Let's Be "Reasonable" (Part 2)
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx10T28AM2AI4V6/1/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdAnchor=0393045250&asin=0393045250
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/6c4158364026b1ac
>>> "Dear David, You are entitled to your opinions." <<<
Thank you. And isn't it funny how my "opinions" regarding Lee Harvey
Oswald's guilt are identical to the conclusions reached by BOTH of the
official investigations conducted by the U.S. Government?
Even the HSCA, a sham in some ways of course, knew that Oswald was the
only gunman to hit a victim in Dealey Plaza with a rifle bullet on
November 22, 1963. At least they got that bottom-line conclusion
right, and that's because they relied on the SUM TOTAL of the hard
evidence to determine that impossible-to-avoid conclusion.
It's just too bad that the HSCA didn't have a larger budget and a
little more time to work on the silly "Dictabelt/4th Shot" snafu. If
they had had more time to work on that problem (instead of rushing to
the opinion that the Dictabelt recording almost certainly did contain
the impulse sounds of four gunshots), then there's virtually no doubt
about what the final HSCA conclusion regarding the assassination would
have been -- it would have been a conclusion identical to that of the
Warren Commission's.
But, I guess we should merely disregard all of those many WC and HSCA
experts who were of the "opinion" that a CTer's favorite "patsy" (Lee
H. Oswald) was, indeed, the only person who shot John Kennedy, John
Connally, and J.D. Tippit in 1963.
Is that a "reasonable" thing to do (to ignore BOTH the Warren
Commission and the HSCA in this critical "Only Oswald's Bullets Hit
Any Victims" respect)?
If that is truly "reasonable", I can't help but shrug my shoulders
incessantly and ask the proverbial one-word question: Why?
>>> "Calling the very vivid descriptions of both the Parkland doctors and eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza to the head wound "slip of the tongue" is unconvincing." <<<
I never said that, of course. You're misrepresenting that VB quote
from my last post. I inserted that quote at the end of my previous
message merely as a "bonus" VB hunk of brilliance. But that quote is
one where Vince is speaking in general terms about the conspiracy
kooks who have mangled virtually every last piece of evidence
connected with JFK's murder (and, incredibly, J.D. Tippit's murder
too).
I was never implying that VB's "slip of the tongue" quote related
directly to the Parkland witnesses. I would have thought that would
have been obvious. But....I guess not.
>>> "If it was just one piece of evidence supporting the head wound from the front and several other supporting the rear headshot theory I could understand the majority ruling the minority mistaken. But the fact is that a totality of the evidence vastly favors a frontal headshot." <<<
You evidently must have completely bypassed (or ignored) my "Sum Total
Of Evidence" section that I wrote regarding the "totality" of evidence
pertaining to the President's head wounds. Because I believe I covered
it all here:
The autopsy report clearly indicates that the President was positively
hit just ONE time in the head, and that bullet entered the President's
head FROM BEHIND, with the larger exit wound affecting "chiefly the
parietal bone" (right side/top of head).
Conspiracy theorists, therefore, have no choice -- they simply MUST
call Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck rotten, scheming liars when it
comes to JFK's final autopsy report, which can be read here (and it
forever dooms the theory of John F. Kennedy being hit by ANY bullets
from the front):
www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
So, unless all three autopsists were telling quite a few lies in 1963
(and forever afterward too), then the CTers who favor a "frontal head
shot" are up a creek without a paddle. And almost all CTers do,
indeed, favor such a theory. (There's a desperate need for paddles in
the CT world, it would seem.)
With respect to the autopsy of President Kennedy and the Bethesda
doctors.....
I don't really care if the three autopsy doctors had NEVER performed
an autopsy involving a gunshot victim in their collective lives prior
to 11/22/63....which is not true, of course, but even if had been
true, the bullet wounds that John Kennedy had in his head when he was
lying on that table at Bethesda were so obvious to figure out that a
third-grader in a grade school in Montana could have easily discerned
how many bullets hit JFK in the head and which wound was an entry
wound and which was an exit.
It really galls me when conspiracy promoters speak with what they
seemingly think is absolute AUTHORITY about President Kennedy's bullet
wounds, with those conspiracists boldly claiming (with no hard support
for doing so, of course) that JFK was positively struck in the head by
at least one bullet from the front (Grassy Knoll).
Such pure speculation flies in the face of the HARDEST EVIDENCE OF ALL
-- President Kennedy's official autopsy report, which was hand-signed
by three professional pathologists who physically had their hands on
the deceased President for several hours on 11/22/63.
To think that all three of those doctors would place their signatures
of approval on an ultra-important document like the autopsy report of
the President of the United States, all the while knowing that the
report they were each signing was nothing but a pack of lies, is just
too much to swallow. At least for me it's too much to swallow.
A whole bunch of conspiracy theorists worldwide have no trouble
believing that those doctors were all liars though. I wonder why that
is? It's the built-in "I Need A Conspiracy" mindset that infests many
people's brains, I would surmise....even though the autopsy report
that those CTers say is nothing but one big lie and fabrication is
BACKED UP by the autopsy pictures and X-rays too!
So the CTers now have no choice but to go even further down the avenue
marked "CT Absurdity" and insist that not only are the three
autopsists all liars and/or "cover-up agents" for the evil U.S.
Government, but the CTers now have to claim that the autopsy
photographs and X-rays are "phony"/"fake"/"manipulated", etc.*
* = It's either that, or those CTers have to climb into bed with a
certain Mr. David S. Lifton, who apparently is still clinging to the
notion that President Kennedy's dead body was stolen by a band of
always-unknown and forever-unnamed conspirators prior to the Bethesda
autopsy, with JFK's wounds miraculously getting themselves surgically
altered by an amazing team of very talented covert surgeons (also
unnamed by Lifton, of course, with the location of this delicate work
also remaining undisclosed), in order to hide the fact that JFK was
shot from the front.
And just think...all of this underhanded cloak-and-dagger stuff could
have been avoided by merely having the "plotters" shoot the President
from the place where their so-called "patsy" (Mr. Oswald) was supposed
to be firing from (the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
Depository).
Instead, the conspirators, per Lifton's 747 pages of utter nonsense,
decide to shoot JFK from the FRONT, which then makes it necessary to
alter the body of the President afterward, so that a lone patsy who
was located BEHIND the limousine can take the blame.
I doubt that The Cartoon Network would want to touch such a crazy
theory. But Lifton's book was a Best Seller. Go figure the (il)logic
of that.
Back to the autopsy doctors for a moment longer.....
Here's a quote from JFK's lead autopsist, Dr. James Joseph Humes (I
guess, per CTers, Humes was still maintaining his rotten lie 28 years
after the autopsy):
"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy
was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the
entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here
until hell freezes over, nothing on Earth will change this proof. It
happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until the day I
die.
"This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance
to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics...and it is
foolproof -- absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The
conspiracy crowd have [sic] totally ignored this central scientific
fact...and everything else is hogwash." -- James J. Humes; October
1991
==========
>>> "Eyewitness after eyewitness testified to the head being blown backwards and the headshot coinciding with a shot from the grassy knoll." <<<
I challenge you to name one single witness who said (on the weekend of
the assassination in November 1963) that they saw JFK's head move
physically BACKWARD immediately after the fatal shot. (I doubt you'll
be able to find any such witnesses who specifically said that, even
via post-1963 interviews.)
Now, I'm not saying that Kennedy's head DIDN'T really move "back and
to the left" (as Oliver Stone loves to say). The Zapruder Film, of
course, proves that the head of the President did move in such a
manner just after the fatal gunshot.
But I don't think that any witnesses (circa '63) stated their opinion
about the movement of JFK's head one way or the other. Not that I can
recall anyway.
In any event, any witness observations about the direction in which
the President's head moved are totally irrelevant anyway....because,
as mentioned, the Zapruder Film confirms this head movement for all
time on celluloid; so we certainly don't have to rely on witness
testimony to prove this fact.
But the KEY is this Z-Film slowed-down clip (linked below), showing
the moment of impact. The head goes FORWARD at IMPACT, not rearward.
This certainly does not favor the bullet entering the President's
skull from the FRONT (or Grassy Knoll area):
www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
And, of course, there's the evidence that trumps any and all
eyewitnesses -- the AUTOPSY REPORT, which confirms the fact that John
Kennedy was NOT SHOT IN THE HEAD FROM THE FRONT. Period.
>>> "To LNs, these {frontal head shot} witnesses were merely mistaken." <<<
They were mistaken. It's either that (reasonable) conclusion, or
latching onto to the (unreasonable) conclusion that all three
autopsists were bald-faced liars who covered up the truth about the
death of an American President, plus the added extra (unreasonable)
belief that all of the autopsy pictures and X-rays were phony; which,
in turn, means you would need to go one step deeper into the CT
quicksand and also believe in the (unreasonable) conclusion that all
of the photographic experts who examined the autopsy pics and X-rays
for the Clark Panel and the House Select Committee were also liars and
cover-up agents of some ilk.
See how this snowballs into one unreasonable assertion after another?
Not to mention the additional unbelievable and unreasonable theory
that conspiracy kooks have no choice but to endorse....that being: all
of the unwanted bullets and bullet fragments from every "frontal"
gunshot that hit JFK and/or JBC magically and immediately DISAPPEARED
off the face of the Earth after the assassination, leaving behind
(naturally) only bullets and fragments large enough to be traced
directly to Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.
Was this merely unbelievable (and unreasonable-to-expect) luck on the
part of the assassins possibly? Or is it a conspiracy theory that's
just plain silly?
I'll choose that latter option.
>>> "Other eyewitnesses had physical contact with the brain fragment itself. The two motorcycle cops riding behind the car were sprayed with brain fragment." <<<
Easily explained without resorting to the overall batch of
"unreasonableness" that most CTers love to resort to with glee. Police
Officers Hargis and Martin merely DROVE THROUGH the blood/brain cloud
which was thrown quite high into the air after Oswald's bullet struck
President Kennedy's head.
Plus: the wind was also blowing in such a manner that any such blood
cloud thrown into the air would most likely have blown such head
debris straight into the area where the two motorcycle officers were
located (which was to the left-rear bumper of JFK's limousine).
>>> "And Mrs. Kennedy climbed onto the back of the car to grab a piece of his head." <<<
That's "Conspiracy Myth #44", I believe. Jackie never even recalled
going to the trunk of the car after the horrible fatal shot hit her
husband. And the notion that Mrs. Kennedy would have had any DESIRE
whatsoever to climb out onto that trunk lid and grab a piece of grisly
brain tissue is just incredibly silly, IMO.
Jackie did turn over a piece of the President's brain to Dr. Pepper
Jenkins after arriving at Parkland Hospital, yes. But we know that
Jackie was also cradling JFK's head in her lap during the drive to the
hospital. And we also know that the First Lady was physically trying
to "hold his hair on". It's very likely that Mrs. Kennedy acquired the
piece of skull that she handed to Jenkins during the ride to Parkland
as she was physically handling JFK's head in the back seat of the
limousine.
In fact, Jackie's handling of JFK's head is part of the reason that I
believe the Parkland witnesses were mistaken about the true location
of the President's head wounds.
A probable (or at least possible) explanation for the observations of
the Parkland witnesses is that those witnesses were fooled by the
pooling of blood and gore, which was all (naturally) pooling at the
BACK of Kennedy's head as he was lying flat on his back in the
Emergency Room.
And it's also possible that Mrs. Kennedy's actions in the limo
resulted in the Parkland Hospital witnesses not seeing the hole in the
RIGHT-FRONT part of the President's head.
Jacqueline Kennedy testified that she was literally "trying to hold
his hair on and his skull on". It's quite possible, therefore, that
Jackie had placed the "hinged" flap of scalp (visible in the autopsy
photos) back in its proper place on her husband's head before the
limousine arrived at Parkland, which is a possible reason for why
nobody at the hospital saw the actual exit wound in John Kennedy's
head.
In any event, no matter how you want to evaluate the witnesses, there
is absolutely no question at all as to how many times JFK was shot in
the head (once, and from behind)....and via the BEST evidence
available (the autopsy report, the photographs and X-rays of JFK, and
the testimony of the three autopsy doctors), there is also no doubt at
all as to where on Kennedy's head the entrance and exit wounds were
located (a small entry wound in the back of the head and a large exit
wound above JFK's right ear).
No matter how many witnesses say otherwise, the above paragraph is the
OFFICIAL TRUTH of the matter concerning President John F. Kennedy's
fatal head wound.
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/AUT10_HI.jpg
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b54a3e0b661f558a
>>> "So much for the brain fragment all going forward. To LNs, these witnesses were merely mistaken." <<<
Hargis and Martin weren't "mistaken" at all. They and their bikes
were, indeed, splattered with JFK's brains and blood. No question
about it. But that fact certainly doesn't ELIMINATE the best evidence
regarding JFK's wounds--that ever-present autopsy report that CTers
have no choice but to toss in the nearest trash bin whenever they
discuss the subject of the President's wounds, plus the autopsy photos/
X-rays (which are still more things that CTers think are not to be
believed).
And Mrs. Kennedy never even remembered going to the trunk of the car
at all. So how in the world a CTer can use Jackie's "on the trunk"
excursion to prop up any kind of "conspiracy" at all is beyond
me. .....
"There were pictures later on of me climbing out the back. But I
don't remember that at all." .... [Later in her testimony, Jackie
repeats this.] .... "I don't recall climbing out on the back of the
car." -- Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy; Via WC Testimony; June 5, 1964
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kennedy.htm
>>> "Numerous witnesses testified to a frontal shooting from the grassy knoll. To LNs, these witnesses were merely mistaken." <<<
Those witnesses almost certainly were mistaken, yes. And the key (IMO)
to knowing that they were, indeed, "mistaken" is the fact that
virtually all of those several "frontal shot" witnesses said that they
heard ALL of the gunshots coming from only ONE distinct location (the
front)....which, of course, is just flat-out wrong.
Because even CTers will acknowledge the fact that at least SOME shots
did come from the REAR. And there's no way that both Kennedy and
Connally got shot in their UPPER BACKS without at least one shot
coming from BEHIND the President's vehicle.
So, when we evaluate the earwitnesses in their "Sum Total", what do we
find? We find an amazingly-low percentage of witnesses who said they
heard gunshots coming from MORE THAN JUST ONE SINGLE DIRECTION (be it
front or rear).
This indicates the high likelihood that the acoustical environment of
Dealey Plaza was playing some tricks on many of the witnesses' ears,
with Oswald's three Depository shots being perceived by some witnesses
as having ALL come from a point further WEST down Elm Street.
The excellent charts linked below, authored by John McAdams,
demonstrate things quite nicely....and these charts do not add up to a
multi-DIRECTIONAL assassination in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd,
1963.
And the "Number Of Shots Heard" chart certainly doesn't do Oliver
Stone's 6-shot theory any favors, to be sure, with the huge majority
of witnesses favoring a "3-Shot" shooting event....which is quite
strange, indeed, if many of the CTers are correct about there being
far more than just three shots fired that day. .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
>>> "{Lee} Bowers saw two uniformed men and one speaking into a radio. .... IMO, Bowers' observations are supported by the fact that he is religiously misquoted by LNs." <<<
Lee Bowers has been treated as a rock-solid "pro-conspiracy" witness
by CTers for decades. But was he really and truly a good "CT" witness
at all? The answer to that question, when evaluating this particular
Bowers-related "Sum Total" of the evidence, is: No.
Here's why:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5134c7856e820d92
I'll interject a few words from the logical mind of "Reclaiming
History" author Vincent Bugliosi here:
"With respect to whether or not any shots were fired from the
Grassy Knoll, I want to make the following observations -- firstly, it
is perfectly understandable that the witnesses were confused as to the
origin of fire. Not only does Dealey Plaza resound with echoes, but
here you have a situation of completely-unexpected shots over just a
matter of a few moments.
"When you compound all of that with the fact that the witnesses
were focusing their attention on the President of the United States
driving by, a mesmerizing event for many of them....and the chaos, the
hysteria, the bedlam that engulfed the assassination scene....it's
remarkable that there was any coherence at all to what they thought
they saw and heard.
"Human observation, notoriously unreliable under even the most
optimum situation, HAS to give way to hard, scientific evidence. And
we do have indisputable, scientific evidence in this case that the
bullets which struck President Kennedy came from his rear, not his
front." -- V. Bugliosi; July 1986; "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
==========
>>> "Numerous medical personnel at Parkland Hospital saw...one-third of the back of {JFK's} head blown out. They wrote vivid reports that day and detailed descriptions in their WC testimony. To LNs, these witnesses were merely mistaken. All coincidentally mistaken in the exact same way." <<<
See my previous remarks above. Or, go to these links for lots more
"BOH" talk:
THE "BOH" WITNESSES VS. THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS -- WHO'S RIGHT?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
MORE "BOH" TALK (PART 1):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
MORE "BOH" TALK (PART 2):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a93fbd3eceee9809
MORE "BOH" TALK (PART 3):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd386954cebad312
>>> "The Parkland doctors had extensive experience with gunshot wounds. The Bethesda doctors had NONE whatsoever." <<<
But Dr. Pierre Finck of the U.S. Army Medical Corps was called in to
be the third man at the autopsy for the specific reason that he was
more experienced with gunshot wounds.
So, to say that all of the doctors who attended JFK's post-mortem exam
at Bethesda had no experience with gunshot victims is just flat-out
incorrect. (But you might have been referring there to only the two
"Bethesda"-employed pathologists, Humes and Boswell.)
But, as mentioned previously, it doesn't really matter (to a large
degree) if the doctors at Bethesda had performed a large number of
autopsies on gunshot victims or not (IMO), because they were all
trained pathologists who could certainly tell the difference between a
(small) bullet entry hole and a (larger) exit wound in JFK's head.
And with Dr. Finck being called in to participate and observe the
majority of the autopsy, we can know for sure that there WAS, indeed,
at least one trained pathologist at that autopsy table who had ample
experience with bullet wounds and would instantly recognize the
differences between an exit wound for a bullet and an entrance wound.
And Dr. Finck signed that autopsy report too, remember. Here's his
signature, right next to Humes' and Boswell's (CE387):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm
>>> "The Zapruder film clearly shows his head being blown backwards. Of course to LNs, this {is} merely an "optical illusion" and his head is blown forward." <<<
Huh?? Name one single "LNer" who doesn't think that JFK's head is
driven backward after the fatal head shot. You won't find a single
one, because no such LNer exists.
As talked about earlier in this book-length Internet message,
everybody (including all LNers) can SEE the President's head go
backward violently just after the head shot (AFTER the head moves
initially FORWARD a few inches, that is).
But, in the final analysis, President Kennedy's head could have spun
around 25 times after the fatal shot and it still wouldn't have made a
bit of difference....because the autopsy report and those pesky
pictures would still stand as the definitive and final word regarding
the President's injuries.
(This is a bit of a "Duh!" moment, isn't it?)
>>> "Interestingly, LNs have been claiming for years that yes, the head is blown backward but it is not due to a gunshot. It is due to the car speeding up." <<<
I thought you said just a second ago that LNers were of the opinion
that the backward head movement was merely an "optical illusion". Now
you're saying that LNers claim something different?? (Curious.)
Anyway....the car doesn't start to speed up until approximately a
couple of seconds after the fatal head shot. The limousine was in a
slow-down mode at the time of the fatal shot (possibly, but not
provably, due to driver William Greer's hesitation to want to continue
toward the highly-populated Triple Underpass bridge, which the car was
approaching).
But, again, the direction in which JFK's head moves is pretty much a
moot point altogether when the "Sum Total" of evidence in the "head
shot" regard is assessed logically and reasonably. (Which is a "sum
total" that is, of course, normally ignored or disregarded or
misrepresented by the majority of JFK conspiracy theorists.)
>>> "We are now presented with a major paradox -- the Parkland doctors saw one-third of the head blown out; the Bethesda doctors saw a 1-cm. hole. David Lifton's 'Best Evidence' is one of the most thorough investigations into this paradox." <<<
And the craziest, too. Don't forget to add that word into the mix.
Anyone who could even BEGIN to believe in Lifton's "body-altering"
insanity is ready for a rubber room. More.....
MUSICAL CASKETS AND THE "BODY-ALTERATION" SILLINESS:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0de08844600b8c7a
>>> "The conclusion I have come to is that the Bethesda doctors lied." <<<
Being firmly rooted in "Conspiracy-ville", you have pretty much no
choice but to believe that all three of those pathologists were liars.
(Unless you want to be laughed at even more by joining Mr. Lifton's
merry band of followers.)
The only problem with your "They Were All Liars" theory is that it is
just not "Reasonable". Simple as that. It's not reasonable to think
that all of those people deliberately told one lie after another about
the most important autopsy any of them would ever perform in their
lives.
Plus: You've now got to go down the "Autopsy Photos Are Fake" path
too. And then, after travelling down that dark and murky path, you've
got to proceed down yet another conspiracy-tinged road, marked "The
HSCA Photo Experts Were All Rotten Liars Too".
So, with those last two theories (which are essential for you to
believe or else your first theory about the autopsy doctors all being
liars crumbles into a pile of dust), you've two more extraordinary and
wholly-unreasonable things to embrace in order for John F. Kennedy to
have been shot from the Grassy Knoll.
See how incredibly silly-sounding this "frontal-shot conspiracy" gets
after a little while?
>>> "The strange circumstances surrounding the Bethesda autopsy also seem to point toward conspiracy." <<<
Huh??
>>> "...The illegal removal of the body from Dallas..." <<<
Interestingly, though, the Dallas D.A. Henry Wade had no problem at
all with allowing the body to go to Washington for the autopsy. Wade
even told Dallas Medical Examiner Earl Rose to let the President's
party take the body to Washington.
Wade didn't care. I wonder why so many CTers care about this? Probably
because it seems "shady", huh? But unless you're in bed with Lifton,
what difference does it really make WHERE the autopsy was performed?
Plus: In order to promote the idea that JFK's body was spirited away
from Dallas as part of a secretive and covert "plot" of some kind,
you've pretty much got no choice but to include the President's widow
as one of the main conspirators. Because Jackie is the person who made
the final decision to have the autopsy done at Bethesda.
Plus: JFK's good friend and aide Ken O'Donnell must also have a finger
of "covert" guilt pointed directly at him by CTers too....because
Kenny is the one who ultimately made the decision to remove JFK's body
from Dallas and to bulldoze the casket out of Parkland. .....
"Go fuck yourself! We're leaving! .... We're getting out of
here. We don't give a damn what these laws say. We're not staying here
three hours or three minutes!" -- Kenneth P. O'Donnell; At Parkland
Hospital; 11/22/63
>>> "...The casket switching on Air Force One..." <<<
Only a total moron could begin to believe such a thing actually
happened. These words spoken by Dave Powers in 1987 are words that
(all by themselves) destroy Lifton's idiotic theory (I guess you'll
have to add Mr. Powers to your growing list of "liars"):
"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
>>> "...And its later destruction." <<<
I guess you're talking about the Dallas casket's "destruction",
correct? Well, yes, that casket was destroyed (in a fashion)...it was
dumped at sea MORE THAN TWO YEARS after the assassination. Is the
disposal at sea of the Dallas coffin TWO-PLUS YEARS after the
assassination supposed to be "suspicious" in some way? If so, please
let me know HOW?
BTW, there are some interesting facts about that casket's watery
demise in "Reclaiming History" (on page 612 of the CD's endnotes).
Here's what that page reveals:
"On February 17, 1966, 42 holes were drilled through the casket,
3 sandbags weighing 80 pounds each were placed inside the casket, the
lid was locked into place, and the casket was bound with metal banding
tape.
"The casket was turned over to Department of Defense
representatives early on the morning of February 18. .... At 10:00
a.m. that same day, the casket was dropped from a height of 500 feet
from a C-130E cargo plane into the Atlantic Ocean in an isolated area
off the coast near...the Maryland-Delaware border {into} 9,000 feet of
water."
==========
>>> "The circumstances surrounding the alleged autopsy photos also point toward alteration." <<<
Are you referring to body alteration or photo alteration? Well, either
way you're sunk. You're sunk by the more "reasonable" conclusions
regarding both the photos and the President's body itself, which are
conclusions that do not include the President's body being stolen off
of Air Force One or the photos of the dead President being altered in
some fishy fashion by picture-faking conspirators.
But, being entrenched deeply in CT-Land, you have little choice. You
MUST believe in all kinds of extraordinary and UNreasonable things in
order to support the notion that JFK was shot from multiple
directions.
And if you wish to also believe that the "alleged" (LOL break) autopsy
photos have been faked in some way, as I mentioned previously, you've
got to totally ignore these words from the HSCA:
"The committee did, however, subject the autopsy photographs and
X-rays to scientific analysis. These examinations by the committee's
consultants established the inaccuracy of the Parkland observations.
The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were
authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy
personnel." -- Volume VII; HSCA Report
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0025a.htm
>>> "The WC did not mark them {the autopsy photographs} as evidence." <<<
Which was fully explained. Earl Warren and the rest of the WC agreed
that all exhibits that were marked would be published in the
supporting 26 volumes. But out of deference to the Kennedy family, the
WC decided they did not wish to enter the photos into evidence.
I've long said that this was a silly decision by the Commission.
Because some kind of middle ground could surely have been reached
regarding this key matter of the autopsy pictures and X-rays.
I don't know why the WC couldn't have looked at the photos (at their
leisure), with the simple stipulation that the pictures would not be
published for all the world to see. A forthright explanation could
easily have been placed in the text of the Warren Report, to the
effect:
"We, the WC, have had full and unrestricted access to President
Kennedy's autopsy photographs and X-rays, and have studied these
materials at length, but for reasons of good taste and due to
restrictions placed on these autopsy materials imposed by the Kennedy
family, the Commission has not published the photos and X-rays in its
final report or in any of the 26 supporting volumes of exhibits."
Why something like the above couldn't have been done is a total
mystery to me. ~shrug~
But, even without the autopsy pictures as part of the public record in
the WCR volumes....where is this argument supposed to go for CTers? Do
CTers think that if the Warren Commission HAD published the pictures,
those published photos would be DIFFERENT from the ones we can find
online right now? ~another shrug~ .....
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html
>>> "A shooting homicide investigation excluding the very autopsy photos is no investigation at all." <<<
I agree that the autopsy pictures should have definitely been made
available to the Warren Commission and its staff and counsel members.
I think it was crazy to use the Rydberg drawings in lieu of the real
photos.
But, even so, we DO now have the autopsy photos to examine....and
those pictures FULLY CORROBORATE the WC's final conclusions regarding
President Kennedy's wounds (i.e., only two bullets hit JFK, with both
of those shots coming from behind the President).
So, even though the WC didn't have full access to those autopsy
materials, it's really a moot point (in retrospect), because nothing
would have been different even if the Warren Commission had been given
access to those pictures. And the HSCA's conclusions regarding the
wounds sustained by John F. Kennedy PROVE that fact beyond all doubt.
How?
Because the HSCA DID look at the actual autopsy photos themselves, and
what did the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel conclude? -- Just like
the Warren Commission 15 years earlier, the HSCA's panel of physicians
concluded that "President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired
from behind him" (quote from the HSCA's Final Report; Page 3). .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0005a.htm
>>> "Dr. Cyril Wecht notes the hypocrisy of HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel in not dealing with the missing medical evidence. [Quoting Dr. Wecht:] "Somewhere between April of '65 and the end of October '66, these things were literally taken illegally--stolen--removed from the National Archives. But in this {JFK} case, the government hasn't been concerned. And my colleagues in forensic pathology were not concerned. And yet there's not one of them who would ever tolerate that kind of abhorrent, unacceptable, unethical, and immoral illegal procedure or policy in his own office. But in this case it just rolls off their back along with the acceptance of the single bullet theory and all the other things"." <<<
Dr. Wecht, of course, was talking there about how the brain of JFK
(among a few other things that had, like Kennedy's brain, already
fully served their purpose) disappeared from the Archives in 1965.
But Dr. Wecht also no doubt fully knows the very-likely-to-be-true
story behind the "Missing Brain". The President's brother, Robert F.
Kennedy, probably ordered the brain to be destroyed (along with some
archived tissue samples of JFK) in April of 1965, almost a year-and-a-
half after the assassination.
RFK probably did this to avoid the embarrassing situation from
cropping up in the future of having some gung-ho photographer or
reporter gaining access to his brother's brain (and tissue samples)
and taking pictures of those materials and then plastering them on the
front page of The National Enquirer (or some similar tabloid
newspaper).
What I'd like for a CTer to explain is this -- How is the destruction
of JFK's brain to be considered a truly sinister or conspiratorial act
of some kind when its disappearance occurred over a year AFTER that
brain had fully served its purpose to investigators and pathologists,
inasmuch as it was examined by the autopsy doctors, with every part of
that examination being duly noted within JFK's "Supplementary Autopsy
Report" (CE391; see link provided below)? .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284b.htm
In other words, what additional post-autopsy function was the brain of
the dead President supposed to serve following that Supplementary
Autopsy Exam in 1963?
The CTers no doubt think that the brain would have revealed some dark,
conspiracy-favoring secret of some kind....and that's why it was
destroyed by RFK (or by somebody). But if that's the case, WHY WAIT
UNTIL APRIL OF 1965 to get rid of it?
Didn't the "plotters" who knew the brain held the "key" to the
conspiracy give a damn about having that brain available for further
examination between November 1963 and April 1965?
I guess that must have been the same careless and bumbling mindset
that was being exhibited by the plotters (per some CTers anyway) with
respect to the many witnesses that conspiracists think were "bumped
off" by the plotters after the assassination.
The henchmen in charge of "Getting Rid Of Pro-Conspiracy Witnesses"
sometimes waited many YEARS before getting around to knocking off
their prey, and many times only AFTER the witness had already talked
on the record about certain things that CTers think the "Mystery Death
Goon Squad" would have wanted kept quiet. But why kill a person only
AFTER they had already spilled any beans they had to spill?
Lee Bowers being a perfect example of this idiocy. Many CTers think
Bowers was bumped off in a 1966 car crash by the Death Squad. But
Bowers had not only talked to the Warren Commission by the time of his
1966 death, he had also talked to Mark Lane for Lane's book "Rush To
Judgment"; and Bowers had even been FILMED by Lane talking about what
he saw on the day of JFK's assassination!
Did the Goon Squad think that Mark Lane's filmed interview with Lee
Bowers would somehow suddenly disappear when they killed Bowers? ~LOL
Break~
>>> "All of your posts cite John McAdams. However...McAdams is such a compulsive liar, it is impossible to tell where the truth begins at all." <<<
Oh goodie! Somebody else for a CTer to label as a "liar". Wonderful.
(The Pope's next.)
>>> "It is dangerous to put too much stock in any one author, because if he has been misleading, you will find yourself very lost." <<<
You'd better stop listening to a man named "Lifton" then. Because if
there was ever a "lost" man...it's probably him.
>>> "Hear a multitude of arguments but trust no one. No LN or CT (including me). Do your own thinking and form your own conclusions based on facts you have researched yourself." <<<
I've done that. And the "CT" arguments (and the many pro-conspiracy
authors) cannot hold a candle to Vincent T. Bugliosi (and "Reclaiming
History").
And yes, I do, indeed, "trust" Mr. Bugliosi. Call me a fool for
actually trusting somebody, but that's the way it is. ;)
It's that "SUM TOTAL" of evidence that gets lost (or ignored) by
conspiracy theorists, in my opinion. Too bad too, because that "sum
total" is not spelling out "multi-gun conspiracy".
Instead, it's spelling out exactly what the physical evidence shows --
Lee Harvey Oswald (probably alone) murdered President John F. Kennedy
with Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 on November 22, 1963.
==========================================
An appropriate message-concluding "Bugliosi Blast" (with all of these
VB quotes coming from the 36-page "Introduction" in "Reclaiming
History"):
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have
succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--
Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the
most complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history.
"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their
existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of
the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the
outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split
hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched
and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally
invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation.
"With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren
Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA
documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or
there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And
that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done."
-- VB
~~~~~~~~
"I am unaware of any other major event in world history which
has been shrouded in so much intentional misinformation as has the
assassination of JFK. Nor am I aware of any event that has given rise
to such an extraordinarily large number of far-fetched and conflicting
theories." -- VB
~~~~~~~~
"In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be
considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history.
Even leading Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg acknowledges
that the Commission "checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew"."
-- VB
~~~~~~~~
"Not the smallest speck of evidence has ever surfaced that any
of the conspiracy community's favorite groups (CIA, mob, etc.) was
involved, in any way, in the assassination. Not only the Warren
Commission, but the HSCA came to the same conclusion.
"But conspiracy theorists, as suspicious as a cat in a new home,
find occurrences and events everywhere that feed their suspicions and
their already strong predilection to believe that the official version
is wrong." -- VB
==========================================
www.amazon.com/review/R2R0RQ0Q9AZY0M
==========================================
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5aafc5d0a15e48f4
>>> "It's just too bad that YOU didn't have the expertise or dedication to duplicate the acoustical work." <<<
Yeah, just what I'm dying to do....waste endless amounts of time
trying to duplicate acoustics work that is completely flawed from the
get-go (due to the fact that the needed open microphone is nowhere
near the location it needs to be in order to have the acoustics work
validated as accurate).
Is there anybody on Earth who would even WANT to try and "duplicate"
that mess?
If so...why?
>>> "The naysayers are WC defenders who have misrepresented the evidence to discount the acoustical evidence." <<<
So, it appears that some CTers are still trying to breathe life into
that deceased equine known as the Acoustics/Dictabelt Debacle.
Incredible.
>>> "More than just liars, they {Humes, Finck, & Boswell} were also incompetent." <<<
And they were so utterly "incompetent" (all three of them!) that not a
single one of them could tell the difference between a small wound of
entry on the back of JFK's head and the larger exit wound elsewhere on
the head of the President. Right, Tony?
Incredible.
David Von Pein
>>> "The LN arguments made here fail for the same reason Bugliosi's book fail{s}. They are not arguments or theories; they are gospel not to be questioned or confirmed. Read and obey." <<<
I doubt you even read the bulk of my many LN "Sum Total" comments.
But, in any event, the LN arguments presented by knowledgeable lone-
assassin believers are not just mere "theories". To say they are just
"theories" is just plain wrong (and, frankly, dumb). The LN scenario
is based on the HARD EVIDENCE in the John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit
murders.
And, like it or not, that hard evidence is telling a reasonable person
that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered those two men mentioned above in
Dallas, Texas, in November of 1963.
And CTers do not like that hard evidence, that's for sure, based on
the number of conspiracists who love to promote their own
unsupportable "theories" (correct word this time) year after year,
without a lick of hard evidence to back up their made-up theories.
(Hard evidence like: bullets, guns, shells, prints, or witnesses who
saw any gunman on Elm St. or 10th St. other than LHO.)
So, when given a choice between hard (LN) evidence and never-supported
(CT) speculation, which should we choose?
Not too difficult a decision really.
>>> "LNs make patently false statements and avoid addressing the real issues. .... A perfect example is how Bugliosi summarizes Wesley Buel [sic] Fraizer's [sic] {it's actually Buell Wesley Frazier} testimony. He quotes Fraizer [sic] as seeing Oswald with a long package. Anyone whom [sic] has read Fraizer's [sic] testimony knows that the key issue is the size of the package. 22 inches "give or take" would make it far too small to hold a rifle. Bugliosi doesn't address the key issue and thus convinces only those whom [sic] have not read the WR." <<<
The above is total bullshit, of course. For starters, Buell Frazier
never said the package he saw Oswald carrying was "22 inches". (Where
did you get this figure from anyway?)
Frazier's exact words to the Warren Commission in 1964 were these: "It
was a package just roughly about two feet long."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
Plus: Vince Bugliosi, in his JFK book, goes into a good deal of depth
with respect to the "package length" issue and Buell Frazier's
observations.
It's just that Vince does a little something called "EVALUATING THE
SUM TOTAL OF THE EVIDENCE" when it comes to assessing each sub-topic
associated with the JFK case. This is something that the conspiracy
kooks of the world refuse to do. .....
1.) An EMPTY 38-inch paper bag is found underneath the 6th-Floor
window in the Book Depository from where gunshots obviously were fired
at JFK's vehicle.
2.) There's testimony from two witnesses (Frazier and his sister,
Linnie Mae Randle) who positively saw Lee Harvey Oswald with a similar-
looking bag on the morning of November 22. (And the bag had something
"bulky" or "heavy" in it when it was seen by Frazier and Randle that
morning.)
3.) Lee Oswald's RIGHT PALMPRINT is found on the bottom (closed end)
of the empty bag on the TSBD's sixth floor. This is very incriminating
and Frazier-CORROBORATING evidence against Oswald, in that it
perfectly aligns with how Frazier said that Oswald carried the bag --
i.e., "cupped" in his RIGHT hand.
4.) Oswald's very own Carcano rifle is found on the sixth floor of the
Depository (the same floor where the empty bag is also found).
5.) Oswald's rifle turns up missing from its known storage location
(Ruth Paine's garage in Irving, Texas) on 11/22/63.
Adding up #1 thru #5 = Oswald took his dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle to work with him wrapped up in the brown paper bag seen by
Frazier and Randle on November 22, 1963.
Any other explanation fails to satisfy the above sum total of evidence
with respect to the brown paper bag.
Which means: Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle were wrong about their
estimates of the bag's length. It's the only explanation that makes
any "common" sense.
To believe otherwise is to believe that a DIFFERENT bag from the one
that Frazier and Randle observed just happened to turn up in the
Sniper's Nest -- empty and with Oswald's own prints on it, and a RIGHT
palmprint, to boot! -- on the very same day that Oswald took a
shorter, similarly-fashioned homemade-style paper sack into the same
building (as observed by Buell Frazier).
Is the latter explanation truly a reasonable alternative? I think not.
In fact, it's just plain silly (regardless of what Frazier and Randle
said about the dimensions of the bag).
Back to Bugliosi's thoughts on this matter.....
"{Wesley} Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under
Oswald's armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While
Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent
in all of his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable
from his Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption
on his part based on his limited view.
"Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way
Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that
was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down"
along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....
"Since he could only see this small portion of the package under
Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the
package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it
must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I
don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your
armpit."
"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's
conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and
over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much
attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....
"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we
don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front
of his body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial {in
1986} I asked Frazier, "So the bag could have been protruding out in
front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it?" and he
responded, "That's true."
"The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather {of
CBS News in June 1967}, who rhetorically told his audience, "You can
decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own
words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of
the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"."
-- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "RH" Endnotes (c.2007)
==========
And about those "curtain rods" that Oswald said he took to work on the
22nd:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a460183ae4c6c41
>>> "This strategy is typical of LNs. David Belin's 'November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury' is a defense of his WC investigations into the TSBD and Tippit murder." <<<
And a darn good book, too (despite your CT-skewed opinion of it):
www.amazon.com/review/R2C5UCFXVF7B4I
>>> "Calling WC critics "nuts" will not only fail to convince those "nuts", but it will also turn away those listening to you." <<<
But it's so much fun to call a spade a spade when it's 100%
appropriate. Don't you agree? (And "kooks" is much better than "nuts",
IMHO. The "K" word has a much nicer ring to it.)
>>> "Vincent Bugliosi is very helpful to the JFK truth cause. He came off as a raving lunatic. This was the conclusion of the TV and radio talk show hosts who rushed him off air after he insulted them." <<<
LOL. What "shows" (plural?) were those, C. Chow? First I've heard of
it. It certainly wasn't any of these many programs featuring VB:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2e491dd46d338af9
>>> "If the Parkland doctors were too "traumatized" to accurately describe the wounds they observed, then they would have been vague and contradictory. Instead, they are all consistent and coincide with both the Dealey Plaza witnesses and photographic evidence." <<<
The above statement certainly isn't accurate at all. Besides Clint
Hill, name one "Dealey" witness who described the location of JFK's
head wound in a specific manner that coincides with the Parkland "BOH"
wound witnesses. Offhand, I can't think of any.
I can, however, produce a witness who described the head wound in just
the OPPOSITE way from the Parkland personnel -- Abraham Zapruder:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zap.gif
And as far as the "photographic" evidence backing up the Parkland
witnesses...you must truly be crazy if you believe that. Because the
autopsy pictures and X-rays are in direct contradiction to the PH
people.
>>> "The Parkland Doctors have been extremely consistent over the years. In documentary after documentary they have stood by their conclusions and being shown the Abraham Zapruder (or as the LN documentary 'Beyond Conspiracy' calls him, "Leon Zapruder") film agree that the frontal head shot seen in the film is consistent with the wound they observed." <<<
That's good to know....because if that's true, then JFK certainly
didn't have a large hole in the back of his head, because Zapruder's
film shows no such wound whatsoever, and only a fool (or a blind
person) could believe otherwise.
Mr. Bugliosi.....
"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large
exit wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly
provide better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively,
and beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 and
frame 328 clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the
RIGHT FRONT of the president's head. THE BACK OF HIS HEAD SHOWS NO
SUCH LARGE WOUND AND CLEARLY IS COMPLETELY INTACT." [Bugliosi's
emphasis.] -- VB; Page 410 of "RH" (c.2007)
==========
BTW, Abe Zapruder wasn't referred to as "Leon" anywhere within the
Peter Jennings ABC-TV documentary in 2003. He was called "Leon" only
on the back cover of the DVD (which was distributed in April 2004 by a
company called "Koch Vision"). So go blame "Koch" for that error, not
Peter Jennings and his excellent "Beyond Conspiracy" program. .....
Phil Ossofee
no possibility of conspiracy jump up yer own ass.
David Von Pein
>>> "If you allow no possibility of conspiracy jump up yer own ass." <<<
I wonder what the above incoherent sentence is supposed to mean?
Maybe the cocksucker who penned it can tell us.
Chuck Schuyler
It means "Last Call" Ossofee generally posts after the bars are closed.