Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 6)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From May 2005, July 2005,
and December 2006.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- It was known that Kennedy was coming to
Texas to campaign long before it was known where he would travel while
in Texas. .... I imagine that {Henry} Wade, like most people, would
have figured that Lee could have planned the assassination in advance
and took the day off work to go wherever he needed to be to kill the
President.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- That is true. It was in mid-September 1963 that
Dallas papers reported that JFK would probably be visiting Dallas in
the Fall.
Now -- this "timing" of the initial "JFK visit" report in the papers is
kind of interesting -- because it almost coincides with Oswald's bus
trip to Mexico City. Just one week after the initial report in the
Dallas paper about JFK's Fall visit, Oswald leaves for Mexico in order
to try to re-enter the Soviet Union; kind of odd if Oswald was planning
to kill JFK in Texas, don't ya think?
CTers probably utilize this as PROOF of some kind that Oswald was
"working for someone else" or some such unprovable theory -- but I fail
to see where it leads anywhere down the "Oswald was working with the
CIA to murder JFK in November" path.
Now, the big question here is -- If Oswald was planning (well in
advance) to kill the President, WHY does he leave for Mexico City
(ostensibly on his way to seek permanent residence in Russia, via Cuba)
if his plan was to kill President Kennedy when he came to Dallas,
Texas, in November? It doesn't add up.
Another thing that tells me Oswald's plans to kill JFK were not at all
extensive is the way he retrieved the murder weapon. If he had planned
the killing well before November 21 (the day he retrieved his rifle
from Ruth Paine's home), I doubt he would have waited until the last
minute to gather up the murder weapon.
Any major pre-planning, IMO, would have included getting that rifle
away from the Paine garage much earlier. I could be wrong in this part
of my analysis, these are just my own thoughts on the matter.
But it seems to me that everything Lee Oswald did on 11/21 and 11/22
spells "Spur of the moment" actions toward killing JFK (and doing it by
himself, without any accomplices aiding his cause)......
1.) The last-minute effort to get the rifle (and taking a big chance on
being seen with the weapon just one day before he kills the President;
plus the added questions he should know will follow about why he
deviated from his normal weekend pattern, and went to Irving on a
Thursday instead of the usual Friday).
2.) Oswald's obvious lackluster effort to hide the weapon after he shot
JFK, which spells "hasty/unplanned assassination effort". (Although, I
guess it wasn't TOO bad a hiding spot, since the police didn't find the
gun until 52 minutes after the assassination, even though the TSBD
Building was crawling with cops almost immediately after the shots were
fired.)
3.) LHO's lousy getaway plan (relying on busses and cabs and his own
two feet to "escape" a Presidential murder).
4.) Lee's rush into his roominghouse to retrieve his pistol, running
the additional risk of being nabbed by the cops in the process.
5.) His continued lousy getaway plan after 1:00 PM (having to walk
everyplace, since he couldn't drive, nor did he own a car).
Oswald's plan reeks of a last-minute effort which had his state-of-mind
being (almost certainly, IMO) -- "IF I KILL KENNEDY, OKAY....IF I
DON'T, OKAY....AND I PROBABLY WON'T EVEN GET A CHANCE TO DO IT, GIVEN
THE NUMBER OF OBSTACLES THAT WILL PROBABLY BE IN MY WAY".
And his assassination plan (no matter how extensive it may or may not
have been) certainly indicates, beyond any doubt, that he was ACTING
ALONE.
But a person planning far ahead to kill the President within the state
of Texas isn't going to travel to Mexico City to (again) try to defect
to a foreign country. That's just nuts.*
* = And there's more than overwhelming evidence that Oswald DID,
indeed, go to Mexico City on September 25th, 1963, including hotel
records with his signature on the register cards -- bus records --
witnesses -- you name it.
WHY the issue of whether he went to Mexico or not is even a live topic
for discussion amongst CTers is anybody's guess. Oswald OBVIOUSLY DID
TRAVEL TO MEXICO CITY IN LATE SEPTEMBER -- and visit Embassies there.
Marina Oswald's Warren Commission testimony also verifies that her
husband travelled to Mexico in late September. Marina makes several
comments about Lee's Mexico trip during her February 1964 WC session.
-------------------------------------------
DVP -- I don't deny for a moment that a good-sized number of witnesses
thought they heard shots coming from in front of the President's car.
But I also find Lee Bowers' testimony quite interesting in the "Where
Did The Shots Come From?" regard. Upon looking at his April 2, 1964, WC
testimony, we can certainly see how, indeed, the CT side has gently
turned Mr. Bowers into a "Conspiracy" witness, when he actually doesn't
really belong in that category at all.
Bowers is one of the many, many witnesses who heard exactly three shots
fired on 11/22/63, and he said the shots came from either the area of
the Depository OR the Triple Underpass area. But not from BOTH of these
locations. It was one or the other, but not both.
But conspiracy theorists have turned Mr. Bowers into a
conspiracy-favoring witness who (to hear the CTers tell it) positively
saw PROOF of a second gunman on the Knoll. But when you look more
deeply at his testimony, it can be seen that he's not actually a
witness with which to promote conspiracy or a Knoll shooter.
He didn't see a "gunman" on the Grassy Knoll or behind the picket fence
behind the Knoll. He didn't see any rifle or other weapons. He merely
saw some "milling around". Let's look at Mr. Bowers' exact words to the
Warren Commission:
"I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the
ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this
particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye
for some reason, which I could not identify." -- Lee E. Bowers, Jr.;
04/02/64
The conspiracy buffs, in true-to-form "Make Mountains Out Of Molehills"
style, have thus turned Mr. Bowers' "out of the ordinary", "milling
around", "I just am unable to describe", and "I could not identify"
remarks into apparent "proof" that a killer had just shot JFK from
behind a fence atop the Grassy Knoll....even though Bowers saw NO
WEAPONS OF ANY KIND in the hands of anyone he observed that day. And he
specifically said he "could not identify" what it was that caught his
eye in the area of the fence.
The testimony of Bowers also provides some idea as to the type of
reverberating sounds that can be produced in Dealey Plaza. And while
earwitness testimony is useful to a degree, it is at the same time, as
my cohort in LN-ism, Vincent Bugliosi, has said repeatedly throughout
his career, "notoriously problematic".
Now while I'm certain Vincent, in his JFK book, will bring up the fact
that more than half of the witnesses in the Plaza heard shots coming
from only the direction of the Book Depository, and he'll no doubt
bring up the fact that darn-near 100% of the earwitnesses DIDN'T hear
shots coming from multiple directions (with less than 5% actually
stating a "multi-directional" shooting scenario) -- I'm also sure Vince
will utilize the proverbial "historically and notoriously problematic"
line of defense as well in this witness regard.
But my own opinion is this -- If there had been more than just a single
gunman popping away with noisy high-powered rifles on 11/22/63 in
Dealey Plaza, I cannot fathom how on Earth a staggering 95.2% (plus or
minus a tad) of the MANY people who heard shots somehow were TOTALLY
FOOLED into thinking ALL of the shots came from just the single
location they claimed.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- You might mention to Mr. Bugliosi that it is very difficult, if
not impossible, to defend the indefensible.
DVP -- It's very interesting to note how often the word "impossible" is
tossed around by conspiracy theorists (not all CTers, but a goodly
number of them).
According to many CTers......
1.) The Single-Bullet Theory is "impossible".
2.) Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was such a crappy hunk of junk,
it renders the whole shooting attributed to him with said weapon
"impossible".
3.) Oswald was such a crummy riflemen, it renders the whole shooting
attributed to him "impossible".
4.) If he had been shot from behind, JFK's "head snap" to the rear is
"impossible".
5.) Oswald's 90-second trip from the 6th Floor to the 2nd Floor of the
Book Depository on 11/22/63 was "impossible".
6.) Given the time restrictions, Oswald's trek from 1026 N. Beckley
Avenue to the Tippit murder site at 10th Street & Patton Avenue was
"impossible".
Point of fact -- Not a single one of the above "impossible" conclusions
is correct. In fact, every one of them has been proven to be quite
"possible" indeed. They're only "impossible" to the fanatic CT fringe.
Wonder why that is?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- One little stretch of film does not begin to cover the wounds
which were inflicted upon these men {Kennedy and Connally}.
DVP -- I love the arrogance of such a wholly-unprovable statement.
"DOES NOT BEGIN TO COVER THE WOUNDS WHICH WERE INFLICTED UPON THESE
MEN".
MORE amazing luck for the ever-fortunate "plotters", it would appear.
The "real killers" inflict SO MUCH MORE damage on these men than what
is seen at circa Z224 of the Zapruder Film -- and yet ALL of this
damage is somehow miraculously whittled down into what can be (later)
deemed just ONE single shot (the SBT).
Those incredible riflemen deserve more than just an Oscar for "Best
Assassination Plot Ever Conceived; 1963" -- they deserve the Rod
Serling "Twilight Zone Award" for "Best Multi-Shot Sniper Attack That
Later Looks Like Just A One-Shot Sniper Attack".
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Look at Jackie turn her head towards JFK. This turn begins at
virtually the same frame as that in which JFK's hand comes up, not in a
wave, but as the beginning of JFK grabbing towards his throat.
DVP -- You'd better look again, Mr. CTer. Jackie's right turn begins at
approx. Z169, which (IMO) is much more in line with her responding to
hearing the first (missed) shot at approx. Z160. She's looking FAR to
her left just prior to Z169, then she turns to her right starting at
about Z169 (which is just a few frames after both JFK and JBC have
turned their heads to the right as well).
In fact, Jackie's turn to her right is very nearly completed by the
time YOU say it BEGINS (approx. Z190).
If you're purporting that Jackie can be seen turning her head MORE
toward JFK at Z190-Z195, I'll disagree once again. There is no
discernible difference in the ANGLE of Jackie's head turn that I can
see at all from Z190 through Z227 or so (after she comes back into view
from behind the sign). If you see such an additional turn "toward JFK",
it must be something only a CTer can detect to further their theories.
Because, IMO, it ain't there.
Therefore, Jackie is ALREADY turned toward JFK by Z190-Z195 (which is,
I presume, the approx. time you're claiming JFK is beginning to react
to being hit by a bullet).
Since Jackie was already pretty much completely looking to her right by
approx. Z190 (and had started such a right turn well before your
proposed first shot which hit JFK in the Z190s someplace), this makes
your argument completely moot and void of any significance.
In fact, when watching Jackie's movements yet again, we can see that
Jackie has, indeed, totally completed her right turn by Z195, when many
CTers claim JFK is hit.
Therefore, it's either just a pure coincidence that Jackie has turned
her head from FAR LEFT to FAR RIGHT from Z169 to about Z195 or so --
OR: it's quite possible (but not provable I'll admit) that Jackie is
turning to her right (at just about the same time that both JFK and JBC
make right turns as well) in a reaction to hearing the first (missed)
shot, which came from over her right shoulder.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Tell everybody again how the bullet went through JFK's back and
came out the center of his neck without hitting bone. .... We won't get
into the FACT that the shot was going downward at 17 degrees and
entered his back per the hole in his jacket.
DVP -- Easily accomplished, if you'll just look at the verified
evidence. The bullet passed between muscles, "striking no bone" at all.
Why is this the miracle of the ages?
Re. the jacket hole -- Your argument is just plain silly. You're basing
your wound-placement theory on just the JACKET? For Pete sake, how
silly! (And an "LOL" to boot!)
The best evidence, obviously, is not the jacket, or the shirt, but the
BACK (skin) of JFK. And that wound is exactly where Dr. Boswell placed
it on the Face Sheet on 11/22/63.**
** = Boswell's written-in "14 cm." anatomical measurements, mind you. I
don't mean the "dot" on a not-to-scale diagram. But why anybody would
rely on the "dot" on that chart when they've got MUCH better evidence
as to the exact location of this wound written in right next to this
dot, is anybody's futile guess.
Utilizing either victims' clothing as a definitive source for where the
bullets entered or exited is obviously a foolish endeavor. John
Connally's jacket, for instance, has a wildly-"off" jacket hole in
front. But does this mean he was shot much lower than where we KNOW he
was shot in the chest? Obviously not. One hole. One wound. One
conclusion = The one and only bullet came out of the one and only hole
in the jacket. Period. No matter WHERE the jacket hole resides. Is this
odd? Kinda, I guess. But who cares? It'd be obvious to even Ray Charles
what the logical conclusion is in this regard.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Trying to defend the SBT is a joke.
DVP -- No. The real "joke" is any CTer attempting to reconcile the
shooting into any scenario OTHER than the Single-Bullet Conclusion --
because they cannot do it. It's NEVER been done within the scope of
reason and logic and (above all) the actual documented evidence in the
case.
Which, of course, is why we're left to traipse through just bits and
pieces of CT conjecture re. the alternatives to the SBT. There's never
a full-fledged explanation given by CTers of the whole scenario re.
these alternatives that simply MUST replace the SBT. We KNOW where the
wounds were on both Kennedy and Connally; and we know there were NO
bullets left in either man.
Evidently, the CT-skewed math makes 1+1+1 = 1 Planted Bullet.
There are even "Faux SBT" theories espoused by CTers that magically
have the bullet travelling all the way through JFK, but not hitting
Governor Connally and not hitting the limo either. Magic CT Bullet?
Most conspiracy theorists have not just one Magic Bullet, they have
three -- two disappearing missiles in Kennedy and one more, to boot, in
Connally.
Go figure.
~shrug~
Donald Willis
says...
To which you might add, So unsure of his vantage point that he had to lean out
the window, get onto the sill, & all but hang an "Assassination in Progress"
flag out the "sniper's nest" window, as per the testimony of Brennan, Edwards &
Fischer. Odd behavior. Even odder: Altho this suspect (whoever he was) made a
very public display of *himself*, HE WAS NOT PHOTOGRAPHED! Pretty amazing, eh?
All we have are photographs of shadows & boxes in the "nest"! Suddenly, at
12:30, this showboat turned shy & retiring....
dw
Donald Willis
says...
>
>Weaving a pretty fantastic scenario , don't you think Donald ?
>:
>Donald Willis also wrote : " Altho this suspect (whoever he was) made a
>very public display of *himself*, HE WAS NOT PHOTOGRAPHED! Pretty
>amazing, eh? All we have are photographs of shadows & boxes in the
>"nest"! Suddenly, at 12:30, this showboat turned shy & retiring...."
>
>amazing, eh ? Absolutely the worse excuse of the use of a brain , I've
>ever witnessed . ....TL
>
And one of the worst uses of "worse" and not a good use of a ",", TL!
And, no, I'm not blaming this on "bystanders"--the showboater was pretty
obviously a decoy drawing attention to that area of the building, which makes me
think that the shooting was done from *another* area of the building, perhaps
the west side, where no one would be looking....
dw