A TRIP TO THE "2 BULLETS" BANK
David Von Pein
PATRICK SPEER SAID:
>>> "There is a ton of evidence suggesting there was more than one shooter." <<<
DVP SAYS:
What is this "ton" of evidence you're referring to? Show it to me.
(That's a full 2,000 pounds of evidence, remember. So I hope you can
deliver the CT goods in this regard. And speculation isn't nearly good
enough, BTW.)
In reality, of course, here is the current "tonnage" of physical
evidence to indicate that there was a conspiracy involving more than
one shooter in JFK's murder:
1.) _____________
2.) _____________
3.) _____________
Etc.
In short, such physical evidence of a multi-gun conspiracy does not
exist. And never did. And I kinda doubt, after 44.5 years, it ever
will.*
* = The brilliant "CT spin" applied to everything connected to the
case at "patspeer.com" notwithstanding, of course.
>>> "Your selective use of the autopsy report, and its assertion that two shots impacted from behind, is particularly bizarre." <<<
Did I read that right?!
It's "bizarre" to rely on the BEST MEDICAL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE to try
and discern how many bullets hit President Kennedy??
Amazing.
What's really bizarre is that you would think that relying on the best
evidence available is "bizarre".
~shrug~
>>> "The last panel to look at the evidence claimed the autopsists incorrectly identified the location of the wound on the back of the head..." <<<
And Dr. Humes, in his testimony in front of the House Select
Committee, fully and readily admitted his error with respect to the
location of the entry wound on the back of President Kennedy's head.
But the CTers of the world apparently just don't want to believe him.
Let's take a gander at that relevant testimony:
MR. CORNWELL (of the HSCA) -- "There is apparently, from the testimony
today, one possible major area of disagreement, {with} respect to the
location of a bullet wound in the back of the President's head or
possibly, depending upon the total body of the evidence, whether there
was one or more than one bullet holes [sic] in the back of the
President's head. That is principally what we wish to discuss with you
at this time. Let me ask you first, your autopsy report reflected that
there was one and only one bullet wound to the back of the President's
head, that it did enter in the rear, exited the front. Is that report
accurate on those three points, to the best of your knowledge?"
DR. JAMES HUMES -- "Absolutely."
[Later....]
MR. CORNWELL -- "Now, I would like to ask you today if you have had at
least a greater opportunity to look at the photographs...and if, after
doing so, you have a more well-considered or a different opinion, or
whether your opinion is still the same, as to where the point of entry
is {on the back of JFK's head}?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion. .... I
go back...to the original autopsy report which we rendered, in the
absence of any photographs, of course. We made certain physical
observations and measurements of these wounds. I state now those
measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of our ability
to discern what we had before our eyes. We described the wound of
entrance in the posterior scalp as being above and to the right of the
external occipital protuberance, a bony knob on the back of the
head. .... And it is obvious to me as I sit here now with this
markedly enlarged drawing, or the photograph, that the upper defect to
which you pointed, or the upper object, is clearly in the location of
where we said approximately where it was: above the external occipital
protuberance. Therefore, I believe that is the wound of entry. ....
The object in the lower portion, which I apparently and I believe now
erroneously previously identified before the most-recent panel, is far
below the external occipital protuberance and would not fit with the
original autopsy findings."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscahume.htm
Let me re-emphasize the following critical portion of Dr. Humes' HSCA
testimony:
"It is obvious to me as I sit here now...that the upper
defect...is clearly in the location of where we said approximately
where it was: above the external occipital protuberance. Therefore, I
believe that is the wound of entry."
>>> "And yet, you believe we can take their {the autopsists} assertion that only two bullets struck the body to the bank." <<<
Of course we can take that assertion to the bank. And you should know
quite well, even after studying the discrepancies between the autopsy
doctors and the HSCA, the reason WHY we can take that "ONLY TWO
BULLETS STRUCK KENNEDY" conclusion "to the bank".
The reason is:
Because even after wrestling with these various discrepancies
regarding Dr. Humes' original observations, the ultimate conclusion of
the HSCA regarding JFK's wounds WAS THE EXACT SAME CONCLUSION that was
reached by Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell.
And the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel also came to the EXACT SAME
BOTTOM-LINE CONCLUSION with respect to the President's wounds that the
Warren Commission came to -- i.e., President Kennedy was struck by
only 2 bullets, with both of those bullets entering the President's
body from "above and behind".
So, tell me again why I shouldn't take that data to the "2 BULLETS AND
ONLY 2 BULLETS STRUCK JFK" bank?
>>> "David, you always try to weasel out of this question, but I'll ask it again. Admittedly, it's a complicated question. Since the HSCA medical panel felt the original autopsy was inadequate and inaccurate, you have to make a choice: 1) you accept the findings of the HSCA medical panel, and believe the original autopsy was untrustworthy; 2) you don't accept the findings of the HSCA medical panel, and believe the somewhat amateurish autopsists were better informed than the HSCA panel of true "experts"; or 3) you don't believe or accept the findings of either panel, but have inspected the autopsy photos and evidence and have come to your own conclusions (which makes you no different or better than most conspiracy theorists). So, which is it? You've hinted at 3 in the past, but I just want it to be clear." <<<
My last response above this one pretty much answers your question
here, Pat.
The "IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS" conclusion reached by ALL THREE of the
entities/organizations that enter into the basic equation here (i.e.,
the three autopsists; the WC; and the HSCA/FPP) is an IDENTICAL
conclusion, regardless of the various discrepancies and disagreements.
And that conclusion was (and still is today) -- John F. Kennedy was
shot just twice, with both shots coming from "above and behind" the
President.
And two of the above "entities" (the WC and the HSCA) totally agreed
on another important fact regarding the assassination (DESPITE the
problems the HSCA had with Dr. Humes' initial observations and
testimony) -- Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only gunman who fired
any shots that HIT ANY VICTIMS in the President's limousine on
11/22/63.
To summarize:
Despite all the wrangling and the wound-location discrepancies and the
debate over the so-called "6.5mm. opacity" on an X-ray (which is an
object that has never been officially identified as being ANYTHING at
all), the basic bottom-line, end-of-the-discussion conclusion reached
by EVERYBODY in "Officialdom" regarding the critical question of "How
Many Bullets Hit JFK?" is an identical conclusion -- Two bullets
struck President Kennedy from above and behind him.
As of 2008, that "2 Bullets From Behind" conclusion is the official
opinion of both U.S. Government panels that were assigned the task of
determining such important facts (the WC and the HSCA)....and it most
certainly is still (and always was) the opinion of the three autopsy
physicians who had their hands on the physical body of the late
President in November of 1963.
So, if you'll excuse me now, I've got to get to the bank. My account
marked "ONLY TWO BULLETS HIT KENNEDY" is overflowing. I'm going to
make a little withdrawal.
David Von Pein
March 13, 2008
YoHarvey
> www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx1F3XP4BQ7BGMV/1/ref=cm_cd_et_m...
Dave, um, I'm still at Speers "ton" of evidence. Can ya give me an
idea of what year it will appear?
David Von Pein
I think that's scheduled to be unearthed in the year 2157. (That'll be
"The Year Of The Conspiracy" in China; they will have run out of
animals by that time.)
2008, btw, is the "Year Of The Rat" in China. So, CT-Kooks should feel
at home in Beijing this year.
Gil Jesus
> www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx1F3XP4BQ7BGMV/1/ref=cm_cd_et_m...
>
>
> >>> "There is a ton of evidence suggesting there was more than one shooter." <<<
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> What is this "ton" of evidence you're referring to? Show it to me.
A ton of evidence is still about 100 tons short of the BS you spread
everywhere you go.
Case in point:
You've been thrown out of every forum you've ever joined.
And you STILL don't get the message. Now THAT'S THICK.
The evidence for conspiracy lives on thanks to the accounts on video
from witnesses who were THERE in their OWN words and not what the WC
said-they-said.
still wanna see ?
David Von Pein
Sure I get the message. The message is: Most "All CT" forums have no
real interest in "solving" the case or in hearing anything from the
"LN" POV (regardless of how much common sense is imparted by any
LNer).
That's the message I've gotten over the years. And it speaks loudly
and clearly.
Just check out JFK-Lancer and count up the "LNers" that regularly post
on that forum. My last count was "0". What was yours?
>>> "The evidence for conspiracy lives on thanks to the accounts on video from witnesses who were THERE in their OWN words and not what the WC said-they-said." <<<
And yet the HSCA agreed with the WC with respect to who murdered
President Kennedy. Go figure.
>>> "Wanna see?" <<<
No thanks. I've had my daily dose of tripe today (after taking one
look at a post written by Walt).
YoHarvey
Hey Jesus? Show those stolen videos to the 12 year old butt boys you
love!
martyb...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey Jesus, coughed up any bullets lately, I need to ask this question,
okay pay attention...tell me Gil did JC after shooting JFK from the
floor of the limo then shoot himself to try to cover up his deed and
his part of the conspiracy I mean I have a little trouble connecting a
shoot from the front with a pistol or was it a sword to the patsy
shooting from the TSBD.
Oh sorry Gil JC is John Connelly, JFK is John Fitzgerald Kennedy,
TSBD is Texas School Book Depository
Marty
hotrod3...@aol.com
<martybaugh...@gmail.com> wrote:
did JC after shooting JFK from the
> floor of the limo then shoot himself to try to cover up his deed and
> his part of the conspiracy
hey baughman:
care to post the link to where I said JC shot JFK ?
care to post the link to where I said JC shot himself ?
when you can, we'll talk.
Otherwise, you're just another fabricator.
That means LIAR.
Phil Ossofee
rehashed lies of the Warren report, or conspiracy, conspiracy will
always win. PD.
martyb...@gmail.com
Hey hot rock. I don't believe I've ever said that you posted the JC
shot JFK from the limo floor. The only person to where I said said
that was Gil Jesus. Your not a member of Big Bad Ben's dojo are ya?
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Marty,
Hotrod is another one of Gil Jesus's alias names that he got caught
using, and then claimed it's his other name he uses when he's reached
his posting limit. *Rolling eyes*.
He used this name about a year ago when he was using 5 or 6 other ones
praising himself and defending himself.
As you can see, Jesus has an excuse for everything. His entire life
has been one big excuse for all of his failures.
martyb...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks Justme, How many other names does this guy use to spread his
tall tales?
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Marty,
was nailed using them. He also had a program that cloned our emails
and screen names and was posting things with our names. He
impersonated an 11 yr old boy and the vulgarity that came out of his
mouth was disgusting. He used other names just to praise himself and
talk back and forth with himself. Sure signs of a psycho. Let me see
how man I can remember without being bothered to look them up:
Justin
Justins mom
jmoore
hotrod
samlappacunt
justacunt
goomba
yomamma
robcap which he still denies his him, and even if it isn't
him...robcap tried pulling the same thing and posting as someone
called CuriousGeorge...which robcap denies even though his email
address was right there on curious georges profile. (Talk about
stupid)
There were a couple more but I can't remember them at this moment. I'm
sure since he has been busted so many times that he has a new slew of
names he uses around the net. For his "important" information he
sticks with Gil Jesus, because he's desperately trying to become
something famous in the JFK CT community. So far all hes accomplished
is being a bigot, liar, homophobic, hypocritical Christian,
racist...freeloader, and the list is growing.
martyb...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow! Thanks for the info...I'd be embarrased to have that guy on my
side of the argument...he's wacked.