Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 11)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From October 2005,
November 2005, December 2005, May 2006, October 2006, and November
2006.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- The bullet {CE399; the "Stretcher
Bullet"} was found and handled by a civilian, Darrell Tomlinson.
Therefore, the bullet is not evidentially preserved.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- Bull. By this odd (and definitely dead-wrong)
reasoning, it would also have to mean that Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet
shells at the crime scene of Police Officer J.D. Tippit's murder are
worthless and cannot be used as evidence against LHO either -- because
all of those shells were "handled by civilians" prior to the police
getting ahold of them (one picked up by Barbara Davis, one picked up by
Virginia Davis, and two picked up by Domingo Benavides and placed into
an empty cigarette carton before being given to the police).
Via the above silly argument being presented by yet another resident
for life in Conspiracy-Land, all any killer would have to do to get
away with murder (or at least avoid the most critical part of the
physical evidence from getting into the record at his trial) would be
to have an accomplice aid him by simply "handling" or picking up the
knife, or gun, or bullet hulls, or boomerang, or whatever the evidence
is....and then hand it over to the authorities (instead of having the
police find it first). An insane notion on its face.
Another example of how wrong this line of thinking is comes from the
Charles Manson case. .... By the above "CT Rules", Manson's Buntline
Special revolver (a key piece of evidence, in that it was used to kill
Steven Parent in Sharon Tate's driveway and to fire bullets into the
body of another victim, Jay Sebring, in 1969) would never have been
allowed into evidence for Vincent Bugliosi's prosecution argument
against Manson and "Family", because it was found and handled by a
young boy (and his father) before turning it over to the police.
But Manson's Buntline was allowed in as evidence -- just exactly the
same way Bullet CE399 would have found its way into Oswald's trial had
he lived.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- LHO was seen jumping into a Rambler after the shooting,
witnessed by Roger Craig.
DVP -- If Oswald had gotten into that Rambler, we would have to
necessarily believe the following --- Oswald gets into the Rambler on
Elm Street (moving west); he then gets OUT of this Rambler somewhere
very close by and gets on a bus to the EAST of the Depository he just
vacated (with the bus moving west on Elm).
Now, can you provide a single good (and believable) reason WHY Lee
Oswald would do such a silly thing as that? If he's got an accomplice
to whisk him away from the scene of the murder, why in heck would he
then abandon his free car ride and suddenly have an urge to get on a
city bus just minutes later?
Oswald would be a fool to do that. And you're a fool to actually
believe the "Rambler man" was Lee H. Oswald; because we KNOW it wasn't.
Many pieces of evidence, including a bus transfer found on Oswald
(dated "Fri., Nov. 22, '63"), tell us he was on that bus at about 12:40
PM, the precise time Craig says Oswald got into the Rambler. Plus:
Oswald HIMSELF admits he got on a bus just after leaving the
Depository. (Do I even need to mention the name "Mary Bledsoe" here?
She provides further proof that Oswald was on a bus at the exact time
that CTers say he was in a station wagon.)
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Why did he {LBJ} have the limo detailed and repaired before
anyone could trace bullet paths from it or gather any evidence from it
at all?!
DVP -- This is a silly statement. Why on Earth are you claiming that no
evidence was gathered from the limo "at all"??
Lots of evidence was gathered and gleaned from the limousine -- e.g., 2
bullet fragments in the front seat (from Oswald's gun)....other smaller
fragments recovered from the car's interior....windshield and chrome
damage documented and photographed....blood and brain matter located
throughout the limo's interior and exterior noted and documented by the
FBI....and a detailed examination done of the entire limo to search for
all possible signs of bullet damage.
Or do you consider only "conspiracy-leading" evidence garnered from the
vehicle to be of any value? All of this other stuff (all consistent
with Oswald and his gun) is to be dismissed, is that it?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- No matter where Oswald's fingerprints are found, you cite it as
proof of guilt. Even in the place where he worked every day.
DVP -- LOL. So, Oswald's right palmprint (perfectly corroborating the
testimony of Wesley Frazier) being on an empty paper bag in the
Sniper's Nest isn't the slightest bit out of the ordinary in any
fashion to your way of thinking...is that correct?
OK. Let's try to re-construct Oswald's actions then (based on Lee
Harvey's own claim that he carried ONLY a "lunch bag" into work with
him on November 22nd)......
Oswald just happened to pack his lunch (consisting of a 10-course meal
by the size of its wrappings) in the same general type of paper as the
TSBD wrapping paper from the workbench there.
And then (based on where the empty bag was later found) Oswald decided
he'd eat his lunch in the exact same place where a sniper would be
firing at the President a few minutes later. Either that, or he ate his
66,000-calorie midday meal elsewhere, but then (for some unknown
reason) decided he wanted to discard the paper "lunch" bag next to the
sniper's window. (Maybe it just innocently blew there somehow; the wind
was strong that day, remember.)
In short, you can't possibly believe that the paper bag being found
where it was (the SN) with Oswald's prints on it was just a part of
ordinary everyday TSBD occurrences. I wonder how many other times an
empty bag like that was taken up to the 6th Floor and abandoned beneath
the southeast corner window? Do you think that happened every day of
the week?
And please don't talk about the paper sack not being photographed by
Lt. Day or other DPD officers. It should have been, yes. I admit that.
But the lack of a photo doesn't prove the bag was "planted" by the
cops; and certainly doesn't eliminate the devastatingly-incriminating
LHO palmprint on that bag.
Anyway, I doubt it would have made a lick of difference if the bag had
been properly photographed in the SN. Because the CTers would STILL be
screaming "it's fake" even if an official picture did exist of it.
They'd merely state that the cops planted the bag, then took a photo of
it.
So we'd still be back in the same place -- i.e., every cop under the
sun being accused of wrong-doing without a speck of verifiable evidence
to support such vile charges. (As usual.)
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Why does the Altgens photo show {Officer James} Chaney in a
position that he's never seen in in the extant Z-film?
DVP -- The Altgens photo and the Z-Film are certainly genuine
articles....so this silly question is a moot one. This CTer obviously
is purporting that the Z-Film has been faked in some manner.
Conspiracy Kook Rule #16B applies here, which states -- "When all else
fails, just say something is "fake" or "phony" or "doesn't look quite
right", and the CTer is off the hook".
Attempts to deflect attention away from the basic core of ballistics
(and other) evidence in the JFK case (which all leads inexorably to Lee
Harvey Oswald) by crying "It's All Fake" is a sign of a patently-weak
case with which the conspiracy kooks try to combat the physical
evidence.
And, I'm sorry, but the "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be" CTer argument
with respect to virtually everything surrounding the JFK assassination
is about as likely to be true (and provable) as a blizzard in Phoenix.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Your interpretation of the evidence is exactly that, your
interpretation.
DVP -- Sure it is. And it's up to the researchers to evaluate those
"interpretations" and test them for good old logic and value, and come
to a conclusion based on that research and study. Correct?
IMO, the "interpretations" of virtually all conspiracy theories I've
bumped into are filled with many holes and, even worse, contradictions.
The theories even contradict each other many times.
Case in point: Many CTers place Oswald in the 2nd-Floor or 1st-Floor
lunchroom at 12:30 when the shooting is occurring -- but others want to
put Oswald outside on the TSBD front stoop at 12:30, per the James
Altgens photo (despite tons of evidence saying it wasn't Oswald
standing there).
Another example: Some CTers spell out elaborate 10- and 12-shot
shooting scenarios, even though NOT ONE SOLITARY PERSON heard close to
that number of shots. But then some of these same theorists might go on
to explain why this is -- saying that it was possible some of the shots
were "silenced" with sound-suppression devices on the non-Sniper's Nest
guns.
But this flies in the face of logic when thinking about it for a moment
-- for WHY (if these same theorists are right about some witnesses
hearing, correctly, shots from the Knoll) would only SOME of the non-SN
shots be silenced and not others? Why wouldn't ALL of the frontal shots
have been silent ones? And, therefore, NO ONE would have heard those
Knoll shots.
See, it doesn't add up for the CTers.
Nor does the theory about the "planting" of multiple Oswald bullets in
multiple locations after the shooting. That's just stupid, and utterly
reckless from the Patsy-Frame-Up POV. If they've already got a bullet
at Parkland (or fragments in the limo; take your pick) from Oswald's
rifle -- then they've got Oswald tied to the shooting right there.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The facts lead me to conclude that the murder of John
Fitzgerald Kennedy was a conspiracy.
DVP -- You certainly cannot be referring to ANY physical evidence in
the JFK case then. Because none of the physical evidence points to
conspiracy. None.
A CTer, therefore, MUST go the "Everything That Points Only To Oswald
Was Faked And/Or Planted" route. Logical conclusion? If so...why? Why
is the evidence that's on the table any more unbelievable than the CT
counterpart theory of "All Of This Is Fake"?
Another thing regarding any possible "Cover-Up" that no CTer ever
addresses is -- Why on Earth would the FBI even WANT to pin the crime
on only Oswald if, in fact, there was evidence to lead them down a
different path toward a different gunman?
The FBI's painting of Oswald as the only guilty party in the crime only
places a goodly amount of egg on the face of J. Edgar Hoover's Bureau;
because they knew of Oswald's existence in Dallas weeks and months
prior to November 22nd (via the Hosty file and Hosty's actual visits to
see Marina).
If the FBI wanted to "save face", they would be dying to find a
conspiracy, and therefore get Oswald off the hook. Why would the FBI
deliberately want to pin the blame on the man who they SHOULD have kept
a closer eye on prior to 11/22/63? (This question is especially valid
considering who was in charge of the Bureau at the time....a fruitcake
named Hoover, who by all accounts hated it when the Bureau was given a
black eye via any case, let alone a Presidential assassination.)
gary...@yahoo.com
debating the John F. Kennedy Assassination with you than I do in
reading your posts in the first place.
David Von Pein
Good. Then don't.
But thanks, Gary, for taking time out to tell me that.
gary...@yahoo.com
No problem, but maybe you could tell me why is it so important to you
to convince others to your point of view? I would ask the same of the
CTs on this forum. It just seems to me that this interminable CT-LN
debate on this forum is so pointless. If you have come across some new
piece of evidence, or interviewed a witness, or have an interesting
document to post, then you have my full attention, but endlessly
debating the same old evidence seems like such a waste of time.
aeffects
Davie is waiting for Bugliosi's tome[s]. In the interm, he's paid by
the pound for his posts....
David Von Pein
Hey, everybody's gotta make a living....right?
You collect garbage for a living....I'm a paid "LN Dis-Info Agent"
(Sector 4B; U.S. Division).
To each his own.
(The Govt. pays a lot better than Bob's Trash Service though, I can
tell ya that right now.)
David Von Pein
Boredom (mostly). Plus that large Government Dis-Info check each month
(natch). ;)
>>> "Endlessly debating the same old evidence seems like such a waste of time." <<<
It is. It's a total waste of time. I don't deny that.
But I'd like to think that every once in a great while, I can put
across a little bit of common sense to an average CTer who just hasn't
looked at the Kennedy case in a certain way before reading something
I've written. (My hammering hard on the idiocy of the
"MULTI-GUN/ONE-PATSY" plot, for one example.)
How anyone cannot see the utter illogic of the "plot" that is purported
in Oliver Stone's hugely-successful film is something I can never quite
figure out. But being brainwashed by the slick-looking imagery and John
Williams music up on the large theater screen I guess supplants any
common sense and reasoned thinking for a lot of movie-goers.
Of course, spreading the word re. Vince B. as much as humanly possible
breaks the boredom every now and then....and promoting VB's CS&L re.
the JFK case never really gets tiresome. .....
"I am writing two volumes on the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy. My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee
Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he
acted alone." -- Vincent Bugliosi; 2001
aeffects
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Davie [sic] is waiting for Bugliosi's tome[s]. In the interm [sic], he's paid by the pound for his posts...." <<<
>
> Hey, everybody's gotta make a living....right?
>
> You collect garbage for a living....I'm a paid "LN Dis-Info Agent"
> (Sector 4B; U.S. Division).
your back in that wetdream Davie -- but don't let that slow you
down.... LMAO
David Von Pein
right over Healy's head. (Nothing new there though.)