Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 55)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From February 2004 and
March 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- At best, the Warren Report is one
likely scenario. It is NOT definitive proof of anything. It is NOT
factual in any meaningful way because the level of doubt left in the
aftermath of its findings is substantial enough to indicate reasonable
doubt.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- This "substantial" reasonable doubt you refer
to has all been borne out of decades of non-stop conspiracy theories
of one sort or another...ZERO of which have been proven to be anywhere
near the truth (or "definitive").
Where the theories of conspiracy differ from the Warren Report, of
course, is rooting the information found therein in actual "evidence"
and "facts" that we know about the case.
When examining the JFK case in this "factual" way, without conjecture
entering into the proceedings, not only is the Warren Report an
amazingly accurate and forthright document regarding the events of
11/22/63 in Dallas....but (when examined as a whole) it's fairly
certain that the Warren Report conclusions are indeed "definitive" --
as much as humanly possible in any event.
Very few things are 100% certain. And the WR is no exception I
suppose. But, given the unbelievably-overwhelming evidence against
this one lone killer (Lee Harvey Oswald), the conclusions reached by
Mr. Warren's commission are certainly as close to "definitive" as
possible. (If Oswald had lived, of course, the case against him would
probably have been "100%" definitive.)
And: To truly believe that the vast amount of evidence against Oswald
was somehow ALL manufactured, faked, forged, or otherwise manipulated
in one manner or another (so as to implicate an innocent "patsy"), is
to buy into a fairy tale far more fanciful than anything that's
contained within the 888-page Warren volume.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The bag has readily-visible folds, which indicate it was
carried into the building in a folded-up condition. Let's use our
noggins, shall we?
DVP -- Yeah, let's. It never occurred to you that Oswald could have
easily folded up the bag BEFORE he ever put the rifle into it (almost
certainly while transporting the paper to the Paine house in Irving)?
Do you think that every last crease and wrinkle would vanish once
Oswald put his rifle into such a pre-folded bag?
Or do you want to think that LHO took a large hunk of paper out of the
TSBD in an unfolded, straight-off-the-workbench fashion?
Crazy.
Plus, this one Oswald lie -- "I never told Frazier I brought curtain
rods to work on Friday" (paraphrased LHO falsehood) -- ALL BY ITSELF
probably is enough to convict Oswald.
That one single lie is HUGELY incriminating. For, what possible reason
would Oswald have had to lie about that "curtain rods" package other
than the obvious one? Please tell the world.
~~~~~~~~
"Oswald, from his own lips, TOLD us he was guilty....he told us he was
guilty....almost the same as if he had said 'I murdered President
Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us? Well, the lies he told,
one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE consciousness of guilt. If
Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny purchasing
that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why did he even
deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary to do that
if he's innocent?" -- Vincent Bugliosi
~~~~~~~~
"THE BAG":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/924f6653c5a34af0
"THE NEST":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/182cecc7c4e37bb2
"THE LIES":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Why didn't he {Oswald} confess to the assassination if he was
this lone angry nut who wanted fame?
DVP -- Oswald didn't need to confess. He had to have known that the
literal popcorn trail of evidence that he left behind in both the TSBD
and on Tenth Street would be implicating him and not a single other
human on Earth. He loved toying with the cops and the FBI. I think he
treasured the intrigue of it all.
So he got his "fame" by not confessing. And I'm sure he would have
relished that trial that never came about. He would have had ample
time during his trial to show off that trademark "You Figure It Out!"
smirk of his.
http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t041/T041232A.jsm
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Don't believe a word they {LNers} say.
DVP -- I guess you must think that Vincent Bugliosi is a "disinfo
agent" too then, when he boldly proclaims (sans a hint of ambiguity):
"As surely as I am standing here, as surely as night follows day, Lee
Harvey Oswald -- acting alone -- was responsible for the murder of
President John F. Kennedy." -- VB
Do the conspiracy theorists of the world really think that Vince
Bugliosi, one of the most respected lawyers in America, spent 21 years
of his life writing a massive "Disinformation" tome?
Why the hell would he do that? So that he could have the supreme
pleasure of being ridiculed by 75% of America? Weird.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Can someone tell me about the {JFK} back wound only going in
one inch and falling out?
DVP -- Sure....that never happened. The "falling out" bullet was
merely speculation made by the Bethesda doctors on the night of the
autopsy (at a point in time when the doctors were not aware that JFK
had a bullet hole in his throat).
Here's the pertinent Warren Commission testimony in that regard from
Dr. James Humes:
DR. HUMES -- "We were able to ascertain with absolute certainty that
the bullet had passed by the apical portion of the right lung
producing the injury which we mentioned. I did not at that point have
the information from Doctor Perry about the wound in the anterior
neck, and while that was a possible explanation for the point of exit,
we also had to consider the possibility that the missile in some
rather inexplicable fashion had been stopped in its path through the
President's body and, in fact, then had fallen from the body onto the
stretcher."
ARLEN SPECTER -- "And what theory did you think possible, at that
juncture, to explain the passing of the bullet back out the point of
entry; or had you been provided with the fact that external heart
massage had been performed on the President?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; we had, and we considered the possibility that
some of the physical maneuvering performed by the doctors might have
in some way caused this event to take place."
MR. SPECTER -- "Now, have you since discounted that possibility,
Doctor Humes?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes; in essence we have. When examining the wounds in
the base of the President's neck anteriorly, the region of the
tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital, we noted and we noted in
our record, some contusion and bruising of the muscles of the neck of
the President. We noted that at the time of the postmortem
examination."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
~~~~~~~~
Plus, if anyone wants to believe that a bullet just "fell out" of
JFK's back...and if they wish to believe that that bullet was
#CE399...they've got a huge problem with that theory too -- because
President Kennedy was never located in the area of the hospital where
CE399 was found by hospital employee Darrell Tomlinson; nor was
Kennedy's stretcher.
So (sans the unsupportable nonsense about the bullet being "planted"
in the hospital by shady conspirators), either that bullet grew legs
and walked to a different area of Parkland Hospital on its own, or
CE399 was a bullet that came out of the only other victim wounded by
Lee Harvey Oswald's ammunition on 11/22/63 -- that victim being Texas
Governor John B. Connally.
Given these facts, there is no way possible that CE399 was NOT inside
Governor Connally's body on November 22nd, 1963.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egvc3TYQ9po
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- I mention the fixation you and VB have with a movie {Oliver
Stone's 'JFK'}, and you come back with a TV show {"On Trial: Lee
Harvey Oswald"}.
DVP -- Yep...a TV show with a REAL judge, REAL lawyers, a REAL jury
taken from the Dallas jury pool, and (above all) REAL witnesses...no
actors.
Were these people ALL lying just for the sake of their grand "acting
debut" on Cable TV?.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b3a8181c73cfa095
And to say that LNers have a "fixation" with Mr. Stone's movie is a
large-sized laugh....for it's a large percentage of "CTers" who seem
to be "fixated" on Mr. Stone's MULTI-GUN, ONE-PATSY version of events
in Dallas.
The LNers are merely trying set the record straight...i.e., "reclaim
history" from the clutches of Stone/Garrison.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51b89da58d3e6489
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- It will also be most instructive to see how he {Vincent
Bugliosi} defends the BOH photo.
DVP (March 4, 2007) -- I, too, am looking forward to seeing Vincent's
explanation of the "BOH" situation (mainly to see how he explains the
many witnesses who said they saw a large exit wound in the back of
President Kennedy's head).
In fact, for quite some time now, the "BOH" matter has been the #1
item on my list of "THINGS I'M MOST ANXIOUS TO SEE VINCE BUGLIOSI
EXPLAIN IN A LONE-ASSASSIN MANNER". And I've said so on numerous
occasions, such as in the following examples:
~~~~~~~~
"The 'BOH' matter, as I've repeated numerous times on various forums
since 2003, is and has always been the #1 item on my short list of
'Things I'm Most Anxious To Have Vincent Bugliosi Reconcile In His
Upcoming JFK Book'.
And I'm fully confident that VB has, indeed, reconciled those many BOH
witnesses to his own 'LN' satisfaction. Otherwise, there's no way
Vince would have uttered these strong words in 2001....'My conclusion
is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed
Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted alone' (V.B.)."
-- DVP; December 10, 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/06a93e60c9987e2b
~~~~~~~~
"My #1 'stumper' that I await Mr. Bugliosi's take on would be -- Why
so many individuals said they saw a large hole at the rear of
Kennedy's head at both Parkland and Bethesda. I cannot come up with
ENOUGH of a logical 'LN' interpretation for this 'problem'.
But, IMO, if Mr. Bugliosi CAN come up with a reasonable and forthright
and non-evasive interpretation of this obvious discrepancy, then IMO
you can close the case tightly shut in favor of 'LN'.
For this one large sticky point in the LN case, if 'solved' to satisfy
even many CTers, would indeed nail the coffin shut on the CTs.
Because, in my view, next to this problem of the witnesses claiming to
see a BOH wound, the remainder of the case would be the proverbial
piece of cake for Mr. Bugliosi to reconcile into total and complete
'Oswald did it alone' status." -- DVP; February 6, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dc55aaccc592797a
~~~~~~~~
"The two biggest nagging questions I still have with regard to the
evidence (both physical and otherwise) are:
1.) Why did so many people say they had seen a large wound at the REAR
of President Kennedy's head at both Parkland Hospital and at Bethesda
(when it's obvious from the autopsy photographs and via the Zapruder
Film too, IMO, that no such rear head damage existed)?
-- and --
2.) Why was there no blood, tissue, or clothing fibers found on CE399
-- a bullet that has been POSITIVELY LINKED to one of the two victims
(Connally; wrist fragments) AND conclusively linked to Oswald's C2766
Carcano rifle?
These two questions are the two I most look forward to having
explained in an 'LN' fashion by Mr. Bugliosi in his upcoming
publication.
And I have every reason to believe that Vince WILL, conclusively, have
ample explanatory facts and figures to answer those two questions I
posed above. And WITHOUT ignoring or overlooking anything with regard
to these two matters (the 'BOH Witnesses' and the seeming lack of
detectable trace evidence on bullet CE399)." -- DVP; January 25, 2005
~~~~~~~~
A March 2007 reprise -- I have absolutely no doubt that Vince HAS,
indeed, resolved the "BOH" matter in his own (logical) mind....and has
resolved it within a "Lone Assassin Named Lee Harvey Oswald" scenario.
It's obvious to me that such a logical "LN" resolution to the BOH
discrepancies HAS been arrived at by Mr. Bugliosi, or else his book
("Reclaiming History") would not be in the offing at all.
I've scratched my head more than a few times when thinking about those
BOH wound witnesses. But at the same time, I also realize that there's
a bunch of evidence that totally contradicts those witnesses
(regardless of how many of them there might be).
That contradictory evidence includes: The Autopsy Report, the autopsy
photographs and X-rays, the Zapruder Film, and the never-wavering
testimony of all three autopsy doctors (with each doctor agreeing that
President Kennedy was hit by only two bullets, with both of those
bullets coming from "above and behind" John F. Kennedy).
More of my own "BOH" thoughts (to counter the silliness of author Jim
Moore's BOH explanation) can be found at the link below:
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- David, glad you admit that the BOH photo and the many
witnesses to a BOH wound present a "problem" for the single-assassin-
from-the-rear theory. Yet you have every confidence that Bugliosi will
reconcile all this in his book.
DVP (March 4, 2007) -- Yes, I do possess such confidence. And it's not
really totally "blind" faith. It's a confidence that is derived from a
knowledge of Vince Bugliosi's methodology, and (to quote from the
publisher's promo blurb re. "Reclaiming History").....
"Bugliosi's irresistible logic, command of the evidence, and ability
to draw startling inferences shed fresh light on this American
nightmare."*
* = The part about VB's "ability to draw startling inferences" is the
section I want to highlight the most within that blurb....which is
something that I, too (independently), have definitely taken note of
(many times) when reading anything written by Vincent Bugliosi.
Or, as I like to phrase it, it's VB's ability to make a reader say to
himself: "Why Didn't I Think Of That?". Several such forehead-slapping
moments will probably be awaiting the readers of "Reclaiming History".
http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring07/004525.htm
And then there's also this very important quote from Vince B. himself
(which IMO will be impossible for CTers to overcome with respect to
Mr. Bugliosi's Oswald-Did-It-Alone "charge" in his JFK book).....
"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." -- VB
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df
www.amazon.com/VINCENT-BUGLIOSI/lm/2KJFLIXOW29IX/ref=cm_lmt_dtpa_f_1_rdssss0/002-2065385-6525668
www.amazon.com/JOHN-F-KENNEDY/lm/23ISVQ4JAFW0G/ref=cm_lmt_dtpa_f_2_rdssss1/002-2065385-6525668