Battling Conspiracists
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/44505f2d2e749210
>>> "Even if the JFK stand-in were "skewered", the {SBT} shot still wouldn't work." <<<
Sure it would. Absolutely perfectly in fact. But, being a CTer who
never uses common sense (evidently), you can't put the pieces together
and get "SBT". Fortunately, I can.
>>> "Just slightly? Are you now saying that CE 903 not 100% accurate?" <<<
~sigh~
Give me strength, O Lord!
Since Mr. JFK II in the car was not shot with a real bullet, Specter
had to put the freakin' pointer SOMEPLACE to illustrate the trajectory
of the SBT...didn't he?
~additional sigh required~
~hates to see the silliness that will inevitably follow from Mr.
CTer...but I must forge ahead I guess~
>>> "That's high praise coming from a brainwashed LNer like yourself. What else can you say at this point?" <<<
Nothing, I guess. I can only....
~sigh~ (Again.)
>>> "Pure unadulterated BS, David. With that kind of BS you might consider writing a book about your views and assumptions. Nevermind, someone just published a book with all your views in it." <<<
Yep. And a damn good one too. A book filled with common-sense
arguments just exactly like the ones I've placed on my "home" Google
page for the last few years.
Therefore, VB's book is definitely one that a CTer like you should not
touch with a 28.5-foot pole. You're allergic to CS&L. (No, I won't
tell you what it stands for...figure it out yourself.) ;)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c027e4d0a9f1141a
>>> "David you are relying on trick photography. CE 903 is nothing more than an optical illusion." <<<
But somehow (some way) YOU know it's "trick photography", huh? Fill in
this mere mortal on how you became privy to that juicy hunk of
information, will you?
>>> "It is what it is and it shows clearly that the SBT is a fallacy." <<<
Oh, yes. Very clearly.
~heavy sigh~
~moves puke bucket closer to computer; have feeling will be required
before CTer's silliness concludes~
>>> "And what the hell is CS&L, pray tell?" <<<
Hint: Two things you evidently weren't born with.
>>> "The fact is when the shot to prove the bona fides of the SBT completely misses...{<SNIPPING CT CRAP>; INCHING BUCKET EVER CLOSER}." <<<
I like it when CTers use "bona fides", though. Sounds so "officious".
>>> "Why do you keep insinuating the 3 guns scenario? Why not 2 guns, 3 shots or 4 or more shots according to some first hand witnesses?" <<<
It's impossible to limit the shooting to just 2 gunmen if you're in
bed with the king of all CTers these days -- Mr. O. Stone. Or: if you
enjoy saying that the throat wound was an entry wound, even apart from
Oliver Stone's theory.
Why? Simple -- CTers in those categories MUST HAVE at least 3 gunmen
(as Stone has in his movie; although Stone has his timing all screwed
up; but, then again, there's nothing correct in that film, so at least
he's consistent in his fairy tale; i.e., everything's bullshit).
But most CTers will agree that the 3 critical "SBT wounds" (JBC back
wound; JFK's back wound; and JFK's throat wound) are occurring so
close together, per the Z-Film, to make it physically impossible for
just ONE rear shooter to have plugged both JFK & JBC in their
respective backs in time allotted (unless he's using a machine gun).
And don't worry about Kennedy completely blocking the gunman's view
during the purported shot that somehow hit JBC but missed JFK. CTers
don't think that's a problem at all. Nor are the multiple vanishing
bullets. No problem at all.
And the lack of internal neck damage to Kennedy is another "Who
cares?" issue for never-wilting CTers. As is that elongated wound on
JBC's back. Could have been merely a "tangential" strike you know. So
let's go with that, while at the same time we ignore so many other SBT-
like coincidences it should be enough to make even a CTer puke. But,
somehow, it won't be enough. Cast-iron innards I guess.
Mine, however, aren't cast-iron....
~bucket now on lap~
>>> "Do you think CE2011, which is the FBI's ballistics evidence account, is true and factual?" <<<
I have no reason to believe otherwise. Do you?
~realizes the silliness of my last inquiry~
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215a.htm
>>> "So tell me how the stretcher bullet from Parkland Hospital in Dallas, which had a "pointed tip", magically became CE399 with a round tip?" <<<
In what way have you proved that there was a "pointy" bullet connected
with this case at all?
Answer: You haven't. CE399 is the only nearly-whole bullet connected
with this case in the record. And you have to live with it.
>>> "That sounds more like a switch instead of a plant." <<<
Who made this "switch"? And when? And how was it done? Did the
"switchers" have a bullet from C2766 handy before 11/22? Or did they
fire a bullet from LHO's gun later on and make the switch?
Some answers would be nice to these important inquiries.
You made the allegation...now prove it with.......SOMETHING.
Your "sounds more like" explanation above is rather thin, don't you
think?
Then again, what conspiracy theory isn't threadbare?
>>> "Once again you are ignoring the fact that the Single Bullet Theory is still a theory, in spite of your ongoing attempts to make it the real deal." <<<
It is the only reasonable interpretation of the sum total of evidence
in the case (including the NON-evidence; e.g., other [vanishing]
bullets; lack of limo damage; lack of JFK bodily/neck injuries; and
lack of other injured limo passengers).
How about brightening the spirits of everybody here by coming up with
THE VERY FIRST logical, reasonable, based-(somewhat)-on-the-actual-
evidence "ANTI-SBT" version of how Kennedy and Connally were wounded
on 11/22/63?
Don't make me say 'pretty please'; because I won't stoop that low. But
you'd THINK that some conspiracist (somewhere!) could at least propose
a halfway decent anti-SBT theory, in light of the fact they hate the
SBT so much (and for no solid reason at all; since their imagined
conspiracies can still burn brighter than the sun even WITH the wholly-
logical SBT intact).
Go figure.
>>> "Keep in mind that IF we were actually looking at the sum total of ALL the evidence we wouldn't be having this conversation." <<<
Yeah. If that miracle were to actually happen (sprinkled with the
"CTer" half of this conversation actually using some garden-variety
common sense along the way), we'd all go home happy, with you being
fully converted into an LNer.
Think that'll happen?
A VB interjection (hoping it'll make it past .John's reject
button)......
"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little
like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." -- Vince
Bugliosi
>>> "The Warren Commission ignored the bullet that Captain David Osborne, Chief of Surgery at Bethesda, picked up and looked at {at} the autopsy because it was too hard to explain." <<<
No such bullet exists or ever existed. To believe it did exist means
believing in a subsequent string of purely-idiotic and NEVER-WOULD-
HAVE-HAPPENED things following such a bullet's discovery.
Are you really willing to dive that far into the CT cesspool?
>>> "They also ignored the 4 large fragments that Navy Corpsman Dennis David was given to make a receipt for which were according to the USG agent attending the autopsy said were removed from the president's head during post mortum procedures." <<<
See above response. Same applies here.
>>> "The official version on which you have based your case was brought about by the official investigator's obstruction of justice." <<<
You're in desperate need of Vince Bugliosi's excellent book. He
attacks this point in stellar fashion, and shows the "obstruction of
justice" theory to be complete malarkey. And guess how he accomplishes
that? Via CS&L.
(Figure it out yet?)
>>> "The autopsy doctors we now know did not give us the "facts'." <<<
Bullshit.
It wasn't a perfect autopsy, no. But the major facts were brought out
beyond ALL doubt (i.e., 2 shots hit JFK and both came from above and
behind)....and those are facts that were confirmed by, as VB points
out many times in "Reclaiming History", SEVENTEEN different
pathologists over the years.
Were all 17 of those doctors on a cover-up mission too? All of them??
>>> "The FBI destroyed evidence and manufactured evidence..." <<<
In a word -- Bullshit!
>>> "And the CIA withheld evidence and is still withholding evidence about their connection to LHO." <<<
In a second word -- Horseshit!
>>> "Robert Blakey said the CIA withheld evidence in the HSCA official investigation..." <<<
Blakey also wants the masses to believe that the Mob killed the
President (and that they used a malcontent with his own $12 rifle to
do it).
Next hunk of unsupportable tripe?....
>>> "And recently CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, recently deceased, has stated there was a conspiracy at the highest levels of government to assassinate John F. Kennedy." <<<
What's new? Somebody without any proof thinks their was a "conspiracy
at the highest levels of government".
Sounds like 75% of America to me. Big deal.
(Maybe Blakey's Mob theory wasn't right after all then, huh? Or does
the U.S. Govt. usually use the Mob to kill its Presidents?)
>>> "I think Jack Ruby said something similiar before he died in jail." <<<
Good closing argument there. Relying on a mentally-ill blabbermouth
jailbird for your conspiratorial info. Nice.
You can always rely on felon James Files too. He killed the President
and sank his probably-identifiable choppers into the bullet shell
casing and left it there, ya know. And he saw Ruby in the Plaza at
12:30 too.
Here's a new theory to chew on (makes some sense too, considering the
fact she was a money-hungry kook)......
MARGUERITE OSWALD SET UP HER OWN SON TO TAKE FALL IN PRESIDENT'S
MURDER AND THEN HAD SON KILLED BY NIGHTCLUB OWNER!
(She knew she'd make a fortune on the publicity afterward.)
Details at 12:00 Noon on The Conspiracy Channel!
>>> "Regards, Jim" <<<
Not as many regards,
DVP :)
David Von Pein
>>> "The alignment of those men does not work for your SBT." <<<
Sure it does. So why not stop saying it doesn't. You know damn well
you can't measure the victims' positions TO THE INCH inside the limo
at the time they're hit. Such exactitude is impossible and everybody
knows it.
But within a reasonable degree of certainty/(probability), the men
were lined up to receive a single bullet from Z-Film frames 210 to
225. The Warren Commission TESTED this theory, and came up with that
"range".
Thus far, no CTer has come up with anything better (certainly nothing
with the word "reasonable" attached to it, at any rate). Nor has any
conspiracist come up with anything to disprove the WC's "210-225" SBT
timeframe.
And, most importantly, no CTer has produced a single BULLET that
debunks the SBT's likelihood...and, of course, they never will produce
one...because no such non-C2766 anti-SBT bullet exists.
So, what CTers are left with is this -- Seven wounds in two
victims...caused by ZERO BULLETS in evidence. (Automatically
discounting CE399, naturally, since all CTers think that bullet's a
fake of some kind and never touched a victim on Elm Street.)
CTers have multiple magic bullets in this case....LNers have zero such
bullets of the magical variety.
Which is, indeed, irony at its finest.
eca...@tx.rr.com
Two great posts DVP!
David Von Pein
THERESA MAURO WROTE:
>>> "I've been fortunate enough to have been able to conduct ballistic tests on my own, twice in the last 10 years, at private firing ranges. These consisted of firing into various materials available at the time, and from different angles and distances. I wasn't specifically trying to duplicate what happened in Dealey Plaza. I was mainly interested in examining how different materials would affect the appearance of the projectiles after having passed through them." <<<
Big deal.
What you should really be testing are the theories you believe....and
esp. why there's not a single non-Oswald bullet, fragment, gun, or
casing in the whole case.
Naturally, CTers don't think they need ANY physical evidence to prove
Oswald innocent (or just a "patsy", or that a multi-gun plot killed
Kennedy). Just the mere mentioning of the words "fake" or "planted"
will supplant the need for PHYSICAL items like...guns, bullets,
prints, shell casings, and a few eyewitnesses to other shooters too
(the CTers possess a grand total of zero witnesses to any non-LHO
assassins, whereas Oswald or an LHO-like person was seen by upwards of
16 total eyewitnesses on Elm Street and Tenth Street on Nov. 22, 1963,
including the more than TEN witnesses who were near the Tippit murder
scene and positively IDed Oswald).
No worries....everything's faked. So let's believe that and go our
merry CT way, right?
Path-et-ic.
>>> "Guess what...? You're crashing and burning right before everyone's eyes." <<<
By citing the hard evidence in the case, you mean (just like Vince
does in his book)?
Yeah...that's a bad crash indeed.
You're pathetic.
>>> "I've already proven my point." <<<
Yep. You have. You've proven that you're a conspiracy-loving kook who
doesn't give a damn about the hard evidence in the case.
Congrats.
>>> "I refuse to take part in what appears to be some pathetic attempt at hubris, on your part." <<<
Hubris, eh? Nice and highbrow. Too bad you're a kook. You're probably
a nice person outside this case. But, as I've said to other CTers of
your ilk, apparently even a sane, rational person inexplicably turns
irrational & kooky once they get within six miles of the "JFK Case".
As Vince says, "it's toxic". Stay away from it. (Esp. if you love the
word "patsy". If you name your first-born daughter "Patsy", you know
you're in deep trouble too.)
>>> "The die is cast. My task is completed, here. Good by." <<<
I thought you were done up there in an earlier rant of yours. Did you
forget something?
Happy Knoll Hunting.
David Von Pein
>>> "The recent study showing the bullet fragments found in the JFK limo did not each come from the supposed rifle Oswald used is a good example of this. Your response was "Bugliosi already discusses this in the book" yet when asked exactly what he said, you go mute. Want to take another crack at it?" <<<
Sure. That's a piece of Duncan Hines. .....
Ric, the "new" study re. the NAA/Bullet fragments is not "new" at all.
That's what I meant by it being in VB's book; the brand-new "study"
isn't mentioned, obviously, since VB went to press prior to the study
being released; funny timing on that study, btw, huh? Coinky? I
wonder.
But Vince knows about the post-1978 stuff about Guinn's NAA findings
not being 100% conclusive. In fact, Guinn HIMSELF never stamped his
NAA work for the HSCA as "absolutely conclusive". He refused, in fact,
to place a label like that on it.
Guinn did, however, say that it was "very likely" that the 5 bullet
items he examined had come from just TWO MC/WCC bullets, which, of
course, HAD to be bullets fired from Oswald's C2766 rifle, because two
of those 5 items were linked positively to that rifle. And those two
items (CE399 and CE567) can't possibly be from the SAME single bullet.
They have to be from two bullets.
So, this new study merely mirrors what everybody already knew...i.e.,
that NAA analysis isn't 100%, verifiably foolproof in determining the
batch of lead a particular fragment(s) came from.
IOW -- Old hat; new day.
But be clear about one thing, Ric, the new study in NO WAY exonerates
Oswald or his gun in the murder at all. You seem to think this new
finding re. NAA (which isn't really new at all, as I said) somehow
means that Oswald's gun positively didn't produce those fragments.
But that's not a true statement at all. The lead is still consistent
with Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano bullets to be sure. It's just a
matter of percentage of certainty.
But given the fact that there were positively C2766 fragments in the
front seat and a whole bullet from LHO's rifle in the hospital and no
definitive non-C2766 fragments/bullets to be found anywhere, including
in the victims....PLUS the crucial and provable fact that only TWO
BULLETS hit any victims in the limousine....well, then it's not too
hard to do the math.....
All fragments were almost certainly from Oswald's gun.
It's either that conclusion, or accept a wholly-unlikely scenario of
having large chunks of LHO bullets scattered hither and yon and yet
the SMALL, TINY fragments somehow all came from ANOTHER gun, a gun
that just happened to leave behind no fragments large enough to be
linked to any particular rifle.
You gotta admit--if this was a multi-gun plot, those conspirators sure
got lucky to only have bullets and fragments from the "patsy's" rifle
being linked via ballistics tests.
I think David Copperfield must have aided the henchmen in Dealey Plaza
to have pulled off the Oliver Stone-like plot that so many people
embrace. Don't you?