Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 2)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From May 2005, June 2005,
March 2006, and February 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- As far as Kennedy being killed by his
enemies being conjecture, this may come as a shock to you, Von Pein,
but in homicides, that's usually the way it goes. People are usually
killed by their enemies.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- True. But the "enemy" you're referring to
isn't an estranged spouse or a single distraught employee who went to
work one day and decided to mow down the boss with an AK-47. You're
claiming there was some broad, vast conspiracy of MANY different
"enemies" -- which is a theory that is totally unprovable in any
fashion on your part.
And you're purporting that these "people" got together (whoever the
heck they might have been who hated Kennedy's guts) and made the pre-
planned decision to kill the Chief Executive, rather than just simply
rigging the election in November 1964 to get JFK out of the White
House.*
* = Which, of course, would be a far less-risky operation than
actually becoming willingly involved in an assassination plot -- a
"plot" that would pepper the "enemy" with up to 10 bullets from
varying directions, per some theorists, and then attempt to have the
blame placed at just one "Patsy's" doorstep. That type of plan is just
plain dumb; but no CTer can see that it is, due to the CT blinders
being about a mile thick.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Can he {DVP} possibly believe that the federal institutions
who were involved {in the assassination} would allow the real evidence
to surface?
DVP -- They would have had NO CHOICE -- that's the whole point of why
such a nutty "Erase All The Evidence Immediately After It Happens"
assassination plot couldn't have possibly been pulled off in a million
years -- and my whole point of just WHY such a nutty "Patsy" scheme
would NEVER HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED IN THE FIRST PLACE (unless those
involved had a Death Wish themselves).
There would have been NO POSSIBLE WAY to "control" ALL of the bullet
(and wound-location) evidence five minutes after the assassination
(especially inside TWO different victims, the intended victim, JFK,
plus a person they obviously never meant to hit at all, John
Connally).
Somebody is going to see something they shouldn't in all this
confusion and chaos just after it occurred (probably LOTS of people;
i.e., non-plotters!) at the place the plotters have got to know the
President is going to be taken just after the shooting -- a local
Dallas hospital.
Such a plot to eliminate a sitting President is just ASKING to be
caught. Especially when there were obviously so many other better ways
to eliminate the target, rather than doing it via a crackpot "Patsy"
plan, which includes the possibility of needing to eradicate God knows
how many bullets and wounds, and strong-arming God knows how many
military people, making them keep their mouths shut for the rest of
their lives.
And just that mere POSSIBILITY of these things occurring is enough to
make any plotters put on the brakes when it comes to considering that
type of screwy plan.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/30f318ea48653a72
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The forensic evidence shouts out the word TAMPERED!
DVP -- JFK's body could not POSSIBLY have been "tampered with" prior
to the Bethesda autopsy. Too many witnesses to confirm that the casket
was NEVER left unattended. Kennedy aide Dave Powers verified that
fact....
"The coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack
of malarkey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off
of it during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got
up to go to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenny O'Donnell
went with her, but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let
go of it. In fact, several of us were with it through the whole trip,
all the way to Bethesda Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the
way that fellow said. Not even thirty seconds. I never left it." --
David Powers; 1987
Dave Powers is a "plotter" too, I suppose. Right?
You are wrong. Simple as that. And you're kooky at the same time, for
even BEGINNING to believe in the Lifton-esque crap you're advocating.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- You do realize that if they {the proverbial "Real Assassins"}
had gotten a kill shot from behind, that all the cameras and all the
witnesses would not have made any difference. They did not get that
kill shot, so that is why we are where we are today.
DVP -- Well, obviously, I don't "realize" that at all (since there was
only ONE shooter to begin with). But you realize, don't you, that the
ONLY way any type of "Blame The Lone Patsy Named Oswald" scheme could
have possibly succeeded is if one of the following two things
happened?......
1.) The conspirators planned the Patsy plot correctly and wisely from
the beginning and used JUST the ONE shooter in the Oswald window (with
an Oswald look-alike using Oswald's own rifle).
--Or:--
2.) If ALL the frontal shots miraculously MISS everybody in Dealey
Plaza.
And, to the best of my knowledge, NO CTer believes EITHER of the above
occurred in 1963.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Since two of the shots came from the front and you and the
Bugman {aka Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi} buy the idea that they came from
the rear, it looks like the "MULTI-SHOOTER Patsy plot" worked.
DVP -- You're, naturally, looking at the event through CT-tainted
eyeballs. And you, naturally, will retort that I am crazy and only
looking at the event through rose-colored, Vincent-slanted "LN eyes".
So, with that argument out of the way -- Let me ask you if you truly
think it was a GOOD idea to "Frame" the lone Patsy by using 3 or 4
guns, and 5 to 10 gunshots (depending upon which crazy theory you're
examining)?
And was it truly a GOOD plan to shoot President Kennedy from the FRONT
at all -- the exact OPPOSITE direction from where your one and only
"Patsy" is located?
You realize, don't you, that the people organizing such a nutty multi-
shooter scheme SHOULD have at least considered the POSSIBILITY that
EVERY SHOT FIRED BY EVERY SHOOTER WOULD HAVE HIT THE TARGET!
Agreed?
Or was it the INTENTION of the plotters to have only SOME of the non-
Oswald shots strike the target? What would be the point at all, then,
of even placing those shooters to the front of the limo in the first
place, if the INTENT wasn't to hit the President with EVERY shot?
In short, you have no leg to stand on in this argument. Because ANY
"Patsy" plot that features shooters at locations where your patsy is
NOT located is a plan that only a band of lunatic conspirators would
have OK'ed and a plan that only a person living in a fantasy world
could possibly have thought would have even the slimmest chance of
succeeding.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7448f602cc9b26e3
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- As much as I hate to, I agree with your assessment. If the
secondary object of the plan was to frame LHO as a lone nut (the first
obviously was to kill the President), it makes no sense to fire
multiple times from 3 different locations, especially from the front.
DVP -- Exactly. But as far as the "Patsy" plot being "secondary", it
sure seems like a lot of CTers have put a lot of effort into proving
Oswald was just what he said he was -- "A Patsy" -- including the
CTers' belief that covert operatives were utilizing "Fake Oswalds" all
over the place....plus "faking" multiple photographs of Oswald with
his guns to further implicate their "Patsy"....plus the "planting" of
multiple pieces of evidence (including CE399 at Parkland)....plus the
after-effects of the Patsy scheme, which would include the faking of
various autopsy photos and X-rays -- or (as some believe) the actual
physical altering of JFK's wounds.
Seems to me like a LARGE-SCALE effort to pin the murder of JFK (plus
J.D. Tippit too!) on that one lone "Patsy" named Oswald is being
implied with great force by the CTers (but of course has never been
"proven").
For something that I now see via some messages on this board is being
declared by Forum members as "secondary" in nature, an awful lot of
effort and energy seems to have been exhibited by both the (supposed)
conspirators AND the CTers who wish to promote such an unproven Patsy
theory.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd321914097fcd2d
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- What if you couldn't keep Oswald on the 6th floor?
DVP -- Kind of an odd question coming from a CTer who obviously
believes Oswald WASN'T kept on the 6th Floor during the shooting
(where the plotters SHOULD have made sure they kept him at 12:30 PM on
November 22).
Which, of course, is just another (in a lengthy series) of items that
makes the widely-accepted multi-shooter & multi-directional "Patsy"
plot so irrational and illogical and reckless in nature.
For, if Oswald was truly being "set up" (by any number of "real"
shooters, be it 1, 2, or 52 gunmen), the conspirators would have
certainly kept an eye on their patsy during the time of the actual
shooting (to make sure he wasn't seen wandering elsewhere in the TSBD
or in Dealey Plaza). Isn't this just COMMON SENSE on the part of these
"covert operatives" organizing such a supposedly well-orchestrated and
finely-tuned "Patsy" plot?
But, per many CT accounts, do the 6th-Floor "plotters" KNOW where Lee
Oswald is located at precisely 12:30? No. Many CTers feel Oswald was
in the second-floor lunch room, potentially in full view of any non-
plotters who would be wandering through that room at 12:30 PM.
They try to frame a single Patsy using several guns, including FRONTAL
shots, opposite from the patsy's window. And they then throw all
common sense out the window by firing way more bullets at the target
than Oswald (alone) could have possibly squeezed off in this given 8-
second timeframe. And then, if that's not reckless enough, they don't
even seem to know where their patsy is located at the exact time the
assassination is taking place!
For sheer recklessness, this activity might take home first prize!
If the above style "Patsy Plot" DID somehow succeed (as apparently
most CTers think it did), then heaven-sent miracles truly are possible
in this world.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- CE729 is the photo that Studebaker took at about 1:15 PM that
day. There is no paper bag where the cops claim they found one.
DVP -- Lookie, kids! A CT-Kook is making up his own evidence (and
testimony) again! In actuality, CE729....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce729.jpg
....was taken AFTER the SN boxes had been dusted for prints. Let's
listen to J.C. Day of the DPD (a main conspirator/teller of lies, per
many CT buffs, of course).....
MR. BELIN -- "I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Commission
Exhibit 729 and ask you to state if you know what this is."
MR. DAY -- "729 is a photograph of the inside wall, south and east
walls, right at the corner of the building at the sixth floor of the
Texas Book Depository."
MR. BELIN -- "I notice some pipes on the right portion of this picture
as you face it, and I also notice a box. I will first ask you to state
if this picture was taken before or after anything was removed from
the area."
MR. DAY -- "The sack had been removed."
MR. BELIN -- "Had any change been made of the position of that box
that is set off by itself in the center of the picture?"
MR. DAY -- "Well, it is possible the box had been moved. This is an
approximate position of it. The box had been dusted for powder and--
dusted for prints. The black powder is visible on it. It is possible
the box may have been moved a tiny bit."
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- I defy anybody to imagine that the bag Montgomery was carrying
would be thought of as a "guncase". ... It's nothing but a large
rectangular paper sack. And the creases on it indicate it had been
folded around some books.
DVP -- LOL. Some conspiracy-loving kooks apparently think that Oswald
would have taken that long paper bag to Irving in an UNFOLDED,
PRISTINE, STRAIGHT-OFF-THE-ROLLER state.
Obviously, if Oswald wanted to take measures to HIDE what he was doing
prior to November the 22nd, he would have concealed the paper for the
makeshift bag in some manner....which, naturally, would mean FOLDING
the darn thing in various places prior to placing the rifle into
it...just like you might do if wrapping the paper around books.
Voila! A makeshift guncase that STILL HAS FOLDS/CREASES/WRINKLES in
it!
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag2.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag3.jpg
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The smoke was seen and smelled.
DVP -- Yep. And seen up to several MINUTES after the gun supposedly
went off on the Grassy Knoll. A passenger on one of the press busses
at the rear of the motorcade is said to have seen smoke. Did these
goofball assassins KEEP ON FIRING even AFTER Kennedy's car left the
Plaza...just for the practice maybe?
That's a GREAT plot (and gun) there. ....
Let's NOT use silencers on the Knoll gun(s) -- even though we want Oz
blamed for this whole thing.
And: Let's use a musket that emits scads of LINGERING SMOKE (for
MINUTES, or at the very least, MANY, MANY SECONDS after being
discharged).
And: Let's use a gun that results in gunpowder that can be smelled
also for MINUTES after the gun is fired.
A reasonable person just MIGHT ask themselves -- Gee, if a person that
deep in the motorcade said smoke was visible, I wonder if SOMETHING
ELSE BESIDES A RIFLE could have caused that smoke?
Your make-believe plotters were reckless as all get out, I'll tell ya
that much. But since they are make-believe, they can be anything a
kook wants them to be. Right?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- He {JFK's main body-shielding SS agent, per this CT-Kook} was
left at the airport.
DVP -- And yet, even WITHOUT Agent Rybka in that Secret Service follow-
up car, that car was PACKED to the gills with SS agents -- eight of
them. Including the MAXIMUM on each running board (two on each side).
Was Rybka supposed to run alongside X100 (or hang onto one of the
handrails) ALL THE WAY TO THE TRADE MART -- including while the cars
were on Stemmons, moving 50 MPH or more?
Sorry, but an "LOL" is mandatory at this point. Let's all join
in....LOL!
===========================================
AN AUXILIARY (AND FUN) KOOK-BASHING SESSION:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e089ee8b738cad76
===========================================
David Von Pein
ADDENDUM POST.....
-------------------------------------------------
DVP (March 25, 2006) -- I know that some CTers think I'm a huge fool
to
praise Vincent Bugliosi's book before I've ever laid eyes on it....but
I'm doing so for what I feel are very valid reasons (given the
author).
But for someone to practically call Vince a liar (as certain CTers
have
done) without seeing one word of the book is, IMO, far worse and
reprehensible.
And, yes, I will "defend" Vincent's words in public. Absolutely.
And -- In the unlikely (very unlikely) circumstance where I feel
Vincent has said something that's incorrect or deliberately
far-reaching to put forth his pro-LN POV, I will say that also.
But Mr. Bugliosi's OVERALL CONCLUSION of "Oswald Did It Alone" will
undoubtedly not be derailed by any disagreement that I (or anyone)
might have with Vincent over a few small points surrounding the JFK
and
J.D. Tippit murder cases (and there are bound to be a few such items
of
disagreement in approx. 2,000 pages of text and interpretation of
evidence).
Good case in point is this silly "isolated to make everything look
hinky" statement made by a certain CTer......
"I'll predict right now, for example, that he {Bugliosi} WILL NOT in
those 1,500 pages worth of words, offer any explanation whatsoever for
why {motorcycle officer James M.} Chaney was never questioned prior to
the release of the WCR. Would you care to help Bugliosi out right now
by offering one???"
{Mr. CTer}, if this Chaney matter is one of your MAIN points with
which
to denounce Mr. Bugliosi as a liar, a fraud, or Government shill (or
whatever), then Vince is home free as far as I can detect. Because
Chaney's not being questioned certainly does NOT change the PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE associated with the assassination, nor does it change the
basic END RESULT in the case -- which is a case that reeks with
Oswald's obvious guilt from every angle, even without Mr. Chaney's
words in the official Warren Report volume.
Is Vince supposed to fold up the LN tents and go home because a few
witnesses weren't questioned that possibly should have been questioned
by the Warren people? That's absurd.
On the flip (pro-LN) side of that argument -- I'm guessing there were
dozens and dozens of "Pro-LN" witnesses who were never questioned
about
what they saw or heard in Dealey Plaza that Friday either. Will CTers
pull up stakes and abandon their conspiracy beliefs because of this
fact? Obviously not. Many witnesses were never questioned about what
they saw on November 22nd (on both the CT and LN sides of the
equation,
no doubt).
Jackie Kennedy was another witness who wasn't properly questioned in
depth. She could have probably settled the "BOH" matter herself. But
the WC was overly-sensitive to Jackie's feelings, and never asked
Jackie a single question about the condition of JFK's head.
Does this mean that the WC was engaging in a "cover up" with respect
to
Jackie's testimony (by not asking certain questions)? Obviously it
does
not indicate any such thing. They were taking into account the widow's
feelings first and foremost.
Just one more time for good measure -- Quoting the man who put away
Charles Manson on literally a tiny fraction of the physical evidence
that exists against Lee Harvey Oswald:
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80% of
the
evidence against him out the window and there would still be more than
enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the
crime." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
I kind of doubt that I'll be needed to "defend" the work of the person
who uttered the words above. His work will defend ITSELF right within
the book itself -- multiple times over in fact, knowing Vincent's
propensity for wanting his conclusions backed-up via multiple
different
sources and angles, to minimize the possibility of potential attack on
his conclusions by critics.
Apart from the traditional baseless, unprovable allegations of
"Evidence-Planting & Tampering", I have a feeling that the best the
CTers will be able to do to attack VB's work will be to point out an
occasional typo or two....or maybe a wholly-unimportant mistake here
or
there about something that's not really "connected" to the case at all
in any substantive or meaningful way (e.g., maybe he'll mis-identify
Ruby's dog, Sheba....calling the dog "Sheila", or something equally as
benign and unimportant).
But the ultimate verdict of Oswald's guilt is something that Vince
Bugliosi has been well aware of for many years....and he's not stupid
enough to have his massive book project be brought down by silly
errors
and omissions of facts.
That's a guarantee...not from me...but from Vince himself:
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; 1998
==========================================
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e812362dd238d001
==========================================