"HAPPENSTANCE" OR "CONSPIRACY"?
David Von Pein
GO IN ORDER TO PROP UP THEIR JFK ASSASSINATION "PLOT"?......
====================================================
Here's something I found rather interesting (and quite telling, in a
"non-conspiracy" kind of fashion).....
I occasionally go back to my favorite orange-colored paperback edition of
the 888-page Warren Commission Report and refresh my knowledge about
certain things regarding JFK's assassination....things I had possibly
forgotten about over the years....or while looking for an exact quote or
WCR passage.
And when re-examining Page 31 of the WCR (linked below) I found this
interesting sentence (which I had read multiple times previously, but had
actually completely forgotten about):
"Kenneth O'Donnell made the final decision to hold the luncheon at the
Trade Mart." -- WCR; Page 31
Now, at first blush, I suppose the above statement that refers to trusted
and loyal Presidential aide Kenny O'Donnell might not mean too much to
someone who is reading the WCR volume for the first time.
But the more I think about that one simple sentence, it becomes clear that
there could have been no "conspiracy plot" with respect to President
Kennedy's ULTIMATE DESTINATION ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963 (THE TRADE MART).
Or do some conspiracy buffs actually want to point an accusing finger of
conspiratorial guilt at Kenny O'Donnell, who was one of the top aides on
JFK's staff and a very good friend of John F. Kennedy's?
Now, I've read about a lot of different kinds of conspiracy
theories....e.g., "The Mob did it", "Castro did it", "The CIA did it",
"The Secret Service was involved", "The FBI and Dallas Police were
involved", "LBJ had JFK killed", etc.
But I don't think I've ever heard a theory that has members deep within
John F. Kennedy's "inner circle" (so to speak) being involved in a plot to
kill their boss and very good friend (which would include JFK top aides
like O'Donnell, Dave Powers, Larry O'Brien, Ted Sorensen, and McGeorge
Bundy (among other aides and cabinet members).
And since the Dallas motorcade route (which ultimately took JFK right past
Lee Harvey Oswald and the Texas School Book Depository on Elm Street) was
contingent, naturally, on WHERE the luncheon was going to be held on
November 22, 1963....this means, in effect, that Ken O'Donnell was the
FINAL WORD with respect to what would end up being a motorcade route that
had to take the President to the Trade Mart, a location that O'Donnell put
the final stamp of approval on (and, obviously, a location he could also
have nixed, if he so desired; there were two other potential luncheon
locations being considered prior to O'Donnell approving the Trade Mart on
November 13 or 14).
WCR; Page 31:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0028a.htm
Almost every time I read portions of the excellent Warren Report, I find
something in there that forces me to say to myself -- "Gee, I wonder how
in the world THAT could be possible if JFK had really been killed as a
result of a vast conspiracy of some sort?".
There are many small examples just like that O'Donnell one I pointed out
above....i.e., innocent things that all led to the President being where
he was at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63....and additional pieces of pure
coincidence and happenstance that allowed Lee Harvey Oswald to be in the
position he was in at 12:30 PM on that same November day, which allowed
Oswald to pull off this crime in total solitude on the 6th Floor of his
workplace with his own cheap Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
The assassination was an act of madness....to be sure. But it was also the
act of pure garden-variety happenstance in just about every single aspect
that I can think of. To believe otherwise is to believe in a sordid Oliver
Stone-like morass of conspiracy complications and CT constructs that would
have certainly involved not just a FEW select people (given the logistics,
the guns, the shells, the bullets, the body of JFK, the witnesses, and a
massive cover-up that would have HAD to involve literally HUNDREDS of
people).
In short -- It was a RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME situation for Lee
Harvey Oswald that enabled him to kill the President.
And it was just the opposite for the unfortunate victim -- as JFK most
certainly just happened to be in the WRONG place at the WRONG time on Elm
Street -- and under sunny skies after a rainy morning too, which is yet
another totally-random and completely-uncontrollable factor that also
falls under the headings of "pure happenstance" and "luck" for assassin
Lee Harvey Oswald (in that the bubbletop was not on the President's
limousine at the critical time of 12:30).
HAPPENSTANCE, not CONSPIRACY, led to the death of President John F.
Kennedy.
And happenstance cannot be controlled. Even if Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison,
and Mark Lane think it can be.
David Von Pein
April 2007
====================================================
RELATED "HAPPENSTANCE" ARTICLES...........
A LEE HARVEY OSWALD "TIMELINE" FOR 11/22/63:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16
THE ABSURDITIES OF THE "OSWALD-AS-PATSY" PLOT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/606503e4d63e74ad
THE "CRYSTAL-BALL-GAZING" CONSPIRATORS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/747e6695f071ec3f
WAS OSWALD "PLACED" IN THE DEPOSITORY BY EVIL PLOTTERS?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/64195df0086af9b4
WHAT ARE THE ODDS...?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7e70b829247b4a49
A SHORTCUT TO BECOMING AN LNer -- THE LIVE TV COVERAGE OF 11/22/63:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/addeb5d529d1fb03
====================================================
John Canal
Pein says...
David,
Good post, IMO, but there's a story behind "why" O'Donnell made that final
decision that you just might find pretty interesting. If you get a chance, your
library might have "Silencing the Lone Assassin"....the story is in there.
John Canal
James K. Olmstead
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1177717501.2...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> HOW DEEP INTO THE KENNEDY "INNER CIRCLE" DO THE CONSPIRACISTS WANT TO
> GO IN ORDER TO PROP UP THEIR JFK ASSASSINATION "PLOT"?......
>
> ====================================================
To consider JFK's Dallas stop "HAPPENSTANCE" IGNORES all the political
conspiracy considerations of "politics" associated with presidential
campaigns. JFK did not leave such things to chance. JFK went to Texas
for political reasons....he was in bad shape politically in Texas. Nixon
was there trying to get Gov JBC to run as Goldwater's VP. There was deep
striff in the Dem party that needed to be fixed quickly.
Texas and the Dallas stop were not "random acts" in any shape or form.
>
> Here's something I found rather interesting (and quite telling, in a
> "non-conspiracy" kind of fashion).....
You need to read outside of the WCR for greater details on this. Start
with The Death of A President" by William Manchester.
>
> I occasionally go back to my favorite orange-colored paperback edition of
> the 888-page Warren Commission Report and refresh my knowledge about
> certain things regarding JFK's assassination....things I had possibly
> forgotten about over the years....or while looking for an exact quote or
> WCR passage.
It's good to go back to primary sources however, that one book is not the
only source for "non-conspiracy" related facts that need to be considered.
>
> And when re-examining Page 31 of the WCR (linked below) I found this
> interesting sentence (which I had read multiple times previously, but had
> actually completely forgotten about):
>
> "Kenneth O'Donnell made the final decision to hold the luncheon at the
> Trade Mart." -- WCR; Page 31
Manchester points out on pages 24-25 that the WCR was wrong on this exact
quote. BTW I've had that page dogged earred book marked since 1969.
Here's the footnote:
" The Warren Commission reported that the luncheon site was selected by
the Secret Service with O'Donnell's approval. This is incorrect. The
descision was a political decision, made by politicans. Bruno was among
the witnesses whom the Commission did not summon."
Jerry Bruno, was the Democratic National Committee advance man. Bruno had
three choices to pick from on Nov 1 and wanted the Women's Building, but
that site did not fit with one of JBC's political conspiracy schemes.
The conflict over the site went to the White House on 14 Nov. O'Donnell
and Lawson liked the Trade Mart. On November 15, the Justice Department
(RFK) sent O'Donnell confidential details on Texas and Dallas. So I ask
you, do you have physical evidence that the call on the Trade Mart was
left up to O'Donnell and O'Donnell alone, when RFK is clearly involved?
JFK called and yelled at O'Donnell just hours before they left the WH for
Texas because of conflicting weather reports. Both JFK and RFK paid
attention to details. I strongly suggest you look closer at the
conspiratorial (non criminal) actions in relationship to the selection of
all the Texas stops. There was nothing "happenstance" in the final
selection of the Trade Mart.
>
> Now, at first blush, I suppose the above statement that refers to trusted
> and loyal Presidential aide Kenny O'Donnell might not mean too much to
> someone who is reading the WCR volume for the first time.
>
> But the more I think about that one simple sentence, it becomes clear that
> there could have been no "conspiracy plot" with respect to President
> Kennedy's ULTIMATE DESTINATION ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963 (THE TRADE MART).
See above to see how wrong you are on this. Not all conspiracies are
criminal in nature, however the selection of the "ultimate destination"
was conspiratorial and not happenstance. There were at least 5 forces at
work here.....each with their own "conspiracy plot".
>
> Or do some conspiracy buffs actually want to point an accusing finger of
> conspiratorial guilt at Kenny O'Donnell, who was one of the top aides on
> JFK's staff and a very good friend of John F. Kennedy's?
O'Donnell did not pull the trigger, nor was he directly responsible for
JFK's death. No criminal conspiracy plot presents O'Donnell as being
responsible. The Executive Office of the President....the EOP of which he
was a member, however built the path to Dallas.
>
> Now, I've read about a lot of different kinds of conspiracy
> theories....e.g., "The Mob did it", "Castro did it", "The CIA did it",
> "The Secret Service was involved", "The FBI and Dallas Police were
> involved", "LBJ had JFK killed", etc.
>
> But I don't think I've ever heard a theory that has members deep within
> John F. Kennedy's "inner circle" (so to speak) being involved in a plot to
> kill their boss and very good friend (which would include JFK top aides
> like O'Donnell, Dave Powers, Larry O'Brien, Ted Sorensen, and McGeorge
> Bundy (among other aides and cabinet members).
All of those mentioned above carried out the orders of either RFK or
JFK...thru the EOP.
>
> And since the Dallas motorcade route (which ultimately took JFK right past
> Lee Harvey Oswald and the Texas School Book Depository on Elm Street) was
> contingent, naturally, on WHERE the luncheon was going to be held on
> November 22, 1963....this means, in effect, that Ken O'Donnell was the
> FINAL WORD with respect to what would end up being a motorcade route that
> had to take the President to the Trade Mart, a location that O'Donnell put
> the final stamp of approval on (and, obviously, a location he could also
> have nixed, if he so desired; there were two other potential luncheon
> locations being considered prior to O'Donnell approving the Trade Mart on
> November 13 or 14).
See above....if it were not for the conspiracies at work in the political
arena, Bruno would have selected the Women's Building on Nov 1. Where is
you evidence that O'Donnell was "the FINAL WORD"?
Due to the complex sitituation do you honestly think O'Donnell didn't
check things out with RFK or JFK before the final word was made? Was he
running JFK, pulling the strings for his Texas visit or was JFK? Each of
these stops were critical stages in the campaign path.
>
> WCR; Page 31:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0028a.htm
Which at least mentions some of the others involved in the
planning....except for Bruno, who was ignored by the WC on this conflict.
The WC downplayed the political conspiracies involved.
>
> Almost every time I read portions of the excellent Warren Report, I find
> something in there that forces me to say to myself -- "Gee, I wonder how
> in the world THAT could be possible if JFK had really been killed as a
> result of a vast conspiracy of some sort?".
>
> There are many small examples just like that O'Donnell one I pointed out
> above....i.e., innocent things that all led to the President being where
> he was at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63....and additional pieces of pure
> coincidence and happenstance that allowed Lee Harvey Oswald to be in the
> position he was in at 12:30 PM on that same November day, which allowed
> Oswald to pull off this crime in total solitude on the 6th Floor of his
> workplace with his own cheap Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
Perhaps you feel this way because you ignore the aspects of conspiracy and
ignore many of the conflicts surrounding the evidence presented, in favor
of Oswald did it case closed because the WCR suggests that "conclusion".
>
> The assassination was an act of madness....to be sure. But it was also the
> act of pure garden-variety happenstance in just about every single aspect
> that I can think of.
It is as far from any "pure garden-variety happenstance" any murder can
be.
To believe otherwise is to believe in a sordid Oliver
> Stone-like morass of conspiracy complications and CT constructs that would
> have certainly involved not just a FEW select people (given the logistics,
> the guns, the shells, the bullets, the body of JFK, the witnesses, and a
> massive cover-up that would have HAD to involve literally HUNDREDS of
> people).
The cover-ups in various areas did include "literally HUNDREDS of people"
such as members of the Warren Commission itself. Dulles is the perfect
example, knowing about previous plots to kill Castro yet covering up those
details. Then there is the evidence cover ups to consider....for example
the acutal fingerprint lift from CE139 being witheld from the WC by the
FBI. All these those conflicting facts have to be ignored.
>
> In short -- It was a RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME situation for Lee
> Harvey Oswald that enabled him to kill the President.
It was also the right place and the right time for the consideration of
another actually firing the shots......to counter that you need to produce
the actual fingerprint lift made by Lt. Day on CE 139, that showed clear
latent images.....images btw offically discounted as belonging to Oswald
on 23 November by the FBI.
>
> And it was just the opposite for the unfortunate victim -- as JFK most
> certainly just happened to be in the WRONG place at the WRONG time on Elm
> Street -- and under sunny skies after a rainy morning too, which is yet
> another totally-random and completely-uncontrollable factor that also
> falls under the headings of "pure happenstance" and "luck" for assassin
> Lee Harvey Oswald (in that the bubbletop was not on the President's
> limousine at the critical time of 12:30).
JFK was fully aware of the threat level....he even outlined the next day
events have you even considered the JFK/LBJ arguement the night before and
JFK's own comments about being shot from a building made while in Texas?
>
> HAPPENSTANCE, not CONSPIRACY, led to the death of President John F.
> Kennedy.
You must have a twisted view of JFK's role as a leader of the free world,
if you feel he left everything to "HAPPENSTANCE".
>
> And happenstance cannot be controlled. Even if Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison,
> and Mark Lane think it can be.
The trip to Texas was as far away as any random event could be.
jko
Peter Fokes
On 28 Apr 2007 12:23:09 -0400, "James K. Olmstead"
<jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
From CHICAGO TRIBUNE of June 15, 1975:
<quote on>
"I spent four hours before the commission and my testimony is
quite clear," O'Donnell said in a phone interview. "I told them
exactly what I saw. I was in charge of the whole operation so I know
what happened. I arranged the whole trip.
"I testified under oath and I stand by it."
<quote off>
In this telephone interview, O'Donnell said he "arranged the whole
trip."
IS this an exaggeration or the truth?
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>HOW DEEP INTO THE KENNEDY "INNER CIRCLE" DO THE CONSPIRACISTS WANT TO
>GO IN ORDER TO PROP UP THEIR JFK ASSASSINATION "PLOT"?......
Didn't Oswald have a "plot" to kill JFK?
Did he fire by accident? lol
As for inner circle, one need go no further than Jackie.
She was a CT.
PF
Anthony Marsh
What is this, Strawman 101? You are not trying hard enough. You could
extend the theory by having Kenny O'Donnell kick out Stoughton so that
he could ride in the car behind the limo and then grab the AR-15 and
shoot Kennedy since he couldn't talk Hickey into doing it.
You might also point to other historical cases where very close friends
have killed each other. Brutus and Caesar.
> Now, I've read about a lot of different kinds of conspiracy
> theories....e.g., "The Mob did it", "Castro did it", "The CIA did it",
> "The Secret Service was involved", "The FBI and Dallas Police were
> involved", "LBJ had JFK killed", etc.
>
Well, obviously you can make fun of any conspiracy by making up a
laundry list of suspects. What you fail to understand, because you have
no historical perspective, is that all those groups overlap. Look at the
way many of them cooperated on the Castro plots.
> But I don't think I've ever heard a theory that has members deep within
> John F. Kennedy's "inner circle" (so to speak) being involved in a plot to
> kill their boss and very good friend (which would include JFK top aides
> like O'Donnell, Dave Powers, Larry O'Brien, Ted Sorensen, and McGeorge
> Bundy (among other aides and cabinet members).
>
We were being polite and waiting for you to invent it.
> And since the Dallas motorcade route (which ultimately took JFK right past
> Lee Harvey Oswald and the Texas School Book Depository on Elm Street) was
> contingent, naturally, on WHERE the luncheon was going to be held on
> November 22, 1963....this means, in effect, that Ken O'Donnell was the
There your theory breaks down, as all conspiracy theories do which harp
on the turn. Just the location of the luncheon does not determine all
the details of the route.
> FINAL WORD with respect to what would end up being a motorcade route that
> had to take the President to the Trade Mart, a location that O'Donnell put
> the final stamp of approval on (and, obviously, a location he could also
> have nixed, if he so desired; there were two other potential luncheon
> locations being considered prior to O'Donnell approving the Trade Mart on
> November 13 or 14).
>
> WCR; Page 31:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0028a.htm
>
> Almost every time I read portions of the excellent Warren Report, I find
> something in there that forces me to say to myself -- "Gee, I wonder how
> in the world THAT could be possible if JFK had really been killed as a
> result of a vast conspiracy of some sort?".
>
Conspiracy does not hinge on that turn. They could have gone down Elm
earlier and avoided that turn. They could have shot at the limousine on
Main Street.
> There are many small examples just like that O'Donnell one I pointed out
> above....i.e., innocent things that all led to the President being where
> he was at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63....and additional pieces of pure
> coincidence and happenstance that allowed Lee Harvey Oswald to be in the
> position he was in at 12:30 PM on that same November day, which allowed
> Oswald to pull off this crime in total solitude on the 6th Floor of his
> workplace with his own cheap Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
>
The Achilles Heel of the conspiracy was that Oswald's rifle was not up
to the task and necessitated taking the insurance shot from the grassy
knoll. That gave away the conspiracy.
> The assassination was an act of madness....to be sure. But it was also the
Are all acts of violence madness?
What about when the CIA plots assassinations? Is that always madness?
> act of pure garden-variety happenstance in just about every single aspect
> that I can think of. To believe otherwise is to believe in a sordid Oliver
> Stone-like morass of conspiracy complications and CT constructs that would
> have certainly involved not just a FEW select people (given the logistics,
> the guns, the shells, the bullets, the body of JFK, the witnesses, and a
> massive cover-up that would have HAD to involve literally HUNDREDS of
> people).
>
False construct. Just to accept that it was a conspiracy does not mean
that one has to believe whatever bizarre theory comes along.
> In short -- It was a RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME situation for Lee
> Harvey Oswald that enabled him to kill the President.
>
In short, it was the right place at the right time for the CIA to kill
the President to eliminate the only threat to its existence.
> And it was just the opposite for the unfortunate victim -- as JFK most
> certainly just happened to be in the WRONG place at the WRONG time on Elm
> Street -- and under sunny skies after a rainy morning too, which is yet
> another totally-random and completely-uncontrollable factor that also
> falls under the headings of "pure happenstance" and "luck" for assassin
> Lee Harvey Oswald (in that the bubbletop was not on the President's
> limousine at the critical time of 12:30).
>
President Kennedy was always vulnerable. He said that himself.
He was warned not to go to Dallas, but did anyway, knowing the risks.
David Von Pein
final decision that you just might find pretty interesting. If you get a
chance, your library might have "Silencing the Lone Assassin"....the story
is in there." <<<
I don't need a library, John. I have your book on my JFK shelf right now.
I'll have to look up the O'Donnell thing. I don't recall that in there.
Thanks.
David Von Pein
I just realized you might have been referring to "My Personal Library"
in your last post...not necessarily a big public building on Main
Street. ;)
(I hate moderated stuff. It's so delayed.) ;)
David Von Pein
"conspiracy plot"." <<<
Oh, for God sake. You don't REALLY believe this crap...do you?
David Von Pein
CT." <<<
Where did you get this idea?
"He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It
had to be some silly little Communist." -- Jackie Kennedy
David Von Pein
form." <<<
Nor did I infer that they were.
The assassination itself, of course, was the result of multiple hunks of
happenstance though. But where did I say the entire Texas trip was such?
And CTers almost certainly need Kenny O'Donnell to be in on some kind of
plot if the assassination had, in fact, been a conspiracy (of any
kind)...due to the logistics of the motorcade and where the luncheon was
going to be held.
And that places another CS&L nail into the coffin of "conspiracy" in
general (as far as I'm concerned at any rate).
David Von Pein
book "Silencing The Lone Assassin", it only further reinforces the idea
that the selection of the Trade Mart could not possibly have been
conspiratorial in any way at all.
Because if Governor Connally was twisting O'Donnell's arm to get the Trade
Mart approved as the luncheon site (which I think is very believable,
given the newness and attractive nature of the Trade Mart vs. the
less-attractive alternatives that were available), then there's no way
possible chance that such a "Connally push" for the Trade Mart was done to
promote some assassination conspiracy plot.
Or do some CTers want to actually believe the ultra-silly notion that John
Connally would deliberately want to place himself in harm's way, only
inches from the target of the assassins, when he would be travelling
through Dealey Plaza on the way to the Trade Mart?
Not to mention the fact that O'Donnell, TOO, was right smack-dab in the
middle of Elm Street (in the center of the Secret Service follow- up car)
when the bullets started flying!
Is it likely that even O'Donnell would have wanted to be THAT CLOSE to the
gunfire that HE, essentially, arranged (in a logistics sense) by selecting
the Trade Mart and, in effect, the route the cars would take to get there?
And the idea that BOTH Kenneth O'Donnell AND John Connally conspired in
some fashion to "control" some kind of conspiracy plot to kill the
President is just too silly an idea for even all of the lifelong CTers to
believe (or at it SHOULD be that silly to everybody's way of thinking).
James K. Olmstead
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message news:ett633h0o25tng6kc...@4ax.com...
In my opinion abit of exaggeration based on the real facts. He was
without doubt involved, that is not any issue in question. However I have
serious doubts he had the final word as presented by DVP. The process of
selecting the Trade Mart as the site for JFK's speech was not in any way
"HAPPENSTANCE" on the part of anyone associated with the site selection.
jko
Fat...@aol.com
> On 28 Apr 2007 00:43:55 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >HOW DEEP INTO THE KENNEDY "INNER CIRCLE" DO THE CONSPIRACISTS WANT TO
> >GO IN ORDER TO PROP UP THEIR JFK ASSASSINATION "PLOT"?......
>
> Didn't Oswald have a "plot" to kill JFK?
>
> Did he fire by accident? lol
>
> As for inner circle, one need go no further than Jackie.
>
> She was a CT.
>
> PF
Good point Peter. And besides that, they have her on film trying to
escape the scene of the crime.
Bill Clarke
Spiffy_one
> On 28 Apr 2007 00:43:55 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >HOW DEEP INTO THE KENNEDY "INNER CIRCLE" DO THE CONSPIRACISTS WANT TO
> >GO IN ORDER TO PROP UP THEIR JFK ASSASSINATION "PLOT"?......
>
> Didn't Oswald have a "plot" to kill JFK?
>
> Did he fire by accident? lol
>
> As for inner circle, one need go no further than Jackie.
>
> She was a CT.
>
> PF
It was also the right place and the right time for the consideration of
another actually firing the shots......to counter that you need to produce
the actual fingerprint lift made by Lt. Day on CE 139, that showed clear
latent images.....images btw offically discounted as belonging to Oswald
on 23 November by the FBI.
The Prints
by Gary Savage
Excerpted from JFK: First Day Evidence
My uncle Rusty [former Dallas Police Crime Lab Detective R. W. (Rusty)
Livingston] had worked for the Dallas police in 1963 when JFK was
assassinated and kept a personal file on much of the evidence gathered
in the Crime Lab investigation.
I wondered if his old briefcase, stored away in a closet for 30 years,
held any secrets. After almost 3 years of study, I've learned that
Rusty's first generation photos are possibly the most important
documentation to date which can now independently verify the
authenticity of the first day evidence gathered by the Dallas Police
Crime Lab.
GARY SAVAGE
Controversy has followed the Kennedy assassination investigation since
day one. Many events seemed to work in concert to produce such a
situation. However, when one examines the first day evidence as found
by the Dallas police and notes when and by whom it was found or
developed, a clear sequence of events will unfold. The evidence
contained in Rusty's briefcase provides a tremendous amount of
previously unpublished information. Many of the conspiratorial charges
leveled toward the Dallas police over the last 28 years may now be
laid to rest in a new viewing of the evidence collected first by the
Dallas Crime Lab.(1)
Rusty has copies of five photographs taken by Lieutenant Day made
directly from the original Dallas police negatives which show latent
fingerprints found on the trigger housing of the Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle from the sixth floor of the Depository. The fingerprints are
visible to the naked eye even before enhancement. Each of the
fingerprint photographs was taken with a light shining on the trigger
housing from different directions in order to produce various
contrasts of the fingerprints. This was an attempt by Lieutenant Day
to bring out as much of the ridge detail as possible in order to do a
(comparison for identification of whoever had previously handled the
rifle (the shooter). Fingerprint ridges are the lines running around
each finger from one side of the nail to the other. The raised ridges
are unique to every person.
The rifle was completely covered with black fingerprint powder by
Lieutenant Day in order to check for prints after he had returned to
the Crime Lab around dusk on the evening of the assassination.(2)
The fingerprint photographs which Rusty retained copies of should not
be confused with the palm print that Lieutenant Day found underneath
the barrel of the disassembled rifle. This evidence is in addition to
that. Many studying the assassination have confused the issue of what
prints were found on the rifle as well as where and who actually found
them.
Two different areas of prints were found on the rifle taken from the
sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository by Lieutenant Day. The
first area of fingerprints was located on the left side of the trigger
housing of the rifle as it was held in a forward position. A second
area containing a palm print was found on the underside of the
disassembled rifle barrel later in the evening of the assassination
after further examination by Lieutenant Day.
The latent fingerprints appeared immediately while the rifle was being
dusted on the sixth floor after it was located behind the stacks of
boxes. This action was captured on film by a news photographer who had
been allowed on the sixth floor by police. The fingerprints were then
photographed by Lieutenant Day after bringing the rifle back to the
Crime Lab Office and are the photographs which Rusty has copies of
today.
Crime Lab Detective Barnes was in the office at the time Lieutenant
Day photographed the trigger-housing fingerprints. He later compared
the trigger-housing photographs himself to a print card of Oswald and
told us that he found 3 points of identity. Pete told Rusty and me
that there was not a doubt in his mind that it was Oswald's
fingerprint.(3)
Verification of ownership of the rifle was initially developed by
Homicide Detective Gus Rose for Captain Fritz. On the afternoon of the
assassination, Gus was the first officer to speak to Oswald's wife,
Marina, about the rifle at the Paine home in Irving. He asked Marina
if her husband owned a rifle, and through the translation of Ruth
Paine into Russian, Marina responded, "Yes."
Gus said Marina then led them to a door in the kitchen which opened
into the garage and pointed out a blanket and told them in Russian
that "there is the rifle." Gus picked up the blanket, which was tied
with a piece of cord, but the blanket was empty.
Michael Paine arrived at the Paine residence during the time Gus and
other detectives were inside. Michael did not realize that the
officers were inside when he exclaimed while coming to the front door,
"I heard about the shooting, and I came to see if ya'll needed any
help." After a brief search of the residence, Gus brought Marina, her
two children, and Ruth Paine back to the Dallas Police Department and
turned them over to Homicide Captain Fritz.(4)
The Trigger-Housing Fingerprints
The fingerprint traces found on the side of the trigger housing of the
rifle were first photographed and then covered with cellophane tape by
Lieutenant Day to protect them for shipment to the FBI lab in
Washington, DC. Lieutenant Day had determined that the fingerprints
were too light to do a lift first and then photograph, so he
photographed the fingerprints before covering them with the tape. (5)
He also scratched his name on the stock of the rifle. When testifying
later in Washington to the Warren Commission, Lieutenant Day told
Rusty and me that he had some trouble finding his name because it was
very faint.(6)
As Lieutenant Day worked on the rifle during the evening, Chief Curry
came into the Crime Lab Office. Lieutenant Day told him at the time
that he had located a trace of a print on the trigger housing, but he
had not yet had a chance to do a comparison check with Oswald's print
card. He told Rusty and me that the Chief then went back down to the
third floor and told the newsmen that we had a print. He said that he
had not told Chief Curry that it was Oswald's print at that time.
Lieutenant Day had foreknowledge of the FBI wanting to get the rifle
from the Dallas Police before the order came to release it from his
own superiors. Earlier in the evening Forrest Sorrels, the local
Secret Service Agent, told Lieutenant Day, "The FBI is trying to get
that gun. I told him that was fine with me if somebody wanted to work
on it."
Lieutenant Day did not try to lift the fingerprints that he found on
the trigger housing of the rifle on November 22nd, 1963. He
photographed them only, and later did try to do a fingerprint
comparison from a print card of Oswald to determine if he had held the
rifle. Day stated to the Warren Commission that he could not exclude
all possibility as to whose prints they were, but he did say that he
thought that they were the right middle and right ring finger of
Oswald.(7)
Lieutenant Day recalled that, as he was beginning to dust the rest of
the rifle following the photographing of the trigger-housing prints,
Captain Doughty came in and told him to stop working on the rifle. He
said this was probably about 8:30 or 9:00 pm. A few minutes later,
Captain Fritz came into the Crime Lab Office and told him that Marina
Oswald was in his office and he needed some information about the gun.
He needed to know if Lee Oswald's prints were on the rifle. So
Lieutenant Day began to once again dust the Mannlicher Carcano and
soon located a palm print.
The Palm Print
The lift of the palm print from the rifle by Lieutenant Day has
sparked controversy over the years due to what has been labeled an
"interrupted chain of evidence." This misunderstanding developed from
the FBI's intrusion into the Dallas police investigation on the night
of the assassination. The rifle was taken away from Lieutenant Day by
the FBI before he had completed his analysis of it. At that time, the
FBI did not receive the palm print just developed by Lieutenant Day.
The print evidence stayed in the Crime Lab Office, and only the rifle
was taken by FBI Agent Drain.
Lieutenant Day told us that, after he had photographed the trigger-
housing prints and been stopped by Captain Doughty, he continued work
on the rifle under the order of Captain Fritz. It was at that time
that he noticed a print sticking out from the barrel. He said it was
obvious that part of it was under the wooden stock, so he took the
stock off and finished dusting the barrel. He said he could tell it
was part of a palm print, and so he proceeded with a lift.
He told Rusty and me that he could tell it wasn't put on there
recently by the way it took the fingerprint powder. He said what makes
a print of this sort is a lack of moisture, and this print had dried
out. He said he took a small camel hair brush and dipped it in
fingerprint powder and lightly brushed it. He then placed a strip of
2" scotch tape over the developed print and rubbed it down before
finally lifting the tape containing the print off and placed it on a
card. He said he then compared the lift to Oswald's palm print card
and was certain that it was Oswald's. He also said that after the
lift, he could still see an impression of the palm print left on the
barrel.
Next, Lieutenant Day had intended to photograph the area of the rifle
barrel from which the palm print lift had been made, but was again
interrupted by Captain Doughty at about 10:00 PM. He was told once
again to stop working on the gun and release it to FBI Agent Drain,
who would arrive about 11:30 PM. Lieutenant Day did not have time to
write any reports about what he had found, but did have time to
reassemble the rifle before Drain arrived.
Drain took the rifle from the Dallas police at midnight on the day of
the assassination and flew it to the FBI laboratory in Washington, DC.
(8) The palm print lift done earlier by Lieutenant Day had left too
little powder residue on the rifle barrel to be readily identified a
second time when the FBI received it in Washington. The FBI was not
aware that the palm print had been lifted at the time of their initial
examination of the rifle.
When the FBI received the rifle Saturday in Washington, a comparison
of the faint latent fingerprints found by Lieutenant Day on the
trigger housing of the rifle was attempted by Sebastian Latona, the
Supervisor of the Latent Fingerprint Section of the FBI's
Identification Division.(9) In Washington, Latona also photographed
the fingerprints on the trigger housing which had already been
photographed by Lieutenant Day in Dallas prior to his placing
cellophane tape over them.
Latona could not make a positive identification since the fingerprints
were extremely faint following the removal of the protective tape.
Lieutenant Day's trigger-housing photographs (which Rusty has first
generation copies of), made in the Dallas Crime Lab Office, were the
best quality photographs made of the fingerprints found on the side of
the trigger housing. The Dallas Crime Lab received the rifle back from
the FBI in a pasteboard box. It remained unopened in the evidence room
along with other physical evidence in the case. After a few days
passed, orders came to release all of the physical evidence to the
FBI. That is when the palm print was released for the first time to
the FBI.
Lieutenant Day said that a few days after all of the evidence was
turned over, an FBI Agent came to his house. He wanted to know when
Lieutenant Day had lifted the palm print included in the evidence they
had received because they had positively identified it themselves as
Oswald's palm print. Lieutenant Day got the impression from the Agent
that they thought they had missed it and he could "envision J. Edgar
Hoover going into orbit." He then informed the Agent that he had
lifted the palm print before releasing the gun on the night of the
assassination.
The FBI requested and received the remaining physical evidence from
the Dallas police on the Tuesday following the assassination, not
aware of the palm print's existence. To say the least, they were
surprised upon discovering the palm print included with the evidence.
By matching irregularities found on the rifle barrel to it, the FBI
later verified that the palm print lift that was delivered was, in
fact, genuine.
Lieutenant Day believed at the time that he had not completely
obliterated the palm print on the barrel after his lift and later
stated that he had pointed out the area of the palm print to FBI Agent
Drain when turning the rifle over to him. Drain, on the other hand,
did not recall being shown the palm print.
Rusty was standing, by as Lieutenant Day gave the rifle to Drain.
Rusty told me that Drain was in a hurry to leave and was distracted by
another FBI agent who was hurrying him to leave. According to Rusty,
"Drain was half listening to Lieutenant Day and half to the other FBI
man and evidently didn't get the word about the palm print at that
time."
A New Comparison of the Oswald Fingerprints
As stated earlier, Rusty has an original fingerprint card that he and
J. B. Hicks made of Oswald following his murder while his body lay in
the morgue at Parkland Hospital Sunday night. At that time, the Dallas
Police Department used a small fingerprint card which was manufactured
by the Faurot Company of New York. To use the card, an invisible
chemical was placed on the victim's fingers, and the card was then
rolled over them. The paper that the card was made from then reacted
to the chemical from the finger, producing a print on the card. This
type of card was typically used by detectives on deceased individuals
in order to avoid leaving ink stains on a body already prepared for
burial.
The reason Rusty and J. B. Hicks took a photograph and fingerprinted
Oswald in the morgue was actually a routine assignment for the Crime
Lab.
Rusty told me, "In fingerprinting, normally a lot of times we would
have to go to a mortuary where a body had already been prepared for
burial, and if we didn't get to it beforehand, we had to go to the
mortuary and roll a set of prints. We did roll some prints while
Oswald was in the morgue. He hadn't been prepared for burial."
Rusty and J. B. Hicks rolled at least three inkless cards and one
inked card of Oswald that Sunday night in the Parkland morgue. Rusty
retained one inkless card for his reference. The inked card was taken
back to the Identification Bureau and was checked the following day
against Oswald's prints taken the previous Friday. Rusty told me it
was typical that, when a detective back at the office verified that
the prints were indeed from the same person, the fingerprint card was
usually initialed by him, showing it had been done.
A firsthand witness with a fingerprint card in his possession helps to
verify the fact that the Oswald killed by Jack Ruby, buried in Fort
Worth, and later exhumed was the same Oswald who was in police custody
charged with the murder of two people. Along with all the other first
day evidence in Rusty's possession, this card establishes a chain of
evidence to conclude that simple truth. Also, the card could be used
to establish one more major fact, again for the sake of history: Do
the fingerprints found on the trigger housing of the rifle match the
fingerprints on the card possessed today by Rusty?
It was suggested at a second meeting with researcher Gary Shaw that
Rusty and I try to find someone locally who was trained in fingerprint
analysis to work with the evidence that we possessed. After doing some
checking, it didn't take long to locate our local expert. Getting to
know a dedicated professional who showed an unwavering and
businesslike approach in getting to the truth of the evidence, be it
condemning or not, was an exciting time for us.
Captain Jerry Powdrill is today a member of the West Monroe Police
Department and is a qualified fingerprint expert. He is often called
to testify in court over photographic and fingerprint analysis work
that he develops in his Crime Lab in West Monroe, Louisiana. He agreed
to help Rusty and me in trying to determine two basic points with our
evidence.
Before beginning, however, the first and main problem that Captain
Powdrill encountered was to deal with the fading over the years of the
fingerprint image on Rusty's card. The inkless card was not designed
to be a permanent storage method for fingerprints. The inked cards
were used for that. So here we were in 1992, left to deal with the
faded card from 1963.
I placed a call to the Faurot Company in New York and was told that
fading was indeed a problem with their cards over an extended period
of time. They told me that they did not know of a chemical or any
other process to enhance the card, and in fact asked me if I
discovered a way to enhance the card to let them know! I laughingly
told them, "Thanks a lot!" And so we were left to deal with the card
on our own.
In fluorescent light, the ridges of the individual prints on the card
are still visible to the naked eye; however, it quickly became
apparent that it was painstakingly difficult on the eyes to make a
point-by-point comparison between the prints. It was decided early on
to make a series of photographs of the card to try to enhance the
fingerprint images. Captain Powdrill was successful in bringing out
the images better by simply shining a light through the back of the
card, which was then photographed from the front. He then proceeded
with the comparison.
The first major point we asked Captain Powdrill to verify was that
Rusty's card matched the other known prints taken of Oswald at various
points in his life, such as his military ill, cards taken while he was
in police custody in New Orleans, Dallas, and so on. These prints have
been widely published in various books through the years, and it was a
simple matter for Captain Powdrill to verify the fact that Rusty's
card did indeed match the known fingerprint cards taken previously of
Oswald. Captain Powdrill stated that he is one hundred percent certain
that Rusty's card matches those known prints of Oswald. The claim
cannot be made that Oswald's prints have never been sufficiently
verified by a failure to maintain a sufficient chain of evidence, or
that the Dallas police somehow substituted someone else's prints on
Oswald's fingerprint card in an elaborate conspiracy.
The chain of evidence that Rusty possesses is firsthand. It starts and
stops with him. He owns the fingerprint card which he and J. B. Hicks
rolled themselves. How many other researchers have a fingerprint card
of Lee Harvey Oswald that they rolled themselves?
At some point in time all the nay-sayers can no longer sway opinion
when faced with firsthand evidence and firsthand witnesses to an
event. For all assassination devotees, check Warren Commission Volume
XIX, Batchelor Exhibit No.5002, page 18 under the CRIME SCENE SEARCH
SECTION list of employees for employee number seven, Richard W.
Livingston. Rusty was there. He worked in the Dallas Police Crime Lab.
He took the prints of Oswald himself in the Parkland morgue. He helped
develop stacks of photographs of the Kennedy investigation. He's held
on to a fingerprint card for twenty-eight years in a briefcase in his
closet. My family and I have known him our entire lives and know him
to be an extremely trustworthy and conscientious person.
Rusty has no reason to lie about what he did at the time of the
assassination. In fact, if it were not for my curiosity, all of this
evidence would still be sitting in his closet, probably destined never
to be seen. Rusty didn't realize that what he possessed mattered
anymore. If he did, I'm sure he would have shown it to the world
sooner. What he's doing now will hopefully be a contribution to those
striving for years to make sense of the awful events that happened so
long ago.
The second area pursued by Captain Powdrill was a comparison of
Rusty's fingerprint card to the five trigger-housing photographs taken
by Lieutenant Day. Keep in mind that Lieutenant Day found what he
thought to be the right middle and right ring fingerprints of Oswald,
and Captain Powdrill proceeded with this information as an
assumption.
After taking and developing an 8"x10" black and white photograph of
Rusty's fingerprint card, Captain Powdrill determined that the card,
although viewable, was painstakingly slow to use as a comparison print
source. I took it upon myself to order JFK Exhibit F-400 from the HSCA
files, which is an excellent photograph of Oswald's fingerprint card
taken in New Orleans on August 9th, 1963. Captain Powdrill then
compared Rusty's card to the JFK Exhibit print card photograph and
determined a one hundred percent match. This proved the man arrested
by the Dallas police was the same man arrested in New Orleans handing
out Fair Play for Cuba literature. Captain Powdrill then used the JFK
print card as a source for comparison with the old trigger-housing
photographs (still in almost perfect condition).
As stated in his conclusions, many similarities do exist. His
comparison focused on the right middle fingerprint of Oswald since it
was one of the clearest of the trigger-housing fingerprints. He
concluded,
Examination revealed that the right middle finger (#3 finger) of Lee
Harvey Oswald and partial latents seen in one of the black and white
photographs have the following similarities:
1) Both were ulnar loops (type of fingerprint pattern).
2) Both have a ridge count of 15 to 16 (friction ridge count from
delta to core).
3) Three (3) points of identity in the photographs matched three (3)
points in the known inked cards.
4) Three (3) other points of identity in the photographed latent had
very similar characteristics as in the known inked cards, but positive
points of identity could not be made.
Three points matched and three other points possibly matched. Most
states require seven to ten points of comparison for a conviction.
Captain Powdrill further stated,
To make positive identification through fingerprint comparison, a
certain number of points of identity' must be made. The number of
points of identity used for positive identification vary in the law
enforcement community, wherein some agencies may require a minimum
amount of six points and others may require as many as twelve.
Upon looking at the above-mentioned photographs and inked cards for
countless hours, I can say that sufficient evidence does not exist to
conclude that the latent print (in the photograph) is in fact that of
Lee Harvey Oswald; however, there are enough similarities to suggest
that it is possible they are one in the same.
Before taking Rusty's fingerprint card and trigger-housing photographs
to Captain Powdrill, in the back of my mind was the slight fear of
what it would mean if the prints did not match. Captain Powdrill told
me at the outset of his comparison that if he found any contradiction,
he would immediately stop his work. He found no contradictions. As he
stated in his conclusions concerning the right middle fingerprint
comparison, "Both were ulnar loops," and "Both had a ridge count of 15
to 16."
A total of six points of comparison in the fingerprint had been
examined closely by Captain Powdrill as being similar. Counting the
number of ridges between the ridge intersections or loops enables
examiners to make a positive identification of an individual. Due to
the lightness of the fingerprints on the trigger housing, a good ridge
count was difficult to see.
During the course of his examination, Captain Powdrill told me, if
someone in his department had brought the fingerprints to him that we
had and he had made a comparison check as he did for Rusty and me,
that he would tell his man to try his best to pursue the individual.
He had a "gut feeling" that the fingerprints were a match and would
pursue the suspect, trying to locate more evidence in order to get a
conviction.
Remember that Lieutenant Day had also examined these same fingerprints
and stated to the Warren Commission that "They appeared to be the
right middle and right ring finger of . . . Lee Harvey Oswald." The
examination by Captain Powdrill has concluded almost exactly what was
stated by Lieutenant Day 28 years ago. Also Captain Powdrill's
additional evidence he hypothetically would look for, as stated above,
could directly apply here. The palm print of Oswald was also found by
Lieutenant Day on the rifle!
The more research I did during the months after first interviewing
Rusty, the more I realized the importance of what he knew and
possessed for the sake of history. The determination to write about it
write about it and help all of those who have struggled over the years
to set the record straight became a conviction with me. I began to
devour the endless Warren Commission volumes and the House Select
Committee volumes dealing with the Kennedy assassination to try to
understand if what Rusty possessed was important. I came to the
conclusion that it was extremely important in order to help clarify
much of the controversy that has developed over the years.
Having the fingerprints on the rifle found at a murder scene where an
employee worked would convict an accused person in most courts.
Besides that fact, Oswald left the Depository Building after the
shooting. He made a stop at his rooming house and picked up his
revolver. This revolver was in his possession when he later was
arrested at the Texas Theater, making him the prime suspect in the
shooting of Officer J. D. Tippit (10) and eventually President
Kennedy. And finally, at least three backyard photographs were taken
of Oswald, probably by his wife Marina, holding the rifle found in the
Depository . . . extremely incriminating photographs.
Author's Note
As the book was headed to press, an independent examination of Rusty's
trigger-housing photos was done for the television program FRONTLINE
by Vincent J. Scalice, a Certified Latent Print Examiner. Scalice was
the fingerprint expert used by the HSCA in 1978. He stated in a letter
of conclusions to the author that "Based upon the results of this
examination and comparison, it is logical to assume that ALL of these
photographs, which exhibit varying degrees of contrast, were not
available for detailed comparison purposes in 1963 or 1978." Scalice
had not seen all of the photos possessed by Rusty before.
Instead of focusing on only the clearest photograph (detailed in this
chapter as performed by Captain Powdrill), Scalice used different
enhancement techniques with all of the photographs. He stated. "It was
necessary to utilize all of the photographs in order to carry out this
procedure as the photographs were taken at different exposures ranging
from light to medium and dark. As a result of the varying degrees of
contrast from photo to photo, it became possible to locate and
identify a sufficient amount of identifying characteristics on which
to base a positive identification. As a result of an exacting and
detailed examination and comparison under varying degrees of
magnification and illumination, I have reached the conclusion that the
developed latent prints are the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald's
right middle finger (#3) and right ring finger (#4) as they appear on
the inked fingerprint card [JFK Exhibit F-400 of the HSCA]."
A comparison was also done by Scalice of Rusty's fingerprint card to
JFK Exhibit F-400. He determined that "the inkless prints taken by
Rusty [and J. B. Hicks] were indeed those of Lee Harvey Oswald, as
they compared favorably with the inked impressions taken on 8-9-63."
Although the trigger-housing fingerprints were "extremely faint and
barely distinguishable" and "partially distorted," a positive
identification of Lee Harvey Oswald was made by Scalice. This is
perhaps the most important finding made since the time of the
assassination. It may now be stated as fact that the fingerprints of
Lee Harvey Oswald were left behind on the trigger housing of the rifle
found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository.(11)
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>>>> "As for inner circle, one need go no further than Jackie. She was a
>CT." <<<
>
>Where did you get this idea?
See previous thread on Google: "Jackie believed in conspiracy".
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>And CTers almost certainly need Kenny O'Donnell to be in on some kind of
>plot if the assassination had, in fact, been a conspiracy (of any
>kind)
You are incorrect again.
He most certainly did not need to be involved in any plot.
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>And the idea that BOTH Kenneth O'Donnell AND John Connally conspired in
>some fashion to "control" some kind of conspiracy plot to kill the
>President is just too silly an idea for even all of the lifelong CTers to
>believe (or at it SHOULD be that silly to everybody's way of thinking).
As far as I know, you are the only person that ever imagined such a
scenario.
I strongly suspect everyone would agree YOUR silly theory is "too
silly an idea" to even contemplate.
Yet you did for some bizarre reason!
Odd.
PF
Peter Fokes
<jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
The word "arranged" is rather nebulous.
In "arranging" the trip, one would naturally assume O'Donnell was
carrying out instructions.
David claims that if there was a conspiracy then O'Donnell must have
been involved because he helped arranged the trip.
Of course, that premise is nonsensical.
Would it have been impossible for Oswald to fire at JFK from another
building?
No.
PF
James K. Olmstead
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1177782883.5...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "There were at least 5 forces at work here.....each with their own
> "conspiracy plot"." <<<
>
> Oh, for God sake. You don't REALLY believe this crap...do you?
>
>
JBC was pulling the same conspiracy teat that JFK did in 1960, dealing
with the selection of the location for the speech. You can't ignore the
facts. You have the major forces behind the National Committee, the State
Committee, the City council, the Secret Service and the White House, each
wanting a location that suited their goals for the visit. That's 5 forces
involved in "conspiracy plots" dealing with the simple selection of where
JFK was going to speak and who was going to sit where.
If you don't want to believe the historical facts....that's too bad for
you, others see no reason not to.
jko
David Von Pein
And how many buildings did Oswald WORK IN, where he could blend in
with other workers as easy as pie and GET CLEARED BY THE COPS WITHIN
MINUTES OF SHOOTING THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE WORKED IN THAT BUILDING?
BTW, I agree with an earlier post re. Oswald being able to probably
still kill JFK even if the limo had gone straight down Main St.
instead of turning onto Elm.
But that undeniably would have been a more difficult shot for
sure...with the car moving faster (more than likely) and with Oswald
not having the built-in Elm St. advantage of having the car slowly
moving in a direct line away from his gun.
James K. Olmstead
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1177785591.7...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "Texas and the Dallas stop were not "random acts" in any shape or
> form." <<<
>
> Nor did I infer that they were.
Sure you did random acts are "HAPPENSTANCE"..... you present the
selection as 'HAPPENSTANCE", which is the random act view of history vs
the conspiracy view. You made a failed effort to down play any
relationship to conspiracy, by using the selection of the Trade Mart as a
"happenstance" or a "random act" of O'Donnell.
>
> The assassination itself, of course, was the result of multiple hunks of
> happenstance though. But where did I say the entire Texas trip was such?
Oh wow, that was inferred......but by me.....Dallas is in Texas right?
There were other stops in Texas as well right?
>
> And CTers almost certainly need Kenny O'Donnell to be in on some kind of
> plot if the assassination had, in fact, been a conspiracy (of any
> kind)...due to the logistics of the motorcade and where the luncheon was
> going to be held.
Even to consider O'Donnell is absurd at face value, he had no known
association with Oswald what so ever. But let me point out a perfect
example of suspect action within JFK's staff. Two men took charge of the
White House during the first minutes after the shooting, Patterson and
Hallett. One of these men has alot of explaining to do concerning
Oswald's past actions.....and it's not just running out and lowering the
flag to half mast.
>
> And that places another CS&L nail into the coffin of "conspiracy" in
> general (as far as I'm concerned at any rate).
First, no idea what CS&L stands for, second you can continue to ignore the
facts as you wish.
jko
>
>
David Von Pein
Oh brother.
HUGE 'EL-OH-EL'!!!
James K. Olmstead
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message news:b6b8335v66a28dpn5...@4ax.com...
Even if LHO fired the shots and acted alone, JFK was a target of
opportunity, that at the last minute could have to aborted for some
reason. Even JFK knew that where ever he went and what-ever he did he was
a target of opportunity.
BTW I'm about half way through Ultimate Sacrifice and some of the work
relates just to this factor of consideration. Knowing of Castro's threats
JFK's "staff" felt that JFK was "most likely" NOT TO BE a target in the
U.S.
US is a very interesting book. It follows some of my eariler
considerations of the Second Naval Armada, the planned second invasion of
Cuba.....which was discussed here years ago. I felt that the Cuban's
would land on 30 Nov and that the overthrow would follow once they secured
the beachead.
jko
>
>
>
David Von Pein
that point an accusing finger at John Connally?
Or were you merely berating me for my LUMPING of Mr. O'Donnell and Mr.
Connally TOGETHER within the same nutty proposed "CT theory that could
never have happened" (so to speak)?
James K. Olmstead
"Spiffy_one" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1177811988.9...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 12:46 pm, Peter Fokes<j...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>> On 28 Apr 2007 00:43:55 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >HOW DEEP INTO THE KENNEDY "INNER CIRCLE" DO THE CONSPIRACISTS WANT TO
>> >GO IN ORDER TO PROP UP THEIR JFK ASSASSINATION "PLOT"?......
>>
>> Didn't Oswald have a "plot" to kill JFK?
>>
>> Did he fire by accident? lol
>>
>> As for inner circle, one need go no further than Jackie.
>>
>> She was a CT.
>>
>> PF
>
> It was also the right place and the right time for the consideration of
> another actually firing the shots......to counter that you need to produce
> the actual fingerprint lift made by Lt. Day on CE 139, that showed clear
> latent images.....images btw offically discounted as belonging to Oswald
> on 23 November by the FBI.
>
> The Prints
>
> by Gary Savage
>
> Excerpted from JFK: First Day Evidence
>
All very interesting but do not address the issue raised. The FBI submitted
the barrel palmprint of Oswald's into evidence.......CE 637. That latent is not
contested as Oswald's. They witheld the triggerguard lift with more than 8
latent images developed, only two were considered as belonging to Oswald.
Why did they withold the evidence? I've made the effort over the last 5 years
for them to reverse the "no value" aspect of those two suspected Oswald prints
and they refuse.
So me where those mentioned in the article made the same effort to have the
FBI confirm the findings.
jko
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
Page 27 from the book "Farewell Jackie".
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1177783032.8...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Fat...@aol.com
Just trying to bring a bit of levity to a somber occasion. Sorry.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
This is fun. Can I play too?
Wasn't it Kenny O'Donnell who gave the order to remove the bubble top?
Anthony Marsh
> Peter, are you saying that you've never once heard of the theories
> that point an accusing finger at John Connally?
>
So, your new conspiracy is that Connally shot Kennedy and then shot
himself? How long have you been working on this brilliant theory?
> Or were you merely berating me for my LUMPING of Mr. O'Donnell and Mr.
> Connally TOGETHER within the same nutty proposed "CT theory that could
> never have happened" (so to speak)?
>
>
You need to be berated daily for making up strawman arguments instead of
studying the evidence in this case.
Exactly how long is it going to take you to read Bugliosi's book, maybe
20 years?
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1177788605.7...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:m7a8339r5tsbq6cdr...@4ax.com...
Anthony Marsh
That's what she said in public. In private she told friends that she
thought it was a conspiracy.
David Von Pein
trying to escape the scene of the crime."
DVP THEN SAID -- "Oh brother. HUGE 'EL-OH-EL'!!!"
BILL C. THEN SAID -- "Just trying to bring a bit of levity to a somber
occasion. Sorry."
DVP NOW UTTERS -- Okay, Bill. I kinda suspected that that post about
Jackie "trying to escape" was tongue-in-cheek. But around these here
parts, who the heck can know for sure what oddball thoughts might lurk
within the minds of R.P. McMurphy-like conspiracists? ;)
Like James O. thinking that "there were at least 5 forces at work
here....each with their own conspiracy plot".
Wild.
And crazy too.
David Von Pein
top?" <<<
Yep. Indeed it was.
And don't forget it was also Mr. O'Donnell who was chiefly responsible for
taking JFK's dead body out of Dallas and back to Washington.
In other words -- O'Donnell is firmly fixed in MANY different places where
conspiracy buffs NEED A CONSPIRATOR CONTROLLING STUFF!
And since it's obvious to even a blind rat that Mr. Kenneth P. O'Donnell
was NOT on any kind of Assassination Conspiracy Payroll on November 22,
1963, how do the CTers (who need an "inside plotter" doing things and
approving things that Mr. O'Donnell did and approved) explain the stuff
O'Donnell did as "conspiratorial"?
Did the REAL (non-O'Donnell) plotters just GET LUCKY when O'Donnell did
many things that greatly aided the conspiracy plot?
Things like:
1.) Selecting the Trade Mart as the Dallas luncheon site (with another
non-plotter's major assistance, John Connally's).
2.) Ordering the bubbletop to definitely be "off that car" if the rain
cleared in Dallas.
3.) And by practically bulldozing JFK's casket past Dr. Rose at Parkland
Memorial Hospital.
That's called HAPPENSTANCE...not CONSPIRACY. And those things were
controlled chiefly by someone who cannot possibly be painted as a
"plotter".
So, either the plotters just got unbelievably lucky ALL DAY LONG on
November 22nd....or: THERE WAS SIMPLY NO CONSPIRACY AT ALL IN DALLAS.
Mark VII.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>>>> "Wasn't it Kenny O'Donnell who gave the order to remove the bubble
>top?" <<<
>
>
>Yep. Indeed it was.
So what? If JFK didn't want the bubbletop removed, it wouldn't have
been removed. Period. Are you going to tell us some CTs think JFK was
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate himself?
>And don't forget it was also Mr. O'Donnell who was chiefly responsible for
>taking JFK's dead body out of Dallas and back to Washington.
Nonsense. Jackie could have said "Leave the body in Dallas and follow
the law." Did she? No?
Are you saying Jackie would have been ignored?
>In other words -- O'Donnell is firmly fixed in MANY different places where
>conspiracy buffs NEED A CONSPIRATOR CONTROLLING STUFF!
More nonsense. You make O'Donnell sound like a stick. "Firmly fixed".
LOL!
O'Donnell was not involved in a conspiracy.
The more you try to say other people think he was, the more silly your
theory becomes. Your premises are all wrong.
If JFK wanted the bubble top to stay on, it would have stayed on.
If Jackie wanted the body to remain in Dallas, it would have remained
in Dallas.
Are you now going to tell us that what JFK and JACKIE wanted was
unimportant.
Do you believe O'Donnell would just walk all over JFK and Jackie?
>And since it's obvious to even a blind rat that Mr. Kenneth P. O'Donnell
>was NOT on any kind of Assassination Conspiracy Payroll on November 22,
>1963,
Then why try to pretend some people think he was, or that a conspiracy
required his involvement when the facts are otherwise.
You are really on a wild tangent here.
Anyone can say another person believes something and then say that
they are silly for believing such a thing. Trouble is NO ONE believes
what you say they believe, nor is it necessary for them to believe
what you say they believe to believe in a conspiracy.
> how do the CTers (who need an "inside plotter" doing things and
>approving things that Mr. O'Donnell did and approved) explain the stuff
>O'Donnell did as "conspiratorial"?
More nonsense. No one needs O'Donnell to do anything. At any time his
"arrangements" could have been altered by JFK or Jackie.
Do you have a phobia over facts?
>Did the REAL (non-O'Donnell) plotters just GET LUCKY when O'Donnell did
>many things that greatly aided the conspiracy plot?
You mean when JFK wanted to bubbletop removed?
You mean when Jackie agreed to the moving of her husband's body?
>Things like:
>
>1.) Selecting the Trade Mart as the Dallas luncheon site (with another
>non-plotter's major assistance, John Connally's).
The Trade MArt has nothing to do with the conspiracy.
No one was assassinated at the Trade MArt? Earth to David VP!
Oswald could have assassinated the President from any building.
The SS did not inspect buildings. Security measures were not
particularly high in buildings along the route. It just so happened
the motorcade route went by the TSBD. Why bother with another
building?
Whew. I hope Bugliosi uses better logic than you are.
>
>2.) Ordering the bubbletop to definitely be "off that car" if the rain
>cleared in Dallas.
And if JFK didn't want it removed?
>
>3.) And by practically bulldozing JFK's casket past Dr. Rose at Parkland
>Memorial Hospital.
And if JAckie didn't want the body moved?
>
>That's called HAPPENSTANCE...not CONSPIRACY.
Another silly construct.
A conspiracy depends on certain factors occurring in ADVANCE of the
attempted assassination. If they don't, the assassination does not
occur.
You seem to think that "luck" does not play a part in a successful
conspiracy. It surely does. Just because some random events occur
that allow an assassination to occur does not mean those random events
were part of the planning of the conspiracy. IF a thunderstorm had
occurred and knocked out power and brought torrential rain, if a sink
hole had opened up on Houston, if the trip to Dallas had been delayed
by 8 hours , if if if ....
Your logic is faulty. IF O'Donnell had taken ill, would the bubbletop
still have been removed. Yes!
Thus O'Donnell was unimportant.
And those things were
>controlled chiefly by someone who cannot possibly be painted as a
>"plotter".
Nonsense.
You are looking in a rear view mirror and saying because things
happened a certain way then it would have been impossible for them to
happen another way with the same result.
Anyone who could achieve a passing grade in logic would understand the
errors in your argument. I'm convinced Bugliosi would never use such
silly arguments.
>
>So, either the plotters just got unbelievably lucky ALL DAY LONG on
>November 22nd....or: THERE WAS SIMPLY NO CONSPIRACY AT ALL IN DALLAS.
In other words, you are saying that if O'Donnell had not been present,
the entire trip to Dallas would have unfolded differently.
Prove it.
PF
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Wasn't it Kenny O'Donnell who gave the order to remove the bubble
> top?" <<<
>
>
> Yep. Indeed it was.
>
> And don't forget it was also Mr. O'Donnell who was chiefly responsible for
> taking JFK's dead body out of Dallas and back to Washington.
>
> In other words -- O'Donnell is firmly fixed in MANY different places where
> conspiracy buffs NEED A CONSPIRATOR CONTROLLING STUFF!
>
No, that is not true. I don't care how crazy you think some conspiracy
authors are, none would be crazy enough to claim that Ken O'Donnell was
involved.
> And since it's obvious to even a blind rat that Mr. Kenneth P. O'Donnell
> was NOT on any kind of Assassination Conspiracy Payroll on November 22,
> 1963, how do the CTers (who need an "inside plotter" doing things and
> approving things that Mr. O'Donnell did and approved) explain the stuff
> O'Donnell did as "conspiratorial"?
>
Doesn't matter. The fact is seen as conspiratorial regardless of who was
responsible. I.E. a changed motorcade route. Who changed it depends on
which particular villain that writer wants to accuse. But it is all silly.
> Did the REAL (non-O'Donnell) plotters just GET LUCKY when O'Donnell did
> many things that greatly aided the conspiracy plot?
>
Jeez, I hate to tell you this, but some assassins get lucky when someone
does something completely innocent. Jerry Parr walked behind Reagan
instead of to his left, so Hinckley had a clear shot. Someone sneezed
and his head going forward allowed a clear trajectory to the target.
> Things like:
>
> 1.) Selecting the Trade Mart as the Dallas luncheon site (with another
> non-plotter's major assistance, John Connally's).
>
Or someone, naming no names but we know who, could claim it was the SS
which made the decision.
> 2.) Ordering the bubbletop to definitely be "off that car" if the rain
> cleared in Dallas.
>
Which came directly from the President. So maybe JFK was in on the plot?
> 3.) And by practically bulldozing JFK's casket past Dr. Rose at Parkland
> Memorial Hospital.
>
Military, SS, or CIA? You know who blames the SS.
> That's called HAPPENSTANCE...not CONSPIRACY. And those things were
> controlled chiefly by someone who cannot possibly be painted as a
> "plotter".
>
Not everything that happens in life is happenstance. Was Watergate
happenstance? Was it just a third-rate burglary?
> So, either the plotters just got unbelievably lucky ALL DAY LONG on
> November 22nd....or: THERE WAS SIMPLY NO CONSPIRACY AT ALL IN DALLAS.
>
The plotter got unlucky and that is what revealed the fact that it was a
conspiracy. If they missed there they could try elsewhere.
> Mark VII.
>
>
Mike
> On 30 Apr 2007 00:33:26 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> "Wasn't it Kenny O'Donnell who gave the order to remove the bubble
>>top?" <<<
>>
>>
>>Yep. Indeed it was.
>
> So what? If JFK didn't want the bubbletop removed, it wouldn't have
> been removed. Period. Are you going to tell us some CTs think JFK was
> involved in a conspiracy to assassinate himself?
>
Only in the world of Red Dwarf!<g>
Mike :-)
Anthony Marsh
> David forgets to note that JBC was "Supposed" to ride with LBJ.
>
>
Protocol overrules wishes. Protocol dictates that the Governor ride with
the President. That's why they added the jump seats to the limo, for the
dignitaries to ride with the President. And their wives.
David Von Pein
conspiracy to assassinate himself?" <<<
Guess so. After all, this silly book was published wasn't it?....
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0786718323
>>> "Nonsense. Jackie could have said "Leave the body in Dallas and follow
the law." Did she? No?" <<<
And Jackie didn't say "Take JFK to Walter Reed" either, did she? So the CT
after-the-shooting at-the-autopsy cover-up plot that many, many CTers
advocate requires Jacqueline Kennedy to be involved too.
Or: it requires another layer of PURE LUCK for those amazing plotters.
Lookie..."They" just GOT LUCKY once again when Jackie said "Bethesda".
Yes, JFK was a Navy man, so the plotters could have guessed right on this
one fairly easily...but how do they "control" Jackie AND O'Donnell AND
O'Brien AND Kilduff AND on and on?
How do "they" control all of these people who could have nixed a
Washington autopsy at any point in time?
They just GOT LUCKY (again), right?
Like I said...the horoscope for "Assassination Plotters" revealed this on
the morning of November 22, 1963:
TODAY IS YOUR LUCKIEST OF LUCKY DAYS! GO FOR IT! NOTHING CAN STOP YOU! NOT
EVEN JACKIE! NOT THE PRESIDENT'S DEVOTED STAFF! NOT JOHN CONNALLY! NOBODY!
KILL THE PRESIDENT AND A PATSY WILL AUTOMATICALLY FALL INTO PERFECT PLACE!
>>> "More nonsense." <<<
You're picking up Marsh's habits. The "N" word is his favorite too.
>>> "O'Donnell was not involved in a conspiracy. The more you try to say
other people think he was, the more silly your theory becomes. Your
premises are all wrong." <<<
You still don't get my main point at all, do you?
Of course O'Donnell was not part of any conspiracy. Which means, by
default, that if the general type of conspiracy exists that many CTers
advocate, the plotters were the luckiest bums since Lucky Lindy in '27.
>>> "If JFK wanted the bubble top to stay on, it would have stayed on. If
Jackie wanted the body to remain in Dallas, it would have remained in
Dallas." <<<
Right. Which also indicates the whole day of Nov. 22 revolved around PURE
HAPPENSTANCE, CHANCE, AND REGULAR ORDINARY-LIKE DECISIONS.
I.E.: Nothing is being "controlled" by any evil forces on Nov. 22. Jackie,
O'Donnell, O'Brien, and Connally prove that to be the case.
Are you starting to get the whole drift of my "Happenstance" thread? Or
should I get Umbrella Man to beat it into you? ;) (Just a little joke,
.John. No need for a refusal mail here, okay?) ;)
>>> "Are you now going to tell us that what JFK and JACKIE wanted was
unimportant." <<<
WTF?
I can only shrug. I think I will....
~shrug~
>>> "Do you believe O'Donnell would just walk all over JFK and Jackie?"
<<<
Yet another ~shrug~ of bewilderment.
I guess you still really DON'T understand my main underlying point, do
you?
Should I give up yet...or continue trying to talk to this brick wall named
Peter F.?
>>> "Then why try to pretend some people think he was, or that a
conspiracy required his involvement when the facts are otherwise." <<<
If anyone is to believe anything in Oliver Stone's movie, or if they
believe anything uttered by Jim Garrison, then they have no choice but to
believe one of the following two things:
1.) Ken O'Donnell and John Connally and Jackie Kennedy must have been part
of the plot too.
Or:
2.) The plotters who were orchestrating the "Let's Kill JFK And Blame
Everything On Oswald" plot were the luckiest assholes on the planet when
the three above-named individuals did things that made that patsy plot
succeed to absolute perfection.
>>> "You are really on a wild tangent here." <<<
Another ~shrug~ needed here I see.
>>> "Trouble is NO ONE believes what you say they believe, nor is it
necessary for them to believe what you say they believe to believe in a
conspiracy." <<<
Depends on how deep into Absurdville a CTer wants to go. If a CTer is in
bed with Garrison or Groden or Stone (and a whole bunch of them are), then
YES such a CTer must believe in one of the two options I offered above.
If you're in a CT camp of a lesser-kooky nature, then you're correct. (But
not by much really.)
But when I talk about "CTers", I have a habit of "aiming" my comments at
the more extreme kooks within that faction. It's a habit that's hard to
break.
And since gobs of people I've talked with DO sincerely believe that Oliver
Stone's "Triangulation Of Crossfire" craziness is the Gospel re. the
shooting scenario in Dealey Plaza...I tend, therefore, to aim my comments
at them more than the conspiracists who possess the following mindset --
"Oswald Was A Shooter, But I Still Think There Was A Conspiracy Even
Though I Have No Bullets Or Other Hard Evidence To Support That Belief".
>>> "More nonsense. No one needs O'Donnell to do anything. At any time his
"arrangements" could have been altered by JFK or Jackie." <<<
LOL. Which is proving my MAIN POINT all the more, Pete.
Thanks.
>>> "Do you have a phobia over facts?" <<<
And do you have a phobia when it comes to common sense?
>>> "You mean when JFK wanted {the} bubbletop removed? You mean when
Jackie agreed to the moving of her husband's body?" <<<
More proving of my main "Happenstance, Not Conspiracy" point.
Thanks again.
>>> "The Trade Mart has nothing to do with the conspiracy." <<<
Sure it does. (Per Stone's "Triangulation on Elm St." crap anyway.)
If the limo wasn't headed to the Trade Mart, that Elm St. turn would never
have occurred...and Stone's/Garrison's whole PRE-PLANNED "Blame It On The
Patsy In The TSBD" and "Triangulation" theories are shot down right there.
Garrison/Stone (and those who prop them up) definitely NEED the luncheon
site to be at the Trade Mart. Because they need the car on Elm. Or else
the shooting is much more difficult.
>>> "Oswald could have assassinated the President from any building." <<<
And could he have cleared himself as an employee from any building, too?
>>> "I hope Bugliosi uses better logic than you are." <<<
Do you really think that VB WON'T be mentioning something very similar in
nature to what I've been saying here re. "Pure Chance" and "Happenstance"
and "Those Plotters Sure As Hell Got Lucky", etc.?
If he doesn't mention a lot of stuff like that I'll be severely
disappointed...because such arguments positively need to be made (with
zeal). And such arguments, all by themselves, go a long way toward
debunking many of the conspiracy theories that have been offered up since
'63.
It seems as though you, Peter, are using CTer logic here. And that's
ALWAYS a fatal mistake.
In short -- Oswald shot the President mainly BECAUSE THE PERFECT
OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED HIM...FROM HIS OWN WORKPLACE (where he could
blend in with other employees and BE CLEARED AS AN EMPLOYEE, which did
occur).
The President probably lives past November 22nd if Oswald had not been
hired by Roy Truly on October 15th, 1963.
YMMV re. that last declaration. And I will readily admit that's just my
own opinion. But since I know that Oswald was not suicidal in any way (he
proved that several times on 11/22; mainly on Tenth St. when he
encountered Tippit), I have my doubts that he would have attempted to kill
the President if he had not been employed in a tall building which he
knew, days in advance, would overlook the motorcade route.
Again, allow me to repeat the proverbial "YMMV" here.
>>> "And if JFK didn't want it {bubbletop} removed?" <<<
Then he probably lives to see his 47th birthday. Or at least he's got a
much better chance of reaching it anyway. Oswald might very well have shot
through the bubbletop though; but it might have deflected a fatal shot;
nobody can know.
Plus: I also wonder if Oswald could have possibly known for certain
whether the bubbletop was bulletproof or not. Knowledge of that important
detail re. the car's bubbletop roof would probably have affected his
decision to shoot, if he had seen the bubbletop on the car as it
approached the TSBD that day. If he thought the bubbletop was bulletproof
(which it wasn't of course), there would obviously be no point in shooting
at all.
>>> "And if Jackie didn't want the body moved?" <<<
Then David Lifton has to reconfigure his 700+ pages of body-stealing
idiocy. And a lot of other CTers must alter their "cover-up plots" too.
Because many CTers certainly have Humes, Finck, and Boswell (and other
military bigshots) up to no good at Bethesda.
No worries though....those same CTers can just accuse Dr. Rose of
phonying-up the autopsy, right?
Right.
>>> "A conspiracy depends on certain factors occurring in ADVANCE of the
attempted assassination. If they don't, the assassination does not occur."
<<<
Once again, you're proving my main point for me. Some of the important "IN
ADVANCE" stuff was done by people like Connally and O'Donnell. And since
nobody paints them as plotters...where do the CTers go from there?
Do you get it now?
>>> "Nonsense." <<<
Great. Marsh II.
>>> "You are looking in a rear view mirror and saying because things
happened a certain way then it would have been impossible for them to
happen another way with the same result." <<<
LOL. Sounds more like you're talking about the patsy-loving CTers here.
>>> "In other words, you are saying that if O'Donnell had not been
present, the entire trip to Dallas would have unfolded differently." <<<
I'm saying that O'Donnell's decisions happened in a PERFECT way for the
so-called "plotters" who wanted things to happen in a certain way....the
exact way O'Donnell arranged them (or at least he was deeply involved in
making them happen and approving them, etc.).
And since O'Donnell was positively NOT A CONSPIRATOR ON NOV. 22....
Oh, what's the use.
Peter has put up his "I'M A BRICK WALL" sign today. So I guess I'll just
have to go around it and avoid it for now.
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:m5SdnZs4wMCnm6vb...@comcast.com...
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Are you going to tell us some CTs think JFK was involved in a
> conspiracy to assassinate himself?" <<<
>
> Guess so. After all, this silly book was published wasn't it?....
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0786718323
>
>
>>>> "Nonsense. Jackie could have said "Leave the body in Dallas and follow
> the law." Did she? No?" <<<
>
> And Jackie didn't say "Take JFK to Walter Reed" either, did she? So the CT
> after-the-shooting at-the-autopsy cover-up plot that many, many CTers
> advocate requires Jacqueline Kennedy to be involved too.
>
No. Any military hospital would do. How many Generals do you know in the
Navy? It was a General at Bethesda who told the doctors what to do and
what not to do.
> Or: it requires another layer of PURE LUCK for those amazing plotters.
> Lookie..."They" just GOT LUCKY once again when Jackie said "Bethesda".
>
> Yes, JFK was a Navy man, so the plotters could have guessed right on this
> one fairly easily...but how do they "control" Jackie AND O'Donnell AND
> O'Brien AND Kilduff AND on and on?
>
By military orders.
> How do "they" control all of these people who could have nixed a
> Washington autopsy at any point in time?
>
> They just GOT LUCKY (again), right?
>
> Like I said...the horoscope for "Assassination Plotters" revealed this on
> the morning of November 22, 1963:
>
> TODAY IS YOUR LUCKIEST OF LUCKY DAYS! GO FOR IT! NOTHING CAN STOP YOU! NOT
> EVEN JACKIE! NOT THE PRESIDENT'S DEVOTED STAFF! NOT JOHN CONNALLY! NOBODY!
> KILL THE PRESIDENT AND A PATSY WILL AUTOMATICALLY FALL INTO PERFECT PLACE!
>
President Kennedy was warned not to go to Dallas by several people.
>
>>>> "More nonsense." <<<
>
> You're picking up Marsh's habits. The "N" word is his favorite too.
>
>
>>>> "O'Donnell was not involved in a conspiracy. The more you try to say
> other people think he was, the more silly your theory becomes. Your
> premises are all wrong." <<<
>
> You still don't get my main point at all, do you?
>
> Of course O'Donnell was not part of any conspiracy. Which means, by
> default, that if the general type of conspiracy exists that many CTers
> advocate, the plotters were the luckiest bums since Lucky Lindy in '27.
>
Not 100% lucky.
>
>>>> "If JFK wanted the bubble top to stay on, it would have stayed on. If
> Jackie wanted the body to remain in Dallas, it would have remained in
> Dallas." <<<
>
> Right. Which also indicates the whole day of Nov. 22 revolved around PURE
> HAPPENSTANCE, CHANCE, AND REGULAR ORDINARY-LIKE DECISIONS.
>
> I.E.: Nothing is being "controlled" by any evil forces on Nov. 22. Jackie,
> O'Donnell, O'Brien, and Connally prove that to be the case.
>
> Are you starting to get the whole drift of my "Happenstance" thread? Or
> should I get Umbrella Man to beat it into you? ;) (Just a little joke,
> .John. No need for a refusal mail here, okay?) ;)
>
>
>>>> "Are you now going to tell us that what JFK and JACKIE wanted was
> unimportant." <<<
>
> WTF?
>
> I can only shrug. I think I will....
>
> ~shrug~
>
>
>>>> "Do you believe O'Donnell would just walk all over JFK and Jackie?"
> <<<
>
> Yet another ~shrug~ of bewilderment.
>
> I guess you still really DON'T understand my main underlying point, do
> you?
>
WE get your point. WE understand your agenda here.
> Should I give up yet...or continue trying to talk to this brick wall named
> Peter F.?
>
>
>>>> "Then why try to pretend some people think he was, or that a
> conspiracy required his involvement when the facts are otherwise." <<<
>
> If anyone is to believe anything in Oliver Stone's movie, or if they
> believe anything uttered by Jim Garrison, then they have no choice but to
> believe one of the following two things:
>
Totally illogical.
> 1.) Ken O'Donnell and John Connally and Jackie Kennedy must have been part
> of the plot too.
>
> Or:
>
> 2.) The plotters who were orchestrating the "Let's Kill JFK And Blame
> Everything On Oswald" plot were the luckiest assholes on the planet when
> the three above-named individuals did things that made that patsy plot
> succeed to absolute perfection.
>
>
>>>> "You are really on a wild tangent here." <<<
>
> Another ~shrug~ needed here I see.
>
>>>> "Trouble is NO ONE believes what you say they believe, nor is it
> necessary for them to believe what you say they believe to believe in a
> conspiracy." <<<
>
> Depends on how deep into Absurdville a CTer wants to go. If a CTer is in
> bed with Garrison or Groden or Stone (and a whole bunch of them are), then
> YES such a CTer must believe in one of the two options I offered above.
>
Never.
> If you're in a CT camp of a lesser-kooky nature, then you're correct. (But
> not by much really.)
>
Oh, so YOU believe in non-kooky conspiracy theories?
Such as?
> But when I talk about "CTers", I have a habit of "aiming" my comments at
> the more extreme kooks within that faction. It's a habit that's hard to
> break.
>
That's not your only bad habit.
> And since gobs of people I've talked with DO sincerely believe that Oliver
> Stone's "Triangulation Of Crossfire" craziness is the Gospel re. the
> shooting scenario in Dealey Plaza...I tend, therefore, to aim my comments
> at them more than the conspiracists who possess the following mindset --
> "Oswald Was A Shooter, But I Still Think There Was A Conspiracy Even
> Though I Have No Bullets Or Other Hard Evidence To Support That Belief".
>
>
>>>> "More nonsense. No one needs O'Donnell to do anything. At any time his
> "arrangements" could have been altered by JFK or Jackie." <<<
>
> LOL. Which is proving my MAIN POINT all the more, Pete.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>>>> "Do you have a phobia over facts?" <<<
>
> And do you have a phobia when it comes to common sense?
>
>
>>>> "You mean when JFK wanted {the} bubbletop removed? You mean when
> Jackie agreed to the moving of her husband's body?" <<<
>
> More proving of my main "Happenstance, Not Conspiracy" point.
>
> Thanks again.
>
>
>>>> "The Trade Mart has nothing to do with the conspiracy." <<<
>
> Sure it does. (Per Stone's "Triangulation on Elm St." crap anyway.)
>
> If the limo wasn't headed to the Trade Mart, that Elm St. turn would never
> have occurred...and Stone's/Garrison's whole PRE-PLANNED "Blame It On The
> Patsy In The TSBD" and "Triangulation" theories are shot down right there.
>
You know nothing about the motorcade route planning. Most motorcades
went down Main Street.
> Garrison/Stone (and those who prop them up) definitely NEED the luncheon
> site to be at the Trade Mart. Because they need the car on Elm. Or else
> the shooting is much more difficult.
>
So what if it is difficult. Just move the shooters. Duh!
>
>>>> "Oswald could have assassinated the President from any building." <<<
>
> And could he have cleared himself as an employee from any building, too?
>
He did not clear himself.
>
>
>>>> "I hope Bugliosi uses better logic than you are." <<<
>
>
> Do you really think that VB WON'T be mentioning something very similar in
> nature to what I've been saying here re. "Pure Chance" and "Happenstance"
> and "Those Plotters Sure As Hell Got Lucky", etc.?
>
> If he doesn't mention a lot of stuff like that I'll be severely
> disappointed...because such arguments positively need to be made (with
> zeal). And such arguments, all by themselves, go a long way toward
> debunking many of the conspiracy theories that have been offered up since
> '63.
>
> It seems as though you, Peter, are using CTer logic here. And that's
> ALWAYS a fatal mistake.
>
> In short -- Oswald shot the President mainly BECAUSE THE PERFECT
> OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED HIM...FROM HIS OWN WORKPLACE (where he could
> blend in with other employees and BE CLEARED AS AN EMPLOYEE, which did
> occur).
>
What are the odds that the President is going to ride past your office
building?
> The President probably lives past November 22nd if Oswald had not been
> hired by Roy Truly on October 15th, 1963.
>
> YMMV re. that last declaration. And I will readily admit that's just my
> own opinion. But since I know that Oswald was not suicidal in any way (he
> proved that several times on 11/22; mainly on Tenth St. when he
> encountered Tippit), I have my doubts that he would have attempted to kill
> the President if he had not been employed in a tall building which he
> knew, days in advance, would overlook the motorcade route.
>
> Again, allow me to repeat the proverbial "YMMV" here.
>
>
>
>>>> "And if JFK didn't want it {bubbletop} removed?" <<<
>
> Then he probably lives to see his 47th birthday. Or at least he's got a
> much better chance of reaching it anyway. Oswald might very well have shot
> through the bubbletop though; but it might have deflected a fatal shot;
> nobody can know.
>
> Plus: I also wonder if Oswald could have possibly known for certain
> whether the bubbletop was bulletproof or not. Knowledge of that important
> detail re. the car's bubbletop roof would probably have affected his
> decision to shoot, if he had seen the bubbletop on the car as it
> approached the TSBD that day. If he thought the bubbletop was bulletproof
> (which it wasn't of course), there would obviously be no point in shooting
> at all.
>
The TSBD shooter would still take the shots. The bubble top was not
bullet proof. If you think that thin layer of plastic is going to
protect someone, want to volunteer for a test?
>
>>>> "And if Jackie didn't want the body moved?" <<<
>
> Then David Lifton has to reconfigure his 700+ pages of body-stealing
> idiocy. And a lot of other CTers must alter their "cover-up plots" too.
> Because many CTers certainly have Humes, Finck, and Boswell (and other
> military bigshots) up to no good at Bethesda.
>
Please don't talk to us about Lifton.
> No worries though....those same CTers can just accuse Dr. Rose of
> phonying-up the autopsy, right?
>
> Right.
>
>
>
>>>> "A conspiracy depends on certain factors occurring in ADVANCE of the
> attempted assassination. If they don't, the assassination does not occur."
> <<<
>
> Once again, you're proving my main point for me. Some of the important "IN
> ADVANCE" stuff was done by people like Connally and O'Donnell. And since
> nobody paints them as plotters...where do the CTers go from there?
>
> Do you get it now?
>
We got it the moment you waltzed into this newsgroup. We've seen
hundreds of your type.
>
>
>>>> "Nonsense." <<<
>
> Great. Marsh II.
>
>>>> "You are looking in a rear view mirror and saying because things
> happened a certain way then it would have been impossible for them to
> happen another way with the same result." <<<
>
> LOL. Sounds more like you're talking about the patsy-loving CTers here.
>
Got news for you. Some conspiracy believers think Oswald was involved.
>
>>>> "In other words, you are saying that if O'Donnell had not been
> present, the entire trip to Dallas would have unfolded differently." <<<
>
> I'm saying that O'Donnell's decisions happened in a PERFECT way for the
> so-called "plotters" who wanted things to happen in a certain way....the
> exact way O'Donnell arranged them (or at least he was deeply involved in
> making them happen and approving them, etc.).
>
Ken O'Donnell made very few decisions on his own and they did not
directly affect security.
The worst thing he did was kick out Stoughton.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>>> "Wasn't it Kenny O'Donnell who gave the order to remove the bubble
>top?" <<<
>>Yep. Indeed it was.
>So what? If JFK didn't want the bubbletop removed, it wouldn't have
>been removed. Period. Are you going to tell us some CTs think JFK was
>involved in a conspiracy to assassinate himself?
To which David replied:
****
Guess so. After all, this silly book was published wasn't it?....
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0786718323
*****
David VP refers us to Ultimate Sacrifice. Lol.
You are good at the old duck and cover.
You are unable to defend your fairy tale so you change the subject.
You were arguing that because O'Donnell ordered the bubbletop removed
(as well as some other things i.e. Trade Mart location, etc.) then
some CTs must believe O'Donnell was involved in the conspiracy.
Connally too!
Make no mistake. I understand your goofy argument perfectly. I
understand you are claiming that IF certain things are true then some
CTS must believe this or that. I understand you don't believe
O'Donnell or Connally was involved. Nor do I, and references to "brick
walls" are just a ruse to avoid ... ah, being embarrassed by your own
faulty logic.
Be that as it may, let me try to lift the darkness that enshrouds your
understanding ...
David's fairy tale:
O'Donnell + ordered bubbletop removed = CT must believe O'Donnell
involved in conspiracy.
Fine.
When confronted with the fact it was JFK's choice to remove the
bubbletop and O'Donnell's job to order the removal, you run for cover
because your fairy tale falls apart.
No CT needs to believe O'Donnell was involved in a conspiracy because
O'Donnell ordered the bubbletop removed or not.
But your argument, repeated endlessly, is that indeed if O'Donnell
ordered the bubbletop removed, then those CTs who do believe the
bubbletop was removed as part of the conspiracy planning must also
believe O'Donnell was involved in the conspiracy.
Thus you duck and cover when you are forced to confront the truth:
There is no need for any CT to believe O'Donnell was involved in the
conspiracy even if O'Donnell ordered the bubbletop removed.
If the bubbletop had not been removed on this sunny day in Dallas then
the assassination might or might not have occurred. We don't know.
Perhaps Oswald would not have shot at JFK.
IF the assassination was a conspiracy with careful planning then it is
likely the assassination would not have taken place the way it did if
the bubbletop was not removed WHETHER OR NOT O'DONNELL WAS EVEN
PRESENT IN DALLAS THAT DAY. (CAPS for your benefit because I noticed
you like them).
I have observed this problem in your attempted thinking about the case
in prior responses.
Your logic is faulty.
And when confronted with a rational argument that transforms your
proofs into dust, you run, resort to rhetoric, snip and cut, use caps,
or claim the other person simply doesn't understand you ....
The one thing you don't do: Admit your argument was invalid and flawed
to begin with ....
Excuse my brief reply, but no sense dismantling the rest of your
nonsense which follows the same pattern of obfuscation, rhetoric,
snipping, deleting, and non-response when cornered.
Not surprising responses from you when one considers how much time you
devote to concocting such responses in the first place!
The only "brick wall" is the one David fell off ....
In this case though, unlike Humpty Dumpty, David VP hasn't even
figured out he's fallen off the wall yet!
Got to scramble .....
PF
James K. Olmstead
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1177970982.7...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Right. Which also indicates the whole day of Nov. 22 revolved around PURE
> HAPPENSTANCE, CHANCE, AND REGULAR ORDINARY-LIKE DECISIONS.
The above shows just how you hate the word "conspiracy" so much that you
ignore the plots playing out that day. If you ignore the "plots" you have
a very limited view of the historical political actions that took place.
>
>>>> "Do you have a phobia over facts?" <<<
>
> And do you have a phobia when it comes to common sense?
It has been apparent in more then one thread that there is a phobia
dealing with facts.
>
>>>> "You mean when JFK wanted {the} bubbletop removed? You mean when
> Jackie agreed to the moving of her husband's body?" <<<
At last.....two examples of "happenstance" events of the day.
>>>> "The Trade Mart has nothing to do with the conspiracy." <<<
>
> Sure it does. (Per Stone's "Triangulation on Elm St." crap anyway.)
So, you have no problem with the evaluation of "crap"....but refuse to
evaluate facts.
The Trade Mart was not located where the shots were fired....so beyond DP
being along the route to the Trade Mart....it has nothing to do with
"Trianglulation on Elm St."
You forget....demonstrations against JFK took place at the Trade Mart, one
Cuban was detained there by police. Just because actions took place at DP
does not mean other actions against JFK were not planned for other
locations in Dallas. There were so many considerations of actions against
JFK that the city had to issue warnings before the visit.
>
> Do you really think that VB WON'T be mentioning something very similar in
> nature to what I've been saying here re. "Pure Chance" and "Happenstance"
> and "Those Plotters Sure As Hell Got Lucky", etc.?
>
> If he doesn't mention a lot of stuff like that I'll be severely
> disappointed...because such arguments positively need to be made (with
> zeal). And such arguments, all by themselves, go a long way toward
> debunking many of the conspiracy theories that have been offered up since
> '63.
>
If he spent a great deal of time on views expressed pre ARRB he wasted a
great deal of the readers time.
>
> The President probably lives past November 22nd if Oswald had not been
> hired by Roy Truly on October 15th, 1963.
>
Why stop at Truly......JFK would never have been shot as a result of any
action associated with Oswald, had people like RFK and Cmdr Hallett acted
on Oswald when they were required to do so by law between 1959 and 1962.
Why pick on Truly over RFK?
> Once again, you're proving my main point for me. Some of the important "IN
> ADVANCE" stuff was done by people like Connally and O'Donnell. And since
> nobody paints them as plotters...where do the CTers go from there?
>
> Do you get it now?
They go where they feel the actions led, dealing directly with individuals
and actions that actually relate to the actions of Oswald. You've
selectively picked individuals, with no direct link or with limited
consideration, toward the events and try to show that there was no
conspiracy associated with the assassination, because of the actions of a
few selected individuals.......not even considered, in previous CT
presented by wacko CT's. You've made up this concern and try to foster it
as some sort of foundation for a mythical mainline CT.....when even the
wacko's don't.
>
> I'm saying that O'Donnell's decisions happened in a PERFECT way for the
> so-called "plotters" who wanted things to happen in a certain way....the
> exact way O'Donnell arranged them (or at least he was deeply involved in
> making them happen and approving them, etc.).
If there is no direct association with O'Donnell's actions and the actions
of Oswald, there is no major consideration of him in any plot, beyond
understanding the events "indirectly related" to the assassination. You
picked a poor example for a mythical plot.
I've noticed that you have added a qualifier now with your add on:
>(or at least he was deeply involved in making them happen and approving them, etc.).
So perhaps there is a slim chance for hope for you after all.....I'm not
going to hold my breath though, as long as you ignore facts and lump
everyone that disagrees with your views of the assassination into a
mythical mainline wacko CT camp that does not have any foundation on this
newsgroup.
jko
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>>>> "Nonsense. Jackie could have said "Leave the body in Dallas and follow
>the law." Did she? No?" <<<
>And Jackie didn't say "Take JFK to Walter Reed" either, did she?
I don't know. What difference does it make?
>So the CT
>after-the-shooting at-the-autopsy cover-up plot that many, many CTers
>advocate requires Jacqueline Kennedy to be involved too.
No. It doesn't require such a thing at all.
No need for any doctor to be involved in a conspiracy.
There are more LNs upset by the autopsy than CTs.
They argue themselves blue in the face.
>Or: it requires another layer of PURE LUCK for those amazing plotters.
>Lookie..."They" just GOT LUCKY once again when Jackie said "Bethesda".
JFK was dead. The plotters had no need to worry about an autopsy.
Do you agree that is there was a conspiracy then the goal was to
assassinate JFK? I'm beginning to wonder.
>Yes, JFK was a Navy man, so the plotters could have guessed right on this
>one fairly easily...but how do they "control" Jackie AND O'Donnell AND
>O'Brien AND Kilduff AND on and on?
Are you still confounded by your own tortured reasoning, David VP?
Lets remove Jackie and O'Donnell and O'Brien and Kilduff.
Would JFK still be dead? Yes. Could a conspiracy be involved in that
murder? Yes.
>How do "they" control all of these people who could have nixed a
>Washington autopsy at any point in time?
Why such an obsession with events that have nothing to do with whether
or not a conspiracy occurred? Why do you devote so much time to fairy
tales? Too tough to discuss the assassination?
>Like I said...the horoscope for "Assassination Plotters" revealed this on
>the morning of November 22, 1963:
Like you said? You say that as if someone besides me and 2 or 3 other
people are reading your nonsense. Do you think people are holding
their breath to read you talk about horoscopes?
Anything but dealing with the assassination, eh, David VP?
>TODAY IS YOUR LUCKIEST OF LUCKY DAYS! GO FOR IT! NOTHING CAN STOP YOU! NOT
>EVEN JACKIE! NOT THE PRESIDENT'S DEVOTED STAFF! NOT JOHN CONNALLY! NOBODY!
>KILL THE PRESIDENT AND A PATSY WILL AUTOMATICALLY FALL INTO PERFECT PLACE!
You love those CAPS, eh?
CAPS don't disguise the fact your bafflegab is pure rhetoric.
And you talk of common sense? LOL
Earth to David VP?
Let the air out of your balloon gradually or you'll hit the ground too
hard for your liking!
PF
Anthony Marsh
> Did you see the word "wishes" anywhere in my post Marsh?
>
Connally was never "supposed" to ride with LBJ. Protocol dictates that
the governor ride with the President.
David Von Pein
Sure it does. Because if the Trade Mart is not the choice for the
luncheon, the limo never goes down Elm Street.
Simple.
Why do you ignore that fact?
David Von Pein
And you KNOW for sure that Oswald KNEW this fact for certain re. the
non-bulletproof nature of the limo's top....right?
Tell us HOW you know that Oswald knew the top was not bulletproof.
<remainder of Tony's crap excised, due to the obvious close-mindedness
that exists in every response>
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PpadnVFJHoB716rb...@comcast.com...
James K. Olmstead
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1178051443.5...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I don't......it was not any location within a "triangulation" associated
with where the shots were fired. It was a destination miles away. Don't
you have any idea of "ambush" or concept of attack as it relates to
triangulation?
To be part of any Elm St trianguation the Trade Mart had to be within
range of at least vision.
The Trade Mart is a factor....but it's not part of the area of
triangulation, which is the accurate measurement of a network of
triangles.........used here as part of the kill zone the Trade Mart was
NOT in that kill zone........
THAT'S THE FACT
jko
David Von Pein
range of at least vision." <<<
WTF????
A HUGE "LOL" icon is needed here!!
James, for some silly reason, actually seems to think I meant that the
PHYSICAL TRADE MART BUILDING ITSELF was being referred to by yours truly
in my earlier post(s).
~An even BIGGER LOL icon is now needed~
>>> "The Trade Mart is a factor; but it's not part of the area of
triangulation, which is the accurate measurement of a network of
triangles....used here as part of the kill zone the Trade Mart was NOT in
that kill zone." <<<
Now I need an EARTH-sized LOL icon!!
Make this guy STOP...please!
>>> "THAT'S THE FACT." <<<
Sure it's a fact. But it has NOTHING to do with the point I was
making....which was:
If the Trade Mart is NOT the choice for the 11/22 luncheon, then the limo
never turns onto Elm St., and is never within Ollie Stone's/Jimmy
Garrison's theory re. "Elm St. Triangulation".
James K. Olmstead
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1178072434....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "To be part of any Elm St trianguation the Trade Mart had to be within
> range of at least vision." <<<
>
> WTF????
>
> A HUGE "LOL" icon is needed here!!
>
> James, for some silly reason, actually seems to think I meant that the
> PHYSICAL TRADE MART BUILDING ITSELF was being referred to by yours truly
> in my earlier post(s).
>
It's the only building you are talking about and it is not on Elm
St....therefore it can't be any part of a triangulation of fire. You
might as well have one point Love Field as have the Trade Mart in this
kill zone of yours....three points to a triangle
point one Love Field
point two TSBD
point three The Trade Mart
That's a triangulation that covers most of Dallas.
> ~An even BIGGER LOL icon is now needed~
>
>>>> "The Trade Mart is a factor; but it's not part of the area of
> triangulation, which is the accurate measurement of a network of
> triangles....used here as part of the kill zone the Trade Mart was NOT in
> that kill zone." <<<
>
> Now I need an EARTH-sized LOL icon!!
>
> Make this guy STOP...please!
>
>>>> "THAT'S THE FACT." <<<
>
> Sure it's a fact. But it has NOTHING to do with the point I was
> making....which was:
>
> If the Trade Mart is NOT the choice for the 11/22 luncheon, then the limo
> never turns onto Elm St., and is never within Ollie Stone's/Jimmy
> Garrison's theory re. "Elm St. Triangulation".
The "Elm St. Triangulation" was considered before Stone and Garrison. If
another location was selected, such as the Women's Building and the route
was published, there is a serious consideration that said plotters would
find another location for the ambush. One presented theory, such as an
assassination, with more than one shooter, does not hinge only on the
selection of the Trade Mart.
jko
Anthony Marsh
> They had an Arguement Thursday night about JBC riding with LBJ.
>
>
You mean an argument? Yes, there was a disagreement, but it was about a
lot more and it did not resolve by thinking that Connally would ride
with LBJ.
Protocol.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "The Trade Mart was not located where the shots were fired....so beyond DP being along the route to the Trade Mart....it has nothing to do with "Trianglulation on Elm St."" <<<
>
> Sure it does. Because if the Trade Mart is not the choice for the
> luncheon, the limo never goes down Elm Street.
>
You suppose something without bothering to prove it.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "The TSBD shooter would still take the shots. The bubble top was not bullet proof." <<<
>
> And you KNOW for sure that Oswald KNEW this fact for certain re. the
> non-bulletproof nature of the limo's top....right?
>
I didn't say Oswald. Conspirators could know that because they could read.
> Tell us HOW you know that Oswald knew the top was not bulletproof.
>
I didn't say Oswald.