More On The "Oswald Was Just A Patsy" Silliness
David VP
TRY PUTTING YOURSELF IN THE SHOES (AND NUTTY MINDS) OF THE
"PATSY"-PLOTTING ARCHITECTS WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN IN CHARGE OF MAPPING
OUT SUCH AN INCREDIBLY-STUPID PLOT AND THEN TRY TO HONESTLY ANSWER THAT
QUESTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A whole bunch of conspiracy theorists believe that President John F.
Kennedy was killed via a multiple-assassin ambush in Dallas, Texas, on
November 22nd, 1963.
The main problem that these conspiracy theorists need to overcome, of
course, is the fact that absolutely NONE of the physical evidence
supports the idea that President Kennedy was hit by bullets from more
than just a single rifle in Dealey Plaza.
But the fact that there are no guns, or bullets, or bullet shells other
than Lee Harvey Oswald's doesn't seem to dissuade the hardline
conspiracy promoters one bit. They're going to believe in that
multi-shooter conspiracy despite all the evidence that says they are
100% wrong.
"It must have all been 'planted' to frame only Oswald" is the
proverbial response by CTers when confronted with the total lack of
physical evidence to support the idea of multiple assassins. A nice and
convenient "blanket" cover-up that neatly explains everything for the
theorists.
I just wonder, though, in what court of law such logic could be taken
(and believed by a jury)? CT logic that is essentially saying: "Since
All Of The Evidence Says Oswald Did It; It MUST Mean Just The Opposite;
And Oswald, Therefore, Is Innocent". That's turning logic and common
sense totally upside-down.
Many conspiracists think Oswald was "set up" as a dupe or a "Patsy" by
evil forces prior to the assassination. But this "Patsy" business is
always spoken of by the "Let's Free Oswald" CT Brigade in very vague
terms, with little to no thought given to the actual "mechanics" of
just exactly HOW Oswald was set up to take the fall in the JFK murder
(and in the killing of policeman J.D. Tippit as well, per many
theorists, which only elevates the "Patsy" plot to
insanely-difficult-to-pull-off levels of complexity, in that the
plotters would need to frame him for not just one murder on 11/22/63 --
but TWO).
But ask a CTer to actually look at the ridiculously-reckless "Patsy
Frame-Up" plot from a Pre-November 22nd point-of-view, and you're
likely to get the brush-off. No conspiracy buff wants to talk about
that aspect of the Patsy plan (because the plot sounds so
hopelessly-harebrained and implausible from that POV).
If a theorist were to actually perform that little bit of time travel
in their pro-CT heads, they would have no choice but to realize that
such a loony "Patsy Plot" was, is, and always shall be a
totally-unworkable and untenable assassination plan.
And, even if (somehow) such a stupid Multi-Shooter, One-Patsy plot was
to miraculously succeed, it still would not make that silly scheme any
MORE secure and non-reckless from a pre-11/22 standpoint. (If it
succeeded, it would only mean that the Lord Jesus Christ intervened for
some reason and helped out these inane people who wanted to frame just
one guy but used a plethora of guns all over Dealey Plaza to kill the
one almost-stationary target.)
Conspiracy theorists refuse to discuss any of the pre-planning aspects
from the "Why on Earth would they have planned it THIS silly way?" POV.
Because to do that would mean for CTers to readily admit what has been
obvious to me for many years -- i.e.:
You don't try to frame a lone Patsy by shooting up the joint with 2 to
5 gunmen! And, moreover, you don't attempt to frame a guy with his own
gun and then NOT USE SAID GUN AT ALL IN THE MURDER ATTEMPT! That's yet
another layer of stupidity exhibited by these so-called plotters (a
layer of the PRE-PLANNED PATSY PLOT that is widely believed to be
"fact" by many a-CTer; when, in reality, it's just plain dumb).
And, furthermore, you don't NEED to frame a lone gunman by using
multiple shooters. A "professional hit man" is just that -- a PRO -- he
doesn't need back-ups all over the friggin' place. It's just flat-out
stupid. And, in the type of "Frame The One Patsy" plot believed in by
most CTers, it's not just stupid....it's a suicidal plot....which is
bound to collapse the moment JFK is wheeled into Parkland Hospital...or
possibly even sooner.
CTers, in short, don't seem to want to realize that if a multi-gun
patsy plot did occur on November 22nd, then some group of conspirators
(who are never named by conspiracy buffs of course...their identities
are as murky as "Badge Man") had to have sat themselves down prior to
11/22 and mapped out the best way to frame Lee Oswald. And, incredibly,
CTers think that these pre-planners came up with this brainstorm of a
plan.......
"Hey, guys....why don't we put three or maybe even FOUR riflemen in
Dealey Plaza, in the front and the rear of JFK's vehicle, and then
start popping away at the exact same time at the one target.....all the
while we'll just let our one Patsy run around loose on the first or
second floor of the Depository Building (even though he's supposed to
be upstairs with a gun).....or, maybe, we'll even let him GO OUTSIDE
THE BUILDING WHERE HE'S SURE TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED BY CAMERAMEN!
Yeah....that's what we'll do on 11/22. Anybody object to this plan??"
And, per CTers, evidently there wasn't a single person in this "Mystery
Group Of 11/22 Pre-Planners" who thought that that Patsy frame-up idea
was not an excellent one.
Three simple questions for Conspiracy Believers:
1.) Where does ALL of the physical evidence lead in the JFK and Tippit
murder cases (E.G., the guns, the bullets, the bullet shells, the
fingerprints, the fibers, plus Oswald's own verifiable actions before
and after the murders)?
2.) Is it even remotely possible (or doable) -- in the "real" world --
that every piece of ballistics evidence in both the JFK and J.D. Tippit
murder investigations could have been "Faked" so that all of it became
neatly (and immediately) stacked up into a perfect "It Was Oswald"
pile?
3.) Who amongst the current "CTer population" of millions and millions
of people worldwide would have actually "set up" Lee Harvey Oswald as
the patsy by utilizing a MULTI-GUN frame-up plot on 11/22/63?
The only conceivable answers to the above inquiries are, of course:
1.) To Lee Harvey Oswald.
2.) No, it is not.
3.) Nobody.
I'd thoroughly enjoy seeing just one conspiracist answer the above
three questions in a pro-CT fashion, and do so in a BELIEVABLE manner,
while using common sense and reasoned thinking along the way. However,
I fear that being able to do that would be even more problematic than
the task that was facing the after-the-shooting "Fake Everything In
Sight" conspiracy crew on November 22nd.
David Von Pein
February 2006
Papa Andy
the sign of a whiner with nothing to say
A
aeffects
So the intiated will waste no time....
Hopefully this guy, David Von Pein will get around to April 2006,
someday -- he's got more tonnage on the internet than even BM--
evidently, he's working toward besting Dave Reitzes
............
David VP
If so...then, yes, he does have a lot of CT tonnage to his credit at
Lancer.
aeffects
tain't the moderated 'junior varsity' forum guy -- not impressed!
David VP
Ben Holmes
Simply reposting garbage that has been rebutted is silly. It only points out
that Davey-boy is incapable of responding.
In article <1145755576.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD REALLY JUST AN INNOCENT "PATSY"?
The evidence seems to indicate such.
>TRY PUTTING YOURSELF IN THE SHOES (AND NUTTY MINDS) OF THE
>"PATSY"-PLOTTING ARCHITECTS WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN IN CHARGE OF MAPPING
>OUT SUCH AN INCREDIBLY-STUPID PLOT AND THEN TRY TO HONESTLY ANSWER THAT
>QUESTION
Why, certainly. Unfortunately, what's *truly* nutty, is that you will refuse to
respond to this rebuttal.
You'll snip everything to a single statement that you feel you can debate - and
ignore everything else.
Cowardly, but you are what you are, right?
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>A whole bunch of conspiracy theorists believe that President John F.
>Kennedy was killed via a multiple-assassin ambush in Dallas, Texas, on
>November 22nd, 1963.
Actually, a rather large majority of America believes this. LNT'ers will cry
that they simply don't know the evidence - but then run away from those of us
who *do* know the evidence.
>The main problem that these conspiracy theorists need to overcome, of
>course, is the fact that absolutely NONE of the physical evidence
>supports the idea that President Kennedy was hit by bullets from more
>than just a single rifle in Dealey Plaza.
Simply untrue, of course. James Chaney - all by himself, makes the SBT
imposssible, and makes a Lone Nut impossible - there *must* have been multiple
shooters.
Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say that you
remember?
Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots
hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.
Of course, this scenario is simply impossible when you add in Tague - but this
was essentially what the WC was going to use for the first few months of it's
existence.
But merely speculating that one shot went through JFK, despite the medical
evidence to the contrary - and caused all of Connally's injuries, DOESN'T
EXPLAIN CHANEY'S EYEWITNESS OBSERVATIONS. This explains why he was never
questioned or asked for his testimony.
But LNT'ers can't explain this fact any other way... the CLOSEST police
eyewitness to a murder never questioned prior to the release of the WCR.
Davey-boy won't touch this fact with a ten-foot pole.
What Davey-boy also carefully omits is that there is *NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER*
for the shot that hit JFK's back - tying it to CE399... yet this is a must for
the SBT.
Davey-boy also carefully omits expert opinion that two *different* types of
bullets struck JFK's head, one frangible...
You can, in fact, look at CE857, and CE859; and compare Dr. Alfred Olivier's
attempts to duplicate the head shot. What you *won't* find is the veritable
snowstorm of bullet fragments actually seen in the X-rays.
>But the fact that there are no guns,
Untrue. As documented before. I wonder why Davey-boy keeps lying about this
even after it's been brought to his attention?
>or bullets,
Again, untrue. The eyewitnesses who found and/or held what became CE399
describe a *different* bullet, as I'm sure Davey-boy must be familiar with. You
can check CE2011 to see that Tomlinson would not identify the current "CE399" as
the bullet he found and held.
And I'm sure that Davey-boy is familiar with other bullets that have simply
disappeared from the 'official' evidence. The photo published in the Dallas
papers showing an unknown federal agent digging up a bullet out of the grass,
for example.
>or bullet shells other
>than Lee Harvey Oswald's doesn't seem to dissuade the hardline
>conspiracy promoters one bit.
Of course not! Why would lying about the evidence convince anyone?
>They're going to believe in that multi-shooter conspiracy despite all
>the evidence that says they are 100% wrong.
Actually, there's far too much evidence of multiple assassins... and Davey-boy
doesn't want to admit this.
Eyewitness testimony in particular... which, no doubt, explains the LNT'ers
virtual hatred of eyewitness testimony.
Listing all of the evidence for multiple assassins would take a book - and
indeed, many books *have* been written to list such evidence.
But Davey-boy won't respond to this anyway, so why take the time?
>"It must have all been 'planted' to frame only Oswald"
Some of it certainly was... such as the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
X-ray. The one topic that LNT'ers run screaming away from when I bring it up.
The cartridges from the Tippit murder, which changed from automatic to revolver,
and went missing the identification marks...
CE543, which was needed to 'fill out' the three shot scenario that everyone
agreed to.
>is the proverbial response by CTers when confronted with the total lack of
>physical evidence to support the idea of multiple assassins.
Ah!!! But there's *NOT* a "total lack of physical evidence". This LNT'er
factoid will keep rearing it's ugly head due to the cowardice of LNT'ers to
confront the physical evidence.
As just one example, the NAA of the bullets - which supported the WC's case so
well that they were simply buried... or the cheek cast, which made nonsense of
the WC's case. As Weisberg so elegantly puts it:
"First of all, if not until *after* the Commission had expected to have
completed its work, there *was* neutron-activation testing. Until now, this was
a state secret. There is no reference to it in all the Commission's publishing.
It was avoided lke the plague in all testimony and the Report itself. This also
can be no accident." (Postmortem, pg 319-320)
But Davey-boy will ignore this - as he is simply too much of a coward to debate
the actual evidence in this case.
>A nice and convenient "blanket" cover-up that neatly explains everything
>for the theorists.
You see, this is the essense... the CT'er explanation *DOES* explain all the
evidence and eyewitness testimony, the LNT'er explanation doesn't.
The CT'ers theory explains why the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray
exists...
The CT'ers theory explains why Chaney saw what he saw, said what he said, and
why he was never questioned by the FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR.
The CT'ers theory explains why the FBI began intimidating eyewitnesses, forcing
them to shut up to reporters and friends.
The CT'ers theory explains why all the evidence was taken away from Dallas as
quickly as possible - such as JFK's body, the limo, and later, the rifle, and
other collected evidence.
The CT'ers theory explains why the photos, X-rays, and video were hidden from
the public for so long (and some of it *still* is!)
The CT'ers theory explains why some of the photographic, and undoubtably some of
the X-ray evidence disappeared.
The CT'ers theory explains the anxiety of the government when Garrison starting
nosing around.
The CT'ers theory explains the frameup being performed on LHO *PRIOR* to the
assassination (the car lot, the rifle range, the scope being mounted...)
The CT'ers theory explains the knowledge that some people apparently had
*BEFOREHAND* that JFK was going to be assassinated...
The CT'ers theory explains Oswald's strange Russian trip (along with dozens of
others during roughly the same time period)
The CT'ers theory explains *ALL* the eyewitness testimony:
Such as those who saw more than one person on the 6th floor.
Such as those who saw LHO on the 1st and 2nd floor after 11:50.
Such as those who saw a *differently* clothed assassin.
Such as those who testified that LHO was wearing different clothes.
Such as those who testified that shots came from the Grassy Knoll.
Such as those who testified that JFK had a large wound on the *BACK* of his
head.
Such as the Autopsy report, which proved a wound extending INTO THE BACK OF
JFK'S HEAD.
Such as those who testified that his back wound was too low to connect to the
neck wound.
Such as those who stated that day that the neck wound was an entry.
And so on, and so on, and so on...
LNT'ers can't dispute this sort of material, so they must *deny* it - by stating
that "eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence"...
>I just wonder, though, in what court of law such logic could be taken
>(and believed by a jury)?
Considering that as much as 90% of Americans disbelieve the theory you keep
pushing, and that juries in America are composed of Americans... you shouldn't
have to wonder.
>CT logic that is essentially saying: "Since
>All Of The Evidence Says Oswald Did It; It MUST Mean Just The Opposite;
>And Oswald, Therefore, Is Innocent". That's turning logic and common
>sense totally upside-down.
When you must lie to support your theory - all you've shown is that you're
willing to lie. There is exculpatory evidence that Davey-boy won't touch with a
ten-foot pole, and the evidence of multiple assassins is something that makes
Davey-boy simply cry.
So he'll continue with the LNT'er factoid that "All of the Evidence Says Oswald
Did It", despite the proof that he's simply lying.
>Many conspiracists think Oswald was "set up" as a dupe or a "Patsy" by
>evil forces prior to the assassination.
That *would* explain facts that you won't touch... (as listed above)
>But this "Patsy" business is
>always spoken of by the "Let's Free Oswald" CT Brigade in very vague
>terms, with little to no thought given to the actual "mechanics" of
>just exactly HOW Oswald was set up to take the fall in the JFK murder
Simple... there's as many speculations of how it could have been done as there
are speculators.
As simple a mechanism as offering to purchase Oswald's rifle - considering that
this is *exactly* the amount of money he had on him when arrested, would be all
that's really needed. Along with planning for other patsies, should LHO prove
too difficult to frame. (Frazier, for example)
But getting into the realm of speculation is what *LNT'ers* like to do - since
by it's very nature, it's not definitive.
This is why CT'ers prefer to discuss the evidence and testimony, and why LNT'ers
would prefer to discuss speculation - such as this post was intended to do.
>(and in the killing of policeman J.D. Tippit as well, per many
>theorists, which only elevates the "Patsy" plot to
>insanely-difficult-to-pull-off levels of complexity, in that the
>plotters would need to frame him for not just one murder on 11/22/63 --
>but TWO).
Nah... how silly! Tippit was an unexpected bonus. The initial evidence
certainly didn't implicate LHO at all... but with a wee bit of hysteria,
evidence control, and eyewitness intimidation, it was simple enough to do
Had everything gone according to plan, Baker would have shot Oswald in the TSBD,
with no-one the wiser...
>But ask a CTer to actually look at the ridiculously-reckless "Patsy
>Frame-Up" plot from a Pre-November 22nd point-of-view, and you're
>likely to get the brush-off.
Again, how silly! It's the LNT'ers that keep running away. As proof, merely
look at what Davey-boy will do with *this* post... he'll snip to just one
statement that he thinks he can debate, then let the topic drop.
And bring it up again in another week or two, or another month... when he thinks
everyone won't remember that his entire post was extensively rebutted, and he
said virtually nothing.
It's unfortunate, but the state of the evidence forces LNT'ers to act like
gutless cowards - there simply *is* no response possible. So they run away.
>No conspiracy buff wants to talk about
>that aspect of the Patsy plan (because the plot sounds so
>hopelessly-harebrained and implausible from that POV).
LNT'ers are *always* trying to concoct the most outlandish strawman that they
can... and CT'ers just sit back and laugh!
I can't wait for Bugliosi's apology of the WCR - it will be, just like Posner,
another indictment of the weakness of the LNT'er position.
>If a theorist were to actually perform that little bit of time travel
>in their pro-CT heads, they would have no choice but to realize that
>such a loony "Patsy Plot" was, is, and always shall be a
>totally-unworkable and untenable assassination plan.
Simply untrue. Hand me the power to "investigate" a crime, and enough
resources, and I'll successfully pin it on the Pope.
This really isn't that difficult to understand at all. As quickly as Saturday,
all other avenues of "investigation" were being shut down - and *ONLY* LHO was
being "investigated".
The investigation itself was tightly controlled - and when it appeared that
other investigations might go somewhere - another government "investigation"
would pop up to head off any real investigation. The Clark Panel, for example,
fits in this category.
>And, even if (somehow) such a stupid Multi-Shooter, One-Patsy plot was
>to miraculously succeed,
Historically, it did. It just didn't manage to *convince* anyone other than a
small minority.
>it still would not make that silly scheme any
>MORE secure and non-reckless from a pre-11/22 standpoint.
What is silly is running away from the evidence, and yet trying to convince
*anyone* that you hold the truth.
>(If it
>succeeded, it would only mean that the Lord Jesus Christ intervened for
>some reason and helped out these inane people who wanted to frame just
>one guy but used a plethora of guns all over Dealey Plaza to kill the
>one almost-stationary target.)
How silly! You clearly have no concept of the power of controlling an
investigation.
Nice use of the word "plethora"... was that a recent "word of the day" in
Reader's Digest or something?
(I threw that last statement in so that Davey-boy would have something to snip
and respond to in this entire post that isn't related to evidence he'd have to
explain)
>Conspiracy theorists refuse to discuss any of the pre-planning aspects
>from the "Why on Earth would they have planned it THIS silly way?" POV.
Wasn't silly at all. They publically murdered the President, and got away with
it. There were some anxious moments until the patsy loose end could be tied up,
but that didn't last long.
>Because to do that would mean for CTers to readily admit what has been
>obvious to me for many years -- i.e.:
>
>You don't try to frame a lone Patsy by shooting up the joint with 2 to
>5 gunmen!
Why not? It worked, didn't it? No conspirator ever served time for his crime,
did he?
>And, moreover, you don't attempt to frame a guy with his own
>gun and then NOT USE SAID GUN AT ALL IN THE MURDER ATTEMPT!
It *was* used. But for only two shots... as the earliest evidence indicated.
>That's yet
>another layer of stupidity exhibited by these so-called plotters (a
>layer of the PRE-PLANNED PATSY PLOT that is widely believed to be
>"fact" by many a-CTer; when, in reality, it's just plain dumb).
What's "dumb" is your strawman... and your inability to defend your assertions.
>And, furthermore, you don't NEED to frame a lone gunman by using
>multiple shooters.
The object wasn't to "frame" someone, the object was to murder the President.
It was accomplished. Getting away with it successfully required a patsy taking
the fall. That was also accomplished.
>A "professional hit man" is just that -- a PRO -- he
>doesn't need back-ups all over the friggin' place. It's just flat-out
>stupid.
Ah! An expert in professional hit men!! Amazingly, the American Military has
exactly such people, they're called "snipers". And they work in *pairs*. Sorta
blows your silly implication that "professional hit men" work alone.
In fact, not too long ago, there was another "Dave" propounding the idea that
the "hit man" was using *TWO* spotters... right in the open, too! And, like
most LNT'ers... he disappeared from this forum too.
>And, in the type of "Frame The One Patsy" plot believed in by
>most CTers, it's not just stupid....it's a suicidal plot....which is
>bound to collapse the moment JFK is wheeled into Parkland Hospital...or
>possibly even sooner.
Wonderful speculative fiction!!! You just forgot to explain *WHY*... since it
clearly *wasn't* a suicidal plot... it worked.
>CTers, in short, don't seem to want to realize that if a multi-gun
>patsy plot did occur on November 22nd, then some group of conspirators
>(who are never named by conspiracy buffs of course...their identities
>are as murky as "Badge Man") had to have sat themselves down prior to
>11/22 and mapped out the best way to frame Lee Oswald. And, incredibly,
>CTers think that these pre-planners came up with this brainstorm of a
>plan.......
Yep... they did. Just as they had on a previous assassination attempt in Tampa.
>"Hey, guys....why don't we put three or maybe even FOUR riflemen in
>Dealey Plaza, in the front and the rear of JFK's vehicle, and then
>start popping away at the exact same time at the one target.....all the
>while we'll just let our one Patsy run around loose on the first or
>second floor of the Depository Building (even though he's supposed to
>be upstairs with a gun).....or, maybe, we'll even let him GO OUTSIDE
>THE BUILDING WHERE HE'S SURE TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED BY CAMERAMEN!
>Yeah....that's what we'll do on 11/22. Anybody object to this plan??"
This sillyness has been dealt with before, but it never seems to disturb
LNT'ers...
All riflemen opened up and 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?
As there were certainly backup "patsy's", it didn't matter if one of them had a
rock-solid alibi, you'd be arguing right now about how Frazier is a scumbag,
wouldn't you?
But don't let the facts get in the way of your speculative strawmen...
>And, per CTers, evidently there wasn't a single person in this "Mystery
>Group Of 11/22 Pre-Planners" who thought that that Patsy frame-up idea
>was not an excellent one.
Speculation of the most obvious kind. You don't have a *single* clue to what
the conspirators were thinking, nor can you even name them.
All you can do is deny and lie about the evidence...
>Three simple questions for Conspiracy Believers:
>
>1.) Where does ALL of the physical evidence lead in the JFK and Tippit
>murder cases (E.G., the guns, the bullets, the bullet shells, the
>fingerprints, the fibers, plus Oswald's own verifiable actions before
>and after the murders)?
Not to where you think it does. The cheek cast, for example, is exculpatory in
this case - which is why the WC buried the comparison tests done by Guinn.
The fact that one of the cartridge cases didn't have the characteristic 'chamber
mark' has *NEVER* been dealt with by any official investigation.
The unidentified fingerprint at the SN doesn't disturb you in the least.
The fiber that matched a shirt that was not worn at the time of the
assassination doesn't disturb you at all...
As for Oswald's "verifiable" actions - many simply *aren't* 'verifiable', and of
those that are, there's nothing there.
>2.) Is it even remotely possible (or doable) -- in the "real" world --
>that every piece of ballistics evidence in both the JFK and J.D. Tippit
>murder investigations could have been "Faked" so that all of it became
>neatly (and immediately) stacked up into a perfect "It Was Oswald"
>pile?
Of course! It *was* done. Not perfectly, of course... otherwise researchers
couldn't have shown the problems that exist in the current "evidence".
Sometimes, there was simply too many people *documenting* things that later
became inconvenient... such as a Minox camera, or cartridge cases from an
*automatic*...
>3.) Who amongst the current "CTer population" of millions and millions
>of people worldwide would have actually "set up" Lee Harvey Oswald as
>the patsy by utilizing a MULTI-GUN frame-up plot on 11/22/63?
The ones who actually did, of course. Plus too, I'm sure that others who were
not involved, but who hated the President, and had the knowledge to do so.
It's clear that in the weeks just before the assassination, attempts were
already in the works to frame Oswald. I would be willing to bet that similar
efforts were made to frame Frazier, and perhaps others, but we will never know
now, since there was no investigation to uncover these attempts.
But Oswald driving a car, and making incriminating statements was one ... having
a scope mounted was another ... making himself obnoxious at a rifle range was
another...
All *provably* not LHO, according to the WC... yet they didn't draw the only
conclusion that would explain *all* of these events...
>The only conceivable answers to the above inquiries are, of course:
>
>1.) To Lee Harvey Oswald.
>2.) No, it is not.
>3.) Nobody.
Of course, that would be the only "conceivable" answers to a LNT'er. But they
*aren't* the only conceivable answers... when you start with the wrong facts,
you're going to come up with the wrong conclusions.
>I'd thoroughly enjoy seeing just one conspiracist answer the above
>three questions in a pro-CT fashion,
Done so. And I'm quite sure that there are others who could do a much better
job... I'm just doing this off the top of my head.
>and do so in a BELIEVABLE manner,
Every statement I just made is based on existing evidence and eyewitness
testimony.
Plus too, it's quite clearly "believable" to as much as 90% of America... so you
can't argue that it's *not* believable.
>while using common sense and reasoned thinking along the way. However,
>I fear that being able to do that would be even more problematic than
>the task that was facing the after-the-shooting "Fake Everything In
>Sight" conspiracy crew on November 22nd.
What could be "problematic" about merely listing evidence and testimony?
>David Von Pein
>February 2006
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
David VP
Nothing like citing a second-hand version of what Chaney said (or might
have said) through a third party, huh? (As Ben did with Baker's
testimony.)
And there's nothing more lovely than when a CTer decides to isolate one
specific witness to try to bolster his unbelievably-weak anti-SBT
status.
Ben is desperate...and is also (undeniably) the most pathetic CTer on
this board.
If Ben thinks Chaney's singular account (whatever it might be) of the
8-second shooting is going to vaporize the true facts surrounding the
SBT, Ben-boy is truly ready for a padded cell right now.
And citing this laughably-weak Baker account of Chaney's supposed
recollections.......
Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the
two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.
.......Is just BEYOND silliness -- because the Z-Film debunks the above
statement hands-down...not to mention the testimony of one of the
VICTIMS in the limo which debunks the idea that the President was hit
by the first two shots, and then Connally by the third one.
To head off Ben-boy's CT wrath -- Yes, you could conceivably come back
with a similar retort to that which I accused you of -- i.e., relying
too much on one single witness' account of the shooting.
But my Connally example is not the same as your
Chaney-via-Baker's-hearsay-account and everybody knows it. The Connally
example is much better, and is backed up by the Z-Film record of the
shooting -- i.e., Connally was not hit by shot #1, was hit by shot #2,
and was not hit by shot #3.
And Connally's account of the shooting will always be better than
anybody else's in the whole of DP for one simple reason -- he had TWO
pieces of stimuli to work with to sort out the events occurring during
those 8 seconds on Elm Street -- his HEARING the shots, plus his
FEELING the impact of shot #2.
Connally's EYEwitness testimony is totally worthless with regard to
which shot he thinks hit JFK first, because he never saw JFK at the
time the first bullet struck Kennedy....but that's another matter
altogether.
In short, your Chaney-via-Baker comment above is uproariously
hysterical.....and proven wrong by just taking one glance at the
Z-Film. Because that quote is suggesting that all of Connally's wounds
were sustained AFTER the JFK head shot, which is pure nonsense.
>> "What Davey-boy also carefully omits is that there is *NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* for the shot that hit JFK's back - tying it to CE399... yet this is a must for the SBT."
Then just answer me one simple question, Benjamin ..........
WHERE ARE THE BULLETS THAT HAVE TO REPLACE THE SBT?
WHERE ARE THE BULLETS THAT HAVE TO REPLACE THE SBT?
WHERE ARE THE BULLETS THAT HAVE TO REPLACE THE SBT?
Anybody got a believable, halfway-reasonable solution to this "3
Bullets Are Completely Missing From The Record" difficulty/snafu?
And, per Bob Groden and some other well-respected JFK "researchers",
that number of AWOL missiles rises to FOUR (and even FIVE via a "Two
Shots To JFK's Head" shooting scenario, because there's not a trace of
the second non-Oswald head-shot bullet to be found anyplace either).
All of these bullets were miraculously swept away by a band of
ever-efficient conspirators immediately after the shooting...right?
The next logical question to ask would then be......
ANY PROOF THAT SUCH A BULLET-HIDING OPERATION TOOK PLACE AT ALL ON
11/22/63?
Answer to the last inquiry is, naturally....No, there's not a granule
of proof of such a thing occurring.
But, the CTers would rather MAKE UP junk rather than rely on anything
in the "Official" record....junk such as unknown plotters stealing
bullets right from under the noses of the Parkland doctors (doctors who
can't for a moment be suspected of being "in" on the "plot").....and
via the Groden-esque theory, the plotters have got to find a way to get
TWO bullets out of John Connally's body before any non-plotters can see
them....and Connally LIVED through the ordeal to tell his tale, which
creates a huge unexpected mess for this band of henchmen. They now must
somehow steal bullets from an unintended victim who did not die (I
guess while he's still in surgery...who knows!) before anyone "gets
wise".
Anybody who buys into such nonsense should be sent to Nurse Ratched
asap.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> James Chaney - all by himself, makes the SBT impossible.
>
>Nothing like citing a second-hand version of what Chaney said (or might
>have said) through a third party, huh?
Feel free to quote James Chaney's first hand account.
But, gutless coward that you are, you won't.
>(As Ben did with Baker's testimony.)
Liar, aren't you? Here's what you are lying about:
Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots
hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.
That's a *DIRECT* quote from his testimony. Lied, didn't you?
>And there's nothing more lovely than when a CTer decides to isolate one
>specific witness to try to bolster his unbelievably-weak anti-SBT
>status.
There is no other eyewitness that saw the detail that Chaney did. But there are
plenty of eyewitnesses who corroborated in general what Chaney said.
And if this were "unbelievably weak" - then you'd be able to respond to the
entire post, rather than ONE SINGLE STATEMENT out of it.
>Ben is desperate...and is also (undeniably) the most pathetic CTer on
>this board.
This is your excuse for your inability to respond to the post?
>If Ben thinks Chaney's singular account (whatever it might be)
Ah! So now Davey-boy doesn't even want to allow Chaney's account in... well,
the WC did the same thing.
Something that Davey-boy can't explain.
>of the
>8-second shooting is going to vaporize the true facts surrounding the
>SBT, Ben-boy is truly ready for a padded cell right now.
And yet, Davey-boy can't answer the post.
>And citing this laughably-weak Baker account of Chaney's supposed
>recollections.......
>
>Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the
>two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.
It matches, of course, what Chaney said to a newspaper reporter that same day.
So "laughably-weak" and "supposed recollections", is merely a lie, isn't it?
>.......Is just BEYOND silliness -- because the Z-Film debunks the above
>statement hands-down...not to mention the testimony of one of the
>VICTIMS in the limo which debunks the idea that the President was hit
>by the first two shots, and then Connally by the third one.
There are a number of eyewitnesses to what happened, and the strange thing is,
they generally cannot be fitted into a SBT.
Interestingly - many of the statements mention that the first shot missed:
"I was looking at the president when the first shot was fired. It missed. The
second shot hit the president in the back, and the third hit him in the head." -
Billy Joe Martin (First Day Evidence, Gary Savage, pg 364)
"That's when the first shot was fired. I was looking directly at the President,
and I saw the concrete burst into a cloud of dust when that bullet hit the curb.
. . . Then, while looking back at the President, I heard the second shot. The
President became rigid and grabbed his neck." - Stavis Ellis (First Day
Evidence, Gary Savage, pg 360)
"We saw the motorcade come around the corner and I heard something which I
thought was fireworks. I saw something hit the pavement at the left rear of the
car, then the car got in the right hand lane and I heard two more shots."
11/22/63 Affidavit of Royce Skelton
"As the President started down Elm . . . that was the same time the shooting
started. . . . The first shot apparently missed the limousine as it hit the
curb, not too far from where [some onlookers] were standing. The second and
third shots hit the President from the rear." - William G. Lumpkin First Day
Evidence, Gary Savage, pg 361)
"In addition to these statements, James A. Chaney. who is a Dallas motorcycle
policeman, was quoted in the Houston Chronicle on November 24, 1963, as stating
that the first shot missed entirely. He said he was 6 feet to the right and
front of the President's car, moving about 15 miles an hour, and when the first
shot was fired, "I thought it was a backfire", he said." WC Testimony of Mark
Lane.
"At this point I heard what_sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked
from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was
seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I
looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw
the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder." -
Original report of Glen Bennett
There are more, of course, but this should start you off.
It seems heartless to explain this testimony, and what it means; to Davey-boy.
>To head off Ben-boy's CT wrath
"Mirth" is the correct word... :)
> -- Yes, you could conceivably come back
>with a similar retort to that which I accused you of -- i.e., relying
>too much on one single witness' account of the shooting.
Why would I? You don't rely on the evidence *AT ALL*!
You can't - since so much of it rebutes the very theory you're trying to push.
>But my Connally example is not the same as your
>Chaney-via-Baker's-hearsay-account and everybody knows it. The Connally
>example is much better, and is backed up by the Z-Film record of the
>shooting -- i.e., Connally was not hit by shot #1, was hit by shot #2,
>and was not hit by shot #3.
Missing a few shots there, aren't you?
And trying to discount an eyewitness account who was less than a dozen feet away
- looking *DIRECTLY* at JFK during the relevant time period (as proven by the
Altgen's photo), and a police officer to boot, is merely silly...
>And Connally's account of the shooting will always be better than
>anybody else's in the whole of DP for one simple reason -- he had TWO
>pieces of stimuli to work with to sort out the events occurring during
>those 8 seconds on Elm Street -- his HEARING the shots, plus his
>FEELING the impact of shot #2.
Yet, you can't believe Connally's account.
>Connally's EYEwitness testimony is totally worthless with regard to
>which shot he thinks hit JFK first, because he never saw JFK at the
>time the first bullet struck Kennedy....but that's another matter
>altogether.
See???
You can't even maintain a consistent view "..Connally's account of the shooting
will always be better than anybody else's in the whole of DP.." and "Connally's
EYEwitness testimony is totally worthless.."
LNT'ers *have* to argue that eyewitness testimony is valueless - since so much
of it points to the conspiracy.
>In short, your Chaney-via-Baker comment above is uproariously
>hysterical.....
So "hysterical", that you refused to respond to the entire post... how cowardly
of you!
>and proven wrong by just taking one glance at the
>Z-Film. Because that quote is suggesting that all of Connally's wounds
>were sustained AFTER the JFK head shot, which is pure nonsense.
Yes... it is, isn't it? Just not what *you* think...
>> What Davey-boy also carefully omits is that there is *NO EVIDENCE
>> WHATSOEVER* for the shot that hit JFK's back - tying it to CE399...
>> yet this is a must for the SBT."
And still true, isn't it?
>Then just answer me one simple question, Benjamin ..........
>
>WHERE ARE THE BULLETS THAT HAVE TO REPLACE THE SBT?
>WHERE ARE THE BULLETS THAT HAVE TO REPLACE THE SBT?
>WHERE ARE THE BULLETS THAT HAVE TO REPLACE THE SBT?
In the hands of the FBI.
>Anybody got a believable, halfway-reasonable solution to this "3
>Bullets Are Completely Missing From The Record" difficulty/snafu?
Sure, they're in the hands of the FBI.
>And, per Bob Groden and some other well-respected JFK "researchers",
>that number of AWOL missiles rises to FOUR (and even FIVE via a "Two
>Shots To JFK's Head" shooting scenario, because there's not a trace of
>the second non-Oswald head-shot bullet to be found anyplace either).
And yet, using this logic, it's clear that Tague is a liar - since no bullet was
ever found that could have wounded him.
And Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman were never killed - since the murder
weapon was never found.
This is the sort of logic you can expect from nuts...
>All of these bullets were miraculously swept away by a band of
>ever-efficient conspirators immediately after the shooting...right?
Yep. Tis true. We even have a photograph of it happening...
>The next logical question to ask would then be......
>
>ANY PROOF THAT SUCH A BULLET-HIDING OPERATION TOOK PLACE AT ALL ON
>11/22/63?
Yep... a photograph. Published by a Dallas newspaper, even.
>Answer to the last inquiry is, naturally....No, there's not a granule
>of proof of such a thing occurring.
Lied, didn't you?
>But, the CTers would rather MAKE UP junk rather than rely on anything
>in the "Official" record....
The "official" record, you can't touch. You're frightened of it - it's merely
eyewitness testimony and evidence - yet you can't respond when it's cited.
Gutless and scared, aren't you?
>junk such as unknown plotters stealing
>bullets
They weren't "unknown"... we even have a photograph of one of them. They were
FBI agents...
>right from under the noses of the Parkland doctors (doctors who
>can't for a moment be suspected of being "in" on the "plot").....
Why not? They followed their orders, didn't they?
>and
>via the Groden-esque theory, the plotters have got to find a way to get
>TWO bullets out of John Connally's body before any non-plotters can see
>them....
How silly!
>and Connally LIVED through the ordeal to tell his tale, which
>creates a huge unexpected mess for this band of henchmen. They now must
>somehow steal bullets from an unintended victim who did not die (I
>guess while he's still in surgery...who knows!) before anyone "gets
>wise".
You are, of course, revealing how desperate you're becoming. Care to go back
and respond to my *entire* rebuttal of your post?
>Anybody who buys into such nonsense should be sent to Nurse Ratched
>asap.
curtj...@webtv.net
Don't forget that Chaney heard and saw the first missing shot hit near
the curb. However one wishes to dance; that fact alone, however way
one wants to take Chaney's statement of hearing two distinct shots hit
Connally and JFK; could only mean in order for the SBT to work, the two
shots that Chaney meant were the JFK headshot and the other prior shot.
Chaney was only feet away when he saw JFK's "head blow off", and
declare him dead, so I think that would be very weak in including that
in 'those two shots'.
CJ
lazu...@webtv.net
implying a frontal shot? The impact near the hairline above the right
temple could appear to the witness to be a shot to the facial area.
Chaney destroys the WC mythology. That's why they ignored him.
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
That's why they *had* to ignore him... and why LNT'ers refuse to defend not
questioning a police eyewitness who was no more than a dozen feet from the
murder.
It *can't* be defended on any other basis than a coverup, and LNT'ers realize
this.