Re: Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 12)
aeffects
JFK arrived in Dallas...reasonable probability went out the window when
the WCR was issued, and reasonable probability dictates you will spend
a good deal of you adult life defending the indefensible --
so, knock yourself out champ....
daBug ain't gonna help ya!
David Von Pein wrote:
> Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 12)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
> Conspiracy" Debate.
>
> FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From February 2006, March
> 2006, June 2006, and November 2006.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- {Lee Harvey} Oswald's ties with the
> Soviet Union make me suspicious that they put him up to killing
> Kennedy.
>
>
> DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- And via such a plot, Oswald was just willing to
> use his own rifle to murder the President, huh? And was willing to
> leave that traceable weapon in the building after doing the deed?
>
> Now, yes, I believe Oswald did do those two things -- but it ONLY makes
> sense if he was acting alone, with nobody pulling his strings.
>
> In the context of Oswald willingly going to the 6th Floor of the Texas
> School Book Depository and murdering a U.S. President at the behest of
> another party/entity/Government, there is no way he's going to use his
> own gun in the crime.
>
> In the "LN" scenario, however, Oswald merely used what was available to
> him (which was his own traceable Mannlicher-Carcano rifle).
>
> Via the "Soviet" scenario, you'd have to believe one of two things
> occurred on 11/22/63:
>
> 1.) Oswald was dumber than the dumbest box of rocks (and willingly
> stepped right on in to the Soviet Union's perfect "Patsy" plan).
>
> -- Or: --
>
> 2.) In a Non-Patsy-Framing scenario, these crackerjack Soviet Union
> behind-the-scenes assassination-planners were so impoverished and
> destitute they just simply could not afford to furnish their assassin
> (Oswald) with a weapon with which to shoot their U.S. adversary....and
> forced Oswald, instead, to use his own 21-dollar and somewhat-shabby
> bolt-action carbine to pull off the most important "hit" these Russian
> bums will ever attempt in their rotten lives.
>
> I ask -- Is either choice above within the realm of reasonable
> probability?
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- "The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was
> because I could not have done it," said former Marine sniper Craig
> Roberts.
>
>
> DVP -- Yeah, I love meaningless comments like that.
>
> "Oswald couldn't do it because I couldn't."
>
> -- or: --
>
> "Oswald couldn't do it because he missed General Walker."
>
> -- or: --
>
> "Oswald couldn't do it because he was born on a Wednesday." :)
>
> In other words: The conspiracy buffs choose to just ignore ALL THE
> PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that leads back to one man (the man who "couldn't do
> it").
>
> I have my doubts that the New York Mets actually won the 1969 World
> Series ... because they'd never won before. No way they won that
> Series. Couldn't have happened! And Oswald couldn't have shot JFK
> either. He'd never shot a President from 60 feet up before; so he
> couldn't have done it in '63. Right?
>
> In a word -- Horsefeathers!
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- {Tippit murder witnesses Virginia and Barbara Davis} did indeed
> call the police first, after hearing gunfire.
>
>
> DVP -- That idea stems from Virginia Davis' testimony, when she said
> that a phone call to the police had already been made from her house
> BEFORE the two Davis ladies saw Lee Harvey Oswald cutting across their
> yard following the shooting of Officer Tippit.
>
> Virginia seemed a bit confused as to the exact time when the police
> were called from the Davis residence....but let's examine this thing
> logically, step-by-step:
>
> 1.) Both Davis women heard gunshots from outside their home.
>
> 2.) A man whom both Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis later positively
> identified as Lee Harvey Oswald was then seen (by both Davis women)
> walking briskly through the Davis' yard as he dumped empty bullet
> cartridges onto the property.
>
> 3.) The police were called from the Davis house at some point after the
> women heard the gunshots.
>
> Now, unless Oswald was crawling on his hands and knees and moving
> slower than Grandma Moses on crutches, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY
> (realistically) that the Davis women could have had time to call the
> police PRIOR to their seeing Oswald cut across their lawn. No way.
> There was simply not enough time available.
>
> Given the fact that Oswald obviously didn't just stand around on 10th
> Street for a few minutes picking lint out of his belly-button after
> killing a policeman in front of multiple eyewitnesses, the phone call
> to the police from the Davis abode must have occurred AFTER Oswald had
> cut through the Davis' yard.
>
> Of course, in reality, it doesn't make a solitary bit of difference
> exactly when the police were phoned from the Davis residence, because
> both women later IDed Oswald as the man they had seen unloading a gun
> while cutting across their front and side yards on November 22, 1963.
>
> CTers like to paint any slight inconsistency in witness testimony as
> something "shady" or "conspiratorial"....even when they haven't a leg
> to stand on when so doing. (Like in this totally-meaningless "When Were
> The Police Called?" instance.)
>
> Perry....your witness.
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- What about the other guys who brought their rifles to work?
>
>
> DVP -- And just how many of those other boys brought their rifles to
> work ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION, broken down into pieces, and
> wrapped in brown paper?
>
> And how many of those warehouse boys claimed their rifles were "curtain
> rods"?
>
> Was there any reason for Oswald to tell lies about the contents of his
> package if he was merely bringing his gun to work for "show-and-tell"
> purposes?
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- More witnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll than
> from the TSBD.
>
>
> DVP -- Totally untrue. On a simple "Front vs. Rear" basis, there were
> certainly more "Rear" witnesses than "Front" ones. With "Rear", of
> course, including the Book Depository.
>
> And one major fact that CTers will never be able to fully (and
> believably) reconcile is the incredibly-low percentage of witnesses who
> said they heard gunshots from BOTH the front and the rear of the
> President's limousine, which is almost a non-existent percentile of
> earwitnesses (which is an incredible thing indeed, if we're to believe
> Oliver Stone's or Bob Groden's widely-accepted nonsense purporting 3 or
> 4 separate gunmen spread out all through Dealey Plaza).
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- You are describing evidence against one of the shooters, which
> was found in the only building that the police happened to search.
>
>
> DVP -- Well, yeah, that's correct. (I think a "Duh!" might prove useful
> here as well.)
>
> I guess CTers think the police were supposed to start searching every
> inch of the Courthouse, the Dal-Tex Building, and the Trade Mart too,
> even though there wasn't a single logical reason to do so...right?
>
> Nobody claimed to hear shots from any other locations other than the
> TSBD or the Grassy Knoll area; and both were searched....with the only
> evidence of a gunman turning up in the Depository Building.
>
> As lawyer Vincent Bugliosi is wont to say -- "What were the police
> supposed to do....PRETEND that evidence existed elsewhere other than
> where they found it and start chasing unknown, unseen killers? That's
> crazy talk!" (Paraphrasing from Vince's O.J. Simpson video series;
> c.1999.)
>
> Anyhow, I have a strong feeling that even if every last square inch of
> Dallas had been thoroughly searched by Sherlock Holmes himself on
> 11/22/63, and nothing had been found except in the TSBD, rabid CTers
> would still find some convenient excuse to work their make-believe
> "conspiracy" into the proceedings.
>
> After all, what good is the truth when a conspiracy can be manufactured
> from nothingness by scrutinizing to death every microscopic detail of
> the crime, and then have the CT-Kooks highlight with bold magic marker
> every tiny discrepancy they find (no matter how well these
> discrepancies were explained at a later time in non-conspiratorial
> ways)?
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- Can you provide a shred of evidence which isolates Oswald as
> the only sniper?
>
>
> DVP -- This must be some kind of trick question. Gotta be. Because
> nobody could be serious in asking such a lame Q.
>
> But, I guess I'll have to bite....
>
> EVERY "shred" of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE "isolates Oswald as the only
> sniper". Every piece.
>
> To turn the tables, I'll now ask: What PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF A
> CONSPIRACY (e.g., guns, bullets, bullet shells, fingerprints, and
> clothing fibers) can you provide to show that a conspiracy existed with
> respect to JFK's assassination in 1963?
>
> I'm still awaiting that first piece of "C.T. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE". Will
> it show up before the hundreth anniversary of the crime in 2063?
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- You ignore the fact that many lone-gunman books do indeed
> present conspiracy arguments.
>
>
> DVP -- With the Warren Commission Report itself being one such
> excellent example, with 18.5% of that entire Report devoted solely to
> the subject of "Investigation Of Possible Conspiracy" (164 of 888
> pages, including the 32-page "Speculations And Rumors" Appendix).
>
> I often wonder if many (or any) CTers are aware of the above-mentioned
> statistics regarding the WR?
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- What part of "occipital" don't you understand, Davey-boy?
>
>
> DVP -- And what part of "somewhat" don't you understand, Mr. Conspiracy
> Kook?
>
> NONE of the autopsy doctors (in any of their official testimony) have
> ever placed the large JFK head (exit) wound anywhere except on the
> RIGHT-FRONT-TOP area of the head. Never the "rear" or "back".
>
> There's also, of course, the Offical JFK Autopsy Report itself (signed
> by all three of the autopsists), which clearly indicates that President
> Kennedy was shot only TWICE, with both shots coming from "behind" and
> "above" the President.
>
> Allow me to quote the Report directly (a document that most conspiracy
> theorists must think is a complete fabrication from Word One; because
> if it's not, then there's no doubt whatsoever that JFK was shot only
> twice and only from behind)......
>
> "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 made
> its exit through the parietal bone on the right carrying with it
> portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp." -- Via Official Autopsy Report
> of John F. Kennedy
>
> ~~~~~
>
> So, tell me again, Mr. CTer, how all three autopsy doctors were rotten,
> lying cover-up agents? I like hearing that theory...over and over
> again. It's a howl.
David Von Pein
aeffects
to snip & run! rotflmfao!
David Von Pein
a small error in spelling or grammar after I post something to a
NG....and since (like my main man, VB) I cannot stand mistakes in
something I've written -- I'm forced to delete certain posts, and then
re-post corrected versions. (I'd sure love to have an "edit" feature
here; but none exists, so total removal is many times necessary.)
Of course, if a kook named AEffects didn't feel it necessary to spout
his usual, daily say-nothing-at-all kookshit (like his first post in
this thread), then my "Part 12" re-post would have fallen back into
place at the top of the thread.
But, kooks being what they are, such mindless posts like AEffects' are
evidently similar in nature to death and taxes (and Lee Harvey Oswald's
guilt) -- i.e., impossible to avoid.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>ROFL... Mr Von Pein, reasonable probability went out the window when
>JFK arrived in Dallas...reasonable probability went out the window when
>the WCR was issued, and reasonable probability dictates you will spend
>a good deal of you adult life defending the indefensible --
>
>so, knock yourself out champ....
>
>daBug ain't gonna help ya!
Davey-boy apparently likes to argue with himself. (A good thing, too... since
it's the only way he can win his side of the argument!)
Many of the below 'points' he's believed he's made are not only debatable, but
*have* been refuted on this news forum at one time or another. When flat out
lies are required to advance one's position - it seems to me that it's time to
reconsider the position you're defending.
For example, Davey-boy attempts to assert that: "NONE of the autopsy doctors (in
any of their official testimony) have ever placed the large JFK head (exit)
wound anywhere except on the RIGHT-FRONT-TOP area of the head. Never the "rear"
or "back"."
But this is simply a lie, and Davey-boy is certainly well aware of that fact.
Seems that my decision to killfile this troll is still the most worthwhile
option.
aeffects
I'll also add; shoo fly... any spelling errors there? As if I give a
shit about lone neuters spelling fobia[s]...
So yeah, Ben.... keep the Davey *killfiled*, he's keeping himself busy
till the Bugliosi tomes hit the street -- probably around 2010....
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>I think Ben summed it up nicely..."...argue with yourself..." champ,
>I'll also add; shoo fly... any spelling errors there? As if I give a
>shit about lone neuters spelling fobia[s]...
>
>So yeah, Ben.... keep the Davey *killfiled*, he's keeping himself busy
>till the Bugliosi tomes hit the street -- probably around 2010....
*IF* anything by Bugliosi ever hits the streets, I may unkillfile Davey-boy long
enough to watch him sputter through an attempt to defend the inevitable
misrepresentations, omissions, and lies of Bugliosi. It'll be worth it...
David Von Pein
Oh, please....don't do me any favors. Just leave me "k-filed", you
idiotic goofball. You wouldn't know how to logically debate VB's
arguments if Sherlock Holmes himself talked you through every page of
Vincent's book(s) one at a time.
Ben evidently doesn't know how to "killfile" either. For if he did, I
wouldn't have this message to respond to.
Ben-boy is a fraud and an "assassination sensationalist" of the worst
kind. And he's also a top member of the "Let's Isolate Evidence That
Looks Fishy To Me And Keep It Isolated From The Bigger Picture For All
Time" CT club. And any member of that silly club certainly doesn't do
anything to further the notion of "truth" re. JFK's murder.
Heck, even Gerry Spence (the man who defended Oswald at the 1986 TV
Docu-Trial) doesn't even think there was any conspiracy. He said
so...on television. Just listen (at the very end of this 6-minute video
clip).....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku0uAnJKLxE
And it also still sounds like Ben-Kook is in denial when it comes to
VB's plans to actually release "Reclaiming History", a book that a kook
named Ben actually seems to think will be filled with
"misrepresentations, omissions, and lies", even though it was a
21-year-long project that has been written by a lawyer with the utmost
integrity and high reputation for NOT distorting the true facts of the
cases he prosecutes or investigates.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0393045250
Maybe Ben should just stay in that state of denial he seems to be in
right now....because in a post-"Reclaiming History" environment, Mr.
Benjamin is going to look even more foolish when he re-spouts his
unsupportable CT arguments than he looks right now. (Hard to believe, I
know; but VB can manage it for sure.)
David Von Pein
testimony) have ever placed the large JFK head (exit) wound anywhere
except on the RIGHT-FRONT-TOP area of the head. Never the "rear" or
"back"."
BEN -- "But this is simply a lie, and Davey-boy is certainly well aware
of that fact."
=========================================
WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY (1964):
DR. HUMES -- "The area in which the greatest loss of brain substance
was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of
the right cerebral hemisphere."
------
DR. FINCK -- "President Kennedy was, in my opinion, shot from the rear.
The bullet entered in the back of the head and went out on the right
side of his skull, producing a large wound, the greatest dimension of
which was approximately 13 centimeters."
------
MR. SPECTER -- "Do you have anything that you would like to add by way
of elaboration or modification to that which Dr. Humes has testified?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "None. I believe Dr. Humes has stated essentially what
is the culmination of our examination and our subsequent conference,
and everything is exactly as we had determined our conclusions."
MR. SPECTER -- "And specifically as to the points of entry and points
of exit which have been testified to by Dr. Humes, do his views express
yours as well?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "They do, yes."
~~~~~~~~~~
HSCA TESTIMONY (1978):
MR. CORNWELL -- "Your autopsy report reflected that there was one and
only one bullet wound to the back of the President s head, that it did
enter in the rear, exited the front. Is that report accurate on those
three points, to the best of your knowledge?"
DR. HUMES -- "Absolutely."
------
DR. FINCK -- "I think that there were only two wound tracks: one in the
back and one exit and the front of the throat. That is wound track
number one. And the second wound track was an entry in the back of the
head with a large exit on the top and right side of the head. Although
there had been rumors that shots came from the front, I did not see any
evidence on the dead body of President Kennedy of wounds of entry in
the front portions of the cadaver."
~~~~~~~~~~
ARRB TESTIMONY (1996):
QUESTION -- "Where, as best you recall, the lacerations were on just
the scalp."
DR. HUMES -- "They went in every direction. I think I described them as
stellate. So they went down this way and back, and the whole area was
lacerated."
QUESTION -- "For the scalp?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes."
QUESTION -- "In towards the back of the head, so in the occipital..."
DR. HUMES -- "Not really. Not really. The parietal region primarily.
Parietal and to some extent occipital, but primarily parietal."
QUESTION -- "Okay. Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears
over the occipital bone?"
DR. HUMES -- "No. No."
QUESTION -- "None whatsoever?"
DR. HUMES -- "No."
------
DR. BOSWELL -- "And then the top of his head was blown off. A
14-centimeter segment of it was blown off. And it was on the right side
of his brain that the brain was missing. .... The right hemisphere of
the brain is just so torn up, and there's no way of determining a
track. But we did have a good wound of entrance, and then we have
metallic fragments, I believe around the right orbit. So that gives
some sense of direction as far as the shooter."
QUESTION -- "By examining the brain by itself, are you able to
determine to a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether there was
one or more than one bullet wound to the head? Again, just by
examination of the brain."
DR. BOSWELL -- "The only clue, I think, is the fact that the scalp is
reasonably well intact, and we only have one wound of entrance on the
scalp. And by the same token, we only have one wound of exit. It's
huge, now, if he was shot with this one from behind first and then shot
secondly in the same place with a second one, that would be impossible
to tell. But then you would have to have another wound of exit
someplace, which you don't have."
~~~~~~~~~~
THE CLAY SHAW TRIAL (1969):
DR. FINCK -- "I have a firm opinion that the bullet entered in the back
of the head and exited on the right side of the top of the head,
producing a very large wound."
QUESTION -- "Doctor, did you find any evidence which would indicate
that the President was hit by more than one shot in the head?"
DR. FINCK -- "No."
QUESTION -- "Doctor, as a result of your examination of the head of the
late President, what, if you have one, is your opinion as to the
direction from which the bullet which inflicted the head wound came?"
DR. FINCK -- "The bullet definitely struck in the back of the head,
disintegrated, which is often the case when such a bullet at high
velocity goes through bone, producing numerous fragments, many of them
seen on X-ray of the head, and of the bony portion of the exit, and
also recovered by us, we found fragments in the brain of the President,
and that projectile produced that wound of exit on the right side and
top of the head."
QUESTION -- "Doctor, having examined the entire body of the late
President Kennedy, did you detect other than the two wounds which you
have described to me any other wounds on the body of the late
President?"
DR. FINCK -- "I did not, no other bullet wounds."
~~~~~~~~~~
Ben,
Would you care to give your unsupportable argument re. this matter
another go?