Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 4)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From May 2005 and June
2005.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- Only the shooting took place in Dealey
Plaza. The plotters were not in DP.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- I wonder if it bothered the architects of your
alleged conspiracy plot at all that dozens of witnesses were
photographing their handiwork?
It didn't matter, apparently, that potentially HUNDREDS of non-plotters
would be seeing, hearing, filming, and (later) talking about the
shooting they just witnessed -- potentially blowing the whole plan, if,
let's say, all 300 witnesses said they heard shots from the Grassy
Knoll and possibly SAW a gunman there.
They just went ahead with their crazy, multi-shooter Patsy plot just
the same, regardless of the massive risk and the hundreds of witnesses
and dozens of active cameras.
Yeah, right. That sounds like a fool-proof, can't-miss conspiracy plan!
~smirk~
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- To accept the SBT as fact is to accept the change of so many
original facts in this case. Original fact: The bullet did not transit
JFK's body.
DVP -- That was never a "fact". It was "assumed" that it did not
transit. But even most conspiracists will have to admit that any bullet
track through the neck just might have been screwed up when Dr. Humes
stuck his damn finger in the wound!
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Original fact: JFK and John Connally were hit by separate
bullets. Even the witnesses, John and Nellie Connally, testified to
this fact.
DVP -- That, of course, was never a "fact". It was ASSUMED by Nellie
Connally and ASSUMED by John Connally. But Mr. Connally could not
possibly have known when JFK was hit because he, by his own admission,
never saw the President at ANY time during the critical seconds in
question. To use JBC as a verifiable witness in this regard is just
plain irrational and wrong.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- David, the main problem I have with your posts is that you seem
to think that any other scenario of how JBC and JFK were wounded
besides the SBT is far too complicated to have happened. It certainly
is not if you assume that there is more than one shooter and more than
3 shots. You seem to think that everything has to line up with the
theory that all wounds except the head wound to JFK happened somewhere
around Z223-225.
DVP -- I still to this day don't think I've gotten through to you what
I mean when I talk about the "lining up" of the wounds on JFK and JBC.
The wounds obviously were where we know they were on both victims --
with this "three-wound pattern" consistent with a single bullet
following that downward, slightly right-to-left path to do its damage
(fired from the southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the TSBD).
But, to suspend belief and think that this "pattern" of wounds on the
TWO victims could even remotely "line up" to look like a SINGLE bullet
could have sliced through them if, in fact, THREE separate shots had
struck the victims, is, IMO, an impossible alternate "CT" notion.
And this three-shot "replacement" to the SBT must have been caused by
THREE different guns too (given the tight timeline via the Zapruder
Film).
You, I know, think otherwise. Well, OK. But I say the timing for even a
3-shot version of the SBT wounds is too tight to have been done by only
two gunmen. Three are required; two from the rear. And the rear shot to
Connally, IMO, is another "impossible" one, given the track through
Connally's body and the place of his entry wound.
JACK KENNEDY WAS IN THAT SHOOTER'S WAY (per the known wounds and the
bullet track thru John Connally's body).
And then add to this the unlikely fact (in a three-shot version of the
SBT wounds) that all three of these bullets had to simply disappear and
never get entered as official evidence. Now we're into the "magical"
elements of the theory. No way all three of these bullets could have
vanished before somebody who wasn't on the conspirators' payroll saw
even one of them.
Plus -- Add to all of the above the odd notion that TWO different
missiles fail to go through JFK's neck and back, while at the same time
producing no major damage whatsoever inside John Kennedy's body! Well,
as anyone can easily see, we're now REALLY into CT Fantasy Land.
Tell me, in a realistic and believable fashion (and without bursting
into fits of uncontrollable laughter while telling the tale), how ALL
of the above could have possibly occurred?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Nearly everyone here has seen you refuse to learn about blood
spatter evidence.
DVP -- This is pure bunk. And you should know why it's bunk. I checked
out Sherry Gutierrez' very perfunctory (IMO) lesson in blood spatter;
and it isn't overwhelmingly convincing in my view (and it is HER
analysis you continually promote).
Much of Sherry's analysis, in my view, points NOT toward a definitive
"CT" conclusion re. the JFK head wound -- but is either "neutral" in
nature (pointing in no particular direction either way) or can just as
easily be reconciled into an LN scenario just as much as into a CT one.
So, your blood spatter expert is far from convincing when it comes to
the question of whether my lone-assassin beliefs are misplaced or not.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The direction of the shots, location of the shooters, or the
number of shooters wasn't important IF the conspirators could have had
possession of the body and have controlled the autopsy after the
assassination. By possessing the body, bullets not connected with the
patsy could have been removed and replaced with bullets that had been
fired from his gun.
DVP -- You surely jest. I cannot believe that you ACTUALLY believe the
nonsense you have written above. You're just doing the ol' "CT Spin" as
all CTers do.
OK, just consider this:
Three gunmen fire six bullets in the direction of John Kennedy's
Lincoln limousine in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 (per Oliver Stone's
theory in his 1991 fantasy film).
Let's assume, for the sake of CT argument, that the above six-shot
scenario really did happen......
Now let's also assume something else that should most certainly have
been assumed was going to happen by all those behind-the-scenes
plotters who gave the green light to this plan -- and that is: Let's
say ALL SIX of these bullets strike JFK in the head. ALL SIX!
What do the conspirators do now? How are all six of these wounds and
multiple bullet fragments going to be reconciled into an "Oswald Did
All Of This Damage" scenario?
And how is all of this obvious head damage (coming from multiple
directions) going to be immediately hidden from the view of Clint Hill,
other Secret Service agents, other car occupants, and all the various
people at Parkland Hospital who are bound to notice that JFK has just
been shot MANY different times from multiple directions?
That is a scenario that SHOULD have definitely been considered
"possible" by the pre-11/22 operatives. Because, given the number of
shooters you believe there were, the possibility certainly did exist of
having JFK riddled with so many bullets that they couldn't in a million
years all be hidden from immediate view, nor could all these wounds be
reconciled into a "Single Assassin Firing From Behind" scenario (not
even by Kreskin could that have been done).
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- I don't find this scenario absurd at all.
DVP -- Of course you don't. That's because you're a rabid CT-Kook.
You've GOT to believe that kind of crazy cloak-and-dagger junk. And
that's just what it is -- junk.*
* = I'll revise that "you've got to believe it" assessment -- because
you could believe in the much-more-logical (but still wrong for a
variety of real-world, physical-evidence reasons) conspiracy theory
that does not involve any kind of a framed "Patsy".
All CTers, in fact, would look and sound much less silly if they'd
simply accept the fact that Lee Oswald WAS shooting from where
everybody knows he was firing from, and that LHO was part of the
overall mission to kill the President, instead of Oswald being "framed"
as a lone patsy. You'd still have your CT argument re. the head wound
that you think came from a frontal shot. There's your conspiracy.
But to believe in the "Patsy" nonsense is just flat-out illogical from
every POV.
-------------------------------------------
A CT-Kook -- Makes one wonder if they were dropping 50-caliber machine
gun shells to ensure that {assassination witness Harold} Norman would
hear them.
DVP -- Yeah, a kook might wonder that. But probably not any non-kooks.
(Maybe they dropped a bowling ball on the floor, huh?)
WC counsel member David Belin, in his 1973 book, confirms that a person
on the 5th Floor of the TSBD could easily hear bullet shells being
dropped on the floor above......
"With remarkable clarity, I could hear the thump as a cartridge case
hit the floor. There were two more thumps as the two other cartridge
cases hit the floor above me. The Secret Service agent then worked the
bolt of the rifle back and forth, and this too could be heard with
clarity. When we re-assembled after the re-enactment, I said to my
colleague, 'Joe, if I had not heard it myself, I would never have
believed it'." -- David Belin; Pages 139-140 of "November 22, 1963: You
Are The Jury"
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Joan Mellen doesn't bother with all the evidence {and the}
facts of the day, but strictly the motives and personal facts about the
people from that time period.
DVP -- Yeah, why bother with the "evidence" and the "facts of the day"
(11/22/63), when an author like Ms. Mellen can rely, instead, on
innuendo and author-perceived "motives" and the like?
And since Ms. Mellen's publication attempts to prop up the nonsense of
Super Kook Jim Garrison, not much more needs to be said regarding "A
Farewell To Justice".
A whole book based on the absurd findings of a kook named Jim. Is that
truly supposed to be considered a great (or even good) JFK resource?
Geez.
-------------------------------------------
A CTer -- He {David Belin} didn't ask Brennan at what point he saw the
man behind the sniper's window.
DVP -- Is it any wonder you kooks can't "solve" the case to your
goofball satisfaction? You create ambiguity even when there isn't a
scrap of ambiguity to be detected at all. Incredible.
Your entire argument re. Howard Brennan is totally wiped out by this WC
exchange (that you apparently ignored completely):
Mr. BELIN -- "Did you see any other people in any other windows that
you can recollect?"
Mr. BRENNAN -- "Not on that floor."
"That floor", of course, meaning "The Sixth Floor".