Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 3)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From March 2005 and March
2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- I have chosen to accept what WAS 1st-
day evidence. Witnesses can be coerced in a variety of ways as time
marches on.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- Which brings up another interesting point (re.
"1st Day Evidence") -- If you've ever watched the November 22nd "As-It-
Is-Happening" news broadcasts from any of the three TV networks, you
will no doubt notice an obvious "LN/Oswald Only" trend right from the
very first bulletins and first-day accounts.
A huge majority of the 11/22 "first-day evidence" and first-day
reporting on the assassination led to three shots being fired (from
behind the President) and only one man (LHO) being a suspect in the
shooting.
Nothing that I heard on any of the 11/22 news coverage led any news
reporter or TV anchor to cry "There was more than one shooter
involved"; or "There must be more to this than just Oswald being the
lone killer".
Nothing like this was uttered EVEN DURING THE INITIAL FIRST-HOUR AND
FIRST-DAY BROADCASTS over national TV and radio.
If a multi-shooter conspiracy was taking place in Dealey Plaza on
November 22, 1963, somebody please tell me HOW all of the initial
reports (being broadcast by non-conspirators, unless you want to
believe that all of the TV journalists of the day were "in" on some
"plot") pointed to just "three shots" and to one single suspect?
How could this possibly have occurred in the world of instantaneous
news (which we were just entering in TV reporting, starting with this
very event -- the JFK murder) if a large conspiracy involving multiple
gunmen and in excess of three gunshots had just taken place only hours
(or minutes) earlier?
Were the cover-up operatives THAT good, that they totally manipulated
and controlled every aspect of the TV and radio (and newspaper)
coverage during those initial hours and days?
Such an amazingly-orchestrated plot, which erased nearly every hint of
initial "conspiratorial" actions, would have been -- in one word --
impossible. It could not have been pulled off that smoothly, and THAT
immediately, so that all news agencies were reporting exactly what the
conspirators wanted them to report during those frenetic and confusing
first minutes and hours following the assassination.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Get a clue DVP! The answer is sitting right there in front of
your face. Try opening your eyes (and your brain) and have a look at
it.
DVP -- Once again, only in a CT-infested world could this type of post
by be allowed to flourish. You are so wrong about the network TV
coverage it isn't even funny.
You actually believe that ALL of the many newsmen and reporters who
were travelling in the very same motorcade as JFK (and who heard only
three shots and reported hearing that number to their various
individual affiliates) were all "duped" and somehow "controlled" into
hearing only THREE SHOTS EXACTLY and reporting same within minutes of
the shooting, thus "covering up" the real number of shots and
shooters?
Once the story broke on November 22nd, at 12:34 PM (Central Time),
that a shooting had occurred in Dallas, every major news outlet in the
country was searching and digging for any little tidbit of information
about the killer or killers.
And you think ALL of these tons of no-doubt very good investigative
reporters from all the major news outlets (in Dallas, Chicago, New
York, Washington, L.A., San Francisco, everywhere!) were all led down
a perfectly-orchestrated garden path of LN-ism, even though (per
CTers) a massive conspiracy actually existed involving 2, 3, or 4
gunmen, who fired 5 or 6 (or who knows) how many shots?
And you want to believe that all of these individual investigative
reporters (and there must have been hundreds, or even thousands,
working in newsrooms all over the country -- and around the world),
who would no doubt have loved to have found evidence of a conspiracy
(for it would have been the biggest story of their careers without
question), were ALL duped immediately after the shooting into
believing an LN scenario?
You're the one who needs to "get a clue".
Nobody was "controlling" the information that was being gathered by
HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of different news people and news outlets
worldwide.
Nobody prevented Mr. Zapruder from going on Live TV at WFAA and
relaying his account of the shooting.
Nobody prevented the Newmans from going on WFAA as well (Live) just
after the shooting and telling (in essence) what amounts to a "CT"
version of the assassination.
Jean Hill wasn't prevented from going on TV either. Nor was Charles
Brehm.
And how did the conspirators know for certain that any of these
witnesses (who were practically in the line of fire) wouldn't have
actually seen a second gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll?
And what about Merriman Smith's first bulletin (saying "three shot
were fired...") -- plus Jack Bell's following report to AP minutes
later (also saying three shots and no more)? How could the plotters
have possibly controlled these men, who reported the shooting to the
world practically before the cars left Dealey Plaza?
They couldn't have controlled this initial information, given the
vastness of news reporting even during this early era of instant TV
news. No possible way.
How did these ultra-clever plotters know that Merriman Smith wouldn't
be reporting to the world at 12:34 PM this version of what he could
very well have seen and heard if the type of larger conspiracy in fact
existed as many CTers firmly believe was the case.....
"Bulletin--Dallas, Texas--12:34PM--Six shots were fired today at
President Kennedy's motorcade in downtown Dallas--Two gunmen with what
appeared to be high-powered rifles were seen scrambling on a grassy
slope in Dealey Plaza--two more shooters fired multiple shots at JFK
from behind the President's vehicle--stand by--more to come--".
If a multi-shooter conspiracy had occurred in Dallas, there is no way
that all of the initial reports would have favored only a lone-gunman
scenario. No conspirator is THAT good.
Re. the immediacy of the so-called "Oswald pre-packaged" reports ---
There's nothing mysterious here at all. Why do you think there is? Not
one U.S.A. news outlet uttered the words "Lee Harvey Oswald" until
well after he was arrested by the Dallas Police at approximately 1:50
PM in Oak Cliff.
The info then spread quickly--sure. But so what? That's what good
investigative reporters do. They gather information quickly. Which,
again, is why it's crazy to believe that all of these reporters and
newsmen would (or could) have been duped into believing the false
conclusion of Oswald's lone guilt.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/01377bde4de2b5e4
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- And what part of the motorcade were the newsmen riding in,
DVP? Farrrrr back from the lead car, weren't they?
DVP -- Not so farrrrr back that they couldn't hear and see what was
happening. Those camera cars were already on Houston Street (as we can
easily see in the Dorman Film) and, in fact, the Wiegman Camera Car
was just turning onto Elm when the shots were fired. Why is this
considered so "farrrrr back"? It isn't.
Dave Wiegman, in fact, as we know, actually had time, after hearing
the first shot, to jump out of his camera car and run west on Elm and
actually film the President's car before it ever went through the
Underpass.
So your "farrrrr back" argument will not fly at all.
THE WIEGMAN FILM:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3J0CIlzxw7s
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- As to the info about Oswald that weekend, how was so MUCH of
it learned almost instantly?
DVP -- There is nothing excessively unusual or conspiratorial in this
at all, IMO. As mentioned previously, good investigative journalists
would be able to dig up the info on Oswald (or anybody) if they looked
in the right places. And they obviously did.
And everybody was no doubt trying to outdo each other, and grab the
"scoop" of the day by finding out all they could about the suspected
assassin (Lee Oswald) and reporting it FIRST and FAST to the American
public.
Let's turn the tables for a moment now --- Per your pro-conspiracy
argument that the "Oswald Story" was nicely tied up with a pre-
packaged bow and given to the press by somebody (who did this, btw?),
can you explain why the conspirators were so stupid as to release ALL
of this vital info on Oswald THAT SOON and THAT QUICKLY to the press?
Wouldn't it look just exactly as you suspect -- that it was all "too
pat", and that this detailed information on Oswald was already
processed prior to November 22nd?
Wouldn't the "plotters" have known that this "too soon" release of
info was a mistake and could blow the plot to a large degree?
Shouldn't they have at least suspected that there was going to be a
large number of "Conspiracy Seekers" who wouldn't believe that the
quick info on Oswald was simply due to good and fast research done by
legitimate reporters and newsmen?
Hiding anything of a major nature from the ever-prying eyes of
crackerjack reporters should have been a huge concern for these so-
called plotters. And the very fact that it appeared that the plotters
DID hide virtually all evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK
assassination immediately after the last gunshot was fired tells me
one thing -- a multi-shooter conspiracy never occurred in the first
place.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7448f602cc9b26e3
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Please be advised that the first written reports from Dallas
on 11/22/63 stated, "He {JFK} was shot today by an assassin who sent a
rifle bullet crashing into his temple".
DVP -- Sure. Because given where all of the blood was seen on JFK's
head, the "temple" remark was a logical assumption to make at the time
it was made. (Also note the word "assassin" -- singular -- in that
early 11/22 report. Not "assassins", plural. The report implies ONE
killer, not multiple assassins.)
The entry wound (at the back of the head) wasn't providing any highly-
visible indication of the President's wounds. But the EXIT wound near
the "temple" was providing an indication of where the wound was.
But that certainly doesn't mean the massive bloody area was where the
ENTRY wound was located. Just the opposite, of course. The larger
(much bloodier) wound is the exit, not the entrance point.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/z335.jpg
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Reports also said that as the car sped to Parkland Hospital,
"President Kennedy was on his back and Mrs. Kennedy had his head in
her arms. Blood was pouring from the President's temple".
DVP -- Sure it was pouring from the temple. That's where the bigger
hole in the head was. So what? That description perfectly fits a rear
shot hitting the President in the head.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Malcolm Kilduff then told the press that the president was
"shot right through the head" as he pointed at his right temple area.
DVP -- I always get a big kick out of this foolish argument (which
comes up occasionally, even though it means zilch).
To actually rely on Mr. Kilduff's obvious "general" pointing to the
head as PROOF of some kind that President Kennedy was shot from the
front in the temple is pure nonsense.
Kilduff's quick act of "pointing" to his head (temple) was not meant
to be taken as literally the precise point where the bullet entered.
Anybody thinking this "point to the head" would indicate a detailed
account of exactly where the shot came from (or entered) is not
thinking Kilduff's animated statement through logically.
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/kilduff.gif
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/16b70728d9c8ecd4