Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 56)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From July 2005, April
2006, May 2006, June 2006, February 2007, and March 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- David, now that you have admitted the
following --- 1. You cannot connect the first shot to Oswald. ... 2.
You can only "guess" as to the source and nature of the shot that
caused Tague's minor wound. ... 3. You cannot objectively confirm that
the "stretcher bullet" was actually CE399 --- will you EVER make the
false claim again that ALL the hard evidence points to Oswald, to the
exclusion of other possible snipers?
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- The three examples you gave above do nothing
to lead me away from my lone-assassin beliefs. And just exactly how
many bullets/shots can you definitively "connect" to a
"conspirator"...or to anybody's rifle other than Lee Harvey Oswald's?
1? 2? 3? Or maybe...zero?
Wonder how that "proves" conspiracy? But, then too, it doesn't take
much to prove conspiracy to some people. Two ladies named Jackie and
Nellie moving their heads down to lean in toward their shot-all-to-
hell husbands is probably enough evidence to "prove conspiracy" to one
CTer in particular. Right, Mr. "CE285"? ~wink~
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fe4db73e8e333cc3
And, yes, I still maintain the stance that ALL of the hard, physical
evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases points in one lonely
direction, toward Lee Harvey Oswald and his weaponry.
Which is also a stance that has been expressed by a man with more
knowledge about this case than I could ever hope to acquire in my
lifetime -- Vincent T. Bugliosi:
"No one has produced one piece of evidence to support a conspiracy
theory." -- V.B.
To address your points (1 through 3 above) separately.....
1.) Naturally, since the first shot MISSED and didn't remain inside a
victim, that shot cannot be conclusively proven to have come from
Oswald's rifle. On the flip side, of course, no CTer can "tie" that
missed shot (nor ANY other shot, miss or otherwise) to a non-Oswald
weapon....because no such weapon exists. Nor can any shot be "tied" to
any particular non-Oswald shooter by CTers...missed shot or otherwise.
Because the CTers have no other shooters to attach these shots/bullets
to.
So, overall, it's a CT/LN "draw" with respect to attempting to tie any
missed shots to certain guns/killers. Isn't this an all-too-obvious
and elementary observation in the first place?
2.) Naturally, since it's my opinion that the "Tague shot" was
(essentially) a missed shot (striking no victims in the limo), yes,
it's a "guess". But...so what? This is pretty much identical to #1
above. All anybody CAN do is "guess" re. any and all missed shots/
bullets that were never recovered.
3.) Of course the stretcher bullet was CE399. It's only the rabid
CTers (on a mission to discredit every last piece of "Oswald Did It"
evidence in this case) who attempt to cast doubt on Bullet 399. But
it's not my nature to shout "It Was Planted!" every five seconds, like
some people do. Sure, skepticism is a good thing up to a point. But at
what point does skepticism become outright CT Wishful-Thinking?
On the whole......
When a person looking at the JFK assassination can stop "isolating"
certain pieces of evidence from other evidence, then the TOTALITY of
the event shines through bright and clear.
Isn't it a good idea to step away from the Conspiracy Pit and look at
the SUM TOTAL of the evidence from time to time? (I know, I know,
CTers think that the "Sum Total" adds up to conspiracy. I think just
the opposite.
And I truly believe that the totality of both the physical and
circumstantial evidence in the case should make a reasonable person
conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald was firing his own gun from his own
workplace on 11/22/63.
SOME "LN" FACTS TO CONSIDER (a continuation of this post):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/26a2eebc0f72e065
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- David, I asked you a question. Are you going to answer it? ...
{You} never answered my questions, but instead went into a long-winded
rant about Oswald's guilt.
DVP -- Let me try one more time.....The above CTer asked -- "Will you
EVER make the false claim again that ALL the hard evidence points to
Oswald, to the exclusion of other possible snipers?"
My one-word answer to that would be --- Yes.
My longer-than-one-word answer (i.e., a kind of a "reprise" of what
I've already said at length previously) would be ---
It's not a "false" claim in my view. And, yes, the hard, physical
evidence of bullets, guns, shells, fibers, and prints (and most
witnesses) leads straight to LHO and no other human on Earth, and no
other gun or guns on Earth....period.
Anybody can make a "case for conspiracy" if all that is required is a
"missed" shot that nobody recovers later on to attach to a particular
gun or gunman. Obviously, that shot COULD have come from a non-Oswald
gun. But the evidence (when totalled up with a dash of common sense
attached) tells me it didn't.
1.) There were THREE spent shells connected to one single gun
(Oswald's).
2.) There were TWO distinct bullets connected to one single gun
(Oswald's).
3.) There was ONE person seen firing a gun on 11/22/63 (either Oswald
or a nicely-"staged" Oswald look-alike). Not a single other gun or
"pipe in a window" was seen anywhere in Dealey Plaza (despite Jean
Hill's post-1963 made-up fantasy).
So, sure, there COULD have conceivably been a mystery shooter firing
at President Kennedy. But, as Vince Bugliosi said in 1986.....
"There may have been 50 people firing at President Kennedy that
day...but if there were...they all missed...ONLY bullets from Oswald's
Carcano rifle struck the President."
If you want to build a conspiracy around Z-Film reactions (which can
be interpreted numerous ways)....or around a missed shot that (yes)
COULD have come from any rifle on Earth due to the bullet not being
recovered....then have fun building that kind of conspiracy.
But, IMO, you're on shaky CT ground. Because every single substantive
thing in this case (including Lee Oswald's own actions before and
after his arrest on November 22) should be telling a reasonable person
that a single killer was loose in Dealey Plaza on the day of JFK's
Dallas visit....and that killer was Lee Harvey Oswald.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- They {the DPD} were supposed to search the crime scene for
possible sniper locations in Dealey Plaza.
DVP -- They did. Or are you forgetting about the policeman who
immediately ran up the knoll (right straight to the exact area where
nearly all CTers think at least one shot was fired)? And what did that
police officer find?
Answer -- Not a single sign of a gunman.
Should the police, therefore, have just PRETENDED there was a gunman
there to make CTers happy?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The revolver-emptier had a different jacket on than LHO.
DVP -- Oh, come on. Put it together. Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis
saw the man (Oswald) for a few brief seconds. They were looking at his
face (quite obviously, since both Davis ladies made a positive I.D. of
the man later), and weren't paying a great deal of attention to the
color of his jacket.
And they were also distracted, to a degree, by WHAT THE MAN WAS DOING
-- emptying a gun right in their yard.
Under the circumstances of the fleeting incident, just recalling that
he had ANY kind/color of a jacket on at all is pretty decent
recollection, in my opinion.
But attempting to invalidate the testimony of BOTH Barbara and
Virginia Davis (witnesses who each said the man they saw with a gun
was Lee Harvey Oswald) just because of a discrepancy regarding the
color of the gunman's jacket, would be akin to tossing out the baby
(and the whole bathroom) with the bathwater.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_b.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_vc.htm
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Dale Myers' rear view is his own conception.
DVP -- Bull. You think Dale Myers just made up (on his own) this
"Rifle Scope" view from up in the Depository's Sniper's Nest?:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
Mr. Myers didn't just CREATE that above-linked animated image out of
pure whole cloth. If you think he did, you need a mental tune-up.
Almost all of Dale Myers' computer animation model stems from "Key
Framing" the model to the actual Zapruder Film itself.
To quote from Myers' website:
"In essence, the key frame process had created a motion file of
Zapruder's camera in 3D space."
[End Quote.]
Plus -- There is no way that Oswald (or anybody up in the Sniper's
Nest) could have hit John Connally with a bullet (given the
approximate point in time, per the Z-Film, when we can see that he's
been hit) without having that same bullet go through JFK's body first.
This is a critical point that author Mark Fuhrman completely sidesteps
and ignores in his 2006 book, "A Simple Act Of Murder". ....
Mr. Myers' work is incredibly detailed and thorough...and IMO should
be looked upon as a breakthrough with respect to solving the long-
asked question of: IS THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY POSSIBLE?
And the answer to that question, thanks to Mr. Myers' help (and others
as well) is a resounding and undeniable "Yes".
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/kframe.htm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b966c737213c07cd
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The truth {leading to conspiracy} is gradually coming to
light.
DVP -- Another item that has recently "come to light" is the newly-
discovered "George Jefferies Film". Of course, most rabid conspiracy
believers won't mention the relevant FACT which that film reveals (in
very vivid detail) -- i.e., the bunched jacket on JFK's back.....
Frame from The Jefferies Film:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10222.jpg
The Croft Photo (taken on Elm Street):
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-1084-1154280771.jpg
Below is a link to an article about the Jefferies Film written by
"Case Closed" author Gerald Posner. I disagree with this portion of
Mr. Posner's remarks, however.....
"At the end of the {Jefferies} clip, as the camera focuses on the
backs of the president and first lady, Kennedy's suit is significantly
bunched up, with several layers creased together." -- Gerald Posner;
February 2007
The comment about "several layers" is something that cannot possibly
be proven beyond all doubt via JUST the film, because JFK's shirt
under his coat is not viewable.
Of course, when realistically evaluating the "holes" evidence, there
IS no other possible answer (aside from massive unprovable "fakery")
than to conclude that the ONE bullet hole in Kennedy's shirt and coat
HAD to be holes made by the ONE and only bullet that entered JFK's
back.
I've often wondered why this evidence re. the "holes" is even
debatable? In my opinion, it's not debatable...in the slightest
degree.
Here's the full Posner article:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dadc4863a5f105e8
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- {Dr. Robert} Shaw was also quoted on 11/27/63 as stating that
a bullet had entered the front of JFK's throat and "coursed downward
into his lung [and] was removed [at] autopsy".
DVP -- So? Who cares what Shaw said regarding an AUTOPSY matter. WAS a
bullet found in JFK's lung?
Answer: No.
End of story. Dr. Shaw's comments are meaningless. Besides, was Shaw
one of KENNEDY'S doctors at Parkland Hospital?
Answer: No. He was one of John Connally's doctors. He didn't treat
President Kennedy at all on November 22nd.
But, being a CTer who likes to jump on every stupid thing imaginable,
you evidently will totally disregard the testimony of THOSE WHO WERE
AT THE AUTOPSY and, instead, place your full trust and confidence in
the words of a third party who was thousands of miles from Washington
at the time of Kennedy's post-mortem examination.
Yeah...let's do that, okay? It'll look good in court, too, to drag Dr.
Shaw into court as an "expert" on JFK's wounds and JFK's autopsy
(which he knew NOTHING about first-hand).
A great Johnnie Cochran-esque tactic there. Keep it up. You're doing
fine.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/16b70728d9c8ecd4