Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 7)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From April 2005, May 2005,
July 2005, October 2006, and November 2006.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- With no bone hit, there is no tumbling
of a bullet.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- Nonsense. That's a provably-incorrect statement
you've just made. A "tumbling" bullet after hitting virtually nothing
but soft flesh CAN occur (and HAS occurred in tests).
The Discovery Channel test in October 2004 and (many years earlier than
that) the experiments conducted by Dr. John K. Lattimer both indicate
that a bullet can (and will) tumble upon exiting a simulated JFK neck
after never having struck any solid, bony surface.
Dr. Lattimer's tests, in fact, also provided ample evidence to show
that CE399 almost certainly HAD to have struck JFK's body first, before
it plowed into John Connally's back.
Using a Carcano rifle and ammunition from the exact same "lots"
(batches) as the Oswald bullets, Lattimer conducted a series of
experiments, firing some shots through a simulated JFK neck first, and
then firing shots directly into a mock Connally target without going
through a mock Kennedy neck.
83% of Lattimer's test bullets (5 out of 6) that first transited a JFK
neck started to tumble after exiting the neck and therefore struck the
Connally target sideways (photos of the targets after the completion of
these tests can be found on page #237 of Dr. Lattimer's 1980 book,
"Kennedy And Lincoln").
Whereas, NONE of the test bullets that struck the Connally target first
(without hitting anything prior to striking a mock "Connally") showed
any signs of tumbling, and left a round hole in the target rather than
an oval-shaped hole.
And the Discovery Channel "SBT" re-creation also proved that a bullet
can become unstable and tumble after hitting nothing but soft tissue.
Without a doubt.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The SBT was DISPROVEN. Get that? DISPROVEN by the wounds
ballistics team at Edgewood Arsenal in 1964. The only way they could
reproduce the wounds in Connally was by firing TWO separate shots.
DVP -- I haven't the slightest idea why you're saying this outright
falsehood, but you must have some reason for doing it.
But, in fact, the Edgewood Arsenal (U.S. Army) tests conducted for the
Warren Commission in 1964 came to exactly the opposite conclusion from
what you just said.
Drs. Olivier and Dziemian, who did the Edgewood tests, "CONCLUDED THAT
IT WAS PROBABLE THAT THE SAME BULLET PASSED THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S
NECK AND THEN INFLICTED ALL THE WOUNDS ON THE GOVERNOR". -- Warren
Commission Final Report; Page #109
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The plan was simpler than that....3 shooters from 3 locations.
DVP -- THAT'S a "simpler" Patsy plan?? "Simple" enough to ensure that
the bullets from the Patsy window are the ONLY bullets that enter the
official record? You must be high on goofy gas to say such a thing.
THREE shooters seal the failure of any SINGLE-PATSY plan. (If all the
shots hit their marks, that is; which IS the desired end result quite
obviously; because if it weren't, there's no need for Shooters #2 and
#3 in the first place.)
So-called "expert" researcher Robert J. Groden further complicates his
own personal 8-Shot, 4-Gunmen theory by purporting that ZERO of the 8
shots (and perhaps up to TEN shots, per his 1993 book) likely came from
the "Oswald" window in the Book Depository -- NONE!
How incredibly-stupid is that scenario of Mr. Groden's? (Especially
within a "Blame It All On Oswald" framework?!)
And Mr. Groden has to be a believer in the "Patsy" scenario to frame
Oswald too. Because if he weren't a member of that fraternity, he'd
have at least ONE shot being fired BY OSWALD HIMSELF from the 6th-Floor
"Sniper's Nest" window.
But Groden thinks it's very likely that no shots came from that window
at all. Therefore he must think there was NO GUNMAN in that window
(despite witnesses who saw a shooter firing from there and despite
Harold Norman's testimony of hearing three shots being fired from that
southeast corner window and Norman's account of hearing three bullet
shells hitting the floor).
What unsupportable conspiratorial craziness will they think up next?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The pathologists were confused by no bullet and no exit wound.
DVP -- There was, of course, an "exit" wound, and Dr. Humes found out
about it the next day. Everything "fit" perfectly once Humes realized
that the trach done at Parkland also doubled as the previously-unknown
exit hole for the CE399 bullet.
Obviously, the autopsy doctors SHOULD have been "confused" (and were)
by the lack of an exit wound in JFK's body, given the fact that no
bullets were in the body, and the fact that the examination of JFK's
innards revealed virtually no damage where major damage WOULD have been
located had TWO bullets pierced his back and neck regions (as most
CTers believe did occur).
But when Humes talked with Dr. Perry on 11/23/63, the confusion cleared
up immediately -- one bullet found at Parkland (CE399); one entry
wound; one exit wound; no bullets in body; no damage in body where
damage would be found if bullet(s) had not exited body.
You don't even need to be a "pathologist" to figure this mystery out.
Any plumber could work his way to the one and only logical conclusion
given the above facts and conditions re. JFK and his wounds.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- David, I guess the 80% or so of the population disagrees with
your conclusion that "Such questions were answered in November of
1963".
DVP -- There is no limit to the number of people who can be duped into
believing unsupported (and unsupportable) conspiracy nonsense. No
limit. That's obvious by the current stats that show 70% to 80% of the
American public believe a conspiracy existed in Dallas in '63.
It's doubtful whether that percentage will remain that high following
the release of Vincent Bugliosi's book on the assassination. Because
anyone still believing in shadowy assassins and planted bullets after
reading Vincent's publication probably belongs on another planet (or in
a room with a lot of padding).
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- {Eyewitness Howard} Brennan was probably pressured to change
his story 'to go with the flow'.
DVP -- Yeah, prob'ly. After all, not a darn thing is what it seems to
be in this whole case, right? All of the "It Was Oswald" evidence has
somehow been manipulated, and every witness who fingered Oswald (for
TWO murders) was "pressured" into telling blatant lies so that poor
innocent Lee Harvey would look guilty. Correct?
Those plotters and cover-up dudes were remarkable indeed. Truly
remarkable.
~Big Eyeroll~
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?
DVP -- Did they dig a hole in the backyard for them or something? Was
JFK's brain placed in this hole too?
This is another example of a CTer asking a question and demanding a
perfect pro-LN answer; and if such an LN answer isn't forthcoming (or
known), then that CTer thinks he gets to believe a bunch of kooky
stuff. And (naturally) the answer that a CTer provides in lieu of any
FACTUAL data is an answer that always leads to something
"conspiratorial" and "coverup"-related.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a
Minox camera owned by LHO?
DVP -- This is more CT guesswork (and shows a CTer at work as he
attempts to sidestep the major issues of Oswald's guilt by turning the
focus of attention on something peripheral and meaningless).
Does this "FBI"/"camera" stuff wipe out all of the evidence that tells
the world Lee Oswald was a double-murderer on 11/22/63? If it's of
major importance when it comes to determining Oswald's guilt or
innocence, please let us know why.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence
in this case? CE399, for example, almost no one who originally handled
it will identify it.
DVP -- This is pure hokum...plain and simple. The chain of evidence is
only said to be weak by the conspiracy mongers because those people
NEED the chain to be weak. No other reason. Because if there IS a
"chain" (and there is...for every single piece of evidence in this
case, including J.D. Tippit's murder), then Lee Harvey Oswald is guilty
as sin, and even the conspiracy-loving kooks must surely realize that
fact.
Parkland employee Darrell Tomlinson has stated in the past that CE399
"looked like the same bullet" he found inside the hospital on 11/22/63.
Why this isn't good enough for some CTers is anybody's guess. (But, of
course, not much is good enough for those guys.)
Vincent Bugliosi sums it up nicely in the quotes below (and these words
come from an ex-prosecutor who knows of what he speaks when it comes to
"chain of evidence" matters and what would be admissible vs.
inadmissible in a court of law):
"Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons, was determined
by firearms experts to be the rifle that fired the two bullets that
struck down President Kennedy." -- VB
"Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck by
the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of any
separate bullet hitting Connally." -- VB
"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL
doubt THAT OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!" -- VB
"There's not one tiny grain of evidence....not one microscopic speck of
evidence that ANYONE -- other than Lee Harvey Oswald -- was responsible
for the assassination of John F. Kennedy." -- VB