Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 35)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From January 2005,
February 2005, and February 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- David, You seem to have forgotten that
LHO had an alibi for his whereabouts during the shooting.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- No, I haven't forgotten. And I also haven't
forgotten that Oswald's alibi falls apart completely once Junior
Jarman's testimony is added into the mix. Junior didn't have lunch
with Oswald at 12:30, which was LHO's attempt at an alibi.
In the "alibi" department, Oswald was rather quick on his feet. He
knew that "Junior" and the "boys" most likely would be on a lower
floor near one of the Lunch/Domino Rooms at noontime. He simply
guessed.
And he guessed WRONG, which negates his entire alibi for the specific
moment of the actual shooting at 12:30 PM. And we know he's wrong re.
Jarman specifically -- because WAS Jarman in the lunchroom at 12:30
PM? No. He was on the fifth floor with Williams and Norman.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- An interesting analogy....I was in a diner the other day and
saw my aunt and uncle, but they never saw me. So if you asked them if
I was there, they'd truthfully say that they didn't see me. Of course
I would say they were there. I guess the important thing to consider
is how I knew they were in the diner if I had not seen them? Now how
does that possibly apply to Oswald?
DVP -- It doesn't apply to Oswald .... because it can be proven he is
lying regarding his declaration of where "Junior" (Jarman) was at
precisely the time of the assassination (which is the ONLY specific
time that really means a hill of beans here; because that's the only
time that Oswald needs an alibi for).
Jarman was NOT with Oswald on a lower floor at 12:30, which was
Oswald's alibi. Jarman was five flights up. And Oswald was right above
him.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Other witnesses said they saw Junior {Jarman} and Shorty
{Harold Norman} come in the back door SHORTLY BEFORE the shooting.
DVP -- So what? Means nothing. Some people saw them "shortly before
the shooting", sure. But AT THE TIME FOR WHICH OSWALD NEEDS AN ALIBI,
JUNIOR CANNOT PROVIDE THAT ALIBI (because Junior didn't have lunch
with Oswald, did not see him at all at 12:30, and in fact was on the
fifth floor when Oswald NEEDS Junior the most).
Oswald GUESSED that the "boys" would be entering through the back
door; and it's been established that LHO could have easily seen Norman/
Jarman walking around toward the east side of the building, heading
towards the rear of the Depository. The natural destination for the
two men would have been that back door leading to the first-floor
lunch area.
One lie by Oswald feeds another, and another, IMO. And we KNOW Oswald
lied multiple times about several things -- not the least of which is
when he said to the press he was a "Patsy" -- because "they have taken
me in because of the fact I've lived in the Soviet Union". This makes
the Patsy statement take on a new light, IMO, because it's prefaced by
a KNOWN LIE (re. WHY he was arrested).
He also lied about the lunch package, the curtain rods (to both the
police and to Frazier), and he lied about having never owned a rifle.
I believe it's reasonable to think he saw Norman and Jarman go around
the back of the building at about 12:22 PM, and used those two men as
a potential alibi.
But why anyone would suddenly start believing pretty much anything
being spouted by Oswald, when every other word out of his mouth is a
PROVABLE lie, is beyond me.
ONE LIE FEEDS OTHERS. .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- David, John Connally's latest statement about his turn to the
right when he heard the first shot was a glance over his shoulder when
he was behind the sign. I have never heard any confirmation that he or
Nellie believes that his turn to the right on hearing the first shot
began right after Z160.
DVP -- Yes, I know what Connally's OWN interpretation of looking at
the Zapruder Film is. I just don't agree with his assessment. I have a
difficult time believing that the sign -- in just that quick one-
second time period -- has totally blocked from view Mr. Connally's
complete "right turn/glance", to where he again is facing in exactly
the same direction he was in when he disappeared behind the Stemmons
road sign.
If so, it's an almost unbelievable coincidence. I think even all CTers
would agree with me in saying that that WOULD be an amazing
coincidence, if true.
A Z160 "right turn" "fits", whether anyone wants to believe it or not.
Is it an absolute certainty? Of course not. But it is, in my view, the
BEST conclusion when all the evidence is logically weighed and
considered.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- You should apologize to everyone for not researching before
posting your untrue opinions.
DVP -- LOL. I have nothing to "apologize" for. My position on John
Connally's "first-shot right turn" is every bit as acceptable as your
account. (Even when taking into account Mr. Connally's own thoughts
after seeing the film himself.)
Why? Because at Z164 Mr. Connally starts his ONLY right turn that is
visible on the Z-Film prior to when we know he's hit by a bullet. That
ALONE gives rise to at least the POSSIBILITY that this Z164 "right
turn" just could be THE "first-shot right turn", whether Connally
knows it (afterward) or not.
Now, you obviously are implying that Connally was ALREADY deep in a
right turn (which did begin at Z164) when he then turned FURTHER RIGHT
to grab a peek of President Kennedy (whom he never saw) while behind
the sign for that 1 second in time. Correct?
This opens up the debate of just exactly WHEN Connally's first-shot
right turn begins. Mr. Connally never clarified that matter before his
death in 1993 (that I know of at any rate).
That is, he never said whether he was ALREADY turned to his right when
he turned FURTHER right after the first gunshot; or whether he was
looking straight ahead or to his left when his right turn begins.
This loose end, evidently, will always be left up in the air. My (LN)
account has Connally looking slightly LEFT of center, and then
BEGINNING his right turn at around Z164.
Your (CT) account has Connally ALREADY turned pretty far to his right
before the first shot rings out; and then (evidently) he turns MORE to
his right after hearing a shot (which had to have been a turn that
occurred while he was behind that damn sign; therefore nobody will
ever know for sure).
Mr. Connally's WC testimony of ... "I instinctively turned to my right
because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder..."
does not fully answer every question regarding the right turn that
needs to be addressed in order to fully put the matter to rest. And,
of course, we shall now never have that information.
Unfortunately, Arlen Specter didn't ask Mr. Connally the following
question during his WC interview (which would have been very useful
indeed):
'Mr. Connally, do you have any independent recollection of where you
were looking just immediately prior to hearing that first gunshot?
Were you looking to your left, or straight ahead, or to the right when
you heard this sound that you knew instinctively was rifle fire?'
Now, of course, perhaps Connally wouldn't have been able to recall
exactly which way his head was turned at this precise moment -- but
maybe he would have recalled that detail.
But, AFAIK, that info does not exist in the record as we have it.
There is a reference in Connally's WC testimony that MIGHT help
support my LN stance on this matter (albeit just barely) -- Connally
stated "I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my
left before I felt anything".
Could this have meant he wasn't already in a right turn when he heard
the shot? Possibly. But, then again, maybe not.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The bullet that I believe transited JFK's body was not fired
from the 6th-floor window. It was fired from a lower elevation, very
likely the 2nd-floor window of the Dal-Tex.
DVP -- That, of course, doesn't fit the sum total of the evidence at
all. Plus, can you please tell me WHY the plotters would require the
added risk factor of a SECOND rear gunman, along with your proverbial
ONE or maybe TWO shooters firing from the front?
Surely, just ONE rear shooter plus the ONE Knoll assassin should be
enough to kill the President, and keep the potential witnesses to a
minimum. Especially if the TSBD shooter WASN'T "crappy-shooting
Oswald" (per CT evaluation of Oswald's marksmanship).
And in the proverbial "Patsy" scenario, ANY extra shooters would be
suicide for the plotters, without a doubt.
A grandiose total of three or four shooters is utterly ridiculous,
even from a NON-patsy POV. Those high numbers are merely for CT
"show", it would seem -- because such theories most certainly are NOT
based on the majority of the witness reports; nor are they based on
any of the physical evidence in the case.
That many shooters just simply wouldn't be needed -- unless you wish
to believe the silly theory of someone firing a dum-dum bullet of some
type into JFK's body to "paralyze" him, so that a later rifle shot can
kill him. An outlandish theory at best. And foolish for the plotters.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- That is all merely speculation on your part.
DVP -- And yet your shot from the 2nd Floor of the Dal-Tex is somehow
NOT just that....speculation? A most curious double-standard there.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Your reply implies that, no matter what, that shot had to come
from the 6th-floor window. .... But, in reality, it did not have to
come from there.
DVP -- When common sense is applied to said equation -- Yes, in fact,
it DOES mean ALL shots were fired from Oswald's window -- by Oswald --
all by himself. ....
1.) Howard Brennan's eyewitness account. .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a83751f6ce319004
2.) The majority of witnesses heard shots ONLY from the area of the
Texas School Book Depository Building.
3.) John Connally HIMSELF also testified that BOTH shots he HEARD
(shots 1 and 3) came ONLY from behind him.
4.) The testimony of Harold Norman. He heard the shooting taking place
DIRECTLY ABOVE HIM. Plus, Norman's testimony re. hearing THREE bullet
shells dropping to the floor above him. .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fa26e26f62263eeb
5.) Virtually nobody heard shots specifically from the Dal-Tex
Building. Plus, nobody dashed into the Dal-Tex to search for any
shooters immediately afterward.
6.) ALL physical evidence (gun, hulls) of any shots were found on the
6th Floor of TSBD.
7.) ALL of the JFK head debris was thrown FORWARD of JFK's head,
toward the Connallys and the front of the limo. .... Doesn't it strike
any CTer as a tad odd that Mr. and Mrs. Connally were splattered with
brain tissue if the head shot had, indeed, come from the front?
Everything regarding the "ejecta" from Mr. Kennedy's head spells a
REAR-to-FRONT trajectory. Why would the Connallys have been covered
with JFK's brains if the EXIT wound (carrying out most of the brain
material) was AWAY from the Connallys and ejected out the BACK of John
F. Kennedy's head? Does that make ANY sense, logically-speaking?
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
-------------------------------------------
DVP -- A few words about Charles Brehm's 11/22/63 observations........
I noted the following interesting passage in the "Charles Brehm"
chapter of Larry Sneed's book "No More Silence":
Quoting Mr. Brehm:
"I thought at one time that something hit the ground over nearby, but
it was proved wrong, at least as far as I was concerned. It was proved
wrong because I never saw anything." -- Charles Brehm; Summer 1988
Quite obviously, what Brehm is saying there is that he thought he
might have seen something (skull?) fly over to the curb near him after
the head shot. But he later KNEW he was mistaken because he obviously
(given his 1988 remarks to Sneed) went over to the spot where he
thought he saw something land nearby -- and saw nothing there. No
brains; no bones; nothing.
His remark of seeing bone/brain fly toward him near the curb has been
overblown by the conspiracy theorists to lend more credence to the
false idea that JFK was hit in the head from the front. But Brehm's
account of seeing bones or brain is obviously incorrect, as Mr. Brehm
HIMSELF has admitted.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- As anyone who has ever read verbatim transcripts or testimony
knows, one should be very careful in inferring what words meant when
people said them. People do not speak like robots, strictly logically
and with perfect organization.
DVP -- Yes, I agree. You're correct. And, with respect to Charles
Brehm, parts of his chapter in Mr. Sneed's book ARE, indeed, quite odd
in nature (sentence structure-wise).
But, obviously, his words WERE put down by Sneed verbatim, without any
smoothing out of the dialogue. And rightly so. It SHOULD be this way
in a book of that nature.
And I took Brehm's sometimes-confusing speech patterns into account
when I quoted the passage I quoted earlier (re. him not actually
SEEING any "bone/skull" on the street or in the grass).
Can a CTer turn this quote by Brehm into a belief that he actually DID
see skull or brain tissue near his location on November 22nd?.....
"I thought at one time that something hit the ground over nearby, but
it was proved wrong, at least as far as I was concerned. It was proved
wrong because I never saw anything." -- C. Brehm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/16b70728d9c8ecd4