Re: Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 2)
aeffects
success.
Nothing the matter with your ego! rofl -- so WHY won't you debate the
evidence with Ben Holmes? To busy writing non-descript video reviews of
outdated TV shows long since their prime?
Be a man, let's see your stuff...
<snip the nonsense>
David Von Pein
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From May 2005, June 2005,
and March 2006.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- As far as Kennedy being killed by his
enemies being conjecture, this may come as a shock to you, Von Pein,
but in homicides, that's usually the way it goes. People are usually
killed by their enemies.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- True. But the "enemy" you're referring to isn't
an estranged spouse or a single distraught employee who went to work
one day and decided to mow down the boss with an AK-47. You're claiming
there was some broad, vast conspiracy of MANY different "enemies" --
which is a theory that is totally unprovable in any fashion on your
part.
And you're purporting that these "people" got together (whoever the
heck they might have been who hated Kennedy's guts) and made the
pre-planned decision to kill the Chief Executive, rather than just
simply rigging the election in November 1964 to get JFK out of the
White House.*
* = Which, of course, would be a far less-risky operation than actually
becoming willingly involved in an assassination plot -- a "plot" that
would pepper the "enemy" with up to 10 bullets from varying directions,
per some theorists, and then attempt to have the blame placed at just
one "Patsy's" doorstep. That type of plan is just plain dumb; but no
CTer can see that it is, due to the CT blinders being about a mile
thick.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Can he {DVP} possibly believe that the federal institutions who
were involved {in the assassination} would allow the real evidence to
surface?
DVP -- They would have had NO CHOICE -- that's the whole point of why
such a nutty "Erase All The Evidence Immediately After It Happens"
assassination plot couldn't have possibly been pulled off in a million
years -- and my whole point of just WHY such a nutty "Patsy" scheme
would NEVER HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED IN THE FIRST PLACE (unless those
involved had a Death Wish themselves).
There would have been NO POSSIBLE WAY to "control" ALL of the bullet
(and wound-location) evidence five minutes after the assassination
(especially inside TWO different victims, the intended victim, JFK,
plus a person they obviously never meant to hit at all, John Connally).
Somebody is going to see something they shouldn't in all this confusion
and chaos just after it occurred (probably LOTS of people; i.e.,
non-plotters!) at the place the plotters have got to know the President
is going to be taken just after the shooting -- a local Dallas
hospital.
Such a plot to eliminate a sitting President is just ASKING to be
caught. Especially when there were obviously so many other better ways
to eliminate the target, rather than doing it via a crackpot "Patsy"
plan, which includes the possibility of needing to eradicate God knows
how many bullets and wounds, and strong-arming God knows how many
military people, making them keep their mouths shut for the rest of
their lives.
And just that mere POSSIBILITY of these things occurring is enough to
make any plotters put on the brakes when it comes to considering that
type of screwy plan.
-------------------------------------------
DVP (March 25, 2006) -- I know that some CTers think I'm a huge fool to
praise Vincent Bugliosi's book before I've ever laid eyes on it....but
I'm doing so for what I feel are very valid reasons (given the author).
But for someone to practically call Vince a liar (as certain CTers have
done) without seeing one word of the book is, IMO, far worse and
reprehensible.
And, yes, I will "defend" Vincent's words in public. Absolutely.
And -- In the unlikely (very unlikely) circumstance where I feel
Vincent has said something that's incorrect or deliberately
far-reaching to put forth his pro-LN POV, I will say that also.
But Mr. Bugliosi's OVERALL CONCLUSION of "Oswald Did It Alone" will
undoubtedly not be derailed by any disagreement that I (or anyone)
might have with Vincent over a few small points surrounding the JFK and
J.D. Tippit murder cases (and there are bound to be a few such items of
disagreement in approx. 2,000 pages of text and interpretation of
evidence).
Good case in point is this silly "isolated to make everything look
hinky" statement made by a certain CTer......
"I'll predict right now, for example, that he {Bugliosi} WILL NOT in
those 1,500 pages worth of words, offer any explanation whatsoever for
why {motorcycle officer James M.} Chaney was never questioned prior to
the release of the WCR. Would you care to help Bugliosi out right now
by offering one???"
{Mr. CTer}, if this Chaney matter is one of your MAIN points with which
to denounce Mr. Bugliosi as a liar, a fraud, or Government shill (or
whatever), then Vince is home free as far as I can detect. Because
Chaney's not being questioned certainly does NOT change the PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE associated with the assassination, nor does it change the
basic END RESULT in the case -- which is a case that reeks with
Oswald's obvious guilt from every angle, even without Mr. Chaney's
words in the official Warren Report volume.
Is Vince supposed to fold up the LN tents and go home because a few
witnesses weren't questioned that possibly should have been questioned
by the Warren people? That's absurd.
On the flip (pro-LN) side of that argument -- I'm guessing there were
dozens and dozens of "Pro-LN" witnesses who were never questioned about
what they saw or heard in Dealey Plaza that Friday either. Will CTers
pull up stakes and abandon their conspiracy beliefs because of this
fact? Obviously not. Many witnesses were never questioned about what
they saw on November 22nd (on both the CT and LN sides of the equation,
no doubt).
Jackie Kennedy was another witness who wasn't properly questioned in
depth. She could have probably settled the "BOH" matter herself. But
the WC was overly-sensitive to Jackie's feelings, and never asked
Jackie a single question about the condition of JFK's head.
Does this mean that the WC was engaging in a "cover up" with respect to
Jackie's testimony (by not asking certain questions)? Obviously it does
not indicate any such thing. They were taking into account the widow's
feelings first and foremost.
Just one more time for good measure -- Quoting the man who put away
Charles Manson on literally a tiny fraction of the physical evidence
that exists against Lee Harvey Oswald:
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80% of the
evidence against him out the window and there would still be more than
enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the
crime." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
I kind of doubt that I'll be needed to "defend" the work of the person
who uttered the words above. His work will defend ITSELF right within
the book itself -- multiple times over in fact, knowing Vincent's
propensity for wanting his conclusions backed-up via multiple different
sources and angles, to minimize the possibility of potential attack on
his conclusions by critics.
Apart from the traditional baseless, unprovable allegations of
"Evidence-Planting & Tampering", I have a feeling that the best the
CTers will be able to do to attack VB's work will be to point out an
occasional typo or two....or maybe a wholly-unimportant mistake here or
there about something that's not really "connected" to the case at all
in any substantive or meaningful way (e.g., maybe he'll mis-identify
Ruby's dog, Sheba....calling the dog "Sheila", or something equally as
benign and unimportant).
But the ultimate verdict of Oswald's guilt is something that Vince
Bugliosi has been well aware of for many years....and he's not stupid
enough to have his massive book project be brought down by silly errors
and omissions of facts.
That's a guarantee...not from me...but from Vince himself:
"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." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; 1998
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- You do realize that if they {the proverbial "Real Assassins"}
had gotten a kill shot from behind, that all the cameras and all the
witnesses would not have made any difference. They did not get that
kill shot, so that is why we are where we are today.
DVP -- Well, obviously, I don't "realize" that at all (since there was
only ONE shooter to begin with). But you realize, don't you, that the
ONLY way any type of "Blame The Lone Patsy Named Oswald" scheme could
have possibly succeeded is if one of the following two things
happened?......
1.) The conspirators planned the Patsy plot correctly and wisely from
the beginning and used JUST the ONE shooter in the Oswald window (with
an Oswald look-alike using Oswald's own rifle).
--Or:--
2.) If ALL the frontal shots miraculously MISS everybody in Dealey
Plaza.
And, to the best of my knowledge, NO CTer believes EITHER of the above
occurred in 1963.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Since two of the shots came from the front and you and the
Bugman {aka Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi} buy the idea that they came from
the rear, it looks like the "MULTI-SHOOTER Patsy plot" worked.
DVP -- You're, naturally, looking at the event through CT-tainted
eyeballs. And you, naturally, will retort that I am crazy and only
looking at the event through rose-colored, Vincent-slanted "LN eyes".
So, with that argument out of the way -- Let me ask you if you truly
think it was a GOOD idea to "Frame" the lone Patsy by using 3 or 4
guns, and 5 to 10 gunshots (depending upon which crazy theory you're
examining)?
And was it truly a GOOD plan to shoot President Kennedy from the FRONT
at all -- the exact OPPOSITE direction from where your one and only
"Patsy" is located?
You realize, don't you, that the people organizing such a nutty
multi-shooter scheme SHOULD have at least considered the POSSIBILITY
that EVERY SHOT FIRED BY EVERY SHOOTER WOULD HAVE HIT THE TARGET!
Agreed?
Or was it the INTENTION of the plotters to have only SOME of the
non-Oswald shots strike the target? What would be the point at all,
then, of even placing those shooters to the front of the limo in the
first place, if the INTENT wasn't to hit the President with EVERY shot?
In short, you have no leg to stand on in this argument. Because ANY
"Patsy" plot that features shooters at locations where your patsy is
NOT located is a plan that only a band of lunatic conspirators would
have OK'ed and a plan that only a person living in a fantasy world
could possibly have thought would have even the slimmest chance of
succeeding.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- As much as I hate to, I agree with your assessment. If the
secondary object of the plan was to frame LHO as a lone nut (the first
obviously was to kill the President), it makes no sense to fire
multiple times from 3 different locations, especially from the front.
DVP -- Exactly. But as far as the "Patsy" plot being "secondary", it
sure seems like a lot of CTers have put a lot of effort into proving
Oswald was just what he said he was -- "A Patsy" -- including the
CTers' belief that covert operatives were utilizing "Fake Oswalds" all
over the place....plus "faking" multiple photographs of Oswald with his
guns to further implicate their "Patsy"....plus the "planting" of
multiple pieces of evidence (including CE399 at Parkland)....plus the
after-effects of the Patsy scheme, which would include the faking of
various autopsy photos and X-rays -- or (as some believe) the actual
physical altering of JFK's wounds.
Seems to me like a LARGE-SCALE effort to pin the murder of JFK (plus
J.D. Tippit too!) on that one lone "Patsy" named Oswald is being
implied with great force by the CTers (but of course has never been
"proven").
For something that I now see via some messages on this board is being
declared by Forum members as "secondary" in nature, an awful lot of
effort and energy seems to have been exhibited by both the (supposed)
conspirators AND the CTers who wish to promote such an unproven Patsy
theory.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- What if you couldn't keep Oswald on the 6th floor?
DVP -- Kind of an odd question coming from a CTer who obviously
believes Oswald WASN'T kept on the 6th Floor during the shooting (where
the plotters SHOULD have made sure they kept him at 12:30 PM on Nov.
22).
Which, of course, is just another (in a lengthy series) of items that
makes the widely-accepted multi-shooter & multi-directional "Patsy"
plot so irrational and illogical and reckless in nature.
For, if Oswald was truly being "set up" (by any number of "real"
shooters, be it 1, 2, or 52 gunmen), the conspirators would have
certainly kept an eye on their patsy during the time of the actual
shooting (to make sure he wasn't seen wandering elsewhere in the TSBD
or in Dealey Plaza). Isn't this just COMMON SENSE on the part of these
"covert operatives" organizing such a supposedly well-orchestrated and
finely-tuned "Patsy" plot?
But, per many CT accounts, do the 6th-Floor "plotters" KNOW where Lee
Oswald is located at precisely 12:30? No. Many CTers feel Oswald was in
the second-floor lunch room, potentially in full view of any
non-plotters who would be wandering through that room at 12:30 PM.
They try to frame a single Patsy using several guns, including FRONTAL
shots, opposite from the patsy's window. And they then throw all common
sense out the window by firing way more bullets at the target than
Oswald (alone) could have possibly squeezed off in this given 8-second
timeframe. And then, if that's not reckless enough, they don't even
seem to know where their patsy is located at the exact time the
assassination is taking place!
For sheer recklessness, this activity might take home first prize!
If the above style "Patsy Plot" DID somehow succeed (as apparently most
CTers think it did), then heaven-sent miracles truly are possible in
this world.
David Von Pein
LOL! What a kook you are!
If there's one single word that could never be used to describe my
TV-show reviews, it's "nondescript". ......
Healy, you accuse me of not debating the JFK issues, and yet you post
virtually nothing but abusive, "nondescript", say-nothing filler every
time you open your e-mouth.
You're a fraud. And you surely must know it.
But, then again, what should I expect from a CT-Kook like you? Logical
thinking? Solid arguments that make some degree of sense? That would be
like trying to get a million bucks out of a hobo. Hard thing to do.
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1164947826.8...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Kook Alert.
>