LNer theory - Now that's Funny!
robc...@netscape.com
of the Texas School Book Depository building, entered JFK's back;
exited from his throat; entered Connally's back; exited his chest near
the right nipple; went through his right wrist shattering the radius
bone; entered his left leg embedding itself in his thigh bone*, then
dropped out later, in pristine condition, on his stretcher in Parkland
Hospital. synopsis of the Sep 27, 1964 Warren Report.
*...your toe bone connected to your foot bone, your foot bone
connected to your ankle bone, your ankle bone connected to your leg
bone, your leg bone connected to your thigh bone, your thigh bone
connected to your hip bone, your hip bone connected to your back bone,
your back bone connected to your shoulder bone, your shoulder bone
connected to your neck bone, your neck bone connected to your head
bone...
justm...@gmail.com
your point? you obviously have nothing connected to your neck bone.
robc...@netscape.com
wrote:
> your point? you obviously have nothing connected to your neck bone.
The point is that the WC sounds like a kid's game. Maybe that is
where Specter/Ford came up with the SBT in the first place. Thanks
for not dissappointing me, I knew you would add nothing to the
discussion.
David Von Pein
Funny, isn't it, how the majority of the WC members (and its
associated counsel members and staff members), plus the organization
known as the "HSCA", fell for a theory as crazy and inept and totally-
impossible as the SBT?
To hear CT-Kooks tell it, there must not have been a single person
with a functioning brain on the Warren Commission (except Richard
"Goofball" Russell and one other member who didn't favor the SBT), in
its staff, or amongst the many members of the House Select Committee
15 years later (when the HSCA, too, agreed with the WC that a single
bullet--CE399--hit both JFK and JBC on November 22).
But these amateur sleuths known as Conspiracy Kooks know better. They
KNOW that the SBT is "impossible", a "fairy tale", a "wet dream", etc.
Good thing we have CT-Kooks to keep the record straight, huh?
BTW.........
"From the first moment that I heard that {Arlen} Specter had
come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me
since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it.
"Since {the members of the WC staff} all knew that the bullet,
fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through soft tissue in
Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally was seated to the
president's left front, the bullet, after emerging from Kennedy's
body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the simple reason
it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among many bright
lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only Specter saw
it? ....
"When I asked {Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005} if, indeed,
Arlen Specter, was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his
exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself,
Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." ....
"I don't know about you folks, but I'm inclined to take what
Redlich told me to the bank. My sense is that Redlich, who by almost
all accounts worked harder on the case than anyone else, was a team
player only interested in doing his job well. ....
"If I have done a disservice to Specter in what I have written
above, I apologize to him. But I did give him an opportunity to
respond to this issue {via a letter sent to Specter on June 24, 2005},
and he declined." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 302-304 of the CD's
Endnotes within "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY" (copyright 2007)
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "The point is that the WC sounds like a kid's game. Maybe that is where Specter/Ford came up with the SBT in the first place." <<<
>
> Funny, isn't it, how the majority of the WC members (and its
> associated counsel members and staff members), plus the organization
> known as the "HSCA", fell for a theory as crazy and inept and totally-
> impossible as the SBT?
>
and staffers were such experts on ballistics, right? They didn't
"fall" for anything, they were told this would be the way it was going
to be. Why was a banker on the WC? John J. McCloy? Since when is a
banker part of the investigation in a murder?
> To hear CT-Kooks tell it, there must not have been a single person
> with a functioning brain on the Warren Commission (except Richard
> "Goofball" Russell and one other member who didn't favor the SBT), in
> its staff, or amongst the many members of the House Select Committee
> 15 years later (when the HSCA, too, agreed with the WC that a single
> bullet--CE399--hit both JFK and JBC on November 22).
We never said that (functioning brain) as there brains were
functioning when they decided to join the cover-up. They all made a
decision to lie to the Amercian people. Hale Boggs didn't buy the SBT
either and he wound up dead.
>
> But these amateur sleuths known as Conspiracy Kooks know better. They
> KNOW that the SBT is "impossible", a "fairy tale", a "wet dream", etc.
I think a kindergarten class would tell you the SBT scenario is
impossible. How can a grown adult buy that a bullet can make moves to
make an old barnstormer pilot jealous. Up, down, left, right and
loose only 3 to 4 grams? I have never been prone to use drugs so this
just doesn't compute for me.
> Good thing we have CT-Kooks to keep the record straight, huh?
You took the words right out of my mouth (insult not included).
>
> BTW.........
>
> "From the first moment that I heard that {Arlen} Specter had
> come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me
> since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it.
You have made the point for me. A pair of lawyers came up with this
theory and we all know they always tell the truth, right? Since when
is Specter a ballistic expert?
> "Since {the members of the WC staff} all knew that the bullet,
> fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through soft tissue in
> Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally was seated to the
> president's left front, the bullet, after emerging from Kennedy's
> body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the simple reason
> it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among many bright
> lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only Specter saw
> it? ....
This isn't even accurate as they said the bullet entered the base of
the neck (lie - it was actually further down and to the right) and
travelled "up" before exiting the front of the neck. You need to re-
read the account of the SBT. Again, you prove my point for me, why
are a bunch of lawyers "racking their brains" on this when they should
be letting ballistic experts handle it. Probably because no true
"expert" would ever say what the SBT says to be true.
>
> "When I asked {Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005} if, indeed,
> Arlen Specter, was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his
> exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
> When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself,
> Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." ....
That is a bunch of guys who make feel they wouldn't lie about
anything. More lawyers agreeing on a bullet's path with no formal
training. Would you receive surgery from a bunch of lawyers? Hey,
they all talked it over and they think you should have this operation
this way.
>
> "I don't know about you folks, but I'm inclined to take what
> Redlich told me to the bank. My sense is that Redlich, who by almost
> all accounts worked harder on the case than anyone else, was a team
> player only interested in doing his job well. ....
You must be broke then.
>
> "If I have done a disservice to Specter in what I have written
> above, I apologize to him. But I did give him an opportunity to
> respond to this issue {via a letter sent to Specter on June 24, 2005},
> and he declined." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 302-304 of the CD's
> Endnotes within "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
> JOHN F. KENNEDY" (copyright 2007)
Gee, I wonder why. Even he is running from this issue. Now that Ford
is dead he is the only one left.
David Von Pein
And it's statements like the one above that make you a first-rate
conspiracy-loving kook.
Are you proud of that Kook Badge you wear daily? If so, I can't
imagine why.
>>> "I think a kindergarten class would tell you the SBT scenario is impossible." <<<
Is that where you get most of your information...from kindergarten
students? That WOULD explain a lot.
>>> "How can a grown adult buy that a bullet can make moves to make an old barnstormer pilot jealous? Up, down, left, right and loose only 3 to 4 grams?" <<<
Still clinging to CT Myth #6, I see (re. the amazing "zig-zagging"
bullet).
Well, it's hard to teach an old kindergarten student like you new
tricks, I suppose.
And maybe you'd better learn some of the facts too (it'll be even
BETTER for your anti-SBT stance in this particular instance too),
because CE399 only lost approx. 2.4 grains....and not "grams".
So, now you've got even MORE reasons to swallow some additional anti-
SBT chaff. Tastes good, huh?
SBT REALITY CHECK............
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
>>> "I have never been prone to use drugs, so this just doesn't compute for me." <<<
Yeah, I know. Common sense rarely does compute with a CT-Kook. No
surprise there.
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "They all {the WC and the HSCA members, plus God knows how many more, per this kook} made a decision to lie to the Amercian people." <<<
>
> And it's statements like the one above that make you a first-rate
> conspiracy-loving kook.
We don't live in the 1940s or 1950s anymore Dave. Did you miss all
the times the government has been shown to be liars since 1963? My
god, do you not read anything besides the WCR and bugman? The
government lies all the time as they have an agenda. That doesn't
make me a Kook, but rather a realist.
> Are you proud of that Kook Badge you wear daily? If so, I can't
> imagine why.
Hey if I'm a Kook for not believing everything I'm told that doesn't
make sense than I'm very proud. Hopefully, you'll make me Kook of the
week sometime.
>
> >>> "I think a kindergarten class would tell you the SBT scenario is impossible." <<<
>
> Is that where you get most of your information...from kindergarten
> students? That WOULD explain a lot.
They are smarter than most of the LNers I have met or read.
>
> >>> "How can a grown adult buy that a bullet can make moves to make an old barnstormer pilot jealous? Up, down, left, right and loose only 3 to 4 grams?" <<<
>
> Still clinging to CT Myth #6, I see (re. the amazing "zig-zagging"
> bullet).
It is no myth (ziz-zagging that is as the SBT is the myth) as there is
no other way to expain it. Look at the film - JBC was not that far to
the left of JFK.
>
> Well, it's hard to teach an old kindergarten student like you new
> tricks, I suppose.
Teach away, but use logic and facts not fairytale crap.
>
> And maybe you'd better learn some of the facts too (it'll be even
> BETTER for your anti-SBT stance in this particular instance too),
> because CE399 only lost approx. 2.4 grains....and not "grams".
Figures, that is your main point of attack. I type the wrong thing so
you jump on me instead of the fact that a bullet supposedly commits
seven wounds and only loses 2.4 grains. Never before or since has a
bullet been so magical. Why has the military not studied this bullet
for the secret. Imagine if all our bullets did this? We could save
millions as we could just re-use them.
>
> So, now you've got even MORE reasons to swallow some additional anti-
> SBT chaff. Tastes good, huh?
The truth always taste good, but you wouldn't know that as you deal in
deception. I don't believe for a second you really believe this stuff
(SBT).
> Yeah, I know. Common sense rarely does compute with a CT-Kook. No
> surprise there.
Ayn Rand is insulted that you would call the SBT common sense. There
is nothing common sense or logical about it.
David Von Pein
>>> "We don't live in the 1940s or 1950s anymore, Dave." <<<
Hey! You got something right! Nice!
(Ever hear of a "comma", btw? You should use more of them. I've
inserted them, where needed, in all of your posts I'm responding to,
btw.)
>>> "Did you miss all the times the government has been shown to be liars since 1963?" <<<
What's that got to do with whether they lied (in massive numbers) in
1963 with respect to JFK's murder?
And you've got DOUBLE (and even TRIPLE) the hurdles to leap when it
comes to proving your "They All Lied" motto in the JFK case,
too....because we've got multiple Government investigative entities
saying that Lee Harvey Oswald was THE ONLY GUNMAN who hit any victims
with bullets on Elm Street in Dallas on 11/22/63.
And they're saying it many years apart....i.e., lots of DIFFERENT
PEOPLE in different decades are saying it. (And be sure to include the
Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission too.)
That's a whole boatload of Government liars you've got there. Any
proof they ALL LIED?
Didn't think so.
But, you've always got your dreams to cling to. And you've also got
that little mystery to solve, entitled:
"Where Did The Bullets Go And Why Didn't They Tear Up John Kennedy's
Neck & Back At All?"
(Any luck on resolving that little snafu, btw?)
>>> "Hopefully, you'll make me Kook of the week sometime." <<<
Two more posts and you've got it sewn up!
>>> "It is no myth (ziz-zagging, that is....the SBT is the myth), as there is no other way to expain it. Look at the film--JBC was not that far to the left of JFK." <<<
Why don't you try "Key Framing" the Zapruder Film to an ultra-detailed
computer model, and then try to assert that the SBT path for Bullet
CE399 had to zig and zag to do its work.
Dale K. Myers has done that Z-Film "Key Framing" for us. And guess
what? The SBT fits to a perfect tee. (Dale's a rotten liar too,
right?)
Let's take a sneak-peek......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/video_preview.htm
>>> "Never before or since has a bullet been so magical." <<<
Oh, I can think of bullets that performed more magic. Three "CT"
bullets meet those requirements, in fact. (Those being: the 3
vanishing bullets that somehow must replace CE399, per CTers.)
Magic bullets....in triplicate!
Now THAT'S Barbara Eden territory there!
Spooky shit.
>>> "I don't believe for a second you really believe this stuff (SBT)." <<<
Then you're even more of a kook than I originally thought. ......
A COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/88cd14ec6de230eb
WHERE'S THE LOGICAL CONSPIRACY-ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE TO THE SBT?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ee3ea6cfa4a58c9
MORE SBT TALK (WITH A LARGE DOSE OF COMMON SENSE INCLUDED):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
YET ANOTHER SINGLE-BULLET THEORY ESSAY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c19abd308e0026e1
STILL MORE SINGLE-BULLET CONVERSATION (FOR GOOD MEASURE):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/284975f119fe13c0
AND A LITTLE MORE SBT LOGIC (TONGUE-IN-CHEEK STYLE):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133
IN A (LONE) NUTSHELL -- THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
YEP, HERE'S ANOTHER SBT ESSAY (WITH COMMON SENSE AGAIN INSERTED):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/00a4ecbb835edc89
JOHN CONNALLY SAID THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IS "POSSIBLE":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
BULLET CE399 -- WAS IT "PLANTED" IN PARKLAND HOSPITAL?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
THE ODD (BUT ALMOST CERTAINLY TRUE) JOURNEY OF BULLET CE399:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c565d3b4c930a683
TOO MANY CE399 BULLET FRAGMENTS IN JOHN CONNALLY? HARDLY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7bf79593cce78406
IF BULLET CE399 DIDN'T INJURE GOVERNOR CONNALLY, WHAT BULLET DID?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f90802d6225a380e
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "We don't live in the 1940s or 1950s anymore, Dave." <<<
>
> Hey! You got something right! Nice!
> >>> "Did you miss all the times the government has been shown to be liars since 1963?" <<<
>
> What's that got to do with whether they lied (in massive numbers) in
> 1963 with respect to JFK's murder?
I think everything, especially when so many of the people involved in
the later lies have ties to the JFK assassination. Ever hear of a
cover-up?
>
> And you've got DOUBLE (and even TRIPLE) the hurdles to leap when it
> comes to proving your "They All Lied" motto in the JFK case,
> too....because we've got multiple Government investigative entities
> saying that Lee Harvey Oswald was THE ONLY GUNMAN who hit any victims
> with bullets on Elm Street in Dallas on 11/22/63.
My point exactly. Government inquiries. They lie all the time about
everything as long as it advances the party line. They think we can't
handle the truth. Please don't even begin to defend the government.
If I remember correctly, and I do, the HSCA said there was a
conspiracy.
>
> And they're saying it many years apart....i.e., lots of DIFFERENT
> PEOPLE in different decades are saying it. (And be sure to include the
> Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission too.)
Have you ever read anything about Hoover? Start with him and you'll
learn how Washington works/worked. They start with keeping files on
everyone in Congress, and little by little, they gather incriminating
information via taps, bugs, surveillance and setups (i.e. getting a
very pretty woman in your bed). Once they have the dirt on you they
tell you how to vote, how to handle your business. Beyond this, you
have a bunch of lobbyists throwing money at you to do things their
way. Look up all the people who died around each of these
commissions, and you'll get an idea that someone doesn't want people
to talk.
> That's a whole boatload of Government liars you've got there. Any
> proof they ALL LIED?
Proof? Look at our country now compared to 1963. We are the largest
debtor nation in the world. We are the police of the world. We don't
honor individual countries to have soverneighty. There is no way we
can say we are the same country and it all starts with most people not
having faith in their leaders. That is do to consistent lies over the
years.
>
> Didn't think so.
That is your opinion.
> But, you've always got your dreams to cling to. And you've also got
> that little mystery to solve, entitled:
If you call wanting a country where elections are not decided by the
Supreme Court and wherer we are not constantly at war a dream, sure I
want that. It is no surprise you don't.
>
> "Where Did The Bullets Go And Why Didn't They Tear Up John Kennedy's
> Neck & Back At All?"
The neck wound entered the front and made a clean exit wound out the
back. A tracheotomy covered the entry hole and elongated it so it was
difficult for the Bethesday team to know (due to lack of experience
with bullet wounds). The back wound did not penetrate fully and
dropped out. Probably a bad round. What is this, a trick question?
You're acting like you found a smoking gun?
>
> (Any luck on resolving that little snafu, btw?)
>
> >>> "Hopefully, you'll make me Kook of the week sometime." <<<
>
> Two more posts and you've got it sewn up!
>
> >>> "It is no myth (ziz-zagging, that is....the SBT is the myth), as there is no other way to expain it. Look at the film--JBC was not that far to the left of JFK." <<<
>
> Why don't you try "Key Framing" the Zapruder Film to an ultra-detailed
> computer model, and then try to assert that the SBT path for Bullet
> CE399 had to zig and zag to do its work.
Due to the way the WC expained the wounds the bullet would had to have
stopped and made turns to complete the required injuries. Also, it
would not have come out intact.
>
> Dale K. Myers has done that Z-Film "Key Framing" for us. And guess
> what? The SBT fits to a perfect tee. (Dale's a rotten liar too,
> right?)
You said it. I'd like to know who paid for his research and who was
involved.
>
> Let's take a sneak-peek...... LET'S NOT.
> >>> "Never before or since has a bullet been so magical." <<<
>
> Oh, I can think of bullets that performed more magic. Three "CT"
> bullets meet those requirements, in fact. (Those being: the 3
> vanishing bullets that somehow must replace CE399, per CTers.)
There is nothing magical about the bullets that hit their targets. The
fragments were taken and never shown to the public and they
substituted this fairy tale in its place. End of story. They washed
the limo, had it picked up and taken to Detroit to be fixed right away
and had JBC's clothes washed.
>
> Magic bullets....in triplicate! Hardly. Just conjecture by a desperate LNer.
>
> Now THAT'S Barbara Eden territory there! (a.k.a. Warren Commission Theory).
>
> Spooky shit.
Sure is when you see the lengths that were taken to lie to the
American people.
>
> >>> "I don't believe for a second you really believe this stuff (SBT)." <<<
>
> Then you're even more of a kook than I originally thought. ......
No sadly, you're the Kook. What you get out of believing this fairy
tale is what I'd like to know. I guess your job is tied to supporting
this phoney crap.
Save the links, I've seen the fairy tale stuff before.
David Von Pein
>>> "The neck wound entered the front and made a clean exit wound out the back." <<<
Huh?? (And "LOL".)
Where was the gunman who fired that shot then? Sitting on the
floorboards of the limousine?
Better think up another crackpot theory, because this one won't make
it past the first-base coaching box.
>>> "The back wound did not penetrate fully and dropped out. Probably a bad round." <<<
Huh?? You just a second ago said that the throat-wound bullet "made a
clean exit wound out the back". (Remember that? The shot from the
midget firing from the limo's floorboards?)
Now you're saying there was a bullet that entered JFK's back and
"dropped out"??
Which is it? Or do you want to create your own unique theory that has
the back-wound bullet miraculously entering the very same hole that
was created by the throat-wound bullet, which is a bullet that you
said "made a clean exit wound out the back"?
It's great being a CTer, isn't it Rob? You get to make up your own
theories, day and night....and you never once have to worry about the
ACTUAL evidence in the case at all.
All that any conspiracist has to do is to utter these 5 magical words
and every CT-Kook is forever off the hook with respect to the real
evidence in the JFK case -- "ALL THE EVIDENCE IS TAINTED".
Nice CT policy, huh? (If you're a fool, that is.)
BTW, there's no possible way that any bullet simply "dropped out" of
John F. Kennedy's back in the emergency room at Parkland (as many
CTers seem to believe).
For, if that HAD occurred, that bullet would certainly have been
recovered right there in the ER. (At the very least, it would have
been noticed by somebody who was in charge of cleaning up the blood
and gore in ER #1 after JFK's body had left the hospital. To believe
otherwise is kinda silly.)
And to think that any such bullet that would have "dropped out" of
JFK's back could have POSSIBLY been Bullet CE399 is also a wild CT
fairy tale of the first order.
Why?
Because Kennedy's body was never in the area of Parkland Hospital
where Darrell Tomlinson found that bullet (nor was JFK's stretcher).
Naturally, via that scenario believed by many CTers whom I have
conversed with over the years, those CTers think the bullet was
magically moved or "planted" on or near Governor Connally's stretcher
down the hall.
But that would have been rather stupid, wouldn't it? Why on Earth
would any plotters have had any desire to want to MOVE an actual piece
of Oswald-incriminating evidence from Kennedy's stretcher to
Connally's stretcher down the hall?!
It's just....dumb. But many CTers actually believe such a bullet
"move" happened.
Go figure kooks.
>>> "What is this, a trick question {when I asked: "Where Did The Bullets Go And Why Didn't They Tear Up John Kennedy's Neck & Back At All?"}? You're acting like you found a smoking gun." <<<
Oswald was the only one who held a smoking gun on 11/22/63. And no, it
wasn't a "trick" question. It's a very valid question...and is one
that no conspiracy theorist has EVER been able to answer in a
believable and logical manner. You certainly failed to do so, that's
for sure.
You CT-Kooks think THREE bullets went into the two victims (not
counting the head shot to JFK), and then all of these bullets just
vanished. And yet you think my question is a "trick" question of some
kind? Are you senile? It's a perfectly-logical question that needs to
be answered in a coherent manner by the CTers who think the official
"SBT" version of events is incorrect.
Moreover, the second part of my question is just as important to
reconcile as the "Where Did The Bullets Go?" portion of the inquiry.
That second part being: "WHERE'S THE PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO KENNEDY'S
INNARDS THAT WOULD ACCOUNT FOR TWO BULLETS STOPPING INSIDE HIS BACK
AND NECK?"
No such damage was discovered inside JFK's body AT ALL on November
22nd. None. The only non-head damage to his body was some very slight
trachea damage (caused by Bullet CE399 and/or by Dr. Perry's trach
incision at Parkland) and a small amount of bruising to Kennedy's
right lung (caused, per the autopsy doctors, by the mere PASSAGE of
the high-speed bullet as it went over the top of JFK's right lung,
prior to exiting out the lower part of his throat).
But the key here is: NO BONES OR HARD SUBSTANCES WERE HIT OR BROKEN
INSIDE THE NECK AND UPPER-BACK REGIONS OF JOHN KENNEDY'S BODY.
Quoting JFK's lead autopsist, James J. Humes (via his 1964 WC
testimony):
"In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to
this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his
chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest
cavity and both of his lungs. We found that there was, in fact, no
defect in the pleural lining of the President's chest. It was
completely intact.
"However....in the apex of the right pleural cavity, there was a
bruise or contusion or eccmymosis of the parietal pleura, as well as a
bruise of the upper portion, the most apical portion of the right
lung.
"It, therefore, was our opinion that the missile--while not
penetrating physically the pleural cavity--as it passed that
point....bruised both the parietal and the visceral pleura. ....
"This missile, to the best of our ability to ascertain, struck
no bone protuberances, no bony prominences, no bones as it traversed
the President's body. ....
"{The X-rays} showed no evidence of a missile in the President's
body at any point."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
===================
[END HUMES' QUOTES.]
===================
So...what caused TWO bullets to come to a dead stop inside President
Kennedy's body on November 22nd? Was it an invisible "CT Force Field"
or something?
(And CTers call LNers crazy for believing in the Single-Bullet Theory.
Holy H. Mackerel, if that isn't a "pot/kettle" laugh!)
>>> "Also, it {SBT bullet} would not have come out intact." <<<
Then I guess this bullet linked below (which took a very similar CE399-
like path through two mock "bodies") must be a fake too, huh?.....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
>>> "What you get out of believing this fairy tale is what I'd like to know. I guess your job is tied to supporting this phoney crap." <<<
No, my main job here is merely to help make you conspiracy-loving
kooks look like total idiots (which is a job I do very well most of
the time).
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "The neck wound entered the front and made a clean exit wound out the back." <<<
>
> Huh?? (And "LOL".)
>
> Where was the gunman who fired that shot then? Sitting on the
> floorboards of the limousine?
Geez, I would guess in front of the Limo! This was seen by many
witnesses on the triple underpass and Henry Bowers.
>
> Better think up another crackpot theory, because this one won't make
> it past the first-base coaching box.
Says someone clinging to a rapidly sinking boat called the WCR.
>
> >>> "The back wound did not penetrate fully and dropped out. Probably a bad round." <<<
>
> Huh?? You just a second ago said that the throat-wound bullet "made a
> clean exit wound out the back". (Remember that? The shot from the
> midget firing from the limo's floorboards?)
These were seperate wounds. One went into the front of JFK's neck and
came out the back of the neck. The second would struck him in the
back area (below the shoulders), but did not fully penentrate out of
the front.
>
> Now you're saying there was a bullet that entered JFK's back and
> "dropped out"??
It only went in partially in the right back (below the shoulders).
This bullet came out at Parkland during cardiac massage and was found
on a strtcher by a SS agent. See below for more details.
> Which is it? Or do you want to create your own unique theory that has
> the back-wound bullet miraculously entering the very same hole that
> was created by the throat-wound bullet, which is a bullet that you
> said "made a clean exit wound out the back"?
Try to keep up. See above.
>
> It's great being a CTer, isn't it Rob? You get to make up your own
> theories, day and night....and you never once have to worry about the
> ACTUAL evidence in the case at all.
I didn't make these up Dave. Check out numerous sources including the
autopsy photos. You'll see a small entry wound in JFK's right back
area.
>
> All that any conspiracist has to do is to utter these 5 magical words
> and every CT-Kook is forever off the hook with respect to the real
> evidence in the JFK case -- "ALL THE EVIDENCE IS TAINTED".
Not all, but more than should be. It comes from the fact that they
went in with a preconceived notion (LHO was a lone gunman) and tried
to make all the evidence show this. IF it didn't (and it didn't in
quite alot of scenarios) they just altered or omitted what didn't fit.
>
> Nice CT policy, huh? (If you're a fool, that is.)
No the fools are the ones who believe a fantasy scenario setup by the
WCR which has been proven to be false many times over the years. You
just refuse to read/believe these reports.
>
> BTW, there's no possible way that any bullet simply "dropped out" of
> John F. Kennedy's back in the emergency room at Parkland (as many
> CTers seem to believe).
There is a sound assumption that it fell out of JFK on his stretcher
at Parkland. The story is based on two FBI agents in the autopsy
room. Their names were James Sibert and Francis O'Neill and they
filed a report called "Autopsy of Body of John F.
Kennedy." (Commission Document 7, pp. 281-85)
"During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an
opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was BELOW THE
SHOULDERS (emphasis added) and two inches to the right of the middle
line of the spinal column.
This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it
was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this
point had entered at a downward positioin of 45 to 60 degrees.
Further probing determined that that the distance traveled by this
missile was short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be
felt with the finger." (CD 7 p. 5)
No connection to the neck wound was made or the bullet transiting.
The only connection made was between the back wound and the bullet on
the strectcher. The Bethesda doctors discovered that "...no complete
bullet of any size could be located in the back or any other area of
the body as determined by total body X-rays and inspection revealing
there was no point of exit..." (CD 7, p. 4) The FBI men made a call
and were informed "that the (FBI) Laboratory had received through SS
agent Richard Johnsen a bullet which reportedly had been found on a
stretcher in the emergency room of Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas,
Texas...Agent Johnsen had advised the Laboratory that it had not been
ascertained whether or not this was the stretcher which had been used
to transport the body of President Kennedy." (Ibid) When O'Neill and
Sibert told Dr. Humes about this bullet his response was to connect
the stretcher bullet with the shallow back wound.
"Immediately following the receipt of this information", wrote Sibert
and O'Neill, ...this was made available to Dr. Humes who advised that
in his opinion this accounted for no bullet being located which had
entered the back region and that since external cardiac massage had
been performed at Parkland Hospital (during which Kennedy, lying on
his back, was soundly thumped on the chest by Dr. Malcom Perry) it was
entirely possible that through such movement the bullet had worked its
way back out of the point of entry and had fallen on the
strecher." (CD 7, p. 5)
Later that evening, according to the two FBI agents, Dr. Humes
reiterated this "non-transit" finding as an official autopsy
conclusion: "Dr. Humes stated that the pattern was clear that one
bullet had entered the President's back and worked its way out of the
body during external cardiac massage and that a second ... bullet had
entered the rear of the skull..." (Ibid) This would seem to make it
clear Dr. Humes did not believe the rear wound was the entry for a
bullet which traveled through the body - at least not the night he did
the autopsy.
For full story see David Lifton's, "Best Evidence" pp.101-09
One can see why Lifton is attacked so vehemently by LNers as this type
of proof damages the SBT. Two FBI agents report there is another wound
and that a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland. Due to the
minimal penetration could this be the wound CE 399 came from? It
would jive with the lack of damage to the bullet.
> For, if that HAD occurred, that bullet would certainly have been
> recovered right there in the ER. (At the very least, it would have
> been noticed by somebody who was in charge of cleaning up the blood
> and gore in ER #1 after JFK's body had left the hospital. To believe
> otherwise is kinda silly.)
It was - see above.
>
> And to think that any such bullet that would have "dropped out" of
> JFK's back could have POSSIBLY been Bullet CE399 is also a wild CT
> fairy tale of the first order.
Not really, see above.
>
> Why?
>
> Because Kennedy's body was never in the area of Parkland Hospital
> where Darrell Tomlinson found that bullet (nor was JFK's stretcher).
>
> Naturally, via that scenario believed by many CTers whom I have
> conversed with over the years, those CTers think the bullet was
> magically moved or "planted" on or near Governor Connally's stretcher
> down the hall.
>
> But that would have been rather stupid, wouldn't it? Why on Earth
> would any plotters have had any desire to want to MOVE an actual piece
> of Oswald-incriminating evidence from Kennedy's stretcher to
> Connally's stretcher down the hall?!
This is all probably a cover story for the planting - see above for
more logical conclusion.
>
> It's just....dumb. But many CTers actually believe such a bullet
> "move" happened.
>
> Go figure kooks.
LNers shock us constantly.
> You CT-Kooks think THREE bullets went into the two victims (not
> counting the head shot to JFK), and then all of these bullets just
> vanished. And yet you think my question is a "trick" question of some
> kind? Are you senile? It's a perfectly-logical question that needs to
> be answered in a coherent manner by the CTers who think the official
> "SBT" version of events is incorrect.
They didn't all vanish Dave. We have the one found at Parkland,
fragments in Kennedy's brains (left over from an explosive bullet), a
bullet down near where Tague was, one that was in the limo below the
rearview mirror and one found in the grass across from the knoll.
> Moreover, the second part of my question is just as important to
> reconcile as the "Where Did The Bullets Go?" portion of the inquiry.
> That second part being: "WHERE'S THE PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO KENNEDY'S
> INNARDS THAT WOULD ACCOUNT FOR TWO BULLETS STOPPING INSIDE HIS BACK
> AND NECK?"
>
See above.
> No such damage was discovered inside JFK's body AT ALL on November
> 22nd. None. The only non-head damage to his body was some very slight
> trachea damage (caused by Bullet CE399 and/or by Dr. Perry's trach
> incision at Parkland) and a small amount of bruising to Kennedy's
> right lung (caused, per the autopsy doctors, by the mere PASSAGE of
> the high-speed bullet as it went over the top of JFK's right lung,
> prior to exiting out the lower part of his throat).
Wrong - see above. You keep covering the same ground. I guess you
think if you say it enough times it will become true.
>
> But the key here is: NO BONES OR HARD SUBSTANCES WERE HIT OR BROKEN
> INSIDE THE NECK AND UPPER-BACK REGIONS OF JOHN KENNEDY'S BODY.
Correct. What's your point?
> >>> "What you get out of believing this fairy tale is what I'd like to know. I guess your job is tied to supporting this phoney crap." <<<
>
> No, my main job here is merely to help make you conspiracy-loving
> kooks look like total idiots (which is a job I do very well most of
> the time).
In your own mind. Dreamer.
David Von Pein
"Where was the gunman who fired that shot then? Sitting on the
floorboards of the limousine?"
ROB SAID:
"Geez, I would guess in front of the Limo! This was seen by many
witnesses on the triple underpass and Henry Bowers."
DVP NOW SAYS:
Oh, so now Rob seems to be saying that "many witnesses on the triple
underpass" physically SAW an assassin firing a gun at JFK's car from
the front.
I guess the "smoke" that was said to have been seen by S.M. Holland
and a few other witnesses is the same thing as proving an assassin was
behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll firing a rifle at President
Kennedy. Is that it?
Well, think again. Because it doesn't prove any such thing.....
"If an ephemeral wisp of smoke--even if it existed--can overcome
several mountains of solid evidence to the contrary, then the
investigation into the truth in the assassination is more of an
existential exercise fit for black coffee-sipping Left Bank
philosophers who have always been more interested in asking questions
than in getting answers to those questions." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page
896 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
http://blog.myspace.com/davidvp1961
By the way,
Was "Henry Bowers" related to Lee Bowers (the guy in the railroad
tower)? ;)
Oh, well....I'll just chalk up that "Henry" error as an innocent
mistake. Mistakes can certainly happen. I'll admit that. After all, I
once thought you were a sane person.
"Lee Harold Oswald has been shot!!" -- Bob Huffaker (KRLD-TV);
11/24/63
A Bowers Addendum --- For more about how CTers have misrepresented Lee
Bowers' 11/22 observations, go here:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3b7e7c5c568f85c3
ROB SPEWS ANOTHER HUNK OF SPECTACULAR UNSUPPORTABLE KOOKSHIT (with
three misspellings corrected by DVP):
"These were separate wounds. One went into the front of JFK's neck and
came out the back of the neck. The second wound {bullet} struck him in
the back area (below the shoulders), but did not fully penetrate out
of the front."
DVP NOW SAYS:
Ahhhh! The life of a CT-Kook. Making up more stuff that's not in the
record anywhere and can never in a billion years be supported by
ANYBODY.
But, the kooks who spout such nonsense (like the above insanity
authored by Robert) couldn't care less about what the real evidence
shows.
For example: they don't CARE that the official autopsy report says the
following.....
"Based on the above observations 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 observations and available information do
not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
wounds.
"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of
the external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile
traversed the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see
lateral skull roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its
path. A portion of the projectile made its exit through the parietal
bone on the right carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and
scalp. The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the
missile produced extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of
the superior saggital sinus, and of the right cerebral hemisphere.
"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax
above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular
and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the
neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal
pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung.
The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
structures in its path through the body." -- VIA JFK's AUTOPSY REPORT
http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
The above words from President Kennedy's official autopsy report are
(evidently) TOTALLY MEANINGLESS to a kook like Robert. That report
(signed by all three autopsists) doesn't mean a damn thing, right Mr.
Kook?
And the kooks also don't CARE about the fact that NOT ONE DOCTOR ever
saw a SECOND bullet hole in John F. Kennedy's back (or the back of his
"neck") on November 22, 1963.
Apparently the only thing an "Anybody But Oswald" JFK conspiracy kook
cares about is getting a double-murderer exonerated in the mind of the
public.
Nice hobby. If you're a loon.
ROB SAID:
"I didn't make these up, Dave. Check out numerous sources, including
the autopsy photos. You'll see a small entry wound in JFK's right back
area."
DVP NOW SAYS:
Sure, there's ONE bullet entry hole here, but not two:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
Do you think that the little spot of dried blood (just below the one
and only verified bullet hole in the above picture) is another "bullet
hole"?
Funny, though, that all of the doctors at Bethesda missed seeing this
other "hole", huh?
Plus: That photograph shows at least two additional small "spots" on
JFK's back that look generally like the spot you seem to think is a
second bullet hole. Why don't you think those spots of blood are
"bullet holes" too?
Or maybe the white spot near the bottom of JFK's hairline in this
autopsy picture is yet another "bullet hole"?:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
You might as well go whole-hog with your fairy tale, Rob. You could
have four or five different holes in JFK's back and neck regions,
based on the various "spots" seen in the above-linked autopsy photos!
Go for it!
But when we return to the world of reality, your theory is defeated
from another POV too -- JFK's coat and shirt. Where's the SECOND
bullet hole in JFK's shirt and the SECOND bullet hole in his coat
jacket?
Or doesn't the clothing matter at all in your theory? Just like the
autopsy report doesn't matter to you, and the doctors' testimony
doesn't matter, and the WC and HSCA conclusions regarding the ONE back
wound don't matter either. Right, kook?
(You make this so very easy, Rob. You DO realize that, right?)
ROB SAID:
"The fools are the ones who believe a fantasy scenario set up by the
WCR, which has been proven to be false many times over the years. You
just refuse to read/believe these reports."
DVP NOW SAYS:
The above words being spoken by a person who just a minute ago said
the following (without a hint of embarrassment attached):
"These were separate wounds. One {bullet} went into the front of JFK's
neck and came out the back of the neck. The second {bullet} struck him
in the back area (below the shoulders), but did not fully penetrate
out of the front." -- Rob Caprio
Now, I ask -- Who is the one believing in "fantasies" here? DVP or
Robert C.?
ROB SAID:
"Later that evening, according to the two FBI agents, Dr. Humes
reiterated this "non-transit" finding as an official autopsy
conclusion: "Dr. Humes stated that the pattern was clear that one
bullet had entered the President's back and worked its way out of the
body during external cardiac massage and that a second...bullet had
entered the rear of the skull..." This would seem to make it clear Dr.
Humes did not believe the rear wound was the entry for a bullet which
traveled through the body--at least not the night he did the autopsy."
DVP NOW SAYS:
So?
Sure, Humes thought (on the night of the autopsy) the back bullet
might not have transitted the body. But he soon got the full story of
the bullet wound in the throat from Dr. Perry at Parkland the next
morning (November 23).
The autopsy report was then appropriately revised and corrected. After
talking with Perry and confirming the bullet hole in JFK's throat, the
LACK OF BULLETS AND *DAMAGE* IN KENNEDY'S BODY made perfect sense to
Dr. Humes --- ONE bullet went clean through the President's body.
Why is this rocket science to the CT-Kooks of the world?
And the corrections to the original report are what made the original
draft of the report meaningless and worthy of being burned in Dr.
Humes' fireplace (something, btw, he would have NEVER admitted doing
if he had been involved in a "cover-up" plot of some sort re. JFK's
autopsy).
And the reason Humes burned his autopsy notes is because they were
stained with Kennedy's blood. Naturally, the kooks don't believe that
story either of course.
ROB SAID:
"For full story see David Lifton's "Best Evidence", pp. 101-09."
DVP NOW SAYS:
<chuckles at the hilarious source that is named above>
If you still believe anything theorized by David "THE BODY WAS
ALTERED" Lifton, then you're deeper in the CT quicksand than even I
thought (and that's pretty deep).
If you want to read a made-up fictional tale that even Stephen King
probably wouldn't touch, then yes, by all means prop up "Best
Evidence" in bed tonight.
Or, you might like this article a little better (the common sense is
included for free).....
MUSICAL CASKETS AND THE "BODY-ALTERATION" SILLINESS:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0de08844600b8c7a
DVP SAID:
"You CT-Kooks think THREE bullets went into the two victims (not
counting the head shot to JFK), and then all of these bullets just
vanished. And yet you think my question is a "trick" question of some
kind? Are you senile? It's a perfectly-logical question that needs to
be answered in a coherent manner by the CTers who think the official
"SBT" version of events is incorrect."
ROB SAID:
"They didn't all vanish Dave. We have the one {bullet} found at
Parkland..."
DVP NOW SAYS:
Which is CE399 (which came out of Lee Oswald's rifle "to the
exclusion").
Is it fake? Think it through logically from this point-of-view:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bceb46435b39817f
ROB SAID:
"...Fragments in Kennedy's brains (left over from an explosive
bullet)..."
DVP NOW SAYS:
This is more CT-Kook-spun conjecture (the part about the "explosive
bullet", that is).
A fragment taken from Kennedy's head was matched to CE567 (one of the
front-seat fragments) via NAA. Naturally, you (being a kook) will have
to totally reject Dr. Vincent Guinn's NAA findings re. the 5 bullet
specimens he analyzed in 1978.
But, even if you do reject the NAA study done by Guinn (and you do
reject it, of course), think about the bullet evidence this way for a
change.....
"Even if the new findings {from 2002 to 2004, not the 2007
study} were to render NAA, and hence Guinn's conclusions, invalid, we
DO know that the stretcher bullet was fired from Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of ALL other weapons.
"Since THAT is definite, what is the likelihood that a bullet
found on CONNALLY'S stretcher, which we know was fired from Oswald's
gun, is not the same bullet that deposited its missing fragments in
Connally's wrist? Next to nothing.
"In other words, when all is said and done, what difference does
it make if it turns out that the NAA tests are completely invalid? But
there is a more important point to be made. Let's not forget that the
NAA conclusions by Guinn...are COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with all the
other evidence showing that Oswald was at the sniper's nest window and
it was his Carcano rifle that fired the only bullets that hit Kennedy.
"This other, independent evidence necessarily increases the
likelihood that Guinn's separate NAA conclusions are accurate." --
Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 436-437 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(c.
2007)
ROB SAID:
"...A bullet down near where Tague was..."
DVP NOW SAYS:
And you've SEEN that bullet, eh?
This sub-topic was about bullets that I said that CTers think had all
"vanished" and were not recovered, with your response being "They
didn't all vanish Dave". But now you're including the Tague bullet as
a bullet that did NOT vanish? This can only prompt me to say --
"Huh?!"
Obviously, even from my "Lone Assassin" viewpoint, the Tague bullet
(which was probably Oswald's first/missed shot) wasn't a bullet that
was recovered, nor was it recoverable. Hence, it's the one single
missing bullet in the LN/LHO/SBT scenario. But the other two bullets
(the ones that actually struck the victims in the limousine) are
present and accounted for, via CE399 and the two large fragments from
the head-shot bullet (CE567/569).
But CTers need multiple bullets that they claim went INTO VICTIMS
performing a vanishing act on 11/22/63.
ROB SAID:
"...One {bullet} that was in the limo below the rearview mirror..."
DVP NOW SAYS:
The chrome damage (which I assume is what you're referring to above)
was almost certainly caused by a fragment from the head-shot bullet
(either CE567 or CE569, both of which were fired from Oswald's gun).
You now seem to want the chrome/windshield damage to be caused by a
SEPARATE bullet (which, as per the CTer norm, was not recovered)?
I ask -- Is it more likely for the TWO damaged areas of the limo
(chrome dent + windshield crack) to have been caused by TWO slowed-
down fragments (from LHO's rifle) that came out of JFK's head, with
those two fragments ending up near that chrome and windshield damage
in the front seat of the car?
Or:
Is it more likely for the chrome and/or windshield damage to have been
caused by one or more non-Oswald bullets that were never recovered
(nor were any non-C2766 bullet fragments recovered in the front-seat
area of the car)?
Not a difficult choice by any means....is it?
ROB SAID:
"...And one {bullet} found in the grass across from the knoll."
DVP NOW SAYS:
No bullet was "found in the grass" in Dealey Plaza. That's merely
"Conspiracy-Flavored Myth #409" and everybody knows it.
There's not a single police report (or any report) in existence that
proves that any "bullet" was picked up off of the grass in the Plaza
on 11/22/63.
There might have been an area of disturbed turf on Elm where some
policemen THOUGHT a bullet might have struck...hence, we have this
photo:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/slug1.jpg
But one thing's a certainty -- no BULLET (or bullet fragment or bullet
cartridge casing) was ever found or was ever SAID TO BE FOUND in the
grass on Elm Street.
DVP SAID:
"The only non-head damage to his {JFK's} body was some very slight
trachea damage (caused by Bullet CE399 and/or by Dr. Perry's trach
incision at Parkland) and a small amount of bruising to Kennedy's
right lung (caused, per the autopsy doctors, by the mere PASSAGE of
the high-speed bullet as it went over the top of JFK's right lung,
prior to exiting out the lower part of his throat)."
ROB SAID:
"Wrong. You keep covering the same ground. I guess you think if you
say it enough times it will become true."
DVP NOW SAYS:
Okay, Rob....the spotlight's on you now. Tell us what major damage was
documented inside John F. Kennedy's upper back and neck that could
have possibly caused a bullet moving through soft tissue to suddenly
stop inside his body?
(This oughta be good.)
DVP SAID:
"My main job here is merely to help make you conspiracy-loving kooks
look like total idiots (which is a job I do very well most of the
time)."
ROB SAID:
"In your own mind. Dreamer."
DVP NOW SAYS:
I don't need to dream about it. You make debunking your make-believe
nonsense so easy that even my neighbor's sick dog could do it with
ease.
("Henry Bowers", btw, was the extra special treat from this kook-
bashing session. A special "Thanks" for that one, Rob.)
David Von Pein
"It is...remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't
troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that
Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation
that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." --
Vincent Bugliosi; Page 952 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
David Von Pein
mouth up, take a walk, forget about it, get a life. Of course, the
hard-core conspiracy theorists, who desperately want to cling to their
illusions, are not going to do any of these things. ....
"If these conspiracy theorists were to accept the truth, not
only would they be invalidating a major part of their past, but many
would be forfeiting their future. That's why talking to them about
logic and common sense is like talking to a man without ears.
"The bottom line is that they WANT there to be a conspiracy and
are constitutionally allergic to anything that points away from it."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 1437-1438 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
aeffects
finally, you quote someone other than yourself -- a piss poor choice
but at least someone other than yourself........LMAO
David Von Pein
>>> "Finally, you quote someone other than yourself." <<<
How do you know I'm not Vince?
robc...@netscape.com
> DVP SAID:
>
> "Where was the gunman who fired that shot then? Sitting on the
> floorboards of the limousine?"
>
> ROB SAID:
>
> "Geez, I would guess in front of the Limo! This was seen by many
> witnesses on the triple underpass and Henry Bowers."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Oh, so now Rob seems to be saying that "many witnesses on the triple
> underpass" physically SAW an assassin firing a gun at JFK's car from
> the front.
>
> I guess the "smoke" that was said to have been seen by S.M. Holland
> and a few other witnesses is the same thing as proving an assassin was
> behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll firing a rifle at President
> Kennedy. Is that it?
Rob Says:
About the same as the proof you have for LHO being in the east 6th
floor window shooting 3 shots from a junk gun with a bent scope
through a big tree. What was that proof again?
>
> Well, think again. Because it doesn't prove any such thing.....
Exactly!
>
> "If an ephemeral wisp of smoke--even if it existed--can overcome
> several mountains of solid evidence to the contrary, then the
> investigation into the truth in the assassination is more of an
> existential exercise fit for black coffee-sipping Left Bank
> philosophers who have always been more interested in asking questions
> than in getting answers to those questions." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page
> 896 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
Rob Says:
Who says we are relying on smoke to prove our case? That is your
tactic - all smoke and mirrors!!!! We have every doctor at Parkland,
Clint Hill, a motorcycle cop, Jackie, and the initial report from the
hospital spokeman (who pointed to the right front of his forehead)
describing a shot to the FRONT of the head. Only LNers need smoke.
> "Lee Harold Oswald has been shot!!" -- Bob Huffaker (KRLD-TV);
> 11/24/63
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3b7e7c5c568f85c3
Yes a typo on my part. Not everyone has as much time to review
everything they type like you. 3:00 AM posts! Get a life! Lee
Bowers died in a one car accident in 8/66. Very strange. Just one of
many strange deaths in this case.
> ROB SPEWS ANOTHER HUNK OF SPECTACULAR UNSUPPORTABLE KOOKSHIT (with
> three misspellings corrected by DVP):
>
> "These were separate wounds. One went into the front of JFK's neck and
> came out the back of the neck. The second wound {bullet} struck him in
> the back area (below the shoulders), but did not fully penetrate out
> of the front."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Ahhhh! The life of a CT-Kook. Making up more stuff that's not in the
> record anywhere and can never in a billion years be supported by
> ANYBODY.
Rob Now Says:
Yes, I was typing in a hurry, but it doesn't change the fact that the
above statement came from 2 FBI Agents and their account is in the WCR
- Documentation area! It is your own "evidence". You are right when
you say the WC isn't anybody.
> But, the kooks who spout such nonsense (like the above insanity
> authored by Robert) couldn't care less about what the real evidence
> shows.
>
> For example: they don't CARE that the official autopsy report says the
> following.....
>
> "Based on the above observations 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 observations and available information do
> not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
> wounds.
>
Which version was this from? First one (burned on Saturday night)?
Second one? Third one? The high-velocity part confirms he died as a
result of a projectile being fired from another gun as the Carcano is
a low-velocity gun. Even you admitted this and it is stated in
Guinn's testimony to the HSCA.
> "The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of
> the external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile
> traversed the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see
> lateral skull roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its
> path. A portion of the projectile made its exit through the parietal
> bone on the right carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and
> scalp. The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the
> missile produced extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of
> the superior saggital sinus, and of the right cerebral hemisphere.
None of the trained ballistic forensic doctors/nurses at Parkland
would agree with this. I'll take their word over doctors who have
never worked with gun deaths before.
>
> "The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax
> above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular
> and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the
> neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal
> pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung.
> The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
> damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
> the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
> structures in its path through the body." -- VIA JFK's AUTOPSY REPORT
Pure fantasy. It is inconsistent with the actual wounds. That is why
they altered the photos and X-rays.
> The above words from President Kennedy's official autopsy report are
> (evidently) TOTALLY MEANINGLESS to a kook like Robert. That report
> (signed by all three autopsists) doesn't mean a damn thing, right Mr.
> Kook?
To me and millions and millions of others Mr. unable to think for
myself.
>
> And the kooks also don't CARE about the fact that NOT ONE DOCTOR ever
> saw a SECOND bullet hole in John F. Kennedy's back (or the back of his
> "neck") on November 22, 1963.
Read the Siebert and O'Neill report. Dr. Humes probed this wound you
are denying.
>
> Apparently the only thing an "Anybody But Oswald" JFK conspiracy kook
> cares about is getting a double-murderer exonerated in the mind of the
> public.
You are violating the rights of a deceased citizen. Don't you know you
are innocent until proven guilty in this country? That means in a
court of law by your peers, not by a presidential commission that was
not interested in investigated what really happened. I guess you like
claiming people are guilty without a trial. Hopefully, you'll never
find yourself in that position.
>
> Nice hobby. If you're a loon.
Protecting one's rights under the constitution is a hobby? You should
move to a dictatorship as you are not interested in thinking for
yourself.
>
> ROB SAID:
>
> "I didn't make these up, Dave. Check out numerous sources, including
> the autopsy photos. You'll see a small entry wound in JFK's right back
> area."
> Do you think that the little spot of dried blood (just below the one
> and only verified bullet hole in the above picture) is another "bullet
> hole"?
Not just dried blood according to Siebert/O'Neill report supported by
Dr. Humes.
>
> Funny, though, that all of the doctors at Bethesda missed seeing this
> other "hole", huh?
They didn't miss it Dave. Dr. Humes assumed the bullet found at
Parkland came out of this hole. CE399 came from this small
indentation, not from JBC's stretcher. Face it, the SBT is a farce
that was dreamed up by a lawyer of all people.
> You might as well go whole-hog with your fairy tale, Rob. You could
> have four or five different holes in JFK's back and neck regions,
> based on the various "spots" seen in the above-linked autopsy photos!
> Go for it!
And you know they are not bullet holes because you were there? You
were part of the autopsy? Didn't think so. You are making judgements
just like you accuse everyone else of doing.
>
> But when we return to the world of reality, your theory is defeated
> from another POV too -- JFK's coat and shirt. Where's the SECOND
> bullet hole in JFK's shirt and the SECOND bullet hole in his coat
> jacket?
There is only one hole and it is from the wound below the shoulders!
The WC lamely said JFK's coat and shirt "were bunched up" as he was
hit as they tried to pawn off the only hole as the one at the "base of
the neck". The bullet that entered the front come out above the back
of the collar (shirt/jacket).
>
> Or doesn't the clothing matter at all in your theory? Just like the
> autopsy report doesn't matter to you, and the doctors' testimony
> doesn't matter, and the WC and HSCA conclusions regarding the ONE back
> wound don't matter either. Right, kook?
It sure does nutjob that is why the WC lied about where the hole was.
>
> (You make this so very easy, Rob. You DO realize that, right?)
So easy when you don't address the real issue nutcase. Learn the
facts!
>
> ROB SAID:
>
> "The fools are the ones who believe a fantasy scenario set up by the
> WCR, which has been proven to be false many times over the years. You
> just refuse to read/believe these reports."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> The above words being spoken by a person who just a minute ago said
> the following (without a hint of embarrassment attached):
>
> "These were separate wounds. One {bullet} went into the front of JFK's
> neck and came out the back of the neck. The second {bullet} struck him
> in the back area (below the shoulders), but did not fully penetrate
> out of the front." -- Rob Caprio
So what is your point? I got this from two FBI agents at the scene of
the autopsy. Do you know more then they did?
> ROB SAID:
>
> "Later that evening, according to the two FBI agents, Dr. Humes
> reiterated this "non-transit" finding as an official autopsy
> conclusion: "Dr. Humes stated that the pattern was clear that one
> bullet had entered the President's back and worked its way out of the
> body during external cardiac massage and that a second...bullet had
> entered the rear of the skull..." This would seem to make it clear Dr.
> Humes did not believe the rear wound was the entry for a bullet which
> traveled through the body--at least not the night he did the autopsy."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> So?
So????????????? He is admitting there was an entry wound to the back,
below the shoulders!! Even agreeing with the WC that there was a
wound at the back of the neck (which is false as it was an exit wound)
this would say there was another wound. Why bullet would account for
this wound genius? Another bullet = conspiracy. So so slow you don't
even get this.
>
> Sure, Humes thought (on the night of the autopsy) the back bullet
> might not have transitted the body. But he soon got the full story of
> the bullet wound in the throat from Dr. Perry at Parkland the next
> morning (November 23).
This is a seperate wound from the SBT wound at the base of the neck.
They are admitting there is another wound. LHO couldn't have created
another wound. They already accounted for his two hits. This means
there was more than 3 shots fired and that = conspiracy.
>
> The autopsy report was then appropriately revised and corrected. After
> talking with Perry and confirming the bullet hole in JFK's throat, the
> LACK OF BULLETS AND *DAMAGE* IN KENNEDY'S BODY made perfect sense to
> Dr. Humes --- ONE bullet went clean through the President's body.
And one didn't. It is still an extra wound. Where did it come from
Davy? You are not addressing that because you can't.
>
> Why is this rocket science to the CT-Kooks of the world?
Because it means more than 3 shots were fired nutjob. Get with the
program.
>
> And the corrections to the original report are what made the original
> draft of the report meaningless and worthy of being burned in Dr.
> Humes' fireplace (something, btw, he would have NEVER admitted doing
> if he had been involved in a "cover-up" plot of some sort re. JFK's
> autopsy).
IMO, it could have been his way in telling us something was up. I
have never said he was part of the conspiracy. He was a military man
not given a choice regarding his role. It is not normal practice to
burn your original notes when everything is fresh in your mind.
> And the reason Humes burned his autopsy notes is because they were
> stained with Kennedy's blood. Naturally, the kooks don't believe that
> story either of course.
So, no one said they would be on public display.
>
> ROB SAID:
>
> "For full story see David Lifton's "Best Evidence", pp. 101-09."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> <chuckles at the hilarious source that is named above>
Chuckle away nutjob. He referenced WC documents. That is cause for a
chuckle.
>
> If you still believe anything theorized by David "THE BODY WAS
> ALTERED" Lifton, then you're deeper in the CT quicksand than even I
> thought (and that's pretty deep).
Yeah, because Davy knows all about the case. He was at the autopsy, he
talked with LHO many times as he knows his state of mind so well. Get
over yourself.
>
> If you want to read a made-up fictional tale that even Stephen King
> probably wouldn't touch, then yes, by all means prop up "Best
> Evidence" in bed tonight.
This from a man who has the WCR, Posner, and Bugman on his night
table. Now they'll put you to sleep faster than a pill.
> DVP SAID:
>
> "You CT-Kooks think THREE bullets went into the two victims (not
> counting the head shot to JFK), and then all of these bullets just
> vanished. And yet you think my question is a "trick" question of some
> kind? Are you senile? It's a perfectly-logical question that needs to
> be answered in a coherent manner by the CTers who think the official
> "SBT" version of events is incorrect."
>
> ROB SAID:
>
> "They didn't all vanish Dave. We have the one {bullet} found at
> Parkland..."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Which is CE399 (which came out of Lee Oswald's rifle "to the
> exclusion").
Right it is CE399, but based on the lack of damage it is more
conceivable to anyone who is honest that it fell out of JFK's small
back wound not JBC's thigh. It that case it had to slam into two bones
and come virtually intact. Anyone besides the government would have
been shown to be frauds for concluding this.
>
> Is it fake? Think it through logically from this point-of-view:
For someone who references common sense and logic so much, you sure
don't use it.
robc...@netscape.com
> "No evidence plus no common sense equals go home, zipper your
> mouth up, take a walk, forget about it, get a life. Of course, the
> hard-core conspiracy theorists, who desperately want to cling to their
> illusions, are not going to do any of these things. ....
Get a life from a man who is online at 3:22 AM!!!!! Take your own
advice - go home as you have no proof or evidence LHO shot anyone.
>
> "If these conspiracy theorists were to accept the truth, not
> only would they be invalidating a major part of their past, but many
> would be forfeiting their future. That's why talking to them about
> logic and common sense is like talking to a man without ears.
You don't talk in common sense and logic - you talk in fantasy.
>
> "The bottom line is that they WANT there to be a conspiracy and
> are constitutionally allergic to anything that points away from it."
> -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 1437-1438 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
Bugman should know about being constitutionally allergic as he brags
about putting innocent people in jail.
aeffects
ahh, its the Nutter's that HAVE to prove their case.... by the mere
fact they continue here is a perfect example of their collective
failure in proving the SBT and LHO did it all by his lonesome.... Lone
Nut fools abound!
<snip>
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "Finally, you quote someone other than yourself." <<<
>
> How do you know I'm not Vince?
Exactly! I have known you are Vince, or at the very least, his press
agent.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
Sunday... not Saturday.
You have to learn to doublecheck anything a LNT'er says - since it's likely to
be a lie. This troll specified that the Autopsy Report was signed by all three
autopsists.
I'd try taking a look at that 'fact', were I you.
There was never a wound at the back of JFK's neck.
David Von Pein
>>> "I have known you are Vince, or at the very least, his press agent." <<<
Shit! I was hoping to keep my cover a little bit longer. Looks like I
goofed. (I might have to take a pay cut now. Crap.)
David Von Pein
Which it was, of course. And Ben The Mega-Kook knows that full well.
Here's the signed report (these 3 signatures must be "faked" too,
huh?).....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm
David Von Pein
"Lee Bowers died in a one-car accident in 8/66. Just one of many
strange deaths in this case."
DVP NOW SAYS:
Yeah, he was supposedly murdered by the "Mystery Death Squad" AFTER he
had already talked to Mark Lane ON FILM.
Great tactic there....let the "CT" witness live for years after the
assassination (so he has ample time to talk; and Bowers did
talk)...and THEN rub him out after his story is not only in print in
Mark Lane's book, but also is ON FILM for Mr. Lane's upcoming movie.
A brilliant move by the ever-efficient brain-dead plotters indeed.
"The vast majority of the witnesses on the various mysterious-
death lists of the conspiracy theorists (e.g., Jim Marrs's book
"Crossfire" lists 104 witnesses) weren't connected with the case in
any known way whatsoever, and had absolutely nothing of any known
value to say about the case. ....
"But of those who did have a connection -- such as Roger Craig,
Earlene Roberts, Lee Bowers, and Buddy Walthers -- all of them,
WITHOUT EXCEPTION, had already told their story, most of them on the
public record, so what could possibly be achieved by killing them?" --
Vince Bugliosi; Page 1018 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
ARE THESE SO-CALLED "MYSTERY DEATHS" REALLY SO MYSTERIOUS?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d52845e6c744cccf
ROB SAID:
"None of the trained ballistic forensic doctors/nurses at Parkland
would agree with this. I'll take their word over doctors who have
never worked with gun deaths before."
DVP NOW SAYS:
Again your ignorance shows. Dr. Finck was called in, and he had plenty
of experience with gunshot wounds. And he also signed that revised
autopsy report, didn't he?
Next?
ROB FANTASIZED:
"...They altered the photos and X-rays."
DVP NOW SAYS:
Oh, naturally. And that, of course, means that the many photo experts
for the HSCA were all liars/cover-uppers too (because those HSCA guys
said the photos & X-rays were not altered in any way whatsoever).
So, you're willing to completely ignore ALL of the autopsy doctors,
plus the autopsy report, plus the WC people, plus the entire HSCA
photographic panel. And, instead, you'll believe that the X-rays and
pics are "altered".
Can you say: "Mega-Kook"??
ROB DISTORTS AS FOLLOWS:
"Dr. Humes probed this wound you are denying."
DVP NOW SAYS:
He probed the ONE and ONLY back wound, yes. So what?
There was no SECOND back wound at all. You invented that to meet your
silly CT requirements for some reason.
Humes' pinky probe possibly messed up the true path of Bullet CE399,
and even Humes himself admitted something similar to that when he
said:
"Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful
without fear of making a false passage." -- J. HUMES; 1964
JFK's muscles had stiffened after death. The path of the bullet
through the tissue had, in effect, "closed" itself up.
Why you think there was a second wound in JFK's upper-back region is
anybody's guess...because nobody ever even hinted at such a thing.
ROB GUSHED:
"You are violating the rights of a deceased citizen. Don't you know
you are innocent until proven guilty in this country? That means in a
court of law by your peers, not by a presidential commission that was
not interested in investigated what really happened."
DVP NOW SAYS:
Some soft violin music might help here, to accompany your pathetic
attempts at getting an obviously-guilty double-murderer off the hook.
Obviously there can be no "trial". Does that mean that Oswald's guilt
can never be proven? Hardly. Many times (or most) a guilty killer
never takes the witness stand at his trial anyway.
So, we probably would never have heard a peep out of Saint Oswald at
his trial anyway (had he lived to face trial). Therefore, if the
murdering bastard had gone to trial, the only thing the jury would
have heard from the defense lawyers would be the same type of defense
that was placed on the table in 1995 at O.J. Simpson's trial -- i.e.,
a defense filled with murkiness and unsupportable charges that all of
the evidence in the case had been "tainted" or "mishandled" or was
"fake" or was "planted" or was "altered" in some fashion, etc., etc.
That's THE ONLY type of defense that was offered up at Simpson's trial
(plus the "Race Card" defense too, which should have never been
allowed in by Judge Ito, but it was anyway).
Yes, the pathetic jury voted Simpson Not Guilty, but my point still
stands regarding his defense and the tactics used by his Scheme Team
of shameless attorneys.
And Simpson, of course (being the guilty double-murderer he was),
didn't take the stand either. Just as Oswald (being the guilty double-
murderer he was in '63) wouldn't have dared take the stand had he gone
to trial either.
A simulated sample of what very likely would have happened if Oswald
had taken the witness stand at his own murder trial (with Mr. Bugliosi
serving as the prosecutor).....
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 139,
which is a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial number C2766.
Police officers who testified at this trial have verified the fact
that this exact rifle was found on the sixth floor of your workplace,
the Texas School Book Depository, just 52 minutes after President
Kennedy was shot and killed from right in front of that building on
November the 22nd, 1963. A palmprint of yours was located on this
exact weapon. .... I ask you now, Mr. Oswald, have you ever seen this
rifle before?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have not."
BUGLIOSI -- "Did you, Mr. Oswald, ever send in a mail-order coupon to
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, a coupon for a 6.5-millimeter
carbine rifle, during the first half of the year 1963?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir. I didn't order any rifle through the mail."
BUGLIOSI -- "Have you ever owned a rifle in your lifetime, Mr.
Oswald....a privately-owned rifle, that is, since you got out of the
Marine Corps in late 1959?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have never owned a rifle in my life."
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 134,
a photograph of a man who looks exactly like you--Lee Harvey Oswald.
This man in the photo, who looks like you, is holding a rifle, has a
handgun in a holster around his waist, and is also holding up two
Russian newspapers, dated March 11th and March 24th of 1963. .... I
ask you now, Mr. Oswald, are you the man depicted in this photograph?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir. That picture must be a fake or something. I never
posed for any picture like that in my life."
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now direct your attention to the date of
President Kennedy's assassination--November the 22nd, 1963--and I ask
you now, Mr. Oswald, if you know a young man by the name of Buell
Wesley Frazier?"
OSWALD -- "Yes, I worked with him at the book store....the Depository,
I mean."
BUGLIOSI -- "And did Mr. Frazier give you a ride to work on the
morning of President Kennedy's visit to Dallas--that is the morning of
Friday, November the 22nd, 1963?"
OSWALD -- "Yes....I believe I did ride to work with him that morning."
BUGLIOSI -- "Okay. And did you bring any type of paper package with
you to work on that particular morning?"
OSWALD -- "I brought my lunch. That's all."
BUGLIOSI -- "You brought ONLY a lunch sack with you to work on
November 22nd, is that correct?"
OSWALD -- "Yes, sir. I had my lunch with me."
BUGLIOSI -- "Did you have any OTHER paper package with you that
morning at all? Anything larger than a small lunch bag?"
OSWALD -- "No, I had nothing else with me that day."
BUGLIOSI -- "Wesley Frazier, just this morning, told this court and
this jury that he observed you carrying a much-larger paper bag on the
morning of November the 22nd. Mr. Frazier said that you told him you
had some curtain rods in that larger paper package. Did you tell
Wesley Frazier anything like that on the morning of November 22nd?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir! Absolutely not! I don't know why he'd say a thing
like that. I never told him anything like that."
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, another witness--Mr. Frazier's sister, Linnie
Mae Randle--also testified during this trial that she also observed
you carrying a bulky-type brown paper bag as you walked toward her
house in Irving, Texas, around 7:10 AM on the morning of November
22nd, 1963. Was she mistaken, Mr. Oswald? Did she ONLY see your small
paper lunch sack?"
OSWALD -- "Well...er...I...uh...I really can't speak for what another
witness might or might not have said. I can only tell you that she's
wrong if she said I had a big bag with me that day. I just carried my
lunch to work, like I usually do on work days."
BUGLIOSI -- "Thank you, Mr. Oswald....no further questions at this
time."
[END COURTROOM SIMULATION OF OSWALD'S DESTRUCTION.]
The above questioning of Oswald would have been, of course, preceded
by a parade of witnesses who would have confirmed (without a shred of
a doubt) that Lee Oswald DID purchase Rifle #C2766 by mail-order in
March 1963, and WAS photographed (by his own wife) while holding that
weapon on 3/31/63, and DID take a bulky paper package into the Book
Depository on 11/22/63.
Who do you think the jury is going to believe? The accused murderer?
Or the succession of several different witnesses who all paint Oswald
as the liar he obviously was when he told Mr. Bugliosi (via my
simulated courtroom proceeding above): "I have never owned a rifle in
my life"?
The jury wouldn't even break a sweat on that decision.
In short, Lee Harvey Oswald's many, many LIES would have done almost
as much to convict the bastard as would the wealth of physical and
circumstantial evidence in the JFK case (which also convicts him ten
times over, of course).
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d2c24506aa7154bf
ROB SAID:
"I guess you like claiming people are guilty without a trial."
DVP NOW SAYS:
Only if I have a carload of evidence to show the person committed the
crime(s).....which I do have in the LHO instance (for both the JFK and
Tippit murders).
I guess you, however, enjoy trying to exonerate guilty murderers
posthumously. Just one of the many curious hobbies you kooks engage in
daily.
ROB SAID:
"Not just dried blood according to Siebert/O'Neill report, supported
by Dr. Humes."
DVP NOW SAYS:
This is nothing but a lie. Humes never, ever supported the notion of
TWO separate holes in JFK's back. You're nuts if you think he did.
In fact, the O'Neill/Sibert report doesn't support the idea of
multiple back wounds either. Why you think it does support two such
bullet holes is another of the many mysteries associated with your
Kook Disease.
ROB SPEWS ADDITIONAL KOOK BLATHER:
"They didn't miss it, Dave. Dr. Humes assumed the bullet found at
Parkland came out of this hole."
DVP NOW SAYS:
Humes thought initially that it was possible that the bullet had
fallen out of the ONE and ONLY upper-back bullet hole, yes. I don't
deny that Humes thought that. He said so.
But when BETTER and MORE COMPLETE information came his way (from
Perry) the next morning, the scenario changed, and everything made
sense to Humes then (particularly the parts about NO DAMAGE IN
KENNEDY'S BODY and NO BULLETS IN HIS BODY either).
ROB LIES (AGAIN):
"CE399 came from this small indentation, not from JBC's stretcher."
DVP DOESN'T LIE BY NOW SAYING:
Why are you deliberately telling falsehoods about the KNOWN FACTS
regarding Bullet CE399?
That bullet could not have POSSIBLY come off of Kennedy's stretcher,
because JFK's stretcher was never rolled down the hall to the place
where Tomlinson found that bullet.
MORE CRAP FROM ROB:
"Face it, the SBT is a farce that was dreamed up by a lawyer of all
people."
DVP SETS ROB STRAIGHT ABOUT THE GENESIS OF THE "SBT":
It wasn't ONLY Mr. Specter who originally thought the SBT was the
accurate solution to the JFK/JBC double-man wounding. Several other WC
members came to the same conclusion, at the same time. .....
"When I asked {Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005} if, indeed,
Arlen Specter, was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his
exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself,
Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." ....
"I don't know about you folks, but I'm inclined to take what
Redlich told me to the bank. My sense is that Redlich, who by almost
all accounts worked harder on the case than anyone else, was a team
player only interested in doing his job well." -- Vince Bugliosi;
Pages 302-304 of "RH" Endnotes (c.2007)
ROB SAID:
"And you know they are not bullet holes because you were there? You
were part of the autopsy? Didn't think so. You are making judgements
just like you accuse everyone else of doing."
DVP (FIGHTING TO HOLD BACK THE LAUGHTER) NOW SAYS:
And you WERE at the autopsy and saw these extra bullet holes in JFK's
back, eh? That's funny, I didn't think you were there. Guess I was
wrong.
So, being an Anybody-But-Oz kook, you think it gives you free reign to
dismiss gobs of official stuff (like the autopsy report and the
pictures) in order for you to believe in an extra bullet hole in JFK
that has never once been documented by ANYBODY (not even Sibert and
O'Neill). Right, kook?
Geez.
MORE MADE-UP STUFF FROM THE ROB-STER FOLLOWS:
"The bullet that entered the front come out above the back of the
collar (shirt/jacket)."
DVP NOW SAYS:
Oh, I see. How convenient. I wonder how a bullet EXITING from the spot
of blood seen underneath the one real wound in this picture managed to
NOT go through either JFK's shirt or coat jacket? (Another crazy zig-
zagging bullet I guess, huh?).....
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
Oh, that's right! That picture is a "fake". I forgot that!
I wonder, then, why this same kook named Robert said this just
yesterday:
"Check out numerous sources, including the autopsy photos.
You'll see a small entry wound in JFK's right back area."
But now, today, the same kook said this:
"They altered the photos and X-rays."
Nice and contradictory, huh? So, one day the kook is RELYING on the
autopsy photos to prove his assertion of a second hole in JFK's
back....but 24 hours later the kook is claiming the photos are
"altered".
Tomorrow, the kook will say: "Well, uh, only SOME of the pictures were
altered. I didn't mean ALL of them were faked/altered. The ones that I
think prove conspiracy were not altered."
You make this too easy, Rob. You DO realize that, right?
ROB SPEWED:
"Learn the facts!"
DVP NOW SAYS:
That's kinda like saying this to Babe Ruth:
"Learn to hit some home runs, you slob!"
ROB BELLOWED (AGAIN):
"It is still an extra wound. Where did it come from Davy? You are not
addressing that because you can't."
DVP NOW SAYS:
Rob The Kook has taken the words "back" and "neck" and has created a
"second wound" on the back of John Kennedy's body.
Hint to Rob: Those words were used interchangeably by many people when
describing where on JFK's body the ONE bullet hole resided. But
nobody, at ANY time, ever hinted that there was more than ONE bullet
hole in the back/neck of President Kennedy (again, not even Sibert or
O'Neill).
You, however, being a Mega-Kook, can't evaluate this "back" vs. "neck"
terminology correctly. You want to think these people were talking
about one "back" wound and a separate "neck" bullet hole.
Of course, as can easily be determined in ANY of the documents and the
testimony of witnesses/doctors and the various reports (including the
AUTOPSY REPORT), these people who used the two words in tandem ("back"
and "neck") were talking only about ONE SINGLE BULLET HOLE in John F.
Kennedy's upper-back region.
The confusion only exists because of exactly WHERE Kennedy was hit by
Bullet CE399 -- i.e., very near the top of the shoulders, near the
junction of where the upper "back" meets the lower "neck" area
(roughly anyway). .....
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
It would have been better if everybody had referred to the wound
location as the "upper back", instead of some referring to the
location as the "neck" or "back of the neck" (etc.).
But, humans being what they are (i.e., "human"), sometimes things
aren't always laid out in perfect uniform apple-pie order.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/920675e014eb3b70
robc...@netscape.com
You're not doing this for the pay, you love beating up on Kooks. :-)
David Von Pein
>>> "You're not doing this for the pay, you love beating up on Kooks." <<<
Again my cover's been blown! Damn!
(And an interesting self-admission by The Rob-ster, too.) :)
aeffects
> >>> "Finally, you quote someone other than yourself." <<<
>
> How do you know I'm not Vince?
because you're Dave Reitzes..... :) *a birdy told me*
David Von Pein
A cuckoo birdy, no doubt.
It's getting crowded in here, though. I'm Vince B. AND Dave Reitzes at
the same time.
Can I be Ken Rahn tomorrow?? (Pretty please??!!)
cdddraftsman
> to your shoulder bone, your shoulder bone
> connected to your neck bone, your neck bone connected to your head
> bone...
= Gil Hey Zuess Connected To His Bone Head ! Hahahahahaha ! ......tl
robc...@netscape.com
> ROB SAID:
>
> "Lee Bowers died in a one-car accident in 8/66. Just one of many
> strange deaths in this case."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Yeah, he was supposedly murdered by the "Mystery Death Squad" AFTER he
> had already talked to Mark Lane ON FILM.
>
> Great tactic there....let the "CT" witness live for years after the
> assassination (so he has ample time to talk; and Bowers did
> talk)...and THEN rub him out after his story is not only in print in
> Mark Lane's book, but also is ON FILM for Mr. Lane's upcoming movie.
>
> A brilliant move by the ever-efficient brain-dead plotters indeed.
Rob Says:
That interview was in what, 1965? They probably saw it and determined
it was time to act. They didn't want him saying the same thing 10, 15
or 20 years later. They really thought this would go away at some
point. I don't think a single person involved in this case would have
thought people would be discussing this 44 years later. Nobody said
the conspirators handled anything brilliantly in this case, that is
why we are discussing it 44 years later.
>
> "The vast majority of the witnesses on the various mysterious-
> death lists of the conspiracy theorists (e.g., Jim Marrs's book
> "Crossfire" lists 104 witnesses) weren't connected with the case in
> any known way whatsoever, and had absolutely nothing of any known
> value to say about the case. ....
Rob Says:
This isn't true. There have been many people well connected to the
case who have
"died" mysteriously. It seemed like a bad luck to have seen anything
remotely close to not supporting the official theory.
11/63 - Karyn Kupcinet - TV host's daughter who was overheard telling
of JFK's death prior to 11/22/63 - Murdered
12/63 - Jack Zangretti - Expressed foreknowledge of Ruby shooting
Oswald - Gunshot to head
3/64 - Bill Chesher - Thought to have information linking Ruby to
Oswald - Heart attack
3/64 - Hank Killam - Husband of Ruby employee/knew LHO acquaintance -
Throat cut
4/64 - Bill Hunter - Reporter who was in Ruby's apartment 11/24/63 -
Accidental shooting by police
5/64 - Gary Underhill - CIA agent who claimed CIA was involved -
Gunshot in head/ruled suicide
6/64 - Guy Banister - Ex-FBI agent in New Orleans w/ties to Ferrie ,
CIA, Marcello and LHO - Heart Attack (Hugh Ward worked with Banister/
crashed in plane in 5/64; Maurice Gatlin was Banister's pilot/Took a
fatal fall in 5/65)
9/64 - Jim Keothe - Reporter who was in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63 -
Blow to neck
9/64 - C.D. Jackson - Life Magazine senior V.P. who bought Zapruder
film and locked it away - Unknown
10/64 - Mary Pinchot Meyer - JFK mistress who's dairy was taken by
James Angleton after her death, wife of CIA agent Cord Meyer -
Murdered
3/65 - Tom Howard - Ruby's first lawyer (dreamed up idea of killing
LHO for Jackie's sake) who was in Ruby's apartment 11/24/63 - Heart
Attack
8/65 - Mona Saenz - Texas employment clerk who interviewed LHO - Hit
by bus
?/65 - David Goldstien - Dallasite who helped FBI trace LHO's pistol -
Natural causes
12/65 - William Whaley - Cab driver reportedly drove LHO to Oak Cliff
- Motor Collison, only cab driver to ever die while on duty in Dallas
6/66 - Capt. Frank Martin - witnessed LHO slaying - "There's alot to
be said but probably be better if I don't say it. Cancer
1966 - Judge Joe Brown - Presided over Ruby's Trial - Heart Attack
1966 - Karen Carlin - Ruby employee who last talked with Ruby before
LHO shooting - Gunshot victim
2/66 - Albert Bogard - Car salesman who took test drive with LHO (real
LHO couldn't drive) - Suicide (I guess not selling that car drove him
over the edge)
10/66 - William Pitzer - JFK autopsy photographer - Gunshot, ruled
suicide
11/66 - James Worrell, Jr. - Saw man flee rear of TBSD - motor
accident
1966 - Clarence Oliver - D.A. investigator who worked Ruby case -
Unknown
12/66 - Hank Suydam - Life magazine official in charge of JFK stories
- Heart Attack
2/67 - Harold Russell - Saw Tippit's killer escape - Killed in bar
brawl w/cop
4/68 - Hiram Ingram - Dallas Deputy Sheriff, close friend of Roger
Craig. Cancer
1/68 - A. D. Bowie - Asst. Dallas D.A. prosecuting Ruby - Blow to neck/
ruled accidental
5/68 - Dr. Nicholas Chetta - N.O. coroner who ruled on death of Ferrie
- Heart Attack (his brother-in-law was murdered in 1/69)
1/69 - E.R. Walthers - Dallas Deputy Sheriff, involved in Depository
search, claimed to have found .45 cal. slug. Shot by felon
1969 - Charles Mentesana - Filmed rifle other than Mannlicher-Carcaon
being taken from TSBD - Heart Attack
8/70 - BIll Decker - Dallas Sheriff who saw bullet hit street in front
of JFK - Natural Causes
1972 - Hale Boggs - House Majority leader, WC member who publicly
began to express doubts about findings - Disappeared on Alaskan plane
flight
7/75 - Alan Sweatt - Dallas Deputy Sheriff - involved in the
investigation. Natural Causes
4/76 - James Chaney - Dallas Motorcylce Officer - rode on the right
side of JFK's limo and said, "stuck in the face" with bullet. Heart
Attack
1978 - C.L. "Lummie" Lewis - Dallas Deputy Sheriff - arrested Mafia
man Braden in Dealey Plaza. Natural Causes
6/80 - Jesse Curry - Dallas Police Cheif - Heart Attack
And there are many more....
> ROB SAID:
>
> "None of the trained ballistic forensic doctors/nurses at Parkland
> would agree with this. I'll take their word over doctors who have
> never worked with gun deaths before."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Again your ignorance shows. Dr. Finck was called in, and he had plenty
> of experience with gunshot wounds. And he also signed that revised
> autopsy report, didn't he?
>
Could of fooled me with that poor autopsy performance.
>
> ROB FANTASIZED:
>
> "...They altered the photos and X-rays."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Oh, naturally. And that, of course, means that the many photo experts
> for the HSCA were all liars/cover-uppers too (because those HSCA guys
> said the photos & X-rays were not altered in any way whatsoever).
You got it. They were rewarded for stating the same exact thing the
WC said. Check out the deaths list above, you'll note the man who
took the original photos at the autopsy died less than 3 years later.
> So, you're willing to completely ignore ALL of the autopsy doctors,
> plus the autopsy report, plus the WC people, plus the entire HSCA
> photographic panel. And, instead, you'll believe that the X-rays and
> pics are "altered".
Yes.
> Can you say: "Mega-Kook"??
Of course I can say it - that is what I call you.
>
> ROB DISTORTS AS FOLLOWS:
>
> "Dr. Humes probed this wound you are denying."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> He probed the ONE and ONLY back wound, yes. So what?
It was a seperate wound as it wa below the shoulders. Was the SBT
wound that low? No, it was listed as being at the "base of the neck".
>
> There was no SECOND back wound at all. You invented that to meet your
> silly CT requirements for some reason.
>
So now your calling FBI agents liars. Can you say "Kook"?
> Humes' pinky probe possibly messed up the true path of Bullet CE399,
> and even Humes himself admitted something similar to that when he
> said:
>
> "Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful
> without fear of making a false passage." -- J. HUMES; 1964
>
You're confusing the two wounds. The one I mentioned did not go
through JFK. The base of Neck wound did.
> JFK's muscles had stiffened after death. The path of the bullet
> through the tissue had, in effect, "closed" itself up.
Seperate wound. Not the one linked to SBT. It wasn't deep so the
muscles tightening up would not have affected it at all.
> Why you think there was a second wound in JFK's upper-back region is
> anybody's guess...because nobody ever even hinted at such a thing.
Geez, I don't know, maybe because of the report submitted by two FBI
agents included in the WCR. You are ignoring it.
>
> ROB GUSHED:
>
> "You are violating the rights of a deceased citizen. Don't you know
> you are innocent until proven guilty in this country? That means in a
> court of law by your peers, not by a presidential commission that was
> not interested in investigated what really happened."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Some soft violin music might help here, to accompany your pathetic
> attempts at getting an obviously-guilty double-murderer off the hook.
Sorry, but in America you have to be proved guilty in a court of law.
I don't know why LHO's family have not sued all the media over the
years for not using the word "alledged" when refering to him as the
assassin. Watch your local news, they won't leave that word out for a
common criminal until they are found guilty because they can be sued.
>
> Obviously there can be no "trial". Does that mean that Oswald's guilt
> can never be proven? Hardly. Many times (or most) a guilty killer
> never takes the witness stand at his trial anyway.
Doesn't matter if he took the stand or not. He was not found guilty in
a court of law with a chance to defend himself to his peers. That is
why we are still discussing this 44 years later. If he had been found
guilty not as many people would be discussing this. It is too
convenient for most people to accept that a man with ties to the mob
just happened to shoot LHO.
>
> So, we probably would never have heard a peep out of Saint Oswald at
> his trial anyway (had he lived to face trial). Therefore, if the
> murdering bastard had gone to trial, the only thing the jury would
> have heard from the defense lawyers would be the same type of defense
> that was placed on the table in 1995 at O.J. Simpson's trial -- i.e.,
> a defense filled with murkiness and unsupportable charges that all of
> the evidence in the case had been "tainted" or "mishandled" or was
> "fake" or was "planted" or was "altered" in some fashion, etc., etc.
This is all your guess work. It seems based on what he said to the
press over the weekend who would probably have wanted to defend
himself.
>
> That's THE ONLY type of defense that was offered up at Simpson's trial
> (plus the "Race Card" defense too, which should have never been
> allowed in by Judge Ito, but it was anyway).
Last time I checked he was acquited.
>
> Yes, the pathetic jury voted Simpson Not Guilty, but my point still
> stands regarding his defense and the tactics used by his Scheme Team
> of shameless attorneys.
>
> And Simpson, of course (being the guilty double-murderer he was),
> didn't take the stand either. Just as Oswald (being the guilty double-
> murderer he was in '63) wouldn't have dared take the stand had he gone
> to trial either.
Seperate crimes Vince. We are talking about a president and a cop. He
would have taken the stand I'm sure, if not just to show people he
wasn't the "nut" he was portrayed to be.
>
> A simulated sample of what very likely would have happened if Oswald
> had taken the witness stand at his own murder trial (with Mr. Bugliosi
> serving as the prosecutor).....
Self-promoting again Vince? I'll skip it as it all conjecture. A
real defense attorney, and believe me, who would have had some of the
best in the country lined-up for this case since it was high profile,
would have not allowed all this stuff to be asked.
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 139,
> which is a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial number C2766.
> Police officers who testified at this trial have verified the fact
Objection: Is there a question here. Prosecution is testifying.
Judge: Sustained - ask a question bugman.
>( that this exact rifle was found on the sixth floor of your workplace,
> the Texas School Book Depository, just 52 minutes after President
> Kennedy was shot and killed from right in front of that building on
> November the 22nd, 1963.) skipped - A palmprint of yours was located on this
> exact weapon. .... I ask you now, Mr. Oswald, have you ever seen this
> rifle before?"
>
> OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have not."
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "Did you, Mr. Oswald, ever send in a mail-order coupon to
> Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, a coupon for a 6.5-millimeter
> carbine rifle, during the first half of the year 1963?"
>
> OSWALD -- "No, sir. (I didn't order any rifle through the mail.)" His lawyer would have tutored him on keeping anwers brief. You don't add things like this because they can bit you in the a** later.
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "Have you ever owned a rifle in your lifetime, Mr.
> Oswald....a privately-owned rifle, that is, since you got out of the
> Marine Corps in late 1959?"
>
> OSWALD -- "No, sir. (I have never owned a rifle in my life.)" Same as above, No is enough.
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 134,
> a photograph of a man who looks exactly like you--Lee Harvey Oswald.
> This man in the photo, who looks like you, is holding a rifle, has a
> handgun in a holster around his waist, and is also holding up two
> Russian newspapers, dated March 11th and March 24th of 1963. .... I
> ask you now, Mr. Oswald, are you the man depicted in this photograph?"
>
> OSWALD -- "No, sir. (That picture must be a fake or something. I never
> posed for any picture like that in my life.") Same as above. Let the prosecution earn their case.
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now direct your attention to the date of
> President Kennedy's assassination--November the 22nd, 1963--and I ask
> you now, Mr. Oswald, if you know a young man by the name of Buell
> Wesley Frazier?"
>
> OSWALD -- "Yes, I worked with him at the (book store....)the Depository
talk about a fictious leading answer. Why would LHO start to say
bookstore? LHO was a man of few words based on what people who knew
him said. You have, I mean bugman, has him talking like a chatting
Cathy.
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "And did Mr. Frazier give you a ride to work on the
> morning of President Kennedy's visit to Dallas--that is the morning of
> Friday, November the 22nd, 1963?"
>
> OSWALD -- "Yes....(I believe I did ride to work with him that morning.)" Yes is enough.
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "Okay. And did you bring any type of paper package with
> you to work on that particular morning?"
>
> OSWALD -- "I brought my lunch. (That's all.)" Stressing "that's all" makes you sound guilty. Cut it out.
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "You brought ONLY a lunch sack with you to work on
> November 22nd, is that correct?"
>
> OSWALD -- "Yes, sir. (I had my lunch with me.") Ditto, make bugman work.
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "Did you have any OTHER paper package with you that
> morning at all? Anything larger than a small lunch bag?"
>
> OSWALD -- "No, (I had nothing else with me that day.)" Ditto
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "Wesley Frazier, just this morning, told this court and
> this jury that he observed you carrying a much-larger paper bag on the
> morning of November the 22nd. Mr. Frazier said that you told him you
> had some curtain rods in that larger paper package. Did you tell
> Wesley Frazier anything like that on the morning of November 22nd?"
>
> OSWALD -- "No, sir! (Absolutely not! I don't know why he'd say a thing
> like that. I never told him anything like that.)" Ditto, all this crap makes you sound guilty, no wonder bugman thinks he can win.
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, another witness--Mr. Frazier's sister, Linnie
> Mae Randle--also testified during this trial that she also observed
> you carrying a bulky-type brown paper bag as you walked toward her
> house in Irving, Texas, around 7:10 AM on the morning of November
> 22nd, 1963. Was she mistaken, Mr. Oswald? Did she ONLY see your small
> paper lunch sack?"
>
> OSWALD -- "Yes sir. As I have said earlier that was all I had with me."
(Well...(er...I...uh...I really can't speak for what another > witness
might or might not have said. I can only tell you that she's > wrong
if she said I had a big bag with me that day. I just carried my >
lunch to work, like I usually do on work days.") Ditto, talk about
making LHO convict himself.
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "Thank you, Mr. Oswald....no further questions at this
> time."
DEFENSE: Your honor I reserve the right to re-direct at a later time.
Judge: So be it.
>
> [END COURTROOM SIMULATION OF OSWALD'S DESTRUCTION.]
>
> The above questioning of Oswald would have been, of course, preceded
> by a parade of witnesses who would have confirmed (without a shred of
> a doubt) that Lee Oswald DID purchase Rifle #C2766 by mail-order in
> March 1963, and WAS photographed (by his own wife) while holding that
> weapon on 3/31/63, and DID take a bulky paper package into the Book
> Depository on 11/22/63.
The above questioning is a figment of bugman's imagination. He would
have been up against the best defense lawyer(s) in the country due to
the nature of the case. He thinks those "big" cases in L.A. make him
important, but try one for a slain president that effects the whole
country. Those type of defense lawyers would eat him for lunch.
>
> Who do you think the jury is going to believe? The accused murderer?
> Or the succession of several different witnesses who all paint Oswald
> as the liar he obviously was when he told Mr. Bugliosi (via my
> simulated courtroom proceeding above): "I have never owned a rifle in
> my life"?
The jury would be not looking at LHO as an accused murder, but someone
charged with murder. Big difference. I took out that statement, as
No sir would be enough. I can see this what do you think a high-
powered defense attorney would see?
>
> The jury wouldn't even break a sweat on that decision.
You're right, he'd be acquited pretty fast like all those celebs in
L.A.
>
> In short, Lee Harvey Oswald's many, many LIES would have done almost
> as much to convict the bastard as would the wealth of physical and
> circumstantial evidence in the JFK case (which also convicts him ten
> times over, of course).
>
No and Yes answers make it hard for the prosecution show you are a
liar and of course his great defense team would have rebutted all this
anyway.
> ROB SAID:
>
> "I guess you like claiming people are guilty without a trial."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Only if I have a carload of evidence to show the person committed the
> crime(s).....which I do have in the LHO instance (for both the JFK and ...
So, like I said you like to claim people are guilty with no proof.
robc...@netscape.com
Another Dunce has checked in. Go back to builing you link list.
David Von Pein
Yeah, I guess you're right, Robert. All of the stuff I cite within the
following link is nothing but a figment of my fertile "OSWALD DID IT"
imagination. How silly I've been all this time.
But, thank goodness Rob "THERE WAS A SECOND BULLET HOLE IN KENNEDY'S
BACK/NECK" Caprio has come along. Without Rob, I'd be lost in a sea of
LHO-Did-It evidence.
But, per Rob, I can just IGNORE all of the photos and all of the
official reports (except the Sibert/O'Neill Report, of course...that's
the ONLY true report out there).
And I can ignore the autopsy report and all of the autopsists.
And I can ignore the WC and the HSCA and the HSCA's photo experts who
authenticated those photographs and X-rays that Rob assures me were
"altered" (even though he was relying on them to support his "Second
Hole" theory just 24 hours ago; ~shrug~).
And I can ignore almost all of the witnesses too (certainly I can
ignore, according to a kook named Robert, all of the "3 shot"
witnesses and anyone else who dared paint Saint Oswald as anything
other than a "patsy").
Nice policy, Rob.
Ignore everything official, and insert "Rob Evidence" into the case
instead.
Works for Robby anyway.
BTW, Rob, please lead me to the exact phrase within the Sibert/O'Neill
FBI report that says those 2 FBI men thought there were TWO SEPARATE
BULLET HOLES in JFK's back/neck. I'd like to see those words. Thanks.
You make this so easy, Rob.
If only you had an extra non-Oswald bullet to rely on. Too bad. Well,
I guess you'll have to go down "Every Piece Of Evidence Was Fake"
Street instead. You seem to like walking down that street anyway.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193357681.5...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193336314....@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Your bird wasn't a dodo was it dumbarse?
>