JFK DEBATES (PART 50)
David Von Pein
DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 50):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From April 2006, May
2006, and February 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- All riflemen opened up {at} roughly
the same time BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN JFK WAS IN THE SPOT THEY DECIDED TO
MURDER HIM. It would have been rather silly for the men to decide to
shoot at 12:25 - the time he was SUPPOSED to have been there, wouldn't
it?
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- Here's a beautiful "WTF??" moment. And a
pretty nice "LOL" one at that. That theorist actually seems to not
understand what I meant by the killers shooting "at the exact same
time" within the context of a "1-Patsy" plot while utilizing many
guns. But maybe it'll come to him next month some time.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/606503e4d63e74ad
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd321914097fcd2d
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- You don't have a single clue to what the conspirators were
thinking, nor can you even name them.
DVP -- An interesting and quite curious comment coming from someone
who DOES seem to know what those conspirators were thinking (and
doing, and shooting, and plotting, and covering up, etc.).
Pot....meet Mr. Kettle.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The unidentified fingerprint in the SN doesn't disturb you in
the least.
DVP -- Did anyone else (whose prints those might have been) also leave
their own gun on the 6th Floor, plus prints on a paper bag in the
Sniper's Nest, plus three shells matching his gun in the Nest too?
Didn't think so.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Witnesses saw LHO on the 1st and 2nd floor after 11:50.
DVP -- Cite one person other than Carolyn Arnold who made such a claim
please. And since Lee Oswald had no alibi at all for 12:30, how does
this argument make Oswald an innocent "patsy"? The assassination
occurred at 12:30....not at 11:55 or 12:15.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Witnesses testified that LHO was wearing different clothes.
DVP -- Per some conspiracists, Lee Harvey Oswald shouldn't be
suspected of murdering President Kennedy because of the conflicting
clothing descriptions provided by some of the witnesses.
Never mind all of that other stuff that says Oswald's guilty of murder
(HIS gun, HIS shells, HIS fingerprints, positive I.D. from witnesses
via non-clothing features, Oswald's own hinky actions, and his obvious
guilt in J.D. Tippit's murder too).
I guess certain CTers think that all of that stuff should definitely
be trumped by the clothing discrepancies. Go figure that kind of
logic.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Davey-boy is free to explain why Parkland felt the need to
insert chest tubes if no damage ever occurred in the chest.
DVP -- Nothing mysterious there.....
Dr. Malcolm Perry said: "I asked someone to put in a chest tube to
allow sealed drainage of any blood or air which might be accumulated
in the right hemothorax".
But at the autopsy, it was concluded there was no significant damage
to the chest or lungs (except for a slight bruising of the pleura
cavity, which was NOT punctured or violated by any missile).
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- It was burned in a fireplace...remember?
DVP -- And please explain the logic of Dr. Humes ADMITTING to burning
ANY documents if he were on a "cover-up mission" re. JFK's
assassination?
In other words, why would Humes say ANYTHING about burning up evidence
in his fireplace when he had no reason to do so within a strictly
"cover-up" mindset?
Dr. Humes has been boiled in hot CT oil for merely TELLING THE TRUTH
about the "fireplace burning", and for actually using some ordinary
common sense when attempting to figure out how JFK was killed.
And Humes has also been strung up by conspiracy-crazed morons for
merely placing into the official record THE ONLY CORRECT AND VALID
AUTOPSY REPORT (post-Perry conversation).
Go figure that.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/deed6f4807c9e2cb
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- "SBT" means "Single Bullet THEORY". It's never been anything
better than a theory, and one that has both ballistics experts and
medical doctors who disagree with it.
DVP -- And the SBT is also a theory that has many ballistics experts,
doctors, animators, and investigators agreeing with its conclusions.
Shy of a reasonable, believable, based-on-the-evidence-in-the-case
alternate CT theory to replace it....the SBT is still (by far) the
best explanation of the double-man wounding that took place on Elm
Street in Dallas.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bb22792c022c5a2e
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Every {SBT} "test" has failed....beginning with the bullets
fired into a cadaver's wrist by the WC, and moving up to the recent
test done in Australia.
DVP -- All together now .... Bull--Shit!!
If you think the Australian 2004 re-creation test "failed" to show the
viability (or at the very least, the "possibility") of the Single-
Bullet Theory, you're as goofy as The Comic Book Guy.
That re-creation verified virtually every aspect of the SBT's
potential "doability"; and anybody outside of CT Kooksville USA could
easily see that was so.
And Dale Myers' SBT work only further cements the Single-Bullet Theory
as closer to "factual" than "theory"....and anybody with one eye who
isn't buried a mile deep in books written by Marrs/Groden/Garrison/
Mellen/Livingstone/and Fetzer could easily see that fact as well.
Apparently, your stack of Fetzer, Marrs, and Garrison tomes is too
tall to see around.
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/intro.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egvc3TYQ9po
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The SBT wounds don't align.
DVP -- The wounds align just fine for the Single-Bullet Theory to
work. ....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/zeroang.jpg
That bullet came out of JFK's throat (just as the autopsy doctors
determined it MUST have and just as anyone with a brain and some
common sense would have determined it must have) and continued into
Governor Connally, which is the ONLY place the bullet could have gone,
and is the ONLY possible place, given the evidence, that anyone with a
brain could have determined that the bullet went.
To believe otherwise is to believe in CT nonsense of the first order.
Nonsense which CTers seem to enjoy wallowing in daily. Because the
odds of 3 gunmen being able to spray 2 victims with 3 bullets in an
even remotely-acceptable "SBT" pattern are so low as to be deemed
virtually nil.
But, by all means, continue to believe that three gunmen peppered two
victims just perfectly and simultaneously to make the SBT even
remotely feasible. And then continue to believe that all three of
those bullets (or even FOUR if you want to say Connally was hit twice,
as many CTers do, for some reason) just got themselves conveniently
misplaced or were seen by ONLY the pre-arranged Patsy Plotters.
And then remember to hang up your stocking on December 24th too.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- And where is the book review {for Mark Fuhrman's JFK book},
David? This treatise is simply a repetition of your well-known
opinion, and ignores the substantive arguments associated with each of
Fuhrman's points.
DVP -- I guess 3,500 words of rebutting and debunking Mr. Fuhrman's
anti-SBT theory just isn't comprehensive enough for some people. .....
And since I fully agree 100% with the REMAINDER of Fuhrman's
hypothesis (i.e., LHO was the lone killer; 3 total shots fired; no
Patsy plan; all shots came from the SN, etc.), there's really no good
reason to dive into those points.
If you want to believe that a bullet travelling at a 24-degree
downward angle can hit nothing (or a make-believe "bone" that was
never damaged inside JFK's body) and then suddenly take off in an
upward fashion as it leaves JFK's neck -- well, by all
means...fantasize along with Mark Fuhrman. Have a ball.
But in so doing, it'd be nice if you had at least some type of
reasonable and common-sense explanations for my 8 points in my review
for Fuhrman's book. I've yet to hear any such reasonable retorts to
date.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The CTers' theory explains the frame-up being performed on
Oswald PRIOR to the assassination (the car lot, the rifle range, the
scope being mounted...).
DVP -- And don't forget those backyard photos as well. Heavens to
Betsy, how could any self-respecting CT-Kook forget those?!!
And since you think LHO was being framed PRIOR to the assassination,
perhaps you can tell us about the brilliant logic of the patsy-framers
using multiple guns to kill JFK on November 22?
These crackerjack conspirators supposedly were performing all kinds of
detailed Oswald-implicating pre-assassination activities....and then
on the big day, they shoot their prey with one or more guns that
couldn't possibly ever lead back to JUST Lee Harvey Oswald.
Talk about throwing caution to the winds!
But apparently the "Real Killers" couldn't have cared less about
throwing that caution to the winds as they sprayed the President with
bullets from directions (and guns) that they had to know wouldn't ever
be connected to their single "Patsy" named Oswald.
Oh well! The evil Government was bound to want to frame that VERY SAME
PATSY...right? So why worry about such trivial and unimportant details
-- details like a Grassy Knoll gunman taking out JFK even though only
the patsy is supposed to be firing from the Book Depository Building.
Heck, after all, if Oliver Stone says such a stupid plot was afoot in
Dealey Plaza, then it MUST be true. Right?
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d4b57ed4a7f3b3a1
OSWALD NOTHING BUT A PATSY? NOT ACCORDING TO THESE OPINION POLLS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8bb11e92e282dcd5
A CRAZY THEORY REVOLVING AROUND ROBERT CROFT'S FAMOUS PHOTO:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8be4ed9861fe7dd7
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/eeadc349790c86fd
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S PENMANSHIP:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/39f77212ca752c42
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d2e9a138b931520d
LINNIE MAE RANDLE AND "THE PACKAGE":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bbdece8a84c1b7dc
MORE "BROWN PAPER BAG" TALK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/15ed9183f024...
DID THE EVIL GOVERNMENT "CONTROL" THE ENTIRE JFK INVESTIGATION?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/39ee3020a02935e3
THE MANY MISSING BULLETS IN A CONSPIRACIST'S WORLD:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/94e9bc7fea0dc76f
THE POST-ASSASSINATION MOVEMENTS OF ROY TRULY AND MARRION BAKER:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1a85d3535aa7501a
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b42d1c3927ab6578
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/53a61e172c4def19
THE JFK CONSPIRACY -- IS IT THERE....OR NOT?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/94eadfbb0867ce29
David Von Pein
===========================
>>> "Mary Bledsoe is a horrible witness, because she never discussed Oswald's clothing until she saw him on TV." <<<
LOL time!
Who the hell CARES about the CLOTHES of Lee Oswald with respect to the
main purpose of Bledsoe's testimony and observations (which was to
verify whether or not Oswald was or was not on McWatters' bus shortly
after the assassination).
Main fact provided by Bledsoe is: Oswald was positively ON THE BUS.
She barely looked at him, true. But the REASON she said she only
barely looked at him was because she was deliberately TRYING to avoid
him on the bus.
But a person like Mark "Deception" Lane should ask himself this ---
Why in the world would Bledsoe have had any desire to avoid a TOTAL
STRANGER like she did on the bus on 11/22/63?
The fact she was going out of her way to avoid this man on the bus is
virtual proof that the person she saw that day was, indeed, the person
she kicked out of her lodgings a month earlier -- Lee Harvey Oswald.
(And the clothing issue is inconsequential at best. IOW--it's chaff
when compared to Bledsoe's wheat.)
David Von Pein
>>> "DVP, the reason why Bledsoe was important had nothing to do with the darn bus. Oswald admitted riding the bus. He had the transfer in his pocket. The WC needed Bledsoe to say he was wearing that shirt. NO ONE else could say he was wearing that shirt without looking like an idiot. (The cabbie said he was wearing the shirt, but that he was also wearing a jacket. WRONG. Try again.) As fibers from Oswald's shirt somehow got wrapped around the butt plate of the rifle, without Bledoe's testimony saying Oswald had been wearing the shirt it would appear that the DPD had attempted to frame him using the shirt fibers before finding out that Oswald had changed shirts. Get it?" <<<
DVP:
That's all a bunch of conspiracy-tinged to-do about virtually nothing
(as usual with CTers).
What the hell difference does it really make whether Bledsoe can say
for certain whether Oswald was wearing a certain shirt or not? It's a
total non-issue. Mainly because Oswald WAS wearing that brown shirt
(matching the butt-plate fibers) when he was arrested.
It stands to reason (via common sense, IMO) that if Oswald was wearing
that brown shirt when he was arrested at 1:50 PM on Nov. 22nd....he
was likely wearing that same shirt when he shot JFK from the TSBD at
12:30 PM.*
* = Although, as a sidebar note to this issue, I'll add this --- IMO,
it's quite possible (likely even, when everything is considered,
including eyewitness accounts) that Oswald wasn't technically WEARING
the brown shirt when he shot President Kennedy at 12:30 PM.
I think he could very well have had on only his white T-shirt when he
performed the actual shooting, with the brown shirt lying at his feet
in the Sniper's Nest.
After the shooting, Oswald could very well have picked up the shirt
and took it with him to the northwest corner of the 6th Floor, and he
could have used that brown shirt to wipe off as many fingerprints off
of the rifle as possible while he dashed toward the stairs (hence,
some "fresh" fibers from that shirt could have gotten jammed into the
rifle during this time).
IMO, that scenario makes a little more sense than fresh fibers getting
caught in the rifle while Oswald was merely WEARING the article of
clothing in question.
Mileage re. this theory will, naturally, tend to vary.
But Mary Bledsoe's testimony about Oswald's shirt was merely
corroborative (i.e., completely unneeded in the long run). Sure, the
WC questioned her about it. But her testimony re. the shirt is not
needed. He had the damn thing on his back when arrested. Use your
head.
IMO, the most important testimony Mrs. Bledsoe gave was re. Oswald
positively having been on that bus just minutes after JFK was shot.
That's way, way more important than the "shirt" business.
Bledsoe's "on the bus" testimony is way more important than the
"shirt" testimony she gave, IMO. She ADMITS she barely glanced at
Oswald after he got on the bus. The details about clothing from
Bledsoe are of little value, IMO.
Yes, she said she saw the "hole" in the shirt...which IS a nice tidbit
of data to work with, because it backs up the "shirt" thing. But I'm
also considering other things she said....i.e., she was trying to
AVOID LOOKING AT HIM.
And Bledsoe IS the only witness who can positively put Oswald on that
bus. (Not counting Oswald himself, of course...who, as you noted, did
not deny being on the bus and had a McWatters' transfer in his
pocket.)
Which brings up another point re. shirts -- If Oswald had changed
shirts at Beckley (which I'm doubting he took the time to do), he
would have had to remember to transfer the paper bus transfer to his
"arrest" shirt, because it was found in a pocket of that shirt by the
police.
That's not a critical point, no. It's just one more small sliver of a
tidbit to make me think he had that same arrest shirt on his back
while he was on the bus and when Officer Baker saw him in the
lunchroom just a few minutes earlier.
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/24/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=581&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx3B155U6S67BK8#Mx3B155U6S67BK8
>>> "First statements are BEST EVIDENCE. Read their {the Parkland doctors} first statements THAT DAY {11/22/63}." <<<
Parkland's Dr. Malcolm Perry also speculated that the throat wound had
entered from the front and then also possibly caused the massive head
wound seen by the Parkland people.
Does ANY conspiracy theorist actually believe in THAT "theory" put
forth by Perry? (After all, as the above-quoted CTer said, a person's
"FIRST STATEMENTS" are always supposed to be the best statements.)
Back to reality......
It's obvious to a 3-year-old why Dr. Perry, et al, thought that the
small wound in JFK's throat was probably a wound of entrance --- it's
because they never saw the corresponding wound on Kennedy's back.
And with only ONE OTHER WOUND visible to the Parkland observers (which
was the large wound in JFK's head, regardless of exactly WHERE on the
head that wound was located; and, yes, we could go off on another 10-
page discussion concerning the exit-wound location in the head and its
associated discrepancies)....the doctors put together a scenario that
"connected" the small throat wound with the larger (and obviously
"exit") wound in JFK's head.
But when more information became available, Dr. Perry looked a bit
silly suggesting such a theory about the bullet entering the neck and
exiting out the head.
Perry was GUESSING. Plain and simple. And he was wrong.
Via Vince Bugliosi's book:
"Common sense tells us that seeing only the wound to the front of the
president's neck {and not seeing the corresponding entry wound in
Kennedy's back at any time}, the Parkland doctors would instinctively
have been more inclined to think of it as an entrance wound. Almost
anyone would be so predisposed." -- VB; Page 414 of "RH" (c.2007)
======================
And......
Via Dr. John K. Lattimer's 1980 book "KENNEDY AND LINCOLN":
"These experiments {involving the firing of MC/WCC bullets at a
simulated JFK upper back and neck} confirmed beyond all of my doubts
that the smallness of the exit hole in the front of Kennedy's neck was
due to the fact that the skin was supported by a firm collar band,
which restrained it from bulging and bursting open ahead of the
exiting bullet. .... If the bullet had not exited from the President's
neck just AT the collar band, the exit wound might have been much
larger." -- J.K. Lattimer; Page 239 of "K&L" (c.1980)
======================
Additional excellent LN-favoring experiments and Lattimer quotes can
be found in my "Kennedy And Lincoln" book review here:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4f18bcb78b94d9d8