Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 52)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From December 2006 and
March 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- Do you believe the {JFK} back wound
was above the shoulder line or below the shoulder line?
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- It is where it is (14 cm. below the tip of the
right Mastoid Process), which is just about AT the top of the
"shoulder line" (hence, the interchangeably-used terms "back" and
"neck" utilized by the WC throughout the Warren Report).
But the WC terms for the wound location are merely semantics. The
Commission knew where the wound was located (despite the nutty
decision that prohibited the WC and its Counsel members from viewing
the actual autopsy pictures, which was an incredibly-stupid decision
indeed; the idiocy of that crazy decision is legendary, and the WC's
own David Belin thought it was a stupid decision too, and he said so
in his 1973 book). .....
But the autopsy photo shows the wound to be in just the place where
Arlen Specter is holding the probe in CE903 (which is a photo that
depicts the WC's SBT trajectory):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
And anyone with eyeballs in their sockets (and with a little bit of
common sense at the ready) can also perform the following "test" (not
a scientific test, granted...but still useful in a fashion, IMO):
Examine the wound location in this photo of JFK's back....
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
....And then use this turned-sideways photo (linked below) to
"connect" the throat wound with the back wound (which, even though
it's not visible in the photo below, is an upper-back wound that can
easily be determined to be ABOVE the throat wound, anatomically-
speaking; merely use the crimp in JFK's neck as a general guide):
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/jfk_zeroang.jpg
Via the above-mentioned autopsy-photo "test", anyone can easily see
that the throat wound in JFK's neck was positively LOWER than the hole
in his upper back. And the angle is just about right, too, for the SBT
to work very nicely. Anybody saying otherwise is only fooling
themselves into believing something that this type of raw evidence
does not support at all.
Another look at CE903 (for good measure):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
~~~~~~~~~
GERALD FORD, ARLEN SPECTER, JEAN DAVISON, AND THE BEAUTY OF THE SINGLE-
BULLET THEORY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Do you dispute that Tomlinson said he felt it {Bullet CE399}
came off the other stretcher?
DVP -- He does mention in his WC testimony that he felt the bullet he
recovered probably did come from the non-Connally stretcher. But he
also says "I can't be positive", didn't he now? "Pressured" or not by
Specter, those words are in the record.
Plus...given the sum total of the "399" evidence, Tomlinson could not
possibly have found that bullet on a non-JBC stretcher. Unless you
want me to stroll with you down Conspiracy/Cover-Up Lane, which has
the bullet being "planted". But that's a stroll I'd rather not take.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- It makes total sense that the Secret Service would put the
bullet on a stretcher after finding it in the limo.
DVP -- So they DID "plant" it inside the hospital, eh? And they placed
it on the WRONG stretcher, huh??! Great work there. Good thing that
Specter was on the ball to coerce Tomlinson, huh?
LOL. Never underestimate a CTer's abilities to make "total sense" of
the nonsensical (and, of course, the "unprovable" as well).
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- They couldn't exactly admit they cleaned up the limo, now
could they? And they did clean up the limo, didn't they?
DVP -- They cleaned up some of the gore in the back seat, yes. Does
that automatically mean they moved bullets from the limo to the
hospital? Or destroyed any useful evidence at all?
Other important evidence was collected from the limousine AFTER the
car was wiped down....evidence that CTers don't seem to scream bloody
murder about (very often anyway).
Such as -- The two front-seat bullet fragments from Oswald's rifle and
the small fragments found under Nellie Connally's jump seat. Plus the
lead that was removed from the inside of the windshield, and the
chrome (frame) damage that was photographed and documented near the
windshield.
Is all of that evidence supposed to be tossed out the window due to
the "limo clean-up" at Parkland?
Now, I'm not saying that it was a wise move to clean up the back seat
at all before it had been examined for evidence. But to accuse the
Secret Service of shady mishandling of evidence following the limo
clean-up is not a very wise step to take either, IMO.
I'm confident that a lawyer like Vincent Bugliosi would have had no
trouble reconciling the limo clean-up into an innocuous and non-
conspiratorial event in a court of law (had Lee Oswald lived to stand
trial):
BUGLIOSI (In his "Pre-empting the defense" mode) -- "Now, when you
were wiping out the limousine, did you touch or move any bullets, or
bullet fragments, or any other material evidence that should not have
been touched at that point in time, sir?"
LIMO CLEAN-UP MAN -- "No, sir."
BUGLIOSI -- "But you surely HAD to know that you probably shouldn't be
wiping out the back seat of that bloodstained limousine when none of
the potential evidence located within that vehicle had yet been
inspected and/or collected...correct?!"
LIMO CLEAN-UP MAN -- "Well, perhaps we did act a little too quickly on
that...but our motives were certainly not sinister in any fashion, and
no bullet evidence was disturbed in any way."
BUGLIOSI -- "So, therefore, you can assure this court and this jury,
sir, that NO BULLET EVIDENCE -- or evidence of any kind -- was moved
or disturbed as a result of your wiping out the back seat of that
limousine? Is that correct?"
LIMO CLEAN-UP MAN -- "Yes. Absolutely. That is positively correct,
sir."
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Your misuse of Occam's Razor would make a logic teacher hurl.
DVP -- And a conspiracy theorist's misuse of....
http://webster.com/dictionary/common%20sense
....doesn't make my lunch stay down too well either.
Again, let's take the common-sense inventory:
1.) CE399 IS definitely a bullet from Rifle #C2766 (Lee Harvey
Oswald's very own).
2.) CE399 WAS found in Parkland Hospital prior to 1:55 PM on 11/22/63,
on the same day the assassination occurred and in the same hospital
where JFK and JBC were transported.
3.) Connally was shot ONE time (per his doctors' testimony, and per
John Connally's own beliefs himself).
4.) Kennedy's stretcher was never in the area of the hospital where
CE399 was found by Darrell Tomlinson (nor was JFK's body).
5.) Number 1 through number 4 above add up to ..... CE399 HAD TO HAVE
BEEN INSIDE JOHN CONNALLY'S BODY ON 11/22/63.*
* = The only two ways in which #5 can be untrue are......
A.) The bullet was "planted" inside Parkland Hospital by some unknown
conspirator -- who was a conspirator who just happened to have a
bullet from Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle on him prior to
1:55 PM CST on 11/22/63, with that bullet also perfectly mimicking the
amount of general damage and missing lead from its core/base that
match up nicely with the small number of fragments that were later
discovered in the Dealey Plaza shooting victims. (The plotters were
taking a big risk here, were they not?)
--Or:--
B.) If Lee Oswald's C2766 rifle, by incredible chance, just happened
to be involved in ANOTHER shooting event on November 22, 1963, with
Bullet 399 actually being connected to some OTHER (unknown) victim
besides John B. Connally.
I ask....are either of the above (A, B) options very likely to have
realistically occurred?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The autopsy doctors originally concluded a bullet had entered
Kennedy's back and had fallen out. Therefore, CE399 is most logically
that bullet. Occam's Razor.
DVP -- That might have been the "Occam's"-like solution that the
autopsy doctors arrived at on the night of 11/22/63 at Bethesda (and,
yes, I suppose that conclusion SHOULD have been arrived at...at that
time, given the fact the doctors didn't even know for sure that the
throat wound even existed).
But in POST-11/22 days, that solution became IMPOSSIBLE, because we
later learned that neither Kennedy nor his stretcher was ever located
in the place where 399 was found.
Therefore, CE399 = A bullet that HAD to have come out of Connally.
Occam's Razor (revised).
And for the King of Occam's-like thinking, go here.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/37e25b10c50ea468
"Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck
by the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of
any separate bullet hitting Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Vince {Bugliosi} is an attorney; they can never be trusted.
DVP -- LOL. Another nice blanket "Can't Be Trusted" statement from a
CTer. Wonderful!
Can ANYONE be "trusted" (other than conspiracy-loving mongers like
Garrison/Marrs/Groden/Stone/Lane)? Sure, those guys are REAL
trustworthy, huh?
Vince B. does not prosecute people he thinks are innocent. He has
always maintained that policy. Which is no doubt a big reason why he
was 105-1 in felony jury trials in the L.A. DA's office, and 21-0 in
murder cases. Because he KNEW from the evidence before ever going to
trial that the defendant was guilty as sin!
Same thing with Oswald....and Vincent's got 1,600+ pages of proof (and
common sense) in "Reclaiming History" to back up that "He's Guilty"
verdict.
And then, too, there's also this from VB.....
"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." --
Vince Bugliosi
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- You are no more an expert than anybody else who has read all
the information on this subject.
DVP -- With the major differences being ----
1.) I'm not a conspiracy kook.
2.) I use some ordinary, everyday common sense when evaluating the
evidence.
3.) I'm not a conspiracy kook (deserved an encore).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/16b70728d9c8ecd4
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Like I said before, there is no answer.
DVP -- And like I said before -- Bullshit! Of course there's an
answer. It's been there from Day 1 in '63. The only POSSIBLE answer,
given the totality of evidence in the JFK & JDT murder cases, is the
one reached by the very good Commission headed by Earl Warren in 1964
-- i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer.
Simple as that. Always has been. CTers just don't want to believe the
evidence that's staring them in the face.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- 75% of America believes there was a conspiracy.
DVP -- I always savor this silly argument. And just how many people
out of that 75% do you think have actually read ANY of the Warren
Report or have studied the case in any kind of depth at all? 5% maybe?
10%?
The "75% Believe It, So It Must Be True" argument is patently
weak....and a lot of that 75% is no doubt due to Oliver Stone's
filmmaking trickery and blatant on-screen falsehoods. Gobs of people
have been sucked into his vacuum of crackpot conspiracy plots. Even I
was prone to believe it at one time (for about a minute or two
anyway).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51b89da58d3e6489
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- It would seem you and your boy V {Vincent T. Bugliosi} would
not stand a chance in a court of law of proving, "beyond a reasonable
doubt"...
DVP -- Yeah, that must be why Vince DID just that in 1986 (in "On
Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald").