly allegation is?.....
>>> "No doubt, Bugliosi wrote some (and perhaps a lot) of his own book..." <<<
Gee, how nice of Mr. Lifton to make such a heartwarming concession.
(Who's got the "eyeroll" icon? I need it here....badly.)
>>> "There is nothing honorable or nice about the way Bugliosi writes about these issues, or addresses an adversary." <<<
What makes you think that conspiracy authors (such as yourself), who
have distorted history and the true facts surrounding the
assassination of President Kennedy for decades on end, deserve the
SLIGHTEST bit of respect...or deserve to be treated "nice"?
You're living in a dream world, Mr. Lifton (and you obviously have
been living in that world ever since your body-altering fantasy began
in 1966).
Mr. Bugliosi isn't obligated to play "nice" when dealing with
conspiracy-loving theorists who, as I said, have deliberately
distorted the historical record relating to JFK's death (Jim Garrison
and Oliver Stone to name but two additional examples).
In fact, I think Vince was far too polite to some of the CTers that he
writes about in his book. He could have lambasted them even more than
he did. And they would have deserved it (IMO).
An excerpt from "Reclaiming History".....
"One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented
level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in
the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- Vincent T.
Bugliosi; Page 1066
Sometimes, as they say, the truth hurts, Mr. Lifton.
>>> "To put it mildly, Bugliosi has an "attitude" problem." <<<
Yeah, I think so too....and that's because he didn't bash your stupid
body-stealing theory NEARLY hard enough in his book. You only got 14
pages, David. Stone and Garrison got 90. You should consider suing
Vince for equal time. After all, your nonsense is just as good as
Jim's and Oliver's, right?
>>> "The JFK assassination is a very complex problem." <<<
It's only "complex" due to people like you, who have distorted history
(big-time). Vince Bugliosi is merely "reclaiming" that distorted
history.
>>> "The NY Times reporter who interviewed me on the subject noted that Mr. Bugliosi "is not an immodest man," an understatement if there ever was one." <<<
LOL. Which means, of course, just the opposite of what the reporter
(and you) intended it to mean. For, if Vince is "not immodest" (as
claimed above)....then he's....modest.
>>> "If, as Mr. Bugliosi says, "this is a book of inserts," then I believe I know very well what that probably means. Substantial amounts of writing were done by third parties..." <<<
Another LOL.
This is just EXACTLY the sort of hilarious backward mindset exhibited
by CTers that Mr. Bugliosi talks about (at some length) in "Reclaiming
History"....i.e.,
Vincent Bugliosi (per Lifton's theory) has had his book "ghostwritten"
by many different people, but then Vince just goes right ahead AND
PLACES WORDS IN HIS BOOK THAT (per Lifton) LEAD STRAIGHT TO THE NOTION
THAT THE BOOK WAS, IN FACT, GHOSTWRITTEN (via VB's remark about using
gobs of "inserts").
That's very similar, IMO, to when the CTers claim that a certain JFK-
assassination conspirator did something to advance the "covert,
secretive plot", but then they just went right ahead and WROTE UP A
MEMO OR SOME OTHER DOCUMENT that can be accessed by researchers in
future years that would prove the existence of the conspiracy the
plotters should have been desperately attempting to hide at all costs.
So, per this VB example, I guess Vince wanted to keep it a secret that
the book was ghostwritten, but he decided (for whatever reason) to
place in that very same book evidence (per Lifton) that shows the book
was ghostwritten.
I love the "CT Mindset". (Mainly because I don't have a mindset like
that.) ;)
One more time (for effect)......
"I am proud to say that I have done 99.9 percent of my own research
for everything I wrote in this book (which is typical for me, not
feeling comfortable relying on others to do research for me)." -- Page
1516; "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F.
KENNEDY"; Copyright "2007 by Vincent Bugliosi"
All lies...right, DSL?
And to think...David said on Black Op Radio that he (David Lifton) was
thinking about suing Vincent Bugliosi! That would be like Lee Harvey
Oswald threatening to sue the city of Dallas for false arrest on
11/22/63.
Vince has the conspiracy-loving crowd all worked up into a foaming-at-
the-mouth lather. It's utterly hysterical to watch too....particularly
Mr. Lifton's pathetic attempts (via mile-long "I Was Right After All"
type of posts) to reconcile in his own mind the validity of his
worthless "ghostwriting" tale.
Lifton's next chapter will probably be subtitled --- Bugliosi wrote
nothing! Arlen Specter wrote the whole "RH" tome by himself in
Pennsylvania!
BTW, Vince said on a radio interview that his wife actually came up
with the title for the book ("Reclaiming History")....a title that
fits perfectly, too, IMO. So, I guess this will give Mr. Lifton yet
another "subcontractor" to chew on.
David Von Pein
July 6, 2007
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3de3cf96f59e7663
>>> "{Paul} O'Conner [sic] was there, DVP and Bugliosi were not, you wouldn't have to be a brain surgeon with 8 years of medical school to know the difference between a plain gray 40-60 pound shipping casket & an ornate mahogany coffin weighing 10 times that much." <<<
But evidently (per Lifton and others who buy into his theory) the
plotters who PLACED KENNEDY IN THAT GRAY LIGHTWEIGHT SHIPPING CASKET
couldn't tell the difference between that casket and the fancier type
mahogany one that JFK was SUPPOSED to be in when he arrived at
Bethesda.
And (evidently) the plotters also FORGOT what type of wrappings JFK
was wrapped in at Parkland....or they decided to KNOWINGLY SWITCH THE
WRAPPINGS (hoping nobody would notice or care??)!
Could the plotters (per Lifton's theory) BE any more idiotic? Is it
physically possible to be that stupid after going to the trouble of
altering the President's wounds?
>>> "But dammit you lone nutters are gonna be wrong on a lot of important things; there is just way way way too much contradictory evidence at every step." <<<
LOL. Yeah, including the biggest hurdle of all (evidently) -- i.e.,
HOW DO WE RECONCILE THE ACTIONS OF A BAND OF PLOTTERS WHO BEHAVED LIKE
TOTAL MORONS ON 11/22/63?
Allow me to ponder that question over tea and crackers...and I'll get
back to you.
David Von Pein
FROM THE "JFK RESEARCH" ASSASSINATION FORUM:
http://jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php?topic=5093.0
>>> "Perhaps Mr. Von Pein will float the idea that Vinnie Bugliosi or even Dale Myers can drop by here for a fireside chat sometime, eh?" <<<
<chuckle time>
Yeah, I'm sure that VB and Dale have a burning desire to come to this
virtually-empty ghost town of a Forum and defend their logical and
based-on-the-actual-evidence LN conclusions to the whopping 3 people
who visit here daily.
<chuckle time (again)>
>>> "Air-out a few of those ERRORS in Reclaiming History." <<<
The number of "errors" in "RH" that are of any significance is this
many: 0.
The number of "errors" in "RH", overall, is certainly not "0",
however. And I fully acknowledge several of those errors at the two
links below:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ac345c6c5a9afaf2
Of course, as we all know, the conspiracy theorist who loves to
incessantly bash VB's book--a certain "Mr. Healy"--is a person who has
never even read "RH" at all.
Tell me I'm wrong about that, Mr. Healy. You can't, can you? Because
you haven't read a single page of "RH", other than the approx. 55
pages of the book that are available for free online [2 links below],
right Mr. Healy?
http://reclaiminghistory.com/excerpts/ReclaimHistIntro.pdf
http://reclaiminghistory.com/excerpts/ReclaimHistIntroCnsprcy.pdf
Fess up about that last inquiry I just posed, Mr. Healy. If it turns
out I'm 100% wrong, and you HAVE really read the bulk of VB's
magnificent 2800-page mega-tome (as of this date in mid-March 2008), I
will gladly and eagerly apologize to you (and to the other 3 people
looking in here this month).
Thank you.
>>> "All night bouncing from one board to another, eh Dave?" <<<
Can someone say: "Pot" and "Kettle"?
>>> "This Mark Lane/David Lifton stuff gotta be wearing your ass out, eh?" <<<
Not at all. I find it endlessly amusing. I especially find it amusing
when I see CTers (like, say, a certain Mr. Healy) still willing and
eager to prop up Mr. Lifton's "ghostwriting" silliness even AFTER Mr.
Lifton has been thoroughly and undeniably trashed and discredited with
respect to a certain allegation re. that topic involving Patricia
Lambert.
Certain CTers are willing to go around the Internet spouting
"ghostwriting" nonsense even AFTER Lifton was torn a new anal cavity
by TWO people "in the know" on this matter (Ms. Lambert HERSELF and
VB's own secretary, Rosemary Newton, who typed up virtually the entire
manuscript of "RH" herself from handwritten notes and legal pads that
were all in VB's own handwriting).
THAT'S what I call -- humorous.
>>> "So while your [sic; as per the Healy norm] here...can you dig through that vast cut & paste database of yours and tell us how many pages in Reclaiming History did Dale Myers write and {was} responsible for...300 or so? Sound about right?" <<<
<additional large chuckle here>
As if Mr. Healy is going to start believing anything I say with regard
to the above matter.
If only Mr. Healy would bother to actually READ some of "RH", he'd be
able to find out the answers himself. Vince B. gives Mr. Myers full
credit for the "noteworthy writing contributions" he made within the
pages of "RH".
Vince doesn't break it down into the exact number of pages that Dale
(and Fred Haines) helped VB write, so I obviously cannot help out Mr.
Healy with his above inquiry.
But VB gives full credit WHERE CREDIT IS DUE. So the whole matter
brought up by Lifton is a huge non-issue:
David Von Pein
http://jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php?topic=5093.20
>>> "Mr Von Pein .... Are you in the custom of attending a cocktail party, insulting the host, fouling the restroom, taking a leak in the potted palm, & belching on your way out?" <<<
No, not at all. Nor did my previous comment re. "3 people" achieve any
of those foul things you seem to be implying.
Rather sensitive, aren't we?
>>> "My observations of make believe LNs (even the WC were not genuine LNs) is that they are not only bereft of facts and evidence but they lack simple manners as well." <<<
But we have every bullet, don't we? Found any non-C2766 ones yet
(maybe behind that potted palm I supposedly just pissed on)?
>>> "This venue has been in operation 10 years. It once had some 3,000 members but a few years back, I whittled it down by removing the provocateurs." <<<
Translation: "Provocateurs" no doubt = "LNers with some common sense
and HARD EVIDENCE".
Right, Rich?
>>> "The forum became self-supporting in terms of financing and the fact is that LNs and provocateurs can't bring themselves to donate a nickel." <<<
Gee, I wonder why?
<strokes chin, pondering>
>>> "I never wished to have the largest JFK forum -- only the best." <<<
Too bad you failed. But, then too, any JFK forum that supports the
notion that a non-existent multi-gun conspiracy took the life of the
USA's 35th Chief Executive is bound to fail in the "best" department.
>>> "My priority is on quality and not quantity." <<<
That can't happen until you wake up and smell the Carcano bullets.
Will that happen any decade soon?
>>> "I am just a disabled researcher, dedicated to finding the truth." <<<
The "truth's" been out there for 44.5 years, Rich. It's easy to see
it, except when the letters "CT" block your vision constantly.
Oswald took his own rifle to his own workplace one Friday and managed
to kill the President. Ruby got mad at Ozzie, and snuffed him two days
later.
Mark VII.
VB goes into a little more detail than my above short analysis, but
the end results are the same....and the SUM TOTAL of evidence proves
those 2 "lone nut" facts to be true beyond all reasonable doubt (if
you're a reasonable man, that is).
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
>>> "Now that you have pissed in the potted palm, what's your next move??" <<<
That's the "CT" voice in you talking, Rich. Nobody pissed in your
potted palm. I certainly didn't. I made an observation about this
forum being a virtual "ghost town", which it is. That's all. No
invective intended. You seem to have injected some though. ~shrug~
But as for my "next move"? Well, maybe I could challenge one of your
oh-so-knowledgable CTers to come up with some hard, solid physical
evidence that a conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza in November
1963.
I've been looking for such PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for many years too.
Haven't seen a piece of it yet. Have you?
David Von Pein
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12462&view=findpost&p=140878
>>> "Von Pinhead was hawking Bugliosi's book a year before it was published on various forums on the web." <<<
Once again, a kook gets something wrong. I was promoting VB's CS&L-
filled book way, way before 2006. .....
>>> "Not only is Von Pein in complete denial even when presented with evidence of a conspiracy..." <<<
Like Gil's "coughing" theory, right?
>>> "...He has suffered the misfortune of being thrown off reputable forums like JFK Lancer." <<<
A "reputable" forum filled with mostly kooks. (Save Jerry Dealey. I've
always admired him a great deal.)
>>> "In newsgroup alt.conspiracy.jfk, one can see that a typical Von Pein post may include links to previous Von Pein posts. In other words, he posts opinion, then uses it as a factual reference in a later post. I've never seen anything so ridiculous: using oneself as a source." <<<
Once more, the kook is not telling it straight. Sure, I recycle my own
posts a lot. So what? Should I be promoting the opinions of kooks like
YOU (who I don't believe are telling the truth at all!), instead of
pushing my OWN fervent beliefs and opinions?
Plus: Many of my re-postings are not filled with ONLY my words....they
include many cites and links to evidence, WC testimony, and other non-
DVP material.
Try to get SOMETHING right next time, will you Gilbert? If your
average drops any lower, you'll be in Rob's league -- three goose
eggs.
>>> "In Von Pein's world, there is no such thing as tampering with evidence. There is no such thing as altering affidavits. There is no such thing as evidence substitution. There is no such thing as staged police lineups. There is no such thing as coerced witnesses." <<<
I guess Gil doesn't even realize what a huge CT hole he just dug for
himself via the above mega-load of accusations, does he?
Because in Gil-Kook's world, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED
THINGS *DID* occur in wake of the JFK case (and multiplied by TWO
murders too--counting Tippit's!). EVERY one of those things, per the
rabid ABO kooks, DID positively take place in this murder case--times
TWO killings too!
Can someone figure the odds of ALL of those things ACTUALLY having
taken place and yet having them ALL covered up afterward (to the
satisfaction of TWO Governmental organizations investigating the case
anyway)?
The likely odds would no doubt be O.J. type odds -- in favor of: NEVER
COULD HAVE HAPPENED IN A MILLION YEARS.
But Gil thinks they ALL occurred within one murder investigation.
(And, as I said, when we DOUBLE it to include the same covert things
the kooks think occurred re. Tippit's murder TOO, it only doubles the
insanity of it all).
Gil, somehow, doesn't realize any of this. He's too busy watching for
coughing Chief Executives I guess.
>>> "In Von Pein's world, 80% or more of the public, who believe that John Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy, are simply "kooks"." <<<
Once more, a kook gets something wrong. Per the latest major poll
(2003), only 7% of the population would qualify as "kooks" (i.e.,
"Anybody But Oswald" nuthatches). For some reason, Gil thinks he and
his merry band of loony "Oswald Was Only A Patsy" believers are in the
MAJORITY (i.e., "80% or more"). Go figure:
aeffects
snip the nonsense....
my goodness you show up at jfkresearch, made a fool of (concerning
case evidence) then run.... What's up with you cowardly Lone Nutters?
David Von Pein
>>> "I'd like to ask you a question regarding your opinion on JFK's Plan on withdrawing or not withdrawing from Vietnam. Taking into account as you answer that JFK's platform when running for office was criticism of the Eisenhower administration's failure to stop the communist take over of China. Do you see it as a reasonable option, to be had and laid upon the table, for JFK to withdraw all troops by 1965?" <<<
It was certainly an "option" I suppose, yes. But as of Kennedy's death
in November '63, I don't think JFK had any intention of withdrawing
"all" U.S. personnel (troops) from Vietnam by 1965.
JFK's CBS-TV interview in early September 1963 gives a good general
overview of Kennedy's opinions and thoughts regarding the Vietnam
situation (as it existed as of that '63 date, of course)....and per
that interview with Walter Cronkite, in my opinion it's just plain
silly to assert (as some people seem to want to do) that Kennedy was
bent on withdrawing all forces (or "advisers" as JFK called them) from
Vietnam.
I think the following direct quote from John F. Kennedy sums up his
administration's late-1963 posture regarding Vietnam as succinctly and
accurately as possible. Do some theorists think Kennedy is lying his
ass off here? Apparently many people think he's doing just that:
"I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw [from
Vietnam]. That would be a great mistake...a great mistake." --
President Kennedy; Via CBS Interview; September 1963
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2df5a...
I guess Dave missed the part in the McNamara-Taylor report that said
NOTHING would be said publicly, until after the 1964 election, about
withdrawing the bulk of the soldiers by the end of 1965, huh?
David Von Pein
>>> "I guess Dave missed the part in the McNamara-Taylor report that said NOTHING would be said publicly, until after the 1964 election, about withdrawing the bulk of the soldiers by the end of 1965, huh?" <<<
Which means, per Rob evidently, that the President--instead of merely
not saying ANYTHING at all on this subject during his CBS interview--
WAS FORCED TO LIE TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE when he said "I don't agree
with those who say we should withdraw; that would be a great mistake"
on CBS-TV in Sept. of '63.
Right, Robby?
billc...@live.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2df5a...
>
I agree 100%. This seems fairly simple to me and it is my belief that
the only ones fronting this, “Jack would have saved us from Vietnam”
are those smitten with the Camelot bullshit.
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
wrote:
Well Cappie, I see you have learned nothing from our long discussion
about this. I did my best to teach you but I didn’t have much to work
with.
I see you are still misquoting and twisting the truth. I don’t
remember the McNamara/Taylor report saying anything about the election
of 1964. You don’t either. The decision to withdraw the 1,000 was
not announced immediately, nothing being said about announcing
withdrawing the “bulk” of troops. NSAM 263 was classified Top Secret
for some reason, did you miss that?
I assume you have finally accepted my statement that Nixon withdrew
over 60,000 troops in 1965. About time.
Bill Clarke
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/fffb051611ab278f
>>> "How do Lone [Assassin] Theorists reconcile that one of the bullets allegedly used by Oswald smashed through two men, their clothes and broke bones and came out the other end virtually unscathed, with no bodily fluids on it (and with its grooves intact - a miracle event against all odds) and the other bullet allegedly used by Oswald on Kennedy disintegrated on impact? How could two bullets supposedly the same react in such a different fashion from each other?" <<<
It's been proven that MC/WCC ammunition WILL react in just exactly the
same general ways that Lee Harvey Oswald's two bullets did on November
22, 1963. Bullet tests were done by Dr. Olivier for the Warren
Commission, and even better tests were done by John Lattimer using
Oswald's ammunition:
http://i1.tinypic.com/44t3b0n.jpg
And then there's the "test" bullet from the 2004 program "JFK: Beyond
The Magic Bullet", which generally looks the same as CE399 -- i.e., it
ended up COMPLETELY INTACT (NOT FRAGMENTED at all) after striking
pretty much the same parts of two "bodies", with the nose still
rounded, just like 399:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
PARTIAL REPLAY:
>>> "How do Lone [Assassin] Theorists reconcile that one of the bullets allegedly used by Oswald smashed through two men, their clothes and broke bones and came out the other end virtually unscathed, with no bodily fluids on it (and with its grooves intact - a miracle event against all odds)..." <<<
Here's another look at the Discovery Channel's SBT test bullet (two
views actually). This "Beyond The Magic Bullet" MC/WCC test missile
smashed through two bodies and broke THREE bones (2 ribs and 1 wrist
bone).
Voila!
THE GROOVES ARE COMPLETELY INTACT! Another myth handily debunked:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6722.jpg
ANOTHER PARTIAL REPLAY:
>>> "How do Lone [Assassin] Theorists reconcile that one of the bullets allegedly used by Oswald smashed through two men, their clothes and broke bones and came out the other end virtually unscathed, with no bodily fluids on it..." <<<
"One can only wonder why Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not have
any blood residuum on it. My only guess is that the blood traces that
must have been on it were removed by someone early on...almost as a
matter of course. In all the evidence bullets I handled in court in
murder cases during my prosecutorial career, none had any visible
blood on them. .... Interestingly, [Robert] Frazier [of the FBI]
testified that with respect to the two main bullet fragments found in
the presidential limousine [CE567 and CE569], "there was a very slight
residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not
interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the
bullet for examination"." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 425 of Endnotes
in "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/fffb051611ab278f
>>> "Unheard of? You obviously have never done any shooting. It happens all the time. Law enforcement fires bullets into cotton wadding or water to produce test bullets to compare. No damage." <<<
That's not the same thing at all. The question asked by "Thaliac"
doesn't equate to the police firing only into a water tank or cotton
to obtain a test bullet...because OBVIOUSLY the cops would not want to
disfigure the bullet or eliminate its "grooves" when test-firing it;
hence, they won't fire it into human bones.
(Time for a "Duh" here, I think.)
But I've proven that "Thaliac's" thinking is 100% wrong too, via the
photos of the Discovery Channel test bullet, which is a 6.5/FMJ/MC/WCC
bullet that DID break three bones in a mock-up of John Connally's body
in 2004, with that missile emerging with its grooves perfectly
"readable" and "intact".
Why this question even comes up is anybody's guess. Surely, Thaliac
has seen the pictures of that Disc. Ch. test bullet many times in the
past. Right? .....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6722.jpg
But, like most conspiracy-hungry theorists, ignoring the obvious is
usually the preferred method....versus using your eyes (and a little
bit of CS&L [Common Sense & Logic]).
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/e30ee87e8f4de26f
>>> "Maybe it hasn't dawned on you yet, but the correct answer is that the book ["Reclaiming History"] was written by a committee." <<<
Bull-shit.
You can't prove what you just said and you know it. But you'll say it
anyway....right Anthony?
Pathetic.
>>> "Vince wrote that part about 210 and commissioned the drawing showing 210, while Myers wrote the bit about 224." <<<
More bullshit.
BTW, Tony, do you believe Lifton's allegation about Pat Lambert
writing the entire Stone/Garrison chapter of VB's book?
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/0e979f2e0dcef694
>>> "JFK's balled up fists are in the way of an exiting bullet at 224." <<<
Oh goodie! More bullshit!
>>> "As noted above, the book ["RH"] was written by a committee and cobbled together at the last minute." <<<
LOL.
Vince took 21 years to write a book, but for some reason it needed to
be "cobbled together" at the "last minute" in 2007.
Tony, you're hilarious.
>>> "For example, Bugliosi sent someone to the Kennedy Library to find out the specifications of the limo." <<<
Who performed that task for VB? Any chance you can tell us? Or would
you prefer to wallow in your make-believe, wishy-washy mush regarding
the way Vince Bugliosi wrote and researched his JFK book?
>>> "But that person was a dunce and did not realize that the documents were about the limo AFTER the Quick Fix after the assassination." <<<
"The limousine was not, as the buffs allege without any
supporting authority, immediately rebuilt. The rebuilding of the car
did not commence until over a year later in Detroit." -- VB; Page 1276
of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
>>> "That's why Vince tries to snow us with very precise details about things like the weight and then reveals his ignorance by saying it was armored. Sloppy research method." <<<
Yes, he got the "armored" thing wrong.
So let's string him up by the oak tree in front of the Depository.
>>> "Could be that Bugliosi didn't even bother to read it. Often authors have never read their own books when they have been ghostwritten by the CIA." <<<
Goodie! More CT excrement seeping onto the Internet carpet!
Marsh...you're BEYOND hilarious!
>>> "Again, you miss the point. He [VB] doesn't care. You [DVP] don't care. The facts [which VB & DVP know about] just get in the way. You can change the [SBT] frame every day." <<<
But many conspiracists feel it's perfectly okay to change the number
and names of the "plotters" every other day...with some CTers also
feeling it's okay to change the number of shots fired.
What's this got to do with you, right Tony?
Well, okay. But the above paragraph was merely a general hunk of info
I wanted to toss into the mix -- and it's certainly true when it comes
to some people on the "CT" side of the fence.
David Von Pein
>>> "What fingerprint? Oh, you must mean the palm print, the same palm print where Paul Grudie [sic], the funeral home director for Oswald, reported that Federal agents asked to have the preparation room to themselves." <<<
No, I'm talking about more than just one "print", of course,
including:
1.) The two prints of Oswald's on the paper bag found in the Sniper's
Nest.
2.) The three prints of Oswald's found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the
Sniper's Nest.
3.) And the palmprint lifted off of the rifle on NOVEMBER 22ND by Lt.
Carl Day of the DPD.
Plus, there are the prints on the triggerguard of Rifle C2766, which
are also almost certainly Oswald's. To believe those prints belong to
some "mystery gunman" is just crazy, given the fact we know that the
rifle in question was owned by Lee Harvey Oswald and was possessed by
Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination....plus the fact we have
the palmprint too, which, as mentioned, was not lifted off the rifle
at some later date by the FBI...it was taken off of that rifle by Lt.
Day IN DALLAS, ON NOVEMBER 22, before the gun was ever turned over to
the FBI.
>>> "Well, FBI expert Sebastian Latona said that no palm print was on the rifle when he received the rifle, and that he could not find any prints matching Oswald's." <<<
Well, of course there wasn't any palmprint on the barrel of the rifle
when Latona examined it....because, as just mentioned, the print WAS
REMOVED IN DALLAS by Lt. J.C. Day.
DAVID BELIN -- "Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?"
LT. CARL DAY -- "This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the
barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood."
MR. BELIN -- "Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?"
LT. DAY -- "It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written
on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of
foregrip, C-2766."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158b.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm
>>> "What gun are you talking about? The Mannlicher-Carcano the Italian military experts said last year took nineteen seconds to get off three shots with?" <<<
Good job, Dean. Place your faith in those idiotic Terni, Italy, tests
which had some boobs deliberately dragging out the recycling time of
the Carcano. They also said that it took them "at least 19 seconds" to
get off three shots with a Carcano like Oswald's. So it might be even
LONGER than 19 seconds! Ridiculous. A 99-year-old geezer with one arm
could recycle that rifle (or ANY bolt-action rifle) faster than that.
It's just nuts.
But Jackson likes those Italian MC tests. He thinks they're 100%
believable and trustworthy.
Gee, what a surprise.
But a better minimum recycling time is "3.45 seconds". Watch:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=62gvoKyODu4
>>> "What bullet are you talking about? Oh the "magic bullet" that exited Connolly [sic] in near pristine condition." <<<
Bullet CE399 was positively inside Governor Connally's body on
11/22/63. And, given the fact that CE399 came out of Oswald's rifle
(which was a rifle that was being fired from the southeast corner
window of the 6th Floor of the TSBD at the time when Connally was
being shot by just ONE single bullet on November 22), that bullet had
no choice but to have also gone through the body of the man sitting
behind Connally at the time JBC was shot.
Very simple math really....unless you reside in Conspiracy Land.
IF CE399 DIDN'T HIT GOVERNOR CONNALLY, WHAT BULLET DID?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f90802d6225a380e
>>> "Or are you referring to Oswald's .38 revolver: FBI ballistics expert Cortlandt Cunningham testified to the Warren Commission that he could not identify the bullets coming from Oswald's revolver..." <<<
Correct. But the bullet SHELLS were conclusively matched to LHO's
gun.
Do you think it's just a coincidence that 4 shells from Oswald's .38
were found within yards of where Tippit was killed WITH SOMEBODY
ELSE'S GUN....i.e., not Oswald's revolver?
Can the theorists GET any sillier when they attempt to exonerate
Oswald for Tippit's murder too? I ask you.
My answer: No, they cannot get any sillier than this.
>>> "...and no fingerprints were ever found on Oswalds .38 revolver!" <<<
Are you for real?! Oswald had the gun IN HIS HANDS when he was
arrested!
WHO CARES if any fingerprints were lifted off the gun or not. We KNOW
Lee Harvey was carrying the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM just half-an-
hour after Tippit was gunned down....and gunned down by--Voila!--the
same gun linked to all four bullet shells littering Tenth Street.
And even if you want to throw out the two "Poe" shells (and you no
doubt do)....go ahead....but where does that deletion of 2 shells take
you? The other 2 shells are still in evidence and were positively
fired in Oswald's revolver. AND THERE WAS JUST ONE GUN USED TO KILL
OFFICER TIPPIT.
Hence, Oswald's gun had to be the ONE and ONLY gun used to murder
Officer J.D. Tippit.
Simple math like this turns into ultra-complicated higher mathematics
if you're a conspiracy theorist like Mr. Dean Jackson.
Go figure. <shrug>
>>> "Two empty shells were found nearby." <<<
Wrong (again). Four spent bullet cartridge cases (shells) were
found...and they were found by THREE different witnesses (Davis,
Davis, and Benavides). Were they all "in" on the massive plot to frame
sweet Lee? ALL THREE of these Dallas citizens?
>>> "They [the shells] did not come out of the revolver since revolvers do not eject shells, which means someone planted them." <<<
<sigh> I was wrong...Jackson CAN look even sillier.
Jackson, of course, knows full well that MULTIPLE eyewitnesses on 10th
Street watched the ONE and ONLY person with a gun (Lee Oswald) dump
multiple bullet shell casings out of a REVOLVER at the corner of Tenth
& Patton.
And yet Mr. Jackson has the gonads to gush forth this utter lie about
the bullet shells found in the Davises' yard:
"They did not come out of the revolver since revolvers do not
eject shells, which means someone planted them."
>>> "Von Pein, where did you learn criminal investigative techniques? At the Inspector Clouseau School of Advanced Investigative Criminology?" <<<
It's quite obvious where you received your Advanced Degree. It came
from that famous school for kooks --- "ANYBODY BUT OSWALD UNIVERSITY".
David Von Pein
>>> "It's simple physics. A downward aimed bullet will deflect upward on impact - Not downward." <<<
Now all you have to do is prove (somehow) that the bullet that went
through John Kennedy's body "deflected" AT ALL....which you, of
course, cannot do. There is no indication that the bullet deflected in
any fashion while travelling through JFK's soft tissue.
Even Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the fiercest SBT critics the world has
ever known, insists that the bullet did not deviate from its downward
trajectory during its journey into (and then out of) President
Kennedy's body.
What makes you think you can prove the bullet "deflected"?
What makes ANYONE think they can prove the bullet "deflected" after
hitting JFK's body and therefore strayed from its approx. 17-to-20-
degree downward course from Lee Oswald's sniper's perch in the
Depository Building?
>>> "Are you claiming the HSCA never saw this photo [linked below]?" <<<
I often wonder if they ever turned it sideways for better "SBT"
orientation (like the photo above). Apparently they never
did....because if they had, they would have been able to see (as
anyone who isn't blind as a proverbial bat can easily see) that the
throat wound is positively LOWER ("anatomically") than the upper-back
wound--even if the upper-back wound isn't visible in the above
photograph.
>>> "Meanwhile, the shirt does." <<<
The shirt of JFK is pretty much meaningless in this discussion. CTers
love to harp on the location of the hole in the back of the shirt as
some kind of "proof" that the SBT introduced by the Warren Commission
is invalid.
But nothing could be much sillier than such a CT argument. The
clothing holes don't trump the photo below, which shows the bullet
hole in Kennedy's upper back. The clothing holes simply CAN'T, and
never will, trump this MUCH BETTER physical evidence:
>>> "Fascinating! You can't see the back wound in the photo, but you know it's higher. You should be playing blackjack in Reno." <<<
As stated a thousand times previously -- a practically-blind person
could easily tell from toggling back and forth between the two
authenticated-as-"unaltered" autopsy photos linked below that the
bullet hole in John F. Kennedy's throat was substantially lower
anatomically than the bullet wound in Kennedy's upper back.
Why can't you see it, Clark? Or maybe you can, but you just simply
don't want to admit what is obvious when it comes to the question of
"Which Wound Is Anatomically Higher?":
>>> "We are to IMAGINE the HSCA was wrong and, to support that, you post a picture of an imaginary back wound." <<<
You think this wound in JFK's upper back is "imaginary", do you
Clark?:
Whether we can physically SEE the upper-back wound or not in the photo
showing the left side of President Kennedy's head, we certainly know
generally where that bullet hole is located as a result of looking at
the photo I just linked above which shows Kennedy's upper-back wound.
To believe the HSCA was correct when it declared that JFK's throat
wound was "anatomically" HIGHER on Kennedy's body than the wound in
his back, we'd have to believe that the back wound was located at the
very BOTTOM of this photo (or even LOWER than that, which would place
the wound off the bottom edge of the picture):
Does anybody in his/her right mind actually believe that Kennedy's
back wound was located THAT far south on the President's body?
Come now, my good (CT) man! Use your eyes.
REPRISE:
>>> "You can't see the back wound in the photo, but you know it's higher." <<<
Dang straight:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
And Vince B. thinks so too (I'm proud to note):
"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the
entrance wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit
wound in the throat appears in one of [the autopsy] photos taken of
the left side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his
head on a metal headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not
the wound to his upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer
from this photo that the wound to the back was definitely ABOVE the
exit wound in the throat." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 424 of
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
>>> "Nice try again. But I can't help but notice that you haven't dealt with the right to left exit wound at JFK's throat. How far to JFK's left does JBC have to be for a bullet exiting missing JFK's tie knot to hit JBC's right armpit?" <<<
Answer -- Not a person in the world can answer the above question with
100% accuracy....as is quite obviously the case, since some things in
this murder case will forever remain unknowable -- such as JFK's and
JBC's relative positions to one another at the exact moment when
Oswald's CE399 bullet slammed into both of them. And this is due in
large part, of course, to the fact that we can't even SEE Kennedy in
the Zapruder Film at the precise moment the bullet hit him at Z223-
Z224.
>>> "You seem to be wrong in every aspect of your argument. Why is that?" <<<
No, you just THINK I'm wrong.
Most CTers have fooled themselves into believing that the wholly-true
and logical Single-Bullet Conclusion is nothing but a pile of WC-
created excrement.
A shame indeed. But it's to be expected from the conspiracy-happy
crowd, I suppose. They forever shun Occam's handy Razor in favor of
unsupportable guesswork and a steady diet of their favorite food --
chaff.
It's always been that way. And my guess is--it will forever remain
that way in the future.
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History