Re: James DiEugenio is a coward

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Apr 8, 12:15 pm, François Carlier <Fra-Carl...@bbox.fr> wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> On the Education Forum, James DiEugenio sometimes takes the liberty of
> mentionning my name, always trying to tarnish my image, which is easy for
> him, since he knows I have no way of replying to him for I am not a member
> of the Education Forum, which is a beehive of close-minded conspiracy
> theorists who don't want to debate.
>
> Most of the time, if not always, DiEugenio is completely off the mark.
> Everything he says about me is wrong.
>
> Never mind.
>
> The second edition of my book in French will be out in just a few days.
> The English version of my book will be out in a few months, and on sale in
> the US.
>
> And I will be in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 2013, with my own book in my
> hands, defending the truth and doing my best to debunk conspiracy
> theories. Poor DiEugenio, he will always find me in his path. He has
> spread enough lies. He must be debunked. Mark my words !
>
> /François Carlier/

Francois, I'm pretty sure you're still a member of the ED Forum. As I
recall it, you were not kicked out, but opted to stop posting after
receiving a tremendous amount of resistance. As far as the forum being a
"beehive of conspiracy theorists" who don't want to debate, I'm not sure
what you're talking about. The forum's members debate anything and
everything.

If you mean they don't want to debate the evidence against Oswald, or the
SBT, well, then, you're probably right. Many long-time buffs consider the
SBT dead as a doornail, and the evidence against Oswald hopelessly
tainted. To their minds, discussing such things is a waste of time.

[John McAdams]

On 8 Apr 2012 23:04:56 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@AOL.COM>
wrote:

I'm afraid you've just admitted something terribly damning about those
"long time buffs."

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Apr 8, 8:05 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2012 23:04:56 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>

How's that? People are entitled to have priorities in their life. Why
should people determined to move forward go backward to argue with an
ostrich?

[John McAdams]

On 9 Apr 2012 09:54:58 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@AOL.COM>
wrote:

>How's that? People are entitled to have priorities in their life. Why
>should people determined to move forward go backward to argue with an
>ostrich?
>

Sure, constitute yourself a little cult that thinks that the SBT is
dead, and the evidence against Oswald is all faked or forged.

The result of that: you become entirely unable to communicate with
mainstream, respectable opinion. Alex Jones will buy your ideas, but
reputable journalistic outlets won't, and academics won't, and
non-fringe political figures won't.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[claviger]

Pat,

Do you agree the back shot missed any large bone? If so, what would stop
this high powered rifle bullet from making a through-and-through wound in
soft tissue?

[Anthony Marsh]

In case you haven't noticed it, we debate the SBT here and elsewhere all
the time. What he means is that the conspiracy believers never want to
concede his points.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

What he means is that they refuse to give in when he badgers them.

[Gerry Simone]

<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:45506bdb-8a4c-4a32...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

Well put.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

What makes you think it was high-powered?

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Apr 9, 12:07 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2012 09:54:58 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 8, 8:05=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 8 Apr 2012 23:04:56 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> >> wrote:
>
> >e
> >> >SBT dead as a doornail, and the evidence against Oswald hopelessly
> >> >tainted. To their minds, discussing such things is a waste of time.
>
> >> I'm afraid you've just admitted something terribly damning about those
> >> "long time buffs."
>
> >How's that? People are entitled to have priorities in their life. Why
> >should people determined to move forward go backward to argue with an
> >ostrich?
>
> Sure, constitute yourself a little cult that thinks that the SBT is
> dead,

Little cult? Earth to John: a large percentage of Americans--probably over
60%---think the SBT is utter garbage. When you break it down, so that it's
just CTs who've actually studied the case, it's probably 99%. So why
should these people--who, to their mind, have already looked into
this--waste any more time on it? I mean, is a climatologist subscribing to
global warming a member of a cult, just because he refuses to waste any
more time arguing for global warming's existence with zealots, whose
opinion means nothing to him anyhow?

and the evidence against Oswald is all faked or forged.

Straw man. Few people think the evidence against Oswald is all faked
or forged.

Which reminds me.. Have you ever found one other instance in the history
of crime where fibers matching those of the defendant's shirt were found
wrapped around a plate on the presumed murder weapon...AFTER the rifle was
dusted for prints?

I'd like to see that piece of evidence survive the adversarial process...

[John McAdams]

On 9 Apr 2012 17:13:48 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@AOL.COM>
wrote:

>On Apr 9, 12:07=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2012 09:54:58 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 8, 8:05=3DA0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> >> On 8 Apr 2012 23:04:56 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >e
>> >> >SBT dead as a doornail, and the evidence against Oswald hopelessly
>> >> >tainted. To their minds, discussing such things is a waste of time.
>>
>> >> I'm afraid you've just admitted something terribly damning about those
>> >> "long time buffs."
>>
>> >How's that? People are entitled to have priorities in their life. Why
>> >should people determined to move forward go backward to argue with an
>> >ostrich?
>>
>> Sure, constitute yourself a little cult that thinks that the SBT is
>> dead,
>
>Little cult? Earth to John: a large percentage of Americans--probably over
>60%---think the SBT is utter garbage. When you break it down, so that it's
>just CTs who've actually studied the case, it's probably 99%. So why
>should these people--who, to their mind, have already looked into
>this--waste any more time on it? I mean, is a climatologist subscribing to
>global warming a member of a cult, just because he refuses to waste any
>more time arguing for global warming's existence with zealots, whose
>opinion means nothing to him anyhow?
>

In fact, global warming advocates not only argue about it, they
sometimes use dirty tricks against skeptics.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/02/saving-the-earth-one-fraud-at-a-time/singlepage

But go ahead and marginalize yourselves.

>
>
>and the evidence against Oswald is all faked or forged.
>
>Straw man. Few people think the evidence against Oswald is all faked
>or forged.
>

Well which evidence do you think is *not* faked or forged?

Backyard photos. Buffs say "faked."

Handwriting evidence tying Oswald the rifle. Buffs: "faked"

Zapruder film: "faked"

Autopsy photos: "faked"

Autopsy x-rays: "faked"

Documents saying Mexico City tapes were destroyed: "faked"

Do I need to go on?

>Which reminds me.. Have you ever found one other instance in the history
>of crime where fibers matching those of the defendant's shirt were found
>wrapped around a plate on the presumed murder weapon...AFTER the rifle was
>dusted for prints?
>

See!!!

"Faked."

>I'd like to see that piece of evidence survive the adversarial process...
>

We know how your buff evidence survives the adversiarial process.

We saw it in the O.J. Simpson civil trial.

And we saw it when Bugliosi and Spence faced off.

[John McAdams]

On 9 Apr 2012 17:07:02 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Pat was saying that the buffs on the Education Forum are unwilling to
debate a bunch of issues.

[claviger]

Over 2,000 fps. That has always been the definition of a high powered
rifle. If your thinking 3,000 fps that is ultra high powered. Even if
the modern definition has been upgraded due to new technology, the old
definition of 2,000 fps is still capable of through-and-through wounds and
always will be. Human soft tissue won't slow it down any more that
ballistic gelatin, especially if it's a FMJ 6.5 Carcano projectile.

[David Von Pein]

PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "Few people think the evidence against Oswald is all faked or forged."
<<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Which has to mean that Oswald is almost certainly guilty of killing JFK
and/or Tippit.

Because if only a small percentage of the evidence against Oswald has not
been faked or tampered with, then Oswald's very likely guilty -- right
Pat?

What other logical and reasonable conclusion can you arrive at via a
scenario that includes SOME legitimate, "non-faked" evidence against Lee
Oswald in the JFK/Tippit murder cases -- other than a conclusion of
Oswald's guilt?

This very topic about only SOME of the evidence being deemed valid and
legit by CTers is one of the many topics of discussion in Part 78 of my
"DVP vs. DiEugenio" Internet series. In fact, it's the very first question
I would have asked James DiEugenio in a radio debate that I proposed back
in 2010:

"Can I get you to admit, Jim, that if even a SMALL PORTION of the
physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases has not been tampered
with or planted or faked in some manner, then it's very likely that Lee
Harvey Oswald was guilty of shooting and killing President Kennedy and/or
Officer Tippit?" -- DVP; 2010

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Nothing like the dirty tricks that Big Oil uses against the global
warming advocates. Nice weather we've been having lately. Warmest March
on record. How many people have to die in the drought before you admit
that we have a problem?
My housing complex keeps the heat on no matter how warm it is outside.
One day it was 89° outside and one woman's apartment was 110°.

> http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/02/saving-the-earth-one-fraud-at-a-time/singlepage
>
> But go ahead and marginalize yourselves.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> and the evidence against Oswald is all faked or forged.
>>
>> Straw man. Few people think the evidence against Oswald is all faked
>> or forged.
>>
>
> Well which evidence do you think is *not* faked or forged?
>
> Backyard photos. Buffs say "faked."
>
> Handwriting evidence tying Oswald the rifle. Buffs: "faked"
>
> Zapruder film: "faked"
>
> Autopsy photos: "faked"
>
> Autopsy x-rays: "faked"
>
> Documents saying Mexico City tapes were destroyed: "faked"
>
> Do I need to go on?
>
>
>> Which reminds me.. Have you ever found one other instance in the history
>> of crime where fibers matching those of the defendant's shirt were found
>> wrapped around a plate on the presumed murder weapon...AFTER the rifle was
>> dusted for prints?
>>
>
> See!!!
>
> "Faked."
>
>
>> I'd like to see that piece of evidence survive the adversarial process...
>>
>
> We know how your buff evidence survives the adversiarial process.
>

You're just a sore loser.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/9/2012 3:48 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Apr 9, 8:54 am, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 8:05 pm, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 8 Apr 2012 23:04:56 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>>> wrote:
>>

>>>> On Apr 8, 12:15 pm, Fran?ois Carlier<Fra-Carl...@bbox.fr> wrote:
>>>>> Hello everybody,
>>
>>>>> On the Education Forum, James DiEugenio sometimes takes the liberty of
>>>>> mentionning my name, always trying to tarnish my image, which is easy for
>>>>> him, since he knows I have no way of replying to him for I am not a member
>>>>> of the Education Forum, which is a beehive of close-minded conspiracy
>>>>> theorists who don't want to debate.
>>
>>>>> Most of the time, if not always, DiEugenio is completely off the mark.
>>>>> Everything he says about me is wrong.
>>
>>>>> Never mind.
>>
>>>>> The second edition of my book in French will be out in just a few days.
>>>>> The English version of my book will be out in a few months, and on sale in
>>>>> the US.
>>
>>>>> And I will be in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 2013, with my own book in my
>>>>> hands, defending the truth and doing my best to debunk conspiracy
>>>>> theories. Poor DiEugenio, he will always find me in his path. He has
>>>>> spread enough lies. He must be debunked. Mark my words !
>>

>>>>> /Fran?ois Carlier/

>>
>>>> Francois, I'm pretty sure you're still a member of the ED Forum. As I
>>>> recall it, you were not kicked out, but opted to stop posting after
>>>> receiving a tremendous amount of resistance. As far as the forum being a
>>>> "beehive of conspiracy theorists" who don't want to debate, I'm not sure
>>>> what you're talking about. The forum's members debate anything and
>>>> everything.
>>
>>>> If you mean they don't want to debate the evidence against Oswald, or the
>>>> SBT, well, then, you're probably right. Many long-time buffs consider the
>>>> SBT dead as a doornail, and the evidence against Oswald hopelessly
>>>> tainted. To their minds, discussing such things is a waste of time.
>>
>>> I'm afraid you've just admitted something terribly damning about those
>>> "long time buffs."
>>
>>> .John
>>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> How's that? People are entitled to have priorities in their life. Why
>> should people determined to move forward go backward to argue with an
>> ostrich?
>
> Pat,
>
> Do you agree the back shot missed any large bone? If so, what would stop
> this high powered rifle bullet from making a through-and-through wound in
> soft tissue?
>

You still don't realize that the bullet hit the tip of T-1. What would
stop a bullet in the back? First of all you do not know it came from a
high powered rifle. A low powered bullet from a handgun could easily stop
in the body.

If you assume it was the WCC ammo fired from Oswald's rifle only one
expert has proposed that it stopped in the President's body. Dr. Forrest
Chapman came up with the theory that it was a dud round which had a much
lower muzzle velocity than normal.

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean everyone who's controlled by the CIA?
The ones who believe the official lies?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/9/2012 8:24 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
>>>> "Few people think the evidence against Oswald is all faked or forged."
> <<<
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Which has to mean that Oswald is almost certainly guilty of killing JFK
> and/or Tippit.
>
> Because if only a small percentage of the evidence against Oswald has not
> been faked or tampered with, then Oswald's very likely guilty -- right
> Pat?
>

That does not follow logically. All they have to do is steal Oswald's
rifle and then fire those shots from the sniper's nest.

> What other logical and reasonable conclusion can you arrive at via a
> scenario that includes SOME legitimate, "non-faked" evidence against Lee
> Oswald in the JFK/Tippit murder cases -- other than a conclusion of
> Oswald's guilt?
>

Any messy details can be handled by CIA stooges who are hired to lie about
the evidence. If the doctors say the throat wound was an entrance, just
have your CIA stooge lie and say that happened when JFK turned to look
back at the TSBD.

> This very topic about only SOME of the evidence being deemed valid and
> legit by CTers is one of the many topics of discussion in Part 78 of my
> "DVP vs. DiEugenio" Internet series. In fact, it's the very first question
> I would have asked James DiEugenio in a radio debate that I proposed back
> in 2010:
>
> "Can I get you to admit, Jim, that if even a SMALL PORTION of the
> physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases has not been tampered
> with or planted or faked in some manner, then it's very likely that Lee
> Harvey Oswald was guilty of shooting and killing President Kennedy and/or
> Officer Tippit?" -- DVP; 2010
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html
>

So why was it me who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic and not
you? When I do find a piece of evidence which was altered or destroyed why
do you deny that any such thing could ever take place in our perfect
country?

[Bud]

On Apr 9, 5:13 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 12:07 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Apr 2012 09:54:58 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Apr 8, 8:05=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> > >> On 8 Apr 2012 23:04:56 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >e
> > >> >SBT dead as a doornail, and the evidence against Oswald hopelessly
> > >> >tainted. To their minds, discussing such things is a waste of time.
>
> > >> I'm afraid you've just admitted something terribly damning about those
> > >> "long time buffs."
>
> > >How's that? People are entitled to have priorities in their life. Why
> > >should people determined to move forward go backward to argue with an
> > >ostrich?
>
> > Sure, constitute yourself a little cult that thinks that the SBT is
> > dead,
>
> Little cult? Earth to John: a large percentage of Americans--probably over
> 60%---think the SBT is utter garbage.

How many Americans could tell you the wounding sequence of the SBT?
One in ten?

[Anthony Marsh]

I categorically reject your redefinition.
But the other point is that you are assuming it was a WCC bullet fired
from Oswald's rifle. And you assume that its muzzle velocity for that
shot was above 2,000 fps. Some may not.

[David Von Pein]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Because if only a small percentage of the evidence against Oswald has

not been faked or tampered with, then Oswald's very likely guilty.

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

That does not follow logically. All they have to do is steal Oswald's
rifle and then fire those shots from the sniper's nest.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, you think it's MORE reasonable and MORE logical and MORE likely
for someone to have stolen Oswald's rifle and shot President Kennedy
with it, rather than just believing that Oswald himself did the
shooting with his own gun?

That's not logically following the evidence. That's inventing a theory
from whole cloth which has no hard evidence to support it. (For
example: How did your make-believe thief get the rifle out of Ruth
Paine's garage without being heard or seen?)

Why would you want to believe an unsupportable extraordinary theory
about rifle-pilfering, vs. just simply believing what the evidence
suggests about LHO's guilt?

And any rifle-stealing theory is all the more ridiculous in this case
when we factor in Oswald's own lies that he told the police (and Buell
Frazier).

E.G.:

Why did Oswald lie to Frazier about the contents of that brown bag?

Why did Oswald lie to the police when he told them he never carried
any large bag into the Depository?

Why did Oswald lie to the police when he told them he never said a
word to Buell Frazier about any curtain rods?

Why did Oswald lie and say he didn't own a rifle?

Still think Oswald's rifle was stolen, Tony?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "When I do find a piece of evidence which was altered or destroyed why
do you deny that any such thing could ever take place in our perfect
country?" <<<

Tony,

Name one piece of evidence (besides the Hosty note) that was "altered
or destroyed" in this case? And please provide some proof for the
alteration or destruction.

(And the LIFE Magazine "altered" picture of LHO's rifle doesn't really
count or give you any "conspiracy" points, because LIFE admitted that
some details of the rifle were changed for that cover photo. And by
changing the rifle's appearance, it makes the rifle look LESS like the
JFK murder weapon anyway. So it's fairly obvious that the people at
LIFE Magazine didn't alter the rifle for the purpose of framing LHO.)

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Apr 9, 2:30 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2012 17:13:48 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>

> http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/02/saving-the-earth-one-fraud-at-a...

>
> But go ahead and marginalize yourselves.

I am overjoyed that you are willing to concede we have as much foundation
to our beliefs as the vast majority of climatologists have to their
beliefs.

>
>
>
> >and the evidence against Oswald is all faked or forged.
>
> >Straw man. Few people think the evidence against Oswald is all faked
> >or forged.
>
> Well which evidence do you think is *not* faked or forged?

Although I have doubts about much of the evidence, I have only came to a
conclusion of fabrication or forgery a few times. I have devoted much more
time than most, for that matter, to arguing that the Z-film, autopsy
photos, and X-Rays were not faked.

>
> Backyard photos.  Buffs say "faked."
>
> Handwriting evidence tying Oswald the rifle.  Buffs: "faked"
>
> Zapruder film:  "faked"
>
> Autopsy photos:  "faked"
>
> Autopsy x-rays: "faked"
>
> Documents saying Mexico City tapes were destroyed: "faked"
>
> Do I need to go on?

Why bother? This has nothing to do with me.

>
> >Which reminds me.. Have you ever found one other instance in the history
> >of crime where fibers matching those of the defendant's shirt were found
> >wrapped around a plate on the presumed murder weapon...AFTER the rifle was
> >dusted for prints?
>
> See!!!
>
> "Faked."

Nice dodge. You don't know the answer because you are incapable of
asking the question.

>
> >I'd like to see that piece of evidence survive the adversarial process...
>
> We know how your buff evidence survives the adversiarial process.

MY buff evidence has never been exposed to the adversarial process.

>
> We saw it in the O.J. Simpson civil trial.

Nice dodge. The evidence against Simpson was stronger than that
against Oswald, yet he walked from his criminal trial.

>
> And we saw it when Bugliosi and Spence faced off.

We did? It was a play pretend trial, John. With nothing at stake. And yet
Spence, who was only goofing off, succeeded in making men like Vincent
Guinn look silly.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

I was referring to the bullet. We don't know for sure what bullet
created the back wound. And we don't know how fast it was traveling.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Apr 9, 5:24 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> >>> "Few people think the evidence against Oswald is all faked or forged."
>
> <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Which has to mean that Oswald is almost certainly guilty of killing JFK
> and/or Tippit.
>
> Because if only a small percentage of the evidence against Oswald has not
> been faked or tampered with, then Oswald's very likely guilty -- right
> Pat?

Right, David. Very likely guilty of killing Tippit. That is one of the
best parts in John's book, IMO. (He asserts, as I, that Oswald's killing
Tippit doesn't mean that he killed Kennedy.)

[John McAdams]

On 10 Apr 2012 11:00:08 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@AOL.COM>
wrote:

>On Apr 9, 2:30=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2012 17:13:48 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>er

>> >60%---think the SBT is utter garbage. When you break it down, so that it=

>'s
>> >just CTs who've actually studied the case, it's probably 99%. So why
>> >should these people--who, to their mind, have already looked into
>> >this--waste any more time on it? I mean, is a climatologist subscribing to
>> >global warming a member of a cult, just because he refuses to waste any
>> >more time arguing for global warming's existence with zealots, whose
>> >opinion means nothing to him anyhow?
>>
>> In fact, global warming advocates not only argue about it, they
>> sometimes use dirty tricks against skeptics.
>>
>> http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/02/saving-the-earth-one-fraud-at-a...
>>
>> But go ahead and marginalize yourselves.
>
>I am overjoyed that you are willing to concede we have as much foundation
>to our beliefs as the vast majority of climatologists have to their
>beliefs.
>

No, I said no such thing, and you are pulling a Tony Marsh attributing
to me something I don't believe.

I'm skeptical of the global warming stuff, but it's not nearly as
bogus as the JFK buff stuff.

>>
>>
>>
>> >and the evidence against Oswald is all faked or forged.
>>
>> >Straw man. Few people think the evidence against Oswald is all faked
>> >or forged.
>>
>> Well which evidence do you think is *not* faked or forged?
>
>Although I have doubts about much of the evidence, I have only came to a
>conclusion of fabrication or forgery a few times. I have devoted much more
>time than most, for that matter, to arguing that the Z-film, autopsy
>photos, and X-Rays were not faked.
>
>>

>> Backyard photos. =A0Buffs say "faked."
>>
>> Handwriting evidence tying Oswald the rifle. =A0Buffs: "faked"
>>
>> Zapruder film: =A0"faked"
>>
>> Autopsy photos: =A0"faked"

>>
>> Autopsy x-rays: "faked"
>>
>> Documents saying Mexico City tapes were destroyed: "faked"
>>
>> Do I need to go on?
>
>Why bother? This has nothing to do with me.
>

But you were defending the buff culture on the Education Forum.

That means you should defend the beliefs prevalent there, or distance
yourself from them.

>>
>> >Which reminds me.. Have you ever found one other instance in the history
>> >of crime where fibers matching those of the defendant's shirt were found

>> >wrapped around a plate on the presumed murder weapon...AFTER the rifle w=

>as
>> >dusted for prints?
>>
>> See!!!
>>
>> "Faked."
>
>Nice dodge. You don't know the answer because you are incapable of
>asking the question.
>

You are acting like a typical buff here, saying "this is something I
think is sinister. YOU prove it isn't, or there was a conspiracy."

It doesn't work that way.

YOU prove that there is any problem with the fibers.


>>
>> >I'd like to see that piece of evidence survive the adversarial process..=

>.
>>
>> We know how your buff evidence survives the adversiarial process.
>
>MY buff evidence has never been exposed to the adversarial process.
>

That's because it's too far out of the mainstream.

>>
>> We saw it in the O.J. Simpson civil trial.
>
>Nice dodge. The evidence against Simpson was stronger than that
>against Oswald, yet he walked from his criminal trial.
>

Because of a racist jury. A lot of people walked who where clearly
guilty.

>>
>> And we saw it when Bugliosi and Spence faced off.
>
>We did? It was a play pretend trial, John. With nothing at stake. And yet
>Spence, who was only goofing off, succeeded in making men like Vincent
>Guinn look silly.
>

Bugliosi won. So there is your adversarial process.

.John

[claviger]

Pat,

The history of the 6.5 FMJ Carcano cartridge and projectile gave it a
reputation for high penetration capability. It got mixed reviews from
soldiers who used it, because it punched holes in the enemy but didn't
always keep them down and out of the battle. As a result soldiers
tampered with the nose of the FMJ bullet with knives and bayonets so the
jacket would split on contact and the lead core would mushroom. The Geneva
Convention was aware of this practice and passed a law forbidding soldiers
from tampering with any bullet as a war crime.

The design of the Carcano projectile had a lot to do with penetration
stability. It was a long parallel bullet with a round nose in contrast to
a spitzer bullet with a boat shape and pointed nose. The spitzer would
have a greater tendency to tumble through the target than a Carcano. If
any bullet could punch through two human targets and keep going it was the
Carcano. The fact LHO owned a Carcano and it was found on the 6th floor
makes it the number one suspect weapon used in this ambush of the
motorcade. The 6th floor window is inside the trajectory cone based on
analysis of the back wound. The 6.5 FMJ projectile is the perfect bullet
to explain the SBT shot.

[Pat Speer]

On Apr 10, 8:47 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2012 11:00:08 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>

Now who's misrepresenting the situation? I'm defending people's right to
research what interests them. Many if not most CTs doubt the SBT going in,
and only doubt it more when they look at it. Then move on. You seem to
think people shouldn't be allowed to investigate the behavior of the CIA,
or Lyndon Johnson's ties to the mafia, until they have convinced you the
SBT is bogus.

>
> That means you should defend the beliefs prevalent there, or distance
> yourself from them.
>

It means no such thing. But, FWIW, I have voiced my disagreement with
silly and/or inaccurate theories hundreds if not thousands of times. I
spend at least as much time criticizing CTs as I do LNs. Do you spend
even 1/100th as much time criticizing the defenders of the Warren Report
as you do criticizing CTs? Of course not. So let's not make any mistake
here as to who is his own man and who is hiding in a pack.

>
>
> >> >Which reminds me.. Have you ever found one other instance in the history
> >> >of crime where fibers matching those of the defendant's shirt were found
> >> >wrapped around a plate on the presumed murder weapon...AFTER the rifle w=
> >as
> >> >dusted for prints?
>
> >> See!!!
>
> >> "Faked."
>
> >Nice dodge. You don't know the answer because you are incapable of
> >asking the question.
>
> You are acting like a typical buff here, saying "this is something I
> think is sinister.  YOU prove it isn't, or there was a conspiracy."
>
> It doesn't work that way.

You've made that up. In a court of law, or in public opinion, doubt
has substance.

>
> YOU prove that there is any problem with the fibers.

I already have. The problem is that there is a reasonable doubt as to
their provenance. They were found on the rifle AFTER it had been inspected
and dusted. Do you now anything about trace evidence? It is supposed to be
collected first. Do you know anything about fiber evidence? It is normally
found at the crime scene and/or pulled off the victim's clothes, then
connected to a suspect. Here it was found on the murder weapon. A one in a
million shot. This is highly suspicious, and would be seen so by a jury.
Particularly in that Oswald claimed he wasn't even wearing that shirt at
work that day, and none of his co-workers remembered seeing him in that
shirt.

>
> >> >I'd like to see that piece of evidence survive the adversarial process..=
> >.
>
> >> We know how your buff evidence survives the adversiarial process.
>
> >MY buff evidence has never been exposed to the adversarial process.
>
> That's because it's too far out of the mainstream.

What nonsense. You don't have the faintest understanding of what I
consider MY buff evidence.

>
>
>
> >> We saw it in the O.J. Simpson civil trial.
>
> >Nice dodge. The evidence against Simpson was stronger than that
> >against Oswald, yet he walked from his criminal trial.
>
> Because of a racist jury.  A lot of people walked who where clearly
> guilty.

Something tells me you weren't as concerned about racist juries in the
fifties and sixties as you are now. Besides, the point is made. You seem
to be clinging to the illusion Oswald's guilt is clear-cut, and would be
readily shown in the adversarial process, when the Simpson and Blake cases
suggest otherwise, and even Posner admits Mark Lane could get him off.

>
>
>
> >> And we saw it when Bugliosi and Spence faced off.
>
> >We did? It was a play pretend trial, John. With nothing at stake. And yet
> >Spence, who was only goofing off, succeeded in making men like Vincent
> >Guinn look silly.
>
> Bugliosi won.  So there is your adversarial process.

It wasn't a real trial. And Spence didn't have access to the medical
evidence, which would have helped him immensely in establishing doubt.

[John McAdams]

On 10 Apr 2012 14:53:23 -0400, Pat Speer <groov...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 10, 8:47=A0am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 10 Apr 2012 11:00:08 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>>

>> >> Backyard photos. =3DA0Buffs say "faked."
>>
>> >> Handwriting evidence tying Oswald the rifle. =3DA0Buffs: "faked"
>>
>> >> Zapruder film: =3DA0"faked"
>>
>> >> Autopsy photos: =3DA0"faked"

>>
>> >> Autopsy x-rays: "faked"
>>
>> >> Documents saying Mexico City tapes were destroyed: "faked"
>>
>> >> Do I need to go on?
>>
>> >Why bother? This has nothing to do with me.
>>
>> But you were defending the buff culture on the Education Forum.
>
>Now who's misrepresenting the situation? I'm defending people's right to
>research what interests them. Many if not most CTs doubt the SBT going in,
>and only doubt it more when they look at it. Then move on.

You were defending their unwillingness to *debate* the issue. That
puts them in la-la land, where they can declare the issue "settled"
and ignore counter-arguments.

>You seem to
>think people shouldn't be allowed to investigate the behavior of the CIA,
>or Lyndon Johnson's ties to the mafia, until they have convinced you the
>SBT is bogus.
>

They can investigate anything they want. In fact, they have a perfect
right to waste their time and spin their wheels, as they have been
doing for decades.

>>
>> That means you should defend the beliefs prevalent there, or distance
>> yourself from them.
>>
>
>It means no such thing. But, FWIW, I have voiced my disagreement with
>silly and/or inaccurate theories hundreds if not thousands of times. I
>spend at least as much time criticizing CTs as I do LNs. Do you spend
>even 1/100th as much time criticizing the defenders of the Warren Report
>as you do criticizing CTs? Of course not. So let's not make any mistake
>here as to who is his own man and who is hiding in a pack.
>

There is simply a lot more to criticize about the buffs.


>>
>>
>> >> >Which reminds me.. Have you ever found one other instance in the hist=
>ory
>> >> >of crime where fibers matching those of the defendant's shirt were fo=
>und
>> >> >wrapped around a plate on the presumed murder weapon...AFTER the rifl=
>e w=3D

>> >as
>> >> >dusted for prints?
>>
>> >> See!!!
>>
>> >> "Faked."
>>
>> >Nice dodge. You don't know the answer because you are incapable of
>> >asking the question.
>>
>> You are acting like a typical buff here, saying "this is something I

>> think is sinister. =A0YOU prove it isn't, or there was a conspiracy."

>>
>> It doesn't work that way.
>
>You've made that up. In a court of law, or in public opinion, doubt
>has substance.
>

Actually, doubt that lacks any basis in sound forensics has no
standing.

You haven't made any argument based on sound forensics.

BTW, if the Evil Minions were going to plant evidence, why didn't they
plant better evidence? The fiber evidence is considerably short of a
"tot he exclusion of all other shirts" standard.

>>
>> YOU prove that there is any problem with the fibers.
>
>I already have. The problem is that there is a reasonable doubt as to
>their provenance. They were found on the rifle AFTER it had been inspected
>and dusted. Do you now anything about trace evidence? It is supposed to be
>collected first. Do you know anything about fiber evidence? It is normally
>found at the crime scene and/or pulled off the victim's clothes, then
>connected to a suspect. Here it was found on the murder weapon. A one in a
>million shot. This is highly suspicious, and would be seen so by a jury.

Actually, probably not.

A Dallas jury, which would have tried Oswald, would not have believed
that literally dozens of Dallas cops would have been involved in a
massive conspiracy to frame Oswald.

>Particularly in that Oswald claimed he wasn't even wearing that shirt at
>work that day, and none of his co-workers remembered seeing him in that
>shirt.
>

He was arrested in that shirt.


>>
>> >> >I'd like to see that piece of evidence survive the adversarial proces=
>s..=3D

>> >.
>>
>> >> We know how your buff evidence survives the adversiarial process.
>>
>> >MY buff evidence has never been exposed to the adversarial process.
>>
>> That's because it's too far out of the mainstream.
>
>What nonsense. You don't have the faintest understanding of what I
>consider MY buff evidence.
>

Yes, actually I do. You've tried to impeach the Artwohl analysis of
the trajectory through Kennedy's torso merely by scaling the photo so
that it doesn't match something else.

You've tried to impeach the photo of the bag discovered in the
Depository with a "recreation" that made no effort *at all* to
recreate the conditions of the news photo (distance, angle, lens focal
length, etc.).

Most of the time, I just don't understand what your point is.

>>
>>
>>
>> >> We saw it in the O.J. Simpson civil trial.
>>
>> >Nice dodge. The evidence against Simpson was stronger than that
>> >against Oswald, yet he walked from his criminal trial.
>>

>> Because of a racist jury. =A0A lot of people walked who where clearly

>> guilty.
>
>Something tells me you weren't as concerned about racist juries in the
>fifties and sixties as you are now.

That "something" is your ideological bias.

I'm not politically correct. I have a single standard about guilt,
and it doesn't depend on the race of the victim, nor of the offender.

Apparently you have a different perspective.

>Besides, the point is made. You seem
>to be clinging to the illusion Oswald's guilt is clear-cut, and would be
>readily shown in the adversarial process, when the Simpson and Blake cases
>suggest otherwise, and even Posner admits Mark Lane could get him off.
>

No doubt *some* biased juries would let Oswald off, but when there was
top-notch legal talent on both sides (Spence vs. Bugliosi) Oswald was
convicted.

>>
>>
>>
>> >> And we saw it when Bugliosi and Spence faced off.
>>

>> >We did? It was a play pretend trial, John. With nothing at stake. And ye=

>t
>> >Spence, who was only goofing off, succeeded in making men like Vincent
>> >Guinn look silly.
>>

>> Bugliosi won. =A0So there is your adversarial process.

>
>It wasn't a real trial. And Spence didn't have access to the medical
>evidence, which would have helped him immensely in establishing doubt.
>

Actually, no. It shows two shots hit Kennedy from behind. People
like Mantik would be torn apart in cross examination.

.John

--

[Anthony Marsh]

It really doesn't matter because no matter what I list you will think up
some excuse for why it was necessary. Just as you just did for LIFE
tampering with the backyard photo. I might add that I did not list this
because it was only tampering with a copy not the original. Your example
of Life tampering with the backyard photo does not prove conspiracy. It
proves cover-up. The ONLY reason that LIFE did that was because they
mistakenly believed that Oswald bought the rifle without a scope mounted
on it. So they were trying their best to support the government theory.
Same with Mandel's lie. That does not prove conspiracy either. It just
proves cover-up. He mistakenly believed the Parkland doctors saying that
the throat wound was an entrance. But he also knew that the films and
photos show the head shot happened AFTER JFK had passed Oswald's window.
So he had to come up with a lie for Oswald to shoot JFK in the throat. To
support the lone nut fiction. And you can argue that he had a good reason
to lie because a frontal throat shot would mean conspiracy and thus
nuclear war. It's fine with me if you want to get out of every
contradiction with that excuse. Good for the country to lie.

JFK's brain.
JFK's tissue slides.
5 autopsy photos.
Picture taken of the back seat at Parkland Hospital.
Chrome topping.
Rear compartment carpet.
SS agent cleaning up the back seat.
Dillard photo of the TSBD.
Tapes from Mexico recording an "Oswald."
Photographs of "Oswald" in Mexico.
Three words scratched out on an FBI memo talking about a fragment
removed from Connally which do not match the others.

Now, just for fun let's pretend that Oswald's rifle was sold and then
destroyed by the purchaser. How would you justify that destruction of
evidence? Would you claim it wasn't even evidence? Or that it was done for
the good of the country?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/10/2012 10:57 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Because if only a small percentage of the evidence against Oswald has
> not been faked or tampered with, then Oswald's very likely guilty.
>
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> That does not follow logically. All they have to do is steal Oswald's
> rifle and then fire those shots from the sniper's nest.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> So, you think it's MORE reasonable and MORE logical and MORE likely
> for someone to have stolen Oswald's rifle and shot President Kennedy
> with it, rather than just believing that Oswald himself did the
> shooting with his own gun?
>
> That's not logically following the evidence. That's inventing a theory
> from whole cloth which has no hard evidence to support it. (For
> example: How did your make-believe thief get the rifle out of Ruth
> Paine's garage without being heard or seen?)
>

Oh Master of Illogic, how did Oswald supposedly get the rifle out of Ruth
Paine's garage without being heard of seen? How did Oswald smuggle his 40"
inch rifle into the TSBD without anyone seeing it? Where did he hide it
all morning long so that no one would stumble across it?

> Why would you want to believe an unsupportable extraordinary theory
> about rifle-pilfering, vs. just simply believing what the evidence
> suggests about LHO's guilt?
>

Looking for the most simplistic solution is not a good way to solve a
crime.

> And any rifle-stealing theory is all the more ridiculous in this case
> when we factor in Oswald's own lies that he told the police (and Buell
> Frazier).
>

Don't factor in what you can't prove.
We know that the police lied about what Oswald said. We don't know that
Oswald lied, because they did not record the interviews.

> E.G.:
>
> Why did Oswald lie to Frazier about the contents of that brown bag?
>

Prove that he did.

> Why did Oswald lie to the police when he told them he never carried
> any large bag into the Depository?
>

It wasn't a large bag. It was a small bag.

> Why did Oswald lie to the police when he told them he never said a
> word to Buell Frazier about any curtain rods?
>

We don't know what Oswald said to the police.

> Why did Oswald lie and say he didn't own a rifle?
>

Time frame. Maybe he meant at that moment.

> Still think Oswald's rifle was stolen, Tony?
>

I can't prove it, but it seems likely.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't believe that is true and such tampering might make it dangerous
to fire such bullets.

> Convention was aware of this practice and passed a law forbidding soldiers
> from tampering with any bullet as a war crime.
>

Please cite that section of the Geneva convention. We know you are just
making up crap again because it was not the Geneva Convention which made
up the rules about bullets. It was the Hague Convention.

> The design of the Carcano projectile had a lot to do with penetration
> stability. It was a long parallel bullet with a round nose in contrast to
> a spitzer bullet with a boat shape and pointed nose. The spitzer would
> have a greater tendency to tumble through the target than a Carcano. If
> any bullet could punch through two human targets and keep going it was the
> Carcano. The fact LHO owned a Carcano and it was found on the 6th floor

Yeah, so what? It depends on what type of bullet is used, not what type
of rifle.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Your example of Life tampering with the backyard photo does not prove
conspiracy. It proves cover-up." <<<

You think that by changing the look of the rifle to make it look much LESS
like the Mannlicher-Carcano that was used to kill JFK, LIFE Magazine was
making a BETTER case for Oswald being the assassin?

Weird cover-up there.

And, btw, it's not just the scope we're talking about here either. The
LIFE picture shows a totally altered barrel of the gun too. And why on
Earth would LIFE want to do that type of altering if they wanted to make
it look MORE like Oswald was holding Carcano #C2766?

[David Von Pein]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How did your make-believe thief get the rifle out of Ruth Paine's
garage without being heard or seen?

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Oh Master of Illogic, how did Oswald supposedly get the rifle out of

Ruth Paine's garage without being heard [or] seen?


DVP:

Oswald was staying at the Paine house on Nov. 21 and therefore had
easy access to the garage. He wasn't a thief on the outside trying to
get in.

And you think it would have been extremely difficult for Oswald to
have merely taken his own rifle out of the Paine garage on Friday
morning while everyone else in the house was asleep? You think that
sleeping people would had to notice Oswald leaving the house with a
package in his hands? That's odd.

TONY MARSH:

How did Oswald smuggle his 40-inch rifle into the TSBD without anyone
seeing it?

DVP:

He didn't. Wesley Frazier saw it (the large package). And Wesley saw
Oswald ENTER THE BUILDING with the package. (See Page 2 of Buell
Wesley Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit below for confirmation of this.)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fnUXqaMoRpw/TvxpsigRUwI/AAAAAAAABzY/mDQwRYPV0lE/s1600-h/Buell-Wesley-Frazier-Affidavit.png

TONY MARSH:

Where did he hide it all morning long so that no one would stumble
across it?

DVP:

Nobody can answer that question. And it is something I have asked
myself too. But the fact we can never know where within the Book
Depository that Oswald hid his rifle prior to 12:30 PM on 11/22 is
certainly not strong evidence that he never took the rifle into the
building AT ALL.

Wes Frazier's testimony about seeing LHO take a package INTO THE BACK
DOOR OF THE BUILDING, coupled with the fact that Oswald's own Carcano
rifle was found on the sixth floor after the assassination, plus the
empty brown bag in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on it),
pretty much make this part of the case easy to figure out. Oswald took
his own rifle to work in a paper bag on 11/22.

But I can just as easily ask the conspiracy theorists the same two
questions Tony Marsh just asked me:

How did THE CONSPIRATORS smuggle Oswald's 40-inch rifle into the
TSBD without anyone seeing it? .... And: .... Where did THE
CONSPIRATORS hide it all morning long so that no one would stumble
across it?

Any ideas, Tony?

Or do you think that NOBODY brought that Carcano into the TSBD on the
MORNING of Nov. 22? Do you think it made its way into the building by
way of the police breaking into Ruth Paine's garage on the afternoon
of Nov. 22 (but before 1:22 PM) and then the cops rushed the Carcano
to the TSBD where it could be conveniently planted behind the boxes on
the sixth floor (and then filmed by Tom Alyea before 1:30 PM)?

TONY MARSH:

Looking for the most simplistic solution is not a good way to solve a
crime.

DVP:

Yeah, sure Tony. It's always much much better to muddy the waters by
pretending that a whole bunch of unprovable things happened -- like
your theory about Oswald's rifle being stolen from Ruth Paine's house.

(Occam is turning over in his grave right now.)


TONY MARSH:

Don't factor in what you can't prove.

DVP:

Says the man who thinks Oswald's rifle was stolen.

Pot meets kettle--again.


TONY MARSH:

We know that the police lied about what Oswald said.

DVP:

We do? How do "we" know this for a fact, Anthony? Please enlighten us.


TONTY MARSH:

We don't know that Oswald lied, because they did not record the
interviews.

DVP:

You say with such certainty that "we know that the police lied about
what Oswald said", but one second later you say "we don't know that

Oswald lied, because they did not record the interviews".

So, even though we're talking about the very same unrecorded
interviews, Tony Marsh is absolutely positive about the DPD telling
lies, but he wants to give poor LHO the benefit of the doubt.

Nice double standard there, Tony.


TONY MARSH:

Prove that he [Oswald] did [lie to Buell Wesley Frazier about the
contents of the paper bag].


DVP:

The proof that Oswald lied about the curtain rods is the fact that no
curtain rods were ever found in the TSBD (and no curtain rods were
ever found at Oswald's roominghouse on Beckley).

And I can only assume, Tony, that you don't really think that Oswald
took some curtain rods out of the building at about 12:33 PM on Nov.
22 and then he just tossed them in a trash dumpster somewhere between
the Depository and 1026 Beckley. Do you?

Or was Roy Truly a liar when he said what he said about curtain rods
in CE2640?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0465a.htm


Or would you like to pull a DiEugenio and call Buell Frazier a rotten
liar? Frazier, as we all know, has never varied his story one bit
about the curtain rods. For decades Frazier has told the same story
about how Oswald (twice) mentioned "curtain rods" in association with
LHO's unusual trip to the Paine home in Irving on Thursday, November
21st.

Do you really think Frazier is a liar, Tony?

http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/buell-wesley-frazier.html


TONY MARSH:

It wasn't a large bag. It was a small bag.

DVP:

So, you think Frazier DID lie about the bag then, eh Tony? And Linnie
Mae Randle must have lied too, because she said she saw Oswald
carrying a decent-sized (not "small") bag on the morning of November
22.

Why are you intentionally misrepresenting the evidence, Tony?


TONY MARSH:

We don't know what Oswald said to the police.

DVP:

Sure we do. We can't know verbatim what Oswald told the police, but we
know enough to know that Oswald was positively a big fat liar when it
comes to a lot of substantive things associated with the two murder
charges he was facing.

And we know for a fact that he was attempting to distance himself from
the two murder weapons as much as he could--to the point of Oswald not
mentioning the Neely address when he was asked to list all of his
previous residences; and to the point where Oswald lied about where he
purchased the Tippit murder weapon (even though he was caught red-
handed with that gun on him when he was arrested).


TONY MARSH:

Time frame. Maybe he [Oswald] meant [he didn't own a rifle] at that
moment [in November 1963].


DVP:

You're reaching, Tony. And you know you it. You know damn well that
Oswald ordered, paid for, and possessed Carcano rifle #C2766 in 1963.
The trail leading to him as the owner of that gun is three miles long.
You, as always, just like to argue about things that are proven facts.

TONY MARSH:

I can't prove it, but it seems likely [that Oswald's rifle was
stolen].


DVP:

Fantasies are nice, aren't they Tony?

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/was-oswalds-rifle-stolen.html

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Apr 10, 4:36 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> How did your make-believe thief get the rifle out of Ruth Paine's
> garage without being heard or seen?
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> Oh Master of Illogic, how did Oswald supposedly get the rifle out of
> Ruth Paine's garage without being heard [or] seen?
>
> DVP:
>
> Oswald was staying at the Paine house on Nov. 21 and therefore had
> easy access to the garage. He wasn't a thief on the outside trying to
> get in.
>
> And you think it would have been extremely difficult for Oswald to
> have merely taken his own rifle out of the Paine garage on Friday
> morning while everyone else in the house was asleep? You think that
> sleeping people would had to notice Oswald leaving the house with a
> package in his hands? That's odd.
>
> TONY MARSH:
>
> How did Oswald smuggle his 40-inch rifle into the TSBD without anyone
> seeing it?
>
> DVP:
>
> He didn't. Wesley Frazier saw it (the large package). And Wesley saw
> Oswald ENTER THE BUILDING with the package. (See Page 2  of Buell
> Wesley Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit below for confirmation of this.)
>

> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fnUXqaMoRpw/TvxpsigRUwI/AAAAAAAABzY/mDQwRYP...

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0...

>
> Or would you like to pull a DiEugenio and call Buell Frazier a rotten
> liar? Frazier, as we all know, has never varied his story one bit
> about the curtain rods. For decades Frazier has told the same story
> about how Oswald (twice) mentioned "curtain rods" in association with
> LHO's unusual trip to the Paine home in Irving on Thursday, November
> 21st.
>
> Do you really think Frazier is a liar, Tony?
>

> http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/buell-wesley-fraz...

FWIW, David, I looked into this at one point and found 1) the Paines were
Quakers and never locked their garage door. This means the rifle could
have been removed or stolen on any night over the last several weeks
leading up to 11-22. 2) a cleaning crew and security agency had keys to
the school book depository, and would have had access to the building on
the nights leading up to 11-22. 3) The seventh floor was mostly unused,
with a corner room used as a maintenance shed.

As a consequence, it is entirely possible someone stole the rifle a week
or two before the shooting, then had it stashed in the building on the
night of 11-21, or earlier. (I've found no evidence the cleaning crew and
security guard were even interviewed along these lines. If you find these
interviews, let me know, will ya?I)

[David Von Pein]

PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "It is entirely possible someone stole the rifle a week or two before

the shooting, then had it stashed in the building on the night of 11-21,
or earlier." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How is it even remotely possible for a reasonable and rational person
who has been looking deeply into the JFK-assassination evidence since
2006 (like Patrick J. Speer) to utter the above words about Oswald's
rifle being stolen from Ruth Paine's home prior to 11/22/63?

The reason I can ask my last question is because of the following
questions that I'd like for Pat Speer to answer:

1.) If Lee Oswald was only going to Irving to get some curtain rods,
then why did he feel it necessary to go to the Paine house one day
earlier than usual on 11/21/63?

2.) Why did Oswald lie (twice) to Buell Frazier about the "curtain
rods"? If the bag really had something innocuous in it, then why does
Oswald feel the need to lie about the bag's contents (twice) to
Frazier (once on Thursday morning and again on Friday morning)?

3.) If not Rifle C2766, then what was in the package that Frazier and
Linnie Randle saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63?

4.) Since every last piece of physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit
murder cases points straight to Lee Harvey Oswald, then why do so many
conspiracists continually feel the need to paint him as an innocent
patsy? Why would ANYONE do that? Just to be contrary?

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Apr 10, 12:07 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2012 14:53:23 -0400, Pat Speer <groovyst...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 10, 8:47=A0am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> On 10 Apr 2012 11:00:08 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> Backyard photos. =3DA0Buffs say "faked."
>
> >> >> Handwriting evidence tying Oswald the rifle. =3DA0Buffs: "faked"
>
> >> >> Zapruder film: =3DA0"faked"
>
> >> >> Autopsy photos: =3DA0"faked"
>
> >> >> Autopsy x-rays: "faked"
>
> >> >> Documents saying Mexico City tapes were destroyed: "faked"
>
> >> >> Do I need to go on?
>
> >> >Why bother? This has nothing to do with me.
>
> >> But you were defending the buff culture on the Education Forum.
>
> >Now who's misrepresenting the situation? I'm defending people's right to
> >research what interests them. Many if not most CTs doubt the SBT going in,
> >and only doubt it more when they look at it. Then move on.
>
> You were defending their unwillingness to *debate* the issue. That
> puts them in la-la land, where they can declare the issue "settled"
> and ignore counter-arguments.

They will debate issues they feel like debating, and not issues they
consider closed. If you were trying to solve the case, as opposed to
dancing around claiming it's already been solved, you would do the same.

>
> >You seem to
> >think people shouldn't be allowed to investigate the behavior of the CIA,
> >or Lyndon Johnson's ties to the mafia, until they have convinced you the
> >SBT is bogus.
>
> They can investigate anything they want. In fact, they have a perfect
> right to waste their time and spin their wheels, as they have been
> doing for decades.

Progress has been made. And will continue to be made.

>
>
>
> >> That means you should defend the beliefs prevalent there, or distance
> >> yourself from them.
>
> >It means no such thing. But, FWIW, I have voiced my disagreement with
> >silly and/or inaccurate theories hundreds if not thousands of times. I
> >spend at least as much time criticizing CTs as I do LNs. Do you spend
> >even 1/100th as much time criticizing the defenders of the Warren Report
> >as you do criticizing CTs? Of course not. So let's not make any mistake
> >here as to who is his own man and who is hiding in a pack.
>
> There is simply a lot more to criticize about the buffs.

So why not just tell it straight, instead of funneling questions about the
murder of a president through a right/left view of the world? That was the
most disappointing thing about your book, IMO. You had the chance to tell
those reading your book, people probably pre-disposed to a single-assassin
conclusion, about the government's propping up of eyewitness testimony,
and over-reliance on questionable experts, and then show how this set the
tone for the debate that followed.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >Which reminds me.. Have you ever found one other instance in the hist=
> >ory
> >> >> >of crime where fibers matching those of the defendant's shirt were fo=
> >und
> >> >> >wrapped around a plate on the presumed murder weapon...AFTER the rifl=
> >e w=3D
> >> >as
> >> >> >dusted for prints?
>
> >> >> See!!!
>
> >> >> "Faked."
>
> >> >Nice dodge. You don't know the answer because you are incapable of
> >> >asking the question.
>
> >> You are acting like a typical buff here, saying "this is something I
> >> think is sinister. =A0YOU prove it isn't, or there was a conspiracy."
>
> >> It doesn't work that way.
>
> >You've made that up. In a court of law, or in public opinion, doubt
> >has substance.
>
> Actually, doubt that lacks any basis in sound forensics has no
> standing.
>
> You haven't made any argument based on sound forensics.

Hogwash. You don't know what you're talking about. Look up Puppe's
Rule and get back to me.

>
> BTW, if the Evil Minions were going to plant evidence, why didn't they
> plant better evidence? The fiber evidence is considerably short of a
> "tot he exclusion of all other shirts" standard.

It was just one piece to the puzzle.

>
>
>
> >> YOU prove that there is any problem with the fibers.
>
> >I already have. The problem is that there is a reasonable doubt as to
> >their provenance. They were found on the rifle AFTER it had been inspected
> >and dusted. Do you now anything about trace evidence? It is supposed to be
> >collected first. Do you know anything about fiber evidence? It is normally
> >found at the crime scene and/or pulled off the victim's clothes, then
> >connected to a suspect. Here it was found on the murder weapon. A one in a
> >million shot. This is highly suspicious, and would be seen so by a jury.
>
> Actually, probably not.
>
> A Dallas jury, which would have tried Oswald, would not have believed
> that literally dozens of Dallas cops would have been involved in a
> massive conspiracy to frame Oswald.

I actually agree with you on this point. A 1964 Dallas jury would have
convicted Oswald, guilty or not, even if they thought much of the evidence
was suspicious. If he survived a few years, however, questions about the
fibers and the palm print, etc, might have convinced a higher court that a
new trial was needed. This, in turn, might have led Wade to abandon the
death sentence. Which means, if Oswald hadn't been killed, he might still
be alive, and we'd be having this discussion in an entirely different
context.

>
> >Particularly in that Oswald claimed he wasn't even wearing that shirt at
> >work that day, and none of his co-workers remembered seeing him in that
> >shirt.
>
> He was arrested in that shirt.

Yes, but he went home first. At which time he changed into that

shirt.

>
>
>
> >> >> >I'd like to see that piece of evidence survive the adversarial proces=
> >s..=3D
> >> >.
>
> >> >> We know how your buff evidence survives the adversiarial process.
>
> >> >MY buff evidence has never been exposed to the adversarial process.
>
> >> That's because it's too far out of the mainstream.
>
> >What nonsense. You don't have the faintest understanding of what I
> >consider MY buff evidence.
>
> Yes, actually I do. You've tried to impeach the Artwohl analysis of
> the trajectory through Kennedy's torso merely by scaling the photo so
> that it doesn't match something else.

Tried? I showed to a 100% certainty that the entrance wound in Artwohl's
analysis was not where the HSCA FPP concluded it to have been, and you
tried to wiggle out of this by pretending I HAD made some mistake. LOL.
Okay, let's go through it again. If a bullet enters at the T-1 level of
the spine, on a sharply descending trajectory in comparison to the body
while in the anatomic position, would it exit lower than the T-1 level on
the spine?

>
> You've tried to impeach the photo of the bag discovered in the
> Depository with a "recreation" that made no effort *at all* to
> recreate the conditions of the news photo (distance, angle, lens focal
> length, etc.).

Not true. Even worse for you, professional photographer Craig Lamson
figured out exactly what it would take to make the proportions of the bag
match, and claimed the bag was leaning sharply to the camera when the
photo was taken...something that's obvious untrue...as proven by the lines
on the bag...which he conveniently left off his "proof-of- concept" photo.

>
> Most of the time, I just don't understand what your point is.

That is precisely the point. When faced with evidence damaging to your
position, your mind shuts down.

>
>
>
> >> >> We saw it in the O.J. Simpson civil trial.
>
> >> >Nice dodge. The evidence against Simpson was stronger than that
> >> >against Oswald, yet he walked from his criminal trial.
>
> >> Because of a racist jury. =A0A lot of people walked who where clearly
> >> guilty.
>
> >Something tells me you weren't as concerned about racist juries in the
> >fifties and sixties as you are now.
>
> That "something" is your ideological bias.

Not true. I read Petrocelli's book and agree that the Simpson jury was
racist. It's just that you're so defensive of all things "right" I find it
hard to believe you marched or lifted a finger for black victims of racism
in the sixties or seventies. Am I correct? (By the way, I'm prepared to be
surprised. One of my conservative friends was at one time very active in
trying to end slavery in Africa.)

>
> I'm not politically correct. I have a single standard about guilt,
> and it doesn't depend on the race of the victim, nor of the offender.
>
> Apparently you have a different perspective.

No.

>
> >Besides, the point is made. You seem
> >to be clinging to the illusion Oswald's guilt is clear-cut, and would be
> >readily shown in the adversarial process, when the Simpson and Blake cases
> >suggest otherwise, and even Posner admits Mark Lane could get him off.
>
> No doubt *some* biased juries would let Oswald off, but when there was
> top-notch legal talent on both sides (Spence vs. Bugliosi) Oswald was
> convicted.

Bugliosi was more into it than Spence. Spence didn't even bother to keep a
transcript. Bugliosi spent 20 years writing a book on it.

[slats]

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote in news:07480751-caf8-4218-bd4f-
62d097...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:

>
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
>>>> "It is entirely possible someone stole the rifle a week or two before
> the shooting, then had it stashed in the building on the night of 11-21,
> or earlier." <<<
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> How is it even remotely possible for a reasonable and rational person
> who has been looking deeply into the JFK-assassination evidence since
> 2006 (like Patrick J. Speer) to utter the above words about Oswald's
> rifle being stolen from Ruth Paine's home prior to 11/22/63?
>
> The reason I can ask my last question is because of the following
> questions that I'd like for Pat Speer to answer:

> 2.) Why did Oswald lie (twice) to Buell Frazier about the "curtain
> rods"? If the bag really had something innocuous in it, then why does
> Oswald feel the need to lie about the bag's contents (twice) to
> Frazier (once on Thursday morning and again on Friday morning)?

The CTers would say that he WASN'T lying about the "innocuous" curtain
rods, although we both know that's a crock.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/10/2012 11:41 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
>>>> "It is entirely possible someone stole the rifle a week or two before
> the shooting, then had it stashed in the building on the night of 11-21,
> or earlier."<<<
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> How is it even remotely possible for a reasonable and rational person
> who has been looking deeply into the JFK-assassination evidence since
> 2006 (like Patrick J. Speer) to utter the above words about Oswald's
> rifle being stolen from Ruth Paine's home prior to 11/22/63?
>

Amazing isn't that you think everyone must believe exactly what you believe>

> The reason I can ask my last question is because of the following
> questions that I'd like for Pat Speer to answer:
>

Why don't you ask them another 100 times and keep pretending that no one
is brave enough to answer them when we have already answered them
thousands of time?

> 1.) If Lee Oswald was only going to Irving to get some curtain rods,
> then why did he feel it necessary to go to the Paine house one day
> earlier than usual on 11/21/63?
>

To plead with his wife to move back in with him.

> 2.) Why did Oswald lie (twice) to Buell Frazier about the "curtain
> rods"? If the bag really had something innocuous in it, then why does
> Oswald feel the need to lie about the bag's contents (twice) to
> Frazier (once on Thursday morning and again on Friday morning)?
>

Prove that he was lying.

> 3.) If not Rifle C2766, then what was in the package that Frazier and
> Linnie Randle saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63?
>

Curtain rods? Curtains? Submarine sandwich?

> 4.) Since every last piece of physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit
> murder cases points straight to Lee Harvey Oswald, then why do so many
> conspiracists continually feel the need to paint him as an innocent
> patsy? Why would ANYONE do that? Just to be contrary?
>

Because there was not much of a political motive to kill Tippit, but
there were political motives to kill Kennedy.
And because the physical evidence evidence proves that Kennedy was
killed by a conspiracy and it seems unlikely that Oswald would be a
willing member of the team.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/10/2012 7:36 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> How did your make-believe thief get the rifle out of Ruth Paine's
> garage without being heard or seen?
>
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> Oh Master of Illogic, how did Oswald supposedly get the rifle out of
> Ruth Paine's garage without being heard [or] seen?
>
>
> DVP:
>
> Oswald was staying at the Paine house on Nov. 21 and therefore had
> easy access to the garage. He wasn't a thief on the outside trying to
> get in.
>

Unresponsive. The bone of contention was only about remove the rifle
unseen and unheard. Anyone could do that any time.

> And you think it would have been extremely difficult for Oswald to
> have merely taken his own rifle out of the Paine garage on Friday
> morning while everyone else in the house was asleep? You think that
> sleeping people would had to notice Oswald leaving the house with a
> package in his hands? That's odd.
>

I never said anything about that. Your question was about how easy it
would be for someone else to do what you think Oswald did.

> TONY MARSH:
>
> How did Oswald smuggle his 40-inch rifle into the TSBD without anyone
> seeing it?
>
> DVP:
>
> He didn't. Wesley Frazier saw it (the large package). And Wesley saw

Unresponsive. I said the rifle, not a bag.

> Oswald ENTER THE BUILDING with the package. (See Page 2 of Buell
> Wesley Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit below for confirmation of this.)
>

Actually no. He was still running the engine of his car as Oswald walked
out of sight. He did not see Oswald entering the TSBD. But Givens was
paid to say that he did see Oswald enter the TSBD about 8 AM, but they
forgot to tell to say that he saw the rifle.

> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fnUXqaMoRpw/TvxpsigRUwI/AAAAAAAABzY/mDQwRYPV0lE/s1600-h/Buell-Wesley-Frazier-Affidavit.png
>
> TONY MARSH:
>
> Where did he hide it all morning long so that no one would stumble
> across it?
>
> DVP:
>
> Nobody can answer that question. And it is something I have asked
> myself too. But the fact we can never know where within the Book
> Depository that Oswald hid his rifle prior to 12:30 PM on 11/22 is
> certainly not strong evidence that he never took the rifle into the
> building AT ALL.

Right, but is goes to the weakness of your phony arguments.

>
> Wes Frazier's testimony about seeing LHO take a package INTO THE BACK
> DOOR OF THE BUILDING, coupled with the fact that Oswald's own Carcano
> rifle was found on the sixth floor after the assassination, plus the
> empty brown bag in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on it),
> pretty much make this part of the case easy to figure out. Oswald took
> his own rifle to work in a paper bag on 11/22.
>

It makes is easy to see how someone framed him.

> But I can just as easily ask the conspiracy theorists the same two
> questions Tony Marsh just asked me:
>
> How did THE CONSPIRATORS smuggle Oswald's 40-inch rifle into the
> TSBD without anyone seeing it? .... And: .... Where did THE
> CONSPIRATORS hide it all morning long so that no one would stumble
> across it?
>
> Any ideas, Tony?
>

In exactly the same ways that you claim for Oswald.

> Or do you think that NOBODY brought that Carcano into the TSBD on the
> MORNING of Nov. 22? Do you think it made its way into the building by
> way of the police breaking into Ruth Paine's garage on the afternoon
> of Nov. 22 (but before 1:22 PM) and then the cops rushed the Carcano
> to the TSBD where it could be conveniently planted behind the boxes on
> the sixth floor (and then filmed by Tom Alyea before 1:30 PM)?
>

I never said anything about the cops. Your straw man arguments are
unnecessarily insulting to the DPD.

> TONY MARSH:
>
> Looking for the most simplistic solution is not a good way to solve a
> crime.
>
> DVP:
>
> Yeah, sure Tony. It's always much much better to muddy the waters by
> pretending that a whole bunch of unprovable things happened -- like
> your theory about Oswald's rifle being stolen from Ruth Paine's house.
>
> (Occam is turning over in his grave right now.)
>

You misuse Occam's Razor. It does not apply to conspiracies. Data
doesn't lie. People lie. He said the simplest explanation is more
likely, not the most simplistic. The most simplistic answer is why we
were stuck with the Flat Earth Theory for thousands of years. The real
answer is more complicated.

>
> TONY MARSH:
>
> Don't factor in what you can't prove.
>
>
> DVP:
>
> Says the man who thinks Oswald's rifle was stolen.
>
> Pot meets kettle--again.
>
>
> TONY MARSH:
>
> We know that the police lied about what Oswald said.
>
>
> DVP:
>
> We do? How do "we" know this for a fact, Anthony? Please enlighten us.
>

I have done so thousands of times before.
The police lied about what Oswald said.
They said that he said he ate lunch with the two Negro men in the Domino
Room. That is not what he said. He said he saw them walk by as he was in
the Domino Room.

>
> TONTY MARSH:
>
> We don't know that Oswald lied, because they did not record the
> interviews.
>
>
> DVP:
>
> You say with such certainty that "we know that the police lied about
> what Oswald said", but one second later you say "we don't know that
> Oswald lied, because they did not record the interviews".
>

Two different concepts.

> So, even though we're talking about the very same unrecorded
> interviews, Tony Marsh is absolutely positive about the DPD telling
> lies, but he wants to give poor LHO the benefit of the doubt.
>

No. One we can prove, the other we can't.

> Nice double standard there, Tony.
>
>
> TONY MARSH:
>
> Prove that he [Oswald] did [lie to Buell Wesley Frazier about the
> contents of the paper bag].
>
>
> DVP:
>
> The proof that Oswald lied about the curtain rods is the fact that no
> curtain rods were ever found in the TSBD (and no curtain rods were
> ever found at Oswald's roominghouse on Beckley).
>

Again, so what? They didn't find his jacket for a couple of weeks. They
were very sloppy.

> And I can only assume, Tony, that you don't really think that Oswald
> took some curtain rods out of the building at about 12:33 PM on Nov.
> 22 and then he just tossed them in a trash dumpster somewhere between
> the Depository and 1026 Beckley. Do you?
>

How much do you pay for your strawman arguments?

> Or was Roy Truly a liar when he said what he said about curtain rods
> in CE2640?
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0465a.htm
>
>
> Or would you like to pull a DiEugenio and call Buell Frazier a rotten
> liar? Frazier, as we all know, has never varied his story one bit
> about the curtain rods. For decades Frazier has told the same story
> about how Oswald (twice) mentioned "curtain rods" in association with
> LHO's unusual trip to the Paine home in Irving on Thursday, November
> 21st.
>

Do you think Frazier lied about the length of the package? If not, then
27" is not long enough to hold the rifle, even broken down?

> Do you really think Frazier is a liar, Tony?
>

Someone is the liar here and I don't think it was Frazier.
YOU need to call Frazier a liar because he said the bag was too short.

> http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/buell-wesley-frazier.html
>
>
> TONY MARSH:
>
> It wasn't a large bag. It was a small bag.
>
>
> DVP:
>
> So, you think Frazier DID lie about the bag then, eh Tony? And Linnie
> Mae Randle must have lied too, because she said she saw Oswald
> carrying a decent-sized (not "small") bag on the morning of November
> 22.
>
> Why are you intentionally misrepresenting the evidence, Tony?
>

Small enough to fit under his shoulder.
Estimated to be less than three feet. YOU are the one who needs to call
them liars.

>
> TONY MARSH:
>
> We don't know what Oswald said to the police.
>
>
> DVP:
>
> Sure we do. We can't know verbatim what Oswald told the police, but we

No, we don't.

> know enough to know that Oswald was positively a big fat liar when it
> comes to a lot of substantive things associated with the two murder
> charges he was facing.
>
> And we know for a fact that he was attempting to distance himself from
> the two murder weapons as much as he could--to the point of Oswald not
> mentioning the Neely address when he was asked to list all of his
> previous residences; and to the point where Oswald lied about where he
> purchased the Tippit murder weapon (even though he was caught red-
> handed with that gun on him when he was arrested).
>

Without benefit of counsel volunteering too much information would lead
to the attempt on Walker.

>
> TONY MARSH:
>
> Time frame. Maybe he [Oswald] meant [he didn't own a rifle] at that
> moment [in November 1963].
>
>
> DVP:
>
> You're reaching, Tony. And you know you it. You know damn well that
> Oswald ordered, paid for, and possessed Carcano rifle #C2766 in 1963.

Yeah, and so what? That does not prove that he owned it on 11/22/63.

> The trail leading to him as the owner of that gun is three miles long.
> You, as always, just like to argue about things that are proven facts.
>

No. I explicitly detailed those very things many times.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/10/2012 7:33 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "Your example of Life tampering with the backyard photo does not prove
> conspiracy. It proves cover-up."<<<
>
>
> You think that by changing the look of the rifle to make it look much LESS
> like the Mannlicher-Carcano that was used to kill JFK, LIFE Magazine was
> making a BETTER case for Oswald being the assassin?
>
> Weird cover-up there.
>

That's one of the problems with cover-ups. Like saying a bullet fragment
in the head is exactly 6.5mm wide because the FBI told you that Oswald's
ammo was fired from a 6.5 mm rifle and not knowing the detail that his
bullets were actually 6.8 mm wide.

> And, btw, it's not just the scope we're talking about here either. The
> LIFE picture shows a totally altered barrel of the gun too. And why on
> Earth would LIFE want to do that type of altering if they wanted to make
> it look MORE like Oswald was holding Carcano #C2766?
>

Because some dummy at the FBI was feeding them wrong information.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Apr 10, 8:41 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> >>> "It is entirely possible someone stole the rifle a week or two before
>
> the shooting, then had it stashed in the building on the night of 11-21,
> or earlier." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> How is it even remotely possible for a reasonable and rational person
> who has been looking deeply into the JFK-assassination evidence since
> 2006

2003

(like Patrick J. Speer) to utter the above words about Oswald's
> rifle being stolen from Ruth Paine's home prior to 11/22/63?

Because it's the truth, as acknowledged by yourself, when you failed to
address what I said, and asked the following questions, which had NOTHING
to do with what i said.

>
> The reason I can ask my last question is because of the following
> questions that I'd like for Pat Speer to answer:
>
> 1.) If Lee Oswald was only going to Irving to get some curtain rods,
> then why did he feel it necessary to go to the Paine house one day
> earlier than usual on 11/21/63?

This is not related to the question of whether or not it was possible
someone stole the rifle and put it in the building.

>
> 2.) Why did Oswald lie (twice) to Buell Frazier about the "curtain
> rods"? If the bag really had something innocuous in it, then why does
> Oswald feel the need to lie about the bag's contents (twice) to
> Frazier (once on Thursday morning and again on Friday morning)?

This is not related to the question of whether or not it was possible
someone stole the rifle and put it in the building.

>
> 3.) If not Rifle C2766, then what was in the package that Frazier and
> Linnie Randle saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63?

This is not related to the question of whether or not it was possible
someone stole the rifle and put it in the building.

>
> 4.) Since every last piece of physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit
> murder cases points straight to Lee Harvey Oswald, then why do so many
> conspiracists continually feel the need to paint him as an innocent
> patsy? Why would ANYONE do that? Just to be contrary?

This is not related to the question of whether or not it was possible
someone stole the rifle and put it in the building.

P.S. Since Oswald was murdered before he could answer questions 1-3, it is
illogical and unfair to assume he had no answers for them. It's like
asking, "If Trayvon Martin was a good kid, then why did he get kicked out
of school, and why did he attack George Zimmerman?"

[Ben Holmes]

In article <4f851ea3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 4/10/2012 7:33 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Your example of Life tampering with the backyard photo does not prove
>> conspiracy. It proves cover-up."<<<
>>
>>
>> You think that by changing the look of the rifle to make it look much LESS
>> like the Mannlicher-Carcano that was used to kill JFK, LIFE Magazine was
>> making a BETTER case for Oswald being the assassin?
>>
>> Weird cover-up there.
>>
>
>That's one of the problems with cover-ups. Like saying a bullet fragment
>in the head is exactly 6.5mm wide because the FBI told you that Oswald's
>ammo was fired from a 6.5 mm rifle and not knowing the detail that his
>bullets were actually 6.8 mm wide.

I wonder how the plotters were intelligent enough to use a 6.5mm, rather
than an unfired 6.8mm?

Or why you can't cite for your assertion that all rifle bullets are larger
than the bore?

>> And, btw, it's not just the scope we're talking about here either. The
>> LIFE picture shows a totally altered barrel of the gun too. And why on
>> Earth would LIFE want to do that type of altering if they wanted to make
>> it look MORE like Oswald was holding Carcano #C2766?
>>
>
>
>Because some dummy at the FBI was feeding them wrong information.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[David Von Pein]

PAT SPEER SAID:

This is not related to the question of whether or not it was possible
someone stole the rifle and put it in the building.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But those questions are most certainly relevant to THIS PARTICULAR
CASE involving Oswald, his rifle, and his actions on November 21-22,
1963.

Sure, theoretically it's POSSIBLE that someone else could have swiped
LHO's rifle before the assassination....but given the circumstances as
they unfolded involving that rifle's OWNER (a chap named Oswald) on
Nov. 21-22, is it REASONABLE to think that the theoretical possibility
of some other person stealing Oswald's rifle is the truth in this
case?

And, Pat, you know darn well that the four questions I posed in my
previous post are reasonable and relevant questions when it comes to
answering this big-ticket question:

Did Lee Harvey Oswald take his rifle into the TSBD on 11/22/63?

But you avoided having to deal with the reality of the situation by
merely pasting in the same "This is not related.." response to each of
the questions I asked.

If you were Oswald's defense lawyer at his murder trial, then, yes,
you probably would offer up the anemic argument about the rifle being
conveniently stolen without Oswald's knowledge (just as Gerry Spence
did at the '86 mock trial in London when he had Ruth Paine on the
witness stand).

But a reasonable jury isn't going to buy a single word of that
pathetic argument when they hear the other side of the story -- i.e.,
when they hear the prosecution tell them all about Lee Oswald's own
actions...and about the paper bag with Oswald's prints on it (which
has never proven to be a fake)...and about the make-believe "curtain
rods"...and about Oswald's continuous lies that he told the police to
distance himself as much as possible from the murder weapon...etc.

But if you want to talk ONLY about "theoretical possibilities"
regarding Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766 and how it got from Point A
(Ruth Paine's garage in Irving, Texas) to Point B (the sixth floor of
the Texas School Book Depository in downtown Dallas), then have a
ball.

But given the evidence that says it was Lee Harvey Oswald HIMSELF who
removed that rifle from Mrs. Paine's house on 11/22/63, any theory
being proposed about Oswald's rifle being stolen is just about as
believable as a theory which has Barbara Eden of "I Dream Of Jeannie"
using her magic powers to "blink" the rifle from the Paine residence
to the Depository.

Deep down, you know my last paragraph above is 100% spot-on
accurate....don't you Pat?

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

He [Wesley Frazier] did not see Oswald entering the TSBD.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, you want to call Wesley Frazier a liar now. Nice.

Maybe you'd better read Frazier's affidavit again. Was Frazier lying
when he wrote these words on the very day of the assassination?:

"I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the
building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm."
-- Buell Wesley Frazier; 11/22/63

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fnUXqaMoRpw/TvxpsigRUwI/AAAAAAAABzY/mDQwRYPV0lE/s1600-h/Buell-Wesley-Frazier-Affidavit.png


TONY MARSH:

The police lied about what Oswald said. They said that he said he ate
lunch with the two Negro men in the Domino Room. That is not what he
said. He said he saw them walk by as he was in the Domino Room.

DAVID VON PEIN:

So now you're placing a lot of faith in those words of Oswald that
were unrecorded and untranscribed. But as long as you can find some
discrepancy or inconsistency, you're more than eager to call the DPD
rotten liars and cover-uppers. Right, Anthony?

And Sweet Oswald is ALWAYS given the benefit of every doubt by you and
yours, right? (Even though you know you're defending a person who
committed at least one murder [Tippit's]--even from your POV. And
imagine a murderer telling a lie to the police? Gasp!)

TONY MARSH:

YOU need to call Frazier a liar because he said the bag was too short.

DAVID VON PEIN:

Not at all. All I need to do is call Frazier "mistaken" about the
exact length of the bag. You really think it's reasonable to expect
Frazier (or Randle) to nail the exact dimensions of that bag, which
they each saw for opnly a brief period on 11/22? You expect too much
from witnesses.

And it's YOU who just called Wesley Frazier a liar earlier in this
post--when you said this falsehood:

"He did not see Oswald entering the TSBD."

That statement totally contradicts Frazier's affidavit that I cited
above. So, was Frazier a liar?

[bigdog]

There is no limit to the number of possibilities one can imagine if you
don't limit yourself to what the evidence tells us. If you require hard
evidence for what you want to believe, you are limited to Oswald from the
TSBD with his MC rifle.

[Jean Davison]

Excuse me, Pat, but those questions *are* related to the idea
that someone stole Oswald's rifle. A stolen rifle has to fit with the
rest of the evidence or it's not worthy of belief. If what you propose
actually happened, was it just a coincidence that Oswald went to Irving on
Thursday, left his wedding ring, and carried a package to work -- a
package unusual enough for Frasier to ask Oswald what it was and for his
sister to bring it up to the cops?

>
> P.S. Since Oswald was murdered before he could answer questions 1-3, it is
> illogical and unfair to assume he had no answers for them. It's like
> asking, "If Trayvon Martin was a good kid, then why did he get kicked out
> of school, and why did he attack George Zimmerman?"

Oswald did answer questions 1-3, according to his
interrogators. He said that he went to Irving on Thursday because there
was going to be a children's party that weekend (the party had actually
taken place the previous weekend). He said that the only package he
brought was his lunch, which he kept in the front seat. Either Oswald
lied, or these people did.

The theory that Oswald was innocent requires many improbable
coincidences and a long, long list of people who lied in order to help
frame him. CTs never seem to want to address this problem, though.

Jean

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Apr 11, 2:30 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> This is not related to the question of whether or not it was possible
> someone stole the rifle and put it in the building.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> But those questions are most certainly relevant to THIS PARTICULAR
> CASE involving Oswald, his rifle, and his actions on November 21-22,
> 1963.
>
> Sure, theoretically it's POSSIBLE that someone else could have swiped
> LHO's rifle before the assassination....but given the circumstances as
> they unfolded involving that rifle's OWNER (a chap named Oswald) on
> Nov. 21-22, is it REASONABLE to think that the theoretical possibility
> of some other person stealing Oswald's rifle is the truth in this
> case?
>
> And, Pat, you know darn well that the four questions I posed in my
> previous post are reasonable and relevant questions when it comes to
> answering this big-ticket question:
>
> Did Lee Harvey Oswald take his rifle into the TSBD on 11/22/63?

But that wasn't the question at hand. I answered truthfully that there
were other ways for the rifle to get in the building, and you went into
attack mode.

>
> But you avoided having to deal with the reality of the situation by
> merely pasting in the same "This is not related.." response to each of
> the questions I asked.

Because they weren't. You attacked me for telling the truth, then,
rather than admit you were wrong, you asked a bunch of unrelated
questions.

>
> If you were Oswald's defense lawyer at his murder trial, then, yes,
> you probably would offer up the anemic argument about the rifle being
> conveniently stolen without Oswald's knowledge (just as Gerry Spence
> did at the '86 mock trial in London when he had Ruth Paine on the
> witness stand).
>
> But a reasonable jury isn't going to buy a single word of that
> pathetic argument

I think they would--once it was pointed out to them that the man
couldn't do the shooting.

>when they hear the other side of the story -- i.e.,
> when they hear the prosecution tell them all about Lee Oswald's own
> actions...and about the paper bag with Oswald's prints on it (which
> has never proven to be a fake)

Well, right there you show the error of your ways. No one has to prove the
bag was fake, only that it might be fake. And I've shown that over and
over again--starting with the fact Day LIED about signing the bag in the
building, and the WC repeated this lie.

>and about the make-believe "curtain
> rods"...and about Oswald's continuous lies that he told the police to
> distance himself as much as possible from the murder weapon...etc.
>
> But if you want to talk ONLY about "theoretical possibilities"
> regarding Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766 and how it got from Point A
> (Ruth Paine's garage in Irving, Texas) to Point B (the sixth floor of
> the Texas School Book Depository in downtown Dallas), then have a
> ball.
>
> But given the evidence that says it was Lee Harvey Oswald HIMSELF who
> removed that rifle from Mrs. Paine's house on 11/22/63, any theory
> being proposed about Oswald's rifle being stolen is just about as
> believable as a theory which has Barbara Eden of "I Dream Of Jeannie"
> using her magic powers to "blink" the rifle from the Paine residence
> to the Depository.
>
> Deep down, you know my last paragraph above is 100% spot-on
> accurate....don't you Pat?

No, not at all. First of all, there's no evidence the rifle was even in
the house (or garage) on 11/22. Second of all, I find Frazier credible
when he describes the bag he saw as a bag less than half the size of the
bag in the FBI photos .You're locked onto this idea that the rifle had to
have been in the bag, and the bag removed from the building is the one
photographed by the FBI. I have no such lock.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "You're locked onto this idea that the rifle had to have been in the
bag, and the bag removed from the building is the one photographed by the
FBI. I have no such lock." <<<

Then explain to us how an empty brown paper bag (very similar in color to
the one seen by Frazier & Randle), with Oswald's prints on it, ended up
right below the window where JFK's assassin was located on 11/22?

Are you really suggesting that the Sniper's Nest bag (CE142), with LHO's
prints on it, was a DIFFERENT bag from the one Frazier saw Oswald
carrying?

You don't really want to travel down that road--do you, Pat?

Or, as a CT alternative, do you really think that Lt. Day, LD Montgomery,
and Bob Studebaker (and possibly one other DPD officer) lied when they
each said they saw the empty paper bag in the Sniper's Nest just after the
assassination (even though it wasn't photographed on the floor)?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/11/2012 5:25 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article<4f851ea3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 4/10/2012 7:33 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> "Your example of Life tampering with the backyard photo does not prove
>>> conspiracy. It proves cover-up."<<<
>>>
>>>
>>> You think that by changing the look of the rifle to make it look much LESS
>>> like the Mannlicher-Carcano that was used to kill JFK, LIFE Magazine was
>>> making a BETTER case for Oswald being the assassin?
>>>
>>> Weird cover-up there.
>>>
>>
>> That's one of the problems with cover-ups. Like saying a bullet fragment
>> in the head is exactly 6.5mm wide because the FBI told you that Oswald's
>> ammo was fired from a 6.5 mm rifle and not knowing the detail that his
>> bullets were actually 6.8 mm wide.
>
>
> I wonder how the plotters were intelligent enough to use a 6.5mm, rather
> than an unfired 6.8mm?
>

The plotters did not use a 6.5 mm anything. The expert just made up the
figure 6.5 mm to frame Oswald. A bullet for a 6.5 mm rifle is not 6.5 mm
wide. That's why they call it a 6.5 mm.

> Or why you can't cite for your assertion that all rifle bullets are larger
> than the bore?
>

I did. It's the history of rifles.

In a rifled barrel, the distance is measured between opposing lands or
grooves; groove measurements are common in cartridge designations
originating in the United States, while land measurements are more common
elsewhere. It is important to performance that a bullet should closely
match the groove diameter of a barrel to ensure a good seal. When the
barrel diameter is given in inches, the abbreviation "cal" is used in
place of "inches."

A bullet is slightly larger in diameter than the bore diameter of the
barrel in which it is designed to be fired. The bore diameter is the
distance from one land to the opposite land in a barrel. As a result, a
rifled barrel will impress a negative impression of itself on the sides of
the bullet like those seen below.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Yeah, and so? The question I was addressing was whether or not it was
possible someone stole the rifle. David reacted with fake outrage and
wrote "How is it even remotely possible for a reasonable and rational

person who has been looking deeply into the JFK-assassination evidence

since 2006 (like Patrick J. Speer) to utter the above words about Oswald's
rifle being stolen from Ruth Paine's home prior to 11/22/63?" He then
admitted I was right, and that it was entirely possible someone stole the
rifle in order to frame Oswald. He thought it was possible but not likely.
He then asked questions related to his reasons for believing no one stole
the rifle and that Oswald himself brought the rifle to work, which is an
entirely separate issue.

>A stolen rifle has to fit with the
> rest of the evidence or it's not worthy of belief.

It does. There are a number of pieces of evidence more suggestive of a
set-up than guilt. Fibers that appear after the rifle's been dusted for
prints. Palm prints uncovered by the DPD after the FBI's dusted the rifle
and found no prints. A paper bag put into evidence that supposedly held
the rifle that bears little resemblance to the bag removed from the
building... I'm not a lawyer, but even I could get Oswald off with
evidence as shaky as this. Which might be too bad... IMO, there's a slight
possibility Oswald killed Kennedy, but that the DPD and FBI were afraid it
wouldn't stick, and fudged up a case against him...mucking it up
forevermore...

>If what you propose
> actually happened, was it just a coincidence that Oswald went to Irving on
> Thursday, left his wedding ring, and carried a package to work -- a
> package unusual enough for Frasier to ask Oswald what it was and for his
> sister to bring it up to the cops?

I have no idea. Oswald might have provided us the answer but he was
murdered while under the "protection" of the Dallas Police.

>
>
>
> > P.S. Since Oswald was murdered before he could answer questions 1-3, it is
> > illogical and unfair to assume he had no answers for them. It's like
> > asking, "If Trayvon Martin was a good kid, then why did he get kicked out
> > of school, and why did he attack George Zimmerman?"
>
> Oswald did answer questions 1-3, according to his
> interrogators. He said that he went to Irving on Thursday because there
> was going to be a children's party that weekend (the party had actually
> taken place the previous weekend). He said that the only package he
> brought was his lunch, which he kept in the front seat. Either Oswald
> lied, or these people did.
>
> The theory that Oswald was innocent requires many improbable
> coincidences and a long, long list of people who lied in order to help
> frame him.

The theory Oswald acted alone requires just as many, if not more,
improbables, which is why reasonable people think "Gee, maybe Oswald lied
AND there was a conspiracy." The two aren't mutually exclusive. LNs are
locked into this virgin/whore dichotomy regarding Oswald. True
researchers--people earnestly trying to make their way through the
mindfield (pun intended) of nonsense proposed by LNs and CTs with an
agenda--are willing to acknowledge the possibility of all sorts of
scenarios in which Oswald was involved in some way, and distrustful of the
authorities, and lied. They are also willing to acknowledge the
possibility Oswald killed Tippit.

>CTs never seem to want to address this problem, though.

Just as LNs refuse to address the elephant in the room... There is
clear-cut evidence those pushing Oswald' s guilt lied, lied, lied. We
mentioned Cunningham and Gallagher on another thread. Well, how about
Thomas Kelley, who testified about the May 24 SBT re-enactment for the
Secret Service? He testified that the horizontal trajectory worked because
Connally's jump seat was six inches inboard of the back seat, when the
schematics released by the HSCA showed it to be 2 1/2 inches. At Arlen
Specter's prodding, he also said the back wound used in the re-enactment
was established via the Rydberg drawings. The FBI's Shaneyfelt then
testified that the SBT trajectory approximated the back wound location
used in the re-enactment. Specter then pushed in the WR that the SBT
trajectory approximated the back wound location in the Rydberg drawings.
Well, this last bit was true... And yet, something was a bit odd. NO
photos showing the back wound location used in the re-enactment were
admitted into evidence, and the photo supposedly showing that the SBT
trajectory approximated its position was taken from the front.

And yet, press photos of the re-enactment were recycled with the
publication of the WR, and these showed that the back wound location used
in the re-enactment was INCHES away from its location in the Rydberg
drawings.

And then...years later, after researchers began complaining that the WC
never inspected the autopsy photos to establish the actual back wound
location, Specter and Kelley both admitted that they'd looked at a photo
of Kennedy's back wound on the day of the re-enactment. Well, oops, this
proved--beyond a reasonable doubt--that Kelley lied when he said they'd
used the Rydberg drawings to establish the back wound location.

And then, in time, FBI photos of the re-enactment seeped to the surface.
These showed that the SBT trajectory tested by Specter passed inches above
the back wound location used in the re-enactment. This proved, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that Specter knew Shaneyfelt's testimony that the
trajectory approximated that of the back wound was misleading, if not a
deliberate lie. This proved, moreover, that Specter's pushing, in the WR,
that the SBT trajectory approximated the trajectory in the Rydberg
drawings was also misleading, and deliberately so.

This whole scenario, in fact, suggests that Specter orchestrated the
testimony regarding the re-enactment to hide that 1) the actual back wound
location was inches lower than in the Rydberg drawings, and 2) there were
strong reasons to doubt the SBT trajectory.

This is 2 plus 2 = 4 kind of stuff. But will you find even one LNer
willing to admit that the evidence suggests that Specter deliberately
misled the public and suborned perjury? Of course not.

Because, to them, it's not about uncovering the truth, but about pushing
the one true religion.

> Jean

[David Von Pein]

After reading Pat Speer's last post, I think I'll merely repeat my
earlier question (which will always be valid whenever discussing the
JFK case with conspiracy theorists):

"Since every last piece of physical evidence in the JFK and
Tippit murder cases points straight to Lee Harvey Oswald, then why do
so many conspiracists continually feel the need to paint him as an

innocent patsy? Why would ANYONE do that? Just to be contrary?" --
DVP; 4/10/12

[bigdog]

The CTs really have two choices to make the case for conspiracy. One would
be to accept Oswald's obvious guilt but make the case that he had
accomplices. The other is to claim Oswald was just a patsy, which makes a
de facto case for conspiracy. The former would seem to be the obvious way
to go but since they can't find any compelling evidence to link Oswald to
any group or individuals, they resort to the second choice which forces
them to argue that the physical evidence was all tampered with to make
poor innocent LHO look guilty. Never mind that it would take a cast of
hundreds if not thousands to pull that one off.

[Anthony Marsh]

First, you need to separate the JFK assassination from the Tippit murder.
One does not prove the other. I have already stipulated that Oswald
murdered Tippit. But there is reasonable doubt about the JFK assassination
due to the mishandling of the physical evidence. Much like the OJ Simpson
case. Yet the WC defenders just assume that Oswald was guilty in THAT case
without proving it. Why would ANYONE do that? Just to cover it up because
they know it was a conspiracy? That is why LBJ ordered the cover-up.
Because he knew it was a conspiracy.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Thanks, David, I'll take that as a clear admission on your part that you
agree Specter lied--but that you just don't care. Most LNs--for some
strange reason--tend to look at the assassination as strictly a matter of
whodunnit. They think Oswald did it and that's all that matters. My
interest in the case transcends "whodunnit" and extends to how was it
investigated and did the government LIE. The answer is clearly YES, we
were lied to, over and over.

At this point in time, moreover, that clear-cut fact is far more important
than Oswald's guilt or innocence.

[Anthony Marsh]

Like the LA cops planting a bloody glove which didn't even fit OJ Simpson
on his property. Or planting his blood from the sample they took on his
socks.

Even innocent people lie to the police. Remember that Oswald had used that
rifle to shoot at General Walker and that attempted murder case was still
unsolved.

If the DPD could not solve it then they might be able to solve it in
November.

>> CTs never seem to want to address this problem, though.
>
> Just as LNs refuse to address the elephant in the room... There is
> clear-cut evidence those pushing Oswald' s guilt lied, lied, lied. We
> mentioned Cunningham and Gallagher on another thread. Well, how about
> Thomas Kelley, who testified about the May 24 SBT re-enactment for the

And what about Kelley's lie that the chrome topping was always dented?

> Secret Service? He testified that the horizontal trajectory worked because
> Connally's jump seat was six inches inboard of the back seat, when the
> schematics released by the HSCA showed it to be 2 1/2 inches. At Arlen

I am not sure he said exactly that, but remember that the SS correctly
calculated that Connally would be only 1-1/2 inches below JFK while
"experts" like Dale Myers lie to the public and say it was three inches.

> Specter's prodding, he also said the back wound used in the re-enactment
> was established via the Rydberg drawings. The FBI's Shaneyfelt then

I don't think so. They had the actual coat that JFK wore. But they made
no attempt to replicate JFK's position at the exact moment he was shot
because that was still and unknown.

> testified that the SBT trajectory approximated the back wound location
> used in the re-enactment. Specter then pushed in the WR that the SBT
> trajectory approximated the back wound location in the Rydberg drawings.
> Well, this last bit was true... And yet, something was a bit odd. NO
> photos showing the back wound location used in the re-enactment were
> admitted into evidence, and the photo supposedly showing that the SBT
> trajectory approximated its position was taken from the front.
>

And they hid the photo taken from the back.

> And yet, press photos of the re-enactment were recycled with the
> publication of the WR, and these showed that the back wound location used
> in the re-enactment was INCHES away from its location in the Rydberg
> drawings.
>
> And then...years later, after researchers began complaining that the WC
> never inspected the autopsy photos to establish the actual back wound
> location, Specter and Kelley both admitted that they'd looked at a photo
> of Kennedy's back wound on the day of the re-enactment. Well, oops, this

I doubt that they looked at the autopsy photos. They might have looked
at a photo of the jacket.

> proved--beyond a reasonable doubt--that Kelley lied when he said they'd
> used the Rydberg drawings to establish the back wound location.
>
> And then, in time, FBI photos of the re-enactment seeped to the surface.
> These showed that the SBT trajectory tested by Specter passed inches above
> the back wound location used in the re-enactment. This proved, beyond a
> reasonable doubt, that Specter knew Shaneyfelt's testimony that the
> trajectory approximated that of the back wound was misleading, if not a
> deliberate lie. This proved, moreover, that Specter's pushing, in the WR,
> that the SBT trajectory approximated the trajectory in the Rydberg
> drawings was also misleading, and deliberately so.
>

On what date was the Rydberg drawing made?

> This whole scenario, in fact, suggests that Specter orchestrated the
> testimony regarding the re-enactment to hide that 1) the actual back wound
> location was inches lower than in the Rydberg drawings, and 2) there were
> strong reasons to doubt the SBT trajectory.
>
> This is 2 plus 2 = 4 kind of stuff. But will you find even one LNer
> willing to admit that the evidence suggests that Specter deliberately
> misled the public and suborned perjury? Of course not.
>
> Because, to them, it's not about uncovering the truth, but about pushing
> the one true religion.
>

But the Truth is very scary. They are only doing their patriotic duty to
prevent WWIII.

>> Jean
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/12/2012 9:55 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "You're locked onto this idea that the rifle had to have been in the
> bag, and the bag removed from the building is the one photographed by the
> FBI. I have no such lock."<<<
>
> Then explain to us how an empty brown paper bag (very similar in color to

> the one seen by Frazier& Randle), with Oswald's prints on it, ended up

> right below the window where JFK's assassin was located on 11/22?
>
> Are you really suggesting that the Sniper's Nest bag (CE142), with LHO's
> prints on it, was a DIFFERENT bag from the one Frazier saw Oswald
> carrying?
>
> You don't really want to travel down that road--do you, Pat?
>
> Or, as a CT alternative, do you really think that Lt. Day, LD Montgomery,
> and Bob Studebaker (and possibly one other DPD officer) lied when they
> each said they saw the empty paper bag in the Sniper's Nest just after the
> assassination (even though it wasn't photographed on the floor)?
>

Did Alyea see it when he filmed that area? Did he intentionally decide
to not film it?

[Anthony Marsh]

Straw man argument. It didn't take a cast of hundreds if not thousands to
plan to assassinate Castro. But it took the whole government to cover up
the plots.

[claviger]

Pat,

If you believe in a government coverup the Howard Donahue Theory is a
valid reason for a Federal investigation to lie and withhold evidence, but
no conspiracy or other snipers involved.

[David Von Pein]

PAT SPEER SAID:

My interest in the case transcends "whodunnit" and extends to how was
it investigated and did the government LIE. The answer is clearly YES,
we were lied to, over and over.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're not being fair to Specter, Shaneyfelt, Kelley, et al. You think
they lied. They didn't, of course. And the reason I am sure they never
lied about anything in this case is quite simple:

They didn't NEED to lie to convict Lee Harvey Oswald.

And that's because everything Oswald did and said reeks with his
(double) guilt. Everything.

As far as Thomas J. Kelley's "six inch" measurement regarding the jump
seat -- even you, Pat, admitted in 2008 that regardless of exactly
where that jump seat was located (whether it be 6 inches or 2.5 inches
inboard), John Connally would STILL have been hit by any bullet coming
out of JFK's throat.

And since there's no other reasonable and rational conclusion to reach
other than to conclude that a bullet DID exit JFK's throat, and since
we know that Connally was struck in the upper back by only ONE bullet
(not two) -- then do the math. It's not too hard.

My thoughts regarding Kelley's "6 inch" testimony is this:

I think BOTH Kelley and the Hess & Eisenhardt schematic are correct.
And that's because Kelley's measurement must have been taken from a
slightly different place on the car than was the H&E measurement for
the jump seat location.

Do you really think Kelley just MADE UP his six-inch figure? I don't.
I think that measurement must have been different because they were
measuring from a different starting point. Or, perhaps the "finishing
point" was different than H&E's.

And as for Shaneyfelt and Specter deliberately lying about the back-
wound location, you're being way too harsh on those men....mainly
because we KNOW that some things had to be approximated as far as the
SBT trajectory analysis is concerned. And the word "approximately" is
used in Shaneyfelt's testimony 24 different times when they get to the
subject of the SBT and the 5/24/64 re-enactment in Dealey Plaza. 24
times!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

So, many things are only the BEST GUESSES of people like Shaneyfelt
and Robert Frazier, et al, when dealing with the subject of the SBT
and the precise positioning of the two victims, etc.

Plus, the Warren Commission's whole SBT scenario was based on an
AVERAGE (or approximate) positioning of the limo between a 16-frame
range of Zapruder Film frames (Z210-Z225). They merely split the
difference and used, in essence, Z217.5 as their SBT frame, which is
exactly what we see in CE903, which is an exhibit that thoroughly
demolishes the idea that the WC needed to move the wound in JFK's
upper back into his neck, because it's obvious that the wound on the
JFK stand-in is far below the "neck". For some reason, however, CTers
refuse to acknowledge this fact.

To reiterate an important point:

The Warren Commission didn't lie because they just flat-out had no
reason to lie. And that's because Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself,
really did kill President Kennedy and Officer Tippit. And Oswald's own
actions, plus all of the physical evidence he left behind, proves that
he was guilty. And that fact was proven many days before there ever
was a "Warren Commission" (as illustrated by Henry Wade in the
11/24/63 news conference linked below).

http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/henry-wade-press-conferences.html

[pjsp...@aol.com]

John Canal and Tom Purvis are similar to Donahue, in that they think
Oswald acted alone, but that the government lied about it anyhow. While I
disagree with much of their analysis, they at least acknowledge the
obvious...that all the moving wounds and ever-shifting interpretations of
the Zapruder film are not just some coincidence, and what one should
normally expect from a sincere investigation.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Apr 12, 5:16 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

Yes, he did. Bugliosi cited Kelley's testimony in his book, and built his
whole PR blitz around the anecdote that CTs lie when they say the Kennedy
and Connally weren't in alignment, and that we know from Kelley's
testimony the seat was really six inches inboard. I assumed he got this
from Myers, who should have known better. When, thanks to DVP, Myers
finally responded to my critique of his work, however, he claimed he knew
full well that the seat was only 2 1/2 inches inboard, and said his
depiction of the seat as six inches inboard in Beyond the Magic Bullet was
done for the purpose of "clarity." I kid you not. Black is white and white
is black with these fellas.

Mr. SPECTER. On the President's car itself, what is the distance on
the right edge of the right jump seat, that is to say from the right
edge of the right jump seat to the door on the right side?

Mr. KELLEY. There is 6 inches of clearance between the jump seat and
the door.

> but remember that the SS correctly
> calculated that Connally would be only 1-1/2 inches below JFK while
> "experts" like Dale Myers lie to the public and say it was three inches.

I might have missed that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

>
> > Specter's prodding, he also said the back wound used in the re-enactment
> > was established via the Rydberg drawings. The FBI's Shaneyfelt then
>
> I don't think so.

Yes, he did. What, you think I'm making stuff up?

Mr. SPECTER. What marking, if any, was placed on the back of President
Kennedy--the stand-in for President Kennedy?
Mr. KELLEY. There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area
here.
Mr. SPECTER. And what did that chalk mark represent?
Mr. KELLEY. That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded
the President.
Mr. SPECTER. And how was the location for that mark fixed or
determined?
Mr. KELLEY. That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing
that was made by the physicians and the people at Parkland and an
examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time.
Mr. SPECTER. As to the drawing, was that not the drawing made by the
autopsy surgeons from Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Mr. KELLEY. Bethesda Naval.
Mr. McCLOY. Not Parkland, as I understand it?
Mr. SPECTER No, sir; not Parkland, because as the record will show,
the President was not turned over at Parkland.
Mr. KELLEY. I was shown a drawing of--that was prepared by some
medical technicians indicating the point of entry.
Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to show you Commission Exhibit No. 386, which
has heretofore been marked and introduced into evidence, and I ask you
if that is the drawing that you were shown as the basis for the
marking of the wound on the back of the President's neck.
Mr. KELLEY. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And the record will show, may it please the Commission,
that this was made by the autopsy surgeons at Bethesda.

>They had the actual coat that JFK wore. But they made
> no attempt to replicate JFK's position at the exact moment he was shot
> because that was still and unknown.
>
> > testified that the SBT trajectory approximated the back wound location
> > used in the re-enactment. Specter then pushed in the WR that the SBT
> > trajectory approximated the back wound location in the Rydberg drawings.
> > Well, this last bit was true... And yet, something was a bit odd. NO
> > photos showing the back wound location used in the re-enactment were
> > admitted into evidence, and the photo supposedly showing that the SBT
> > trajectory approximated its position was taken from the front.
>
> And they hid the photo taken from the back.
>
> > And yet, press photos of the re-enactment were recycled with the
> > publication of the WR, and these showed that the back wound location used
> > in the re-enactment was INCHES away from its location in the Rydberg
> > drawings.
>
> > And then...years later, after researchers began complaining that the WC
> > never inspected the autopsy photos to establish the actual back wound
> > location, Specter and Kelley both admitted that they'd looked at a photo
> > of Kennedy's back wound on the day of the re-enactment. Well, oops, this
>
> I doubt that they looked at the autopsy photos.

Of course, they did. Specter admitted this in U.S. News in 66, in the
Saturday Evening Post in 67, in his autobiography in 2000, and at the
Wecht conference in 2003. Kelley admitted it, as I recall, to Harold
Weisberg. Manchester, in TDOAP, mentioned three people seeing the back
wound photo and confirming it was where it is shown on the Rydberg
drawings, and not where it is on the face sheet. He claimed these men
debunked Epstein. The only interviews conducted by Manchester after the
release of Epstein's book were with Howard Willens and George Burkley.
Willens was Specter's college buddy, and was entirely responsible for his
being picked by the commission, and allowed to investigate the basic
facts. As a result, I feel fairly certain the three men cited by
Manchester were Specter, Kelley, and Burkley--who looked over the photos
in 1965 before releasing them to the Kennedy family.

Now, this is the key. Specter had lobbied Warren to let him see the back
wound photo, but had been denied. He then got Kelley to bring the photo to
Dallas and show it to him on the sly. Well, this might explain Specter's
behavior...he knew his making a fuss about the photo--or telling Warren
his single-bullet theory didn't work based upon his viewing of the
photo--would land him in hot water, and ruin his career. So he shut his
trap, and pretended everything was on the up and up.

>They might have looked
> at a photo of the jacket.
>
> > proved--beyond a reasonable doubt--that Kelley lied when he said they'd
> > used the Rydberg drawings to establish the back wound location.
>
> > And then, in time, FBI photos of the re-enactment seeped to the surface.
> > These showed that the SBT trajectory tested by Specter passed inches above
> > the back wound location used in the re-enactment. This proved, beyond a
> > reasonable doubt, that Specter knew Shaneyfelt's testimony that the
> > trajectory approximated that of the back wound was misleading, if not a
> > deliberate lie. This proved, moreover, that Specter's pushing, in the WR,
> > that the SBT trajectory approximated the trajectory in the Rydberg
> > drawings was also misleading, and deliberately so.
>
> On what date was the Rydberg drawing made?

In March, before the doctors testified. Specter never trusted it and asked
if he and Humes could look at the back wound photos to confirm its
accuracy. But was shot down by Warren.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > This whole scenario, in fact, suggests that Specter orchestrated the
> > testimony
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Apr 12, 6:04 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> My interest in the case transcends "whodunnit" and extends to how was
> it investigated and did the government LIE. The answer is clearly YES,
> we were lied to, over and over.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You're not being fair to Specter, Shaneyfelt, Kelley, et al. You think
> they lied. They didn't, of course.

Of course, they did. It's quite obvious when you look at the facts without
an agenda. It doesn't make them evil, or co-conspirators in Kennedy's
murder. They were just doing their job--sweeping a nasty mess under the
carper.

>And the reason I am sure they never
> lied about anything in this case is quite simple:
>
> They didn't NEED to lie to convict Lee Harvey Oswald.

Yes, we know. Oswald was dead and buried. If you had the slightest clue
how things work, however, you'd realize they did NEED to remove all doubts
about Oswald acting alone, so that the assassination could not be used
against Johnson in the '64 election. Have you ever studied Watergate? Do
you have any idea how many people--from the burglars themselves to the
acting director of the FBI--lied or hid information about what went on, so
that Nixon could get re-elected?

>
> And that's because everything Oswald did and said reeks with his
> (double) guilt. Everything.
>
> As far as Thomas J. Kelley's "six inch" measurement regarding the jump
> seat -- even you, Pat, admitted in 2008 that regardless of exactly
> where that jump seat was located (whether it be 6 inches or 2.5 inches
> inboard), John Connally would STILL have been hit by any bullet coming
> out of JFK's throat.

If I said that I was wrong. If the throat wound was an exit for a bullet,
it would almost certainly have been a bullet traveling at a very low
velocity. Such a bullet could have been deflected by the tie out the side
of the limo.

>
> And since there's no other reasonable and rational conclusion to reach
> other than to conclude that a bullet DID exit JFK's throat, and since
> we know that Connally was struck in the upper back by only ONE bullet
> (not two) -- then do the math. It's not too hard.
>
> My thoughts regarding Kelley's "6 inch" testimony is this:
>
> I think BOTH Kelley and the Hess & Eisenhardt schematic are correct.
> And that's because Kelley's measurement must have been taken from a
> slightly different place on the car than was the H&E measurement for
> the jump seat location.

What nonsense.

>
> Do you really think Kelley just MADE UP his six-inch figure? I don't.
> I think that measurement must have been different because they were
> measuring from a different starting point.

Well, then he deliberately compared apples to oranges. Get real.
There's a river in Egypt with which you seem thoroughly familiar.

>Or, perhaps the "finishing
> point" was different than H&E's.
>
> And as for Shaneyfelt and Specter deliberately lying about the back-
> wound location, you're being way too harsh on those men....mainly
> because we KNOW that some things had to be approximated as far as the
> SBT trajectory analysis is concerned. And the word "approximately" is
> used in Shaneyfelt's testimony 24 different times when they get to the
> subject of the SBT and the 5/24/64 re-enactment in Dealey Plaza. 24
> times!

BINGO! They gave the illusion the trajectory passed close to the back
wound, when they both KNEW it passed inches above it. What, you think it
was a coincidence Specter failed to put any photos of the back wound
location into evidence? What, you think it was a coincidence Specter had
Kelley claim they used CE 386, and then wrote in the WR that the
trajectory was close to that in 386, when he knew full well 386 was DEAD
WRONG? Really?

I mean, I'm willing to concede that their lying about these matters could
have nothing to do with Oswald's guilt or innocence, and have everything
to do with their taking shortcuts in order to confirm what they fully
believed, but it's incredibly naive, IMO, to pretend these men were
telling us the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
>
> So, many things are only the BEST GUESSES of people like Shaneyfelt
> and Robert Frazier, et al, when dealing with the subject of the SBT
> and the precise positioning of the two victims, etc.
>
> Plus, the Warren Commission's whole SBT scenario was based on an
> AVERAGE (or approximate) positioning of the limo between a 16-frame
> range of Zapruder Film frames (Z210-Z225). They merely split the
> difference and used, in essence, Z217.5 as their SBT frame, which is
> exactly what we see in CE903, which is an exhibit that thoroughly
> demolishes the idea that the WC needed to move the wound in JFK's
> upper back into his neck, because it's obvious that the wound on the
> JFK stand-in is far below the "neck".

WHAT??? The photo taken from the front, with the trajectory rod passing
over the shoulder, which fails to show the back wound location inches
below this rod, shows a wound "far below the neck"? .

http://www.patspeer.com/arlen.jpg

>For some reason, however, CTers
> refuse to acknowledge this fact.
>
> To reiterate an important point:
>
> The Warren Commission didn't lie because they just flat-out had no
> reason to lie.

So prosecutors never over-state the merits of their case, or introduce
tainted evidence in court, if they honestly believe the defendant is
guilty? Are you really this naive?

I mean, that's about the silliest argument I've ever read. Wait, it sounds
kinda familiar. Gee, where have I read this before? Oh, that's right.
McAdams. He once told me that CTs who make claims that just aren't true
are liars but LNs who make claims that just aren't true are not--because
they don't need to lie.

>And that's because Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself,
> really did kill President Kennedy and Officer Tippit. And Oswald's own
> actions, plus all of the physical evidence he left behind, proves that
> he was guilty. And that fact was proven many days before there ever
> was a "Warren Commission" (as illustrated by Henry Wade in the
> 11/24/63 news conference linked below).

You mean the press conference where he claimed a palm print from the rifle
had been linked to Oswald, when no such thing had occurred? (The FBI did
not even know of this palm print, and Lt. Day later testified that he had
made no such ID.)

>
> http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/henry-wade-press-...

[Jean Davison]

No, that's not what I meant by "fit with the rest of the
evidence." Let's not change the subject back to the same-old CT
complaints about the WC's case, okay? I'm trying to focus on the
weaknesses in the CTs' case, for a change.

>
> >If what you propose
> > actually happened, was it just a coincidence that Oswald went to Irving on
> > Thursday, left his wedding ring, and carried a package to work -- a
> > package unusual enough for Frasier to ask Oswald what it was and for his
> > sister to bring it up to the cops?
>
> I have no idea. Oswald might have provided us the answer but he was
> murdered while under the "protection" of the Dallas Police.
>

As I said, Oswald did provide an answer during questioning.
But let's say those people lied too, and that Oswald had a perfectly
good reason for his actions. It doesn't matter! It would STILL be a
huge coincidence that Oswald carried out these actions that made him
look guilty.

Think about it. What remarkably bad luck it was to bring a
package from Irving and leave his wedding ring on the very day that
his rifle was found in the TSBD. And his bad day continued. He
may've had another perfectly good reason for not watching the
motorcade and for being near the back stairs at just the time the
sniper would've arrived there if he'd hurried downstairs.

Or maybe Oswald was just incredibly dumb and following
orders. In your view, which do you think is more likely -- unlucky or
dumb?

I hope you'll answer that. Up to now, those are the only two
alternatives to the WC's explanation that CTs have ever come up with,
so far as I know.

I don't agree they lied. Have you considered making a list
of these "liars" to see how many there were altogether?

>Well, how about
> Thomas Kelley, who testified about the May 24 SBT re-enactment for the
> Secret Service? He testified that the horizontal trajectory worked because
> Connally's jump seat was six inches inboard of the back seat, when the
> schematics released by the HSCA showed it to be 2 1/2 inches.

Every witness and every investigator was fallible, so the
default explanation ought to be "mistake," not "lie."

The WR didn't even use Kelley's "six inches inboard,"
apparently. It said:

"Even though the precise distance cannot be ascertained, it
is apparent that President Kennedy was somewhat to the Governor's
right."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0065a.htm
[next to last paragraph]

I'm going to skip the rest for now, since we're going off
in all directions.

Jean

[pjsp...@aol.com]

For a change? This newsgroup is filled with discussion after discussion on
the weaknesses in the CT's case. I am merely pointing out that beyond the
Fetzer-type silliness, there are legitimate reasons to be skeptical about
Oswald's guilt.

>
>
> > >If what you propose
> > > actually happened, was it just a coincidence that Oswald went to Irving on
> > > Thursday, left his wedding ring, and carried a package to work -- a
> > > package unusual enough for Frasier to ask Oswald what it was and for his
> > > sister to bring it up to the cops?
>
> > I have no idea. Oswald might have provided us the answer but he was
> > murdered while under the "protection" of the Dallas Police.
>
>          As I said, Oswald did provide an answer during questioning.
> But let's say those people lied too, and that Oswald had a perfectly
> good reason for his actions.  It doesn't matter!  It would STILL be a
> huge coincidence that Oswald carried out these actions that made him
> look guilty.
>
>         Think about it.  What remarkably bad luck it was to bring a
> package from Irving and leave his wedding ring on the very day that
> his rifle was found in the TSBD.  And his bad day continued.  He
> may've had another perfectly good reason for not watching the
> motorcade and for being near the back stairs at just the time the
> sniper would've arrived there if he'd hurried downstairs.
>
>         Or maybe Oswald was just incredibly dumb and following
> orders.  In your view, which do you think is more likely -- unlucky or
> dumb?
>
>          I hope you'll answer that.  Up to now, those are the only two
> alternatives to the WC's explanation that CTs have ever come up with,
> so far as I know.

You seem to be inflicted with the Oswald virgin/whore complex I discussed
earlier. He's either unlucky or dumb? Are you kidding me? Is it really
beyond your imagination that Oswald was involved in some sort of
plot--let's say a plot to hoist a banner from a sixth floor window calling
for co-existence with Cuba (or the opposite--an invasion of Cuba)--and
that this was turned against him? Or that he was ordered by Phillips to
infiltrate an anti-Casto plot-that turned it around on him? I mean, in
this last scenario, do you think Phillips and the CIA would ADMIT Oswald
was their man? Really?

Well, seeing as they never told the WC of the plots against Castro, and
still refuse to cough up the truth about Joannides, I think it's obvious
they would admit no such thing... In the name of national security, etc...
Heck, for all WE know, Oswald is one of the unidentified stars on the
CIA's wall. Right by the Alabama National Guardsmen, killed during the Bay
of Pigs, who were really working for the CIA, which the government claimed
were mercenaries, for years...

I'm sure most if not all of them thought they were "shading" the
truth--as they do in all prosecution cases--in order to help convince the
public of Oswald's "obvious" guilt.

So, let's be clear, do you think Specter was telling the whole truth when,
AFTER viewing the back wound photo, he nevertheless supported the accuracy
of the Rydberg drawings in both Kelley's testimony, and the Warren Report?
Or was this just a little over-sight?

>
> >Well, how about
> > Thomas Kelley, who testified about the May 24 SBT re-enactment for the
> > Secret Service? He testified that the horizontal trajectory worked because
> > Connally's jump seat was six inches inboard of the back seat, when the
> > schematics released by the HSCA showed it to be 2 1/2 inches.
>
>            Every witness and every investigator was fallible, so the
> default explanation ought to be "mistake," not "lie."

Nope. Not when a clear pattern is evident. Kelley was untruthful on two
points--both which supported the SBT. His testimony was orchestrated by
Specter, who also took the testimony of Shaneyfelt, in which Shaneyfelt
pretended the back wound location used in the re- enactment supported the
SBT.

>
>            The WR didn't even use Kelley's "six inches inboard,"
> apparently.  It said:
>
>            "Even though the precise distance cannot be ascertained, it
> is apparent that President Kennedy was somewhat to the Governor's
> right."

Hmmm. Maybe someone realized he'd lied to them. In any event it doesn't
matter, because most every LN, all the way down to Bugliosi, has repeated
Kelley's lie, and used it to support the SBT.

[Anthony Marsh]

As I have explained before Myers misspoke himself. He knew what he wanted
to say, but did not phrase it correctly. What he wanted to say was that
the right edge of Connally's jump seat was 6 inches to the left of the
right edge of JFK's seat. What he did not make clear is that the door juts
into the rear compartment by about 3-1/2 inches so when you add that to
the 2-1/2 inch gap between the door and the jump seat you get about 6
inches. It is not exactly 6 inches and it is not the dimension he spoke
about.

> Mr. SPECTER. On the President's car itself, what is the distance on
> the right edge of the right jump seat, that is to say from the right
> edge of the right jump seat to the door on the right side?
>
> Mr. KELLEY. There is 6 inches of clearance between the jump seat and
> the door.
>

Wrong question and wrong answer. Kelley thought he was answering the
question which Specter should have asked.

But as I remember it they actually used JFK's coat and marked the hole
with a white circle.

>> They had the actual coat that JFK wore. But they made
>> no attempt to replicate JFK's position at the exact moment he was shot
>> because that was still and unknown.
>>
>>> testified that the SBT trajectory approximated the back wound location
>>> used in the re-enactment. Specter then pushed in the WR that the SBT
>>> trajectory approximated the back wound location in the Rydberg drawings.
>>> Well, this last bit was true... And yet, something was a bit odd. NO
>>> photos showing the back wound location used in the re-enactment were
>>> admitted into evidence, and the photo supposedly showing that the SBT
>>> trajectory approximated its position was taken from the front.
>>
>> And they hid the photo taken from the back.
>>
>>> And yet, press photos of the re-enactment were recycled with the
>>> publication of the WR, and these showed that the back wound location used
>>> in the re-enactment was INCHES away from its location in the Rydberg
>>> drawings.
>>
>>> And then...years later, after researchers began complaining that the WC
>>> never inspected the autopsy photos to establish the actual back wound
>>> location, Specter and Kelley both admitted that they'd looked at a photo
>>> of Kennedy's back wound on the day of the re-enactment. Well, oops, this
>>
>> I doubt that they looked at the autopsy photos.
>
> Of course, they did. Specter admitted this in U.S. News in 66, in the
> Saturday Evening Post in 67, in his autobiography in 2000, and at the
> Wecht conference in 2003. Kelley admitted it, as I recall, to Harold

I don't remember them saying it was on the day of the re-enactment that
the looked at the autopsy photos. Isn't that going to be a little
awkward to do down in Dealey Plaza with the Top Secret photos locked up
in the National Archives?
I suspect that Specter saw them when they were shown to Warren. I don't
see where Kelley specified WHEN he saw them.

> Weisberg. Manchester, in TDOAP, mentioned three people seeing the back
> wound photo and confirming it was where it is shown on the Rydberg
> drawings, and not where it is on the face sheet. He claimed these men
> debunked Epstein. The only interviews conducted by Manchester after the
> release of Epstein's book were with Howard Willens and George Burkley.
> Willens was Specter's college buddy, and was entirely responsible for his
> being picked by the commission, and allowed to investigate the basic
> facts. As a result, I feel fairly certain the three men cited by
> Manchester were Specter, Kelley, and Burkley--who looked over the photos
> in 1965 before releasing them to the Kennedy family.
>
> Now, this is the key. Specter had lobbied Warren to let him see the back
> wound photo, but had been denied. He then got Kelley to bring the photo to
> Dallas and show it to him on the sly. Well, this might explain Specter's
> behavior...he knew his making a fuss about the photo--or telling Warren
> his single-bullet theory didn't work based upon his viewing of the
> photo--would land him in hot water, and ruin his career. So he shut his
> trap, and pretended everything was on the up and up.
>

So you have Kelley wandering around Dealey Plaza showing off the autopsy
photos which have been withheld as Top Secret?
Do you have any photos showing Kelley in Dealey Plaza?

>> They might have looked
>> at a photo of the jacket.
>>
>>> proved--beyond a reasonable doubt--that Kelley lied when he said they'd
>>> used the Rydberg drawings to establish the back wound location.
>>
>>> And then, in time, FBI photos of the re-enactment seeped to the surface.
>>> These showed that the SBT trajectory tested by Specter passed inches above
>>> the back wound location used in the re-enactment. This proved, beyond a
>>> reasonable doubt, that Specter knew Shaneyfelt's testimony that the
>>> trajectory approximated that of the back wound was misleading, if not a
>>> deliberate lie. This proved, moreover, that Specter's pushing, in the WR,
>>> that the SBT trajectory approximated the trajectory in the Rydberg
>>> drawings was also misleading, and deliberately so.
>>
>> On what date was the Rydberg drawing made?
>
> In March, before the doctors testified. Specter never trusted it and asked
> if he and Humes could look at the back wound photos to confirm its
> accuracy. But was shot down by Warren.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> This whole scenario, in fact, suggests that Specter orchestrated the
>>> testimony
>>
>> ...
>>

>> read more ?
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Do you really think that the government knew that Hickey killed
President Kennedy and covered it up?

[Anthony Marsh]

What good reason did the other people have for not watching the motorcade?
Didn't like Kennedy? Republicans? Only chance to eat lunch?

> Or maybe Oswald was just incredibly dumb and following
> orders. In your view, which do you think is more likely -- unlucky or
> dumb?
>

Excuse me? You think that people who are in intelligence are dumb to
follow orders?

> I hope you'll answer that. Up to now, those are the only two
> alternatives to the WC's explanation that CTs have ever come up with,
> so far as I know.
>

So far as you know? That about sums it up.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/13/2012 12:35 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:04 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> PAT SPEER SAID:
>>
>> My interest in the case transcends "whodunnit" and extends to how was
>> it investigated and did the government LIE. The answer is clearly YES,
>> we were lied to, over and over.
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> You're not being fair to Specter, Shaneyfelt, Kelley, et al. You think
>> they lied. They didn't, of course.
>
> Of course, they did. It's quite obvious when you look at the facts without
> an agenda. It doesn't make them evil, or co-conspirators in Kennedy's
> murder. They were just doing their job--sweeping a nasty mess under the
> carper.
>

Hey, they were just doing their patriotic duty, preventing WWIII.

>
>> And the reason I am sure they never
>> lied about anything in this case is quite simple:
>>
>> They didn't NEED to lie to convict Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> Yes, we know. Oswald was dead and buried. If you had the slightest clue
> how things work, however, you'd realize they did NEED to remove all doubts
> about Oswald acting alone, so that the assassination could not be used
> against Johnson in the '64 election. Have you ever studied Watergate? Do
> you have any idea how many people--from the burglars themselves to the
> acting director of the FBI--lied or hid information about what went on, so
> that Nixon could get re-elected?
>

Oh, no. Tell us it isn't so. It was supposed to be for National Security.

>>
>> And that's because everything Oswald did and said reeks with his
>> (double) guilt. Everything.
>>
>> As far as Thomas J. Kelley's "six inch" measurement regarding the jump
>> seat -- even you, Pat, admitted in 2008 that regardless of exactly
>> where that jump seat was located (whether it be 6 inches or 2.5 inches
>> inboard), John Connally would STILL have been hit by any bullet coming
>> out of JFK's throat.
>
> If I said that I was wrong. If the throat wound was an exit for a bullet,
> it would almost certainly have been a bullet traveling at a very low
> velocity. Such a bullet could have been deflected by the tie out the side
> of the limo.
>
>>
>> And since there's no other reasonable and rational conclusion to reach
>> other than to conclude that a bullet DID exit JFK's throat, and since
>> we know that Connally was struck in the upper back by only ONE bullet
>> (not two) -- then do the math. It's not too hard.
>>
>> My thoughts regarding Kelley's "6 inch" testimony is this:
>>

>> I think BOTH Kelley and the Hess& Eisenhardt schematic are correct.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "The photo taken from the front, with the trajectory rod passing over
the shoulder, which fails to show the back wound location inches below
this rod, shows a wound "far below the neck"?" <<<

Yes, of course. You actually think this picture shows Specter's rod
entering JFK's neck?....

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/CE903.jpg

[David Von Pein]

PAT SPEER SAID:

They [Arlen Specter and Lyndal Shaneyfelt] gave the illusion the

trajectory passed close to the back wound, when they both KNEW it
passed inches above it.

DAVID VON PEIN RETORTS:

Bullshit. Some things had to be approximated, and the Warren
Commission was forthright about such approximations. And the
trajectory the WC ultimately used (which was for the equivalent of
Z217.5) is obviously not going to be the EXACT trajectory for the
single bullet that struck JFK and Connally--unless, by some incredibly
good fortune, the WC did, indeed, just happen to choose the EXACT half
of a Zapruder frame (Z217.5) when the SBT bullet did strike the
victims, which is very unlikely. (The SBT actually occurs, of course,
at precisely Z224, and there are many reasons why this is so.)

Therefore, Shaneyfelt's and Specter's "approximately" language does
come into play...and rightly so.

In fact, that's probably the reason why Specter's rod is above the
chalk mark on the JFK stand-in in some of the re-enactment photos
taken in the garage near Dealey Plaza. Because, I assume, that the
angle being used for all of those photos is identical (17 degrees, 43
minutes, 30 seconds). And since a 17-43-30 angle is only the average
angle between Z210 and Z225, then (quite obviously) the REAL angle of
descent for the SBT at Z224 (per my opinion about when the bullet
struck) is going to be a little less than 17-43-30 because the car has
travelled further down Elm Street between Z217.5 and Z224, decreasing
the angle from Oswald's window.

But the CE903 reconstruction is so incredibly close to being spot-on
perfect (angle-wise and wound location-wise) that only the hardcore
conspiracy buffs who refuse to "approximate" anything relating to this
case will be unconvinced by it. (With those conspiracists also, of
course, ignoring the undeniable common sense elements that exist in
the 6 points I'm going to talk about below too.)

When we factor in the basic garden-variety common sense of the Single-
Bullet Theory (coupled with the WC's 5/24/64 re-creation of the
shooting in Dealey Plaza), the SBT becomes crystal clear as the
probable truth:

1.) At Z-Film frames 210-225, when looking through the scope of
Oswald's rifle from the SN window in the TSBD, Connally and Kennedy
are lined up--one in front of the other.

2.) JFK was hit in the back by a bullet.

3.) JFK had a bullet hole in his throat.

4.) Connally was hit in the back by a bullet at just about the exact
same time that JFK was being struck by a bullet.

5.) No bullets were inside JFK's throat/neck/upper back.

6.) The only physical evidence of any shooter in Dealey Plaza was
found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD.

Now, just add up #1 thru #6 above and tell me the Single-Bullet Theory
is a load of shit.

Based on just the above basic facts in this case ALONE (and each one
is definitely a proven fact, without a speck of a doubt), the SBT is
the best explanation for the double-man wounding of JFK & JBC on
November 22, 1963.

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

[Jean Davison]

Certainly not. I'm asking you to give me an explanation for
this evidence other than the obvious one -- Oswald went to Irving a day
early because his rifle was there. He left his wedding ring, took his
rifle to work, shot JFK, then hurried downstairs. Hundreds of CT books
have been written, yet virtually none of them even try to explain it some
other way. The reason is obvious: it's hard to do. (It's sort of like
trying to give an innocent explanation for the cuts on O.J.'s hands.)

It seems you've chosen the "following orders" alternative.
Okay...

> Is it really
> beyond your imagination that Oswald was involved in some sort of
> plot--let's say a plot to hoist a banner from a sixth floor window calling
> for co-existence with Cuba (or the opposite--an invasion of Cuba)--and
> that this was turned against him? Or that he was ordered by Phillips to
> infiltrate an anti-Casto plot-that turned it around on him? I mean, in
> this last scenario, do you think Phillips and the CIA would ADMIT Oswald
> was their man? Really?

It's not beyond my imagination at all, but is it plausible?
The plotters would have to make certain that Oswald didn't manage to
establish an alibi for himself. How would they do that? (The one and only
CT explanation I've read is that Oswald was ordered to hide in the second
floor bathroom while the motorcade went by. Really??) What would prevent
LHO from blurting out the truth after his arrest? It doesn't sound likely
to me, and there's no evidence that this is what happened, is there?

>
> Well, seeing as they never told the WC of the plots against Castro, and
> still refuse to cough up the truth about Joannides, I think it's obvious
> they would admit no such thing... In the name of national security, etc...
> Heck, for all WE know, Oswald is one of the unidentified stars on the
> CIA's wall. Right by the Alabama National Guardsmen, killed during the Bay
> of Pigs, who were really working for the CIA, which the government claimed
> were mercenaries, for years...

As I recall, the Guardsmen story broke when some of the
relatives went to the press.

So did someone go around and convince all these people to lie, or
what? And if someone refused, what then?

Really, how many liars were there? Specter, Kelley, Shaneyfelt,
Cunningham, Eisenberg, Gallagher, Lt. Day, the men who said the bag was
found in the SN... who am I forgetting?

>
> So, let's be clear, do you think Specter was telling the whole truth when,
> AFTER viewing the back wound photo, he nevertheless supported the accuracy
> of the Rydberg drawings in both Kelley's testimony, and the Warren Report?
> Or was this just a little over-sight?
>

I don't follow you. At one point Kelley said that the chalk
mark was based on the drawing *and* the hole in JFK's coat, and clearly
the chalk mark is much closer to the hole in the coat (and to the actual
back wound) than the inaccurate Rydberg drawing was. The SBT requires
that the wound be where it actually was -- in the upper back, not in the
neck itself. It's a myth that the wound was "moved up" or that it needed
to be.

>
>
> > >Well, how about
> > > Thomas Kelley, who testified about the May 24 SBT re-enactment for the
> > > Secret Service? He testified that the horizontal trajectory worked because
> > > Connally's jump seat was six inches inboard of the back seat, when the
> > > schematics released by the HSCA showed it to be 2 1/2 inches.
>
> >            Every witness and every investigator was fallible, so the
> > default explanation ought to be "mistake," not "lie."
>
> Nope. Not when a clear pattern is evident. Kelley was untruthful on two
> points--both which supported the SBT. His testimony was orchestrated by
> Specter, who also took the testimony of Shaneyfelt, in which Shaneyfelt
> pretended the back wound location used in the re- enactment supported the
> SBT.

Shaneyfelt repeatedly referred to the chalk mark on the
stand-in's jacket, so what are you referring to?

Jean

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Apr 13, 4:55 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

Here is Myers animation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLD85CA18F43BBCE8B

At the 3:15 mark, he slides the seat over 6 inches. Are you saying you
believe he started off with the right side of the seat 3 1/2 inches
outside the interior of the door?

Here is how he defended himself on his website, after being made aware of
my concerns:

"At one point in the program, a computer animated sequence compares a
diagram of how conspiracy theorists believe Kennedy and Connally were
seated in the limousine with how they actually were seated as seen in the
Zapruder film. Peter Jennings notes in voiceover narration that Connally
was not seated directly in front of Kennedy, as some conspiracy theorists
believe, but was "six inches" to Kennedy's left. However, the six inch
figure mentioned in narration did not refer to the distance between the
jump seat and the inside of the limousine door, as presumed by this
critic, but instead referred to the distance between the center of Kennedy
and Connally's body. Kennedy was seated to the extreme right side of the
limousine. Connally was turned to his right and had shifted left on the
jump seat in front of Kennedy. Projecting an imaginary line forward from
the center of the both men shows that the difference between their two
center points is six inches. Connally's jump seat, which was about 20.5
inches wide, was correctly located 2.5 inches from the inside of the
right-hand door."

He says nothing about the seat actually being six inches inboard, and
instead says Connally was six inches inboard because he had shifted left.
So your theory about how and why he mis-spoke is incorrect.

>
> > Mr. SPECTER. On the President's car itself, what is the distance on
> > the right edge of the right jump seat, that is to say from the right
> > edge of the right jump seat to the door on the right side?
>
> > Mr. KELLEY. There is 6 inches of clearance between the jump seat and
> > the door.
>
> Wrong question and wrong answer. Kelley thought he was answering the
> question which Specter should have asked.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> but remember that the SS correctly
> >> calculated that Connally would be only 1-1/2 inches below JFK while
> >> "experts" like Dale Myers lie to the public and say it was three inches.
>
> > I might have missed that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
>
> >>> Specter's prodding, he also said the back wound used in the re-enactment
> >>> was established via the Rydberg drawings. The FBI's Shaneyfelt then
>
> >> I don't think so.
>
> > Yes, he did. What, you think I'm making stuff up?
>
> > Mr.
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Apr 13, 5:02 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "The photo taken from the front, with the trajectory rod passing over
>
> the shoulder, which fails to show the back wound location inches below
> this rod, shows a wound "far below the neck"?" <<<
>
> Yes, of course. You actually think this picture shows Specter's rod
> entering JFK's neck?....

The WC thought so. They thought it lined up with the hole in "the base of
the neck" in the Rydberg drawings. The HSCA FPP, moreover, determined that
the hole in these drawings was two inches higher than its actual location.

Here, by the way are the photos from the other side. Look at the photo at
the bottom left. Specter's SBT is not even close.

http://www.patspeer.com/arlen.jpg

>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/13/2012 8:05 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> They [Arlen Specter and Lyndal Shaneyfelt] gave the illusion the
> trajectory passed close to the back wound, when they both KNEW it
> passed inches above it.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN RETORTS:
>
> Bullshit. Some things had to be approximated, and the Warren
> Commission was forthright about such approximations. And the
> trajectory the WC ultimately used (which was for the equivalent of
> Z217.5) is obviously not going to be the EXACT trajectory for the
> single bullet that struck JFK and Connally--unless, by some incredibly
> good fortune, the WC did, indeed, just happen to choose the EXACT half
> of a Zapruder frame (Z217.5) when the SBT bullet did strike the
> victims, which is very unlikely. (The SBT actually occurs, of course,
> at precisely Z224, and there are many reasons why this is so.)
>
> Therefore, Shaneyfelt's and Specter's "approximately" language does
> come into play...and rightly so.
>

More bullshit. When the WC can't prove a point you excuse it as being
just an approximation.

> In fact, that's probably the reason why Specter's rod is above the
> chalk mark on the JFK stand-in in some of the re-enactment photos
> taken in the garage near Dealey Plaza. Because, I assume, that the
> angle being used for all of those photos is identical (17 degrees, 43
> minutes, 30 seconds). And since a 17-43-30 angle is only the average
> angle between Z210 and Z225, then (quite obviously) the REAL angle of
> descent for the SBT at Z224 (per my opinion about when the bullet
> struck) is going to be a little less than 17-43-30 because the car has
> travelled further down Elm Street between Z217.5 and Z224, decreasing
> the angle from Oswald's window.
>

Because they wanted to plant the false impression that the wounds lined
up perfectly for their SBT.

> But the CE903 reconstruction is so incredibly close to being spot-on
> perfect (angle-wise and wound location-wise) that only the hardcore
> conspiracy buffs who refuse to "approximate" anything relating to this
> case will be unconvinced by it. (With those conspiracists also, of
> course, ignoring the undeniable common sense elements that exist in
> the 6 points I'm going to talk about below too.)
>

But conspiracy believers are never allowed to approximate anything.
And all errors of the WC are excused.

> When we factor in the basic garden-variety common sense of the Single-
> Bullet Theory (coupled with the WC's 5/24/64 re-creation of the
> shooting in Dealey Plaza), the SBT becomes crystal clear as the
> probable truth:
>

The FBI didn't need the SBT. The doctors didn't need the SBT. The WC
didn't need the SBT until Specter realized there was a timing problem.
So much for your garden-variety common sense.

> 1.) At Z-Film frames 210-225, when looking through the scope of
> Oswald's rifle from the SN window in the TSBD, Connally and Kennedy
> are lined up--one in front of the other.
>
> 2.) JFK was hit in the back by a bullet.
>

Where? Just anywhere, somewhere, doesn't really matter where?

> 3.) JFK had a bullet hole in his throat.
>
> 4.) Connally was hit in the back by a bullet at just about the exact
> same time that JFK was being struck by a bullet.
>

No. Connally was hit AFTER he emerged from behind the sign. JFK was hit
before he emerged from behind the sign.

> 5.) No bullets were inside JFK's throat/neck/upper back.
>

So what? No bullets were found in Connally either.

> 6.) The only physical evidence of any shooter in Dealey Plaza was
> found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD.
>
> Now, just add up #1 thru #6 above and tell me the Single-Bullet Theory
> is a load of shit.
>
> Based on just the above basic facts in this case ALONE (and each one
> is definitely a proven fact, without a speck of a doubt), the SBT is

> the best explanation for the double-man wounding of JFK& JBC on
> November 22, 1963.
>

The WC had no need for any damn stinkin SBT until Specter realized there
was a timing problem. Which you never mentioned. None of the things you
mentioned suggested a SBT to the WC until late April 1964.

> http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
>

[bigdog]

Of all the ridiculous arguments the CTs have made over the years, this one
has to be near the top of the list. Specter could not put the rod on the
actual path of the bullet without skewering the agent representing JFK.
Why is that so difficult for the CT's to understand that. Specter could
hold the rod directly above the bullet path in order to show the left to
right trajectory of the bullet or he could put the rod on the same level
as the bullet but outside the agent's body to demonstrate the downward
angle of the bullet but he could not do both at once. This is so
elementary it is amazing that someone needs this explained to them. So why
whenever these photographs are brought up do CTs claim Specter is being
dishonest by not showing the actual bullet path. AMAZING!!!

[Anthony Marsh]

I have cuts on my hands from putting my furniture together. That does not
prove that I just killed my wife. How come YOUR side never gives an
innocent explanation for his blood on his socks only in the middle where
they were touching each other and the presence of the same chemical which
is used to preserve blood samples in the tube?

> It seems you've chosen the "following orders" alternative.
> Okay...
>

That is only one possibility. But agents are used to "following orders."
The CIA used my father as a decoy in one operation. All they had to do was
tell him to be in a specific place at a specific time. He had no need to
know why.

And remember what Gordon Liddy said during the Watergate scandal. And he
wrote that, after the Watergate break-in went bad, he volunteered to be
assassinated.

??If someone wants to shoot me, just tell me what corner to stand on and
I?ll be there,?? Liddy remembered telling John Dean, the White House
counsel.

>> Is it really
>> beyond your imagination that Oswald was involved in some sort of
>> plot--let's say a plot to hoist a banner from a sixth floor window calling
>> for co-existence with Cuba (or the opposite--an invasion of Cuba)--and
>> that this was turned against him? Or that he was ordered by Phillips to
>> infiltrate an anti-Casto plot-that turned it around on him? I mean, in
>> this last scenario, do you think Phillips and the CIA would ADMIT Oswald
>> was their man? Really?
>
> It's not beyond my imagination at all, but is it plausible?
> The plotters would have to make certain that Oswald didn't manage to
> establish an alibi for himself. How would they do that? (The one and only

If they controlled him why would he set about to make an alibi? Even if he
did they could just kill or bribe the person who was supposed to be the
alibi. How did the Boston bookies know to make alibis for themselves when
the FBI was going to kill someone and frame them? How did Willie Bennet
know to make an alibi when Charles Stuart was shooting his wife. There was
an assassination down the street from my apartment and I slept through the
whole thing. I had no alibi and I could have easily been framed for the
murder.

> CT explanation I've read is that Oswald was ordered to hide in the second
> floor bathroom while the motorcade went by. Really??) What would prevent

Wrong. Others have also suggested that Oswald was waiting for a phone
call from his control.

> LHO from blurting out the truth after his arrest? It doesn't sound likely
> to me, and there's no evidence that this is what happened, is there?
>

Hmm, Jack Ruby, who was supposed to kill Oswald on Friday night. So, now
that you debunked the kookiest theory that proves that it couldn't have
happened. You proved that aliens did not vaporize JFK with a ray gun from
their space ship hovering over Dealey Plaza, therefore there could not
possibly have been any conspiracy. Queen of Straw.

>>
>> Well, seeing as they never told the WC of the plots against Castro, and
>> still refuse to cough up the truth about Joannides, I think it's obvious
>> they would admit no such thing... In the name of national security, etc...

And you already admitted that they did not tell the WC that Oswald had
threatened to kill President Kennedy while in the Cuban Embassy. Anything
can be justified by National Security, including assassinating the
President of the United States.

>> Heck, for all WE know, Oswald is one of the unidentified stars on the
>> CIA's wall. Right by the Alabama National Guardsmen, killed during the Bay
>> of Pigs, who were really working for the CIA, which the government claimed
>> were mercenaries, for years...
>
> As I recall, the Guardsmen story broke when some of the
> relatives went to the press.
>

The CIA never stepped forward on its own to admit it.
How did the relatives find out?

They ended up in a barrel in the ocean.

> Really, how many liars were there? Specter, Kelley, Shaneyfelt,
> Cunningham, Eisenberg, Gallagher, Lt. Day, the men who said the bag was
> found in the SN... who am I forgetting?
>

The entire WC, the entire FBI, the entire CIA, and the entire US
government.

>>
>> So, let's be clear, do you think Specter was telling the whole truth when,
>> AFTER viewing the back wound photo, he nevertheless supported the accuracy
>> of the Rydberg drawings in both Kelley's testimony, and the Warren Report?
>> Or was this just a little over-sight?
>>
>
> I don't follow you. At one point Kelley said that the chalk
> mark was based on the drawing *and* the hole in JFK's coat, and clearly
> the chalk mark is much closer to the hole in the coat (and to the actual
> back wound) than the inaccurate Rydberg drawing was. The SBT requires
> that the wound be where it actually was -- in the upper back, not in the
> neck itself. It's a myth that the wound was "moved up" or that it needed
> to be.
>

Ford admitted that he moved the wound up.
Boswell "corrected" his face sheet to move the wound up for the
Baltimore Sun-Times.

[Anthony Marsh]

Specter is demonstrating how a second bullet could miss Kennedy and hit
Connally.

[Anthony Marsh]

The whole effort was never intended to be accurate. It was carefully
crafted propaganda to sell the Single-Bullet Theory. Without is there
would be a conspiracy and none of us would be alive to discuss it here.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes. Exactly. He did not even depict the lab robes. But do you see it
actually move over by 6 inches or is that just based on what he said?

> Here is how he defended himself on his website, after being made aware of
> my concerns:
>
> "At one point in the program, a computer animated sequence compares a
> diagram of how conspiracy theorists believe Kennedy and Connally were
> seated in the limousine with how they actually were seated as seen in the
> Zapruder film. Peter Jennings notes in voiceover narration that Connally
> was not seated directly in front of Kennedy, as some conspiracy theorists
> believe, but was "six inches" to Kennedy's left. However, the six inch

But the idea is to smear all conspiracy believers. Only a couple of
diagrams showed Connally DIRECTLY in front of Kennedy.

And few even tried to show the relationship of the jump seat to the door.
As a side note it doesn't even matter where the seat was. Myers still
needs Connally to move to his left on the seat by another 7 inches to get
a SBT trajectory. Likewise Connally could have moved over to the inside
edge of the door to ruin the SBT. Myers acts as if great accuracy is
required to understand the shooting, but then lies about the data.

> figure mentioned in narration did not refer to the distance between the
> jump seat and the inside of the limousine door, as presumed by this
> critic, but instead referred to the distance between the center of Kennedy
> and Connally's body. Kennedy was seated to the extreme right side of the
> limousine. Connally was turned to his right and had shifted left on the
> jump seat in front of Kennedy. Projecting an imaginary line forward from
> the center of the both men shows that the difference between their two
> center points is six inches. Connally's jump seat, which was about 20.5
> inches wide, was correctly located 2.5 inches from the inside of the
> right-hand door."
>

Not quite. A difference of 6 inches can not save the SBT. Because the
bullet has already traveled 5 inches to the left after leaving JFK's
throat and Connally's wound was not on his midline, but 8 inches to the
right of his midline. Any self-respecting SBT needs at least 13 inches,
not 6.

> He says nothing about the seat actually being six inches inboard, and
> instead says Connally was six inches inboard because he had shifted left.
> So your theory about how and why he mis-spoke is incorrect.

Well, please don't get confused about the many things he said. Sometimes
he simply lied. Other times he was mistaken. Other times he was confused
and did not explain it the way he intended to describe it.

The 6 inches can not save his SBT or any SBT. His only intent was to smear
all conspiracy believers. Lambaste them for using inaccurate drawings, but
in the process produced his own inaccurate drawings. It's like a dishonest
politician attacking another politician for his saying that there are 53
states and then "correcting" him by pointing out that there are only 48
states.

>
>
>>
>>> Mr. SPECTER. On the President's car itself, what is the distance on
>>> the right edge of the right jump seat, that is to say from the right
>>> edge of the right jump seat to the door on the right side?
>>
>>> Mr. KELLEY. There is 6 inches of clearance between the jump seat and
>>> the door.
>>
>> Wrong question and wrong answer. Kelley thought he was answering the
>> question which Specter should have asked.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> but remember that the SS correctly
>>>> calculated that Connally would be only 1-1/2 inches below JFK while
>>>> "experts" like Dale Myers lie to the public and say it was three inches.
>>
>>> I might have missed that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
>>
>>>>> Specter's prodding, he also said the back wound used in the re-enactment
>>>>> was established via the Rydberg drawings. The FBI's Shaneyfelt then
>>
>>>> I don't think so.
>>
>>> Yes, he did. What, you think I'm making stuff up?
>>
>>> Mr.
>>
>> ...
>>

>> read more ?
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why does the angle of the rod match up perfectly with the angle of
the transit in the background? Coincidence? Or propaganda.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "The WC thought so. They thought it lined up with the hole in "the
base of the neck" in the Rydberg drawings." <<<

Which means we're really only arguing about semantics, because it couldn't
be more obvious that Specter doesn't have the pointer entering the "NECK"
of JFK in CE903; he's got it entering the UPPER BACK, just where the wound
on Kennedy was really located.

So, where's the big beef (after looking at this visual demonstration of
the WC putting the wound in the UPPER BACK, not the NECK?:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm

[David Von Pein]

REGARDING THE LIMOUSINE'S JUMP SEAT MEASUREMENTS:

The more I think about the topic of this topic, the more convinced I
am becoming that the U.S. Secret Service (Thomas J. Kelley) merely
measured the "inboard" distance of John Connally's jump seat from a
different place from that which appears on the official Hess &
Eisenhardt body draft of the 1961 Lincoln limousine, just as I
speculated the other day when I said this:

"I think BOTH Kelley and the Hess & Eisenhardt schematic are

correct. And that's because Kelley's measurement must have been taken
from a slightly different place on the car than was the H&E

measurement for the jump seat location. Do you really think Kelley

just MADE UP his six-inch figure? I don't. I think that measurement
must have been different because they were measuring from a different

starting point. Or, perhaps the "finishing point" was different than
H&E's." -- DVP; 4/12/12

Now, when we look at the two pictures below, I can easily envision the
Secret Service's measurement for the jump seat being calculated from a
different starting point on the car to account for the 3.5-inch
difference in the measurements when compared to H&E.

If the Secret Service measurement also included the area between the
arrows in the second picture linked below, it looks to me as though
that would add up to just about six inches when the 2.50-inch
measurement in the H&E diagram is included too.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPi7vWjHAeI/AAAAAAAAHYU/ym4sMBkmCVs/s1600/JFKs_Limousine_After_Assassination.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K2TjOn2QvIw/T4n59EXr9AI/AAAAAAAAHzA/6jvLAoOB8mI/s1600/JFK-Limo-Schematic.gif


Furthermore, the HSCA also used the six-inch figure, when it said
this:

"Connally...was seated well within the car on the jump seat
ahead of Kennedy. A gap of slightly less than 15 centimeters separated
this seat from the car door." -- HSCA Volume 6; Page 49

Moreover, the HSCA's "slightly less than 15 centimeters" figure was
obviously NOT being derived solely from Thomas Kelley's testimony,
because just after citing the "15 centimeters" measurement at 6 HSCA
49, the HSCA gives a source for the 15-cm. measurement--Figure II-19,
at 6 HSCA 50--which is the H&E body draft of the limo, which says the
jump seat is 2.50 inches inboard. Which makes me think the HSCA was
also using a measurement that included the 2.50-inch measurement we
see specified in the H&E body draft PLUS an additional 3.5 inches of
space that I've outlined with arrows in my photo above.

I'll also add this:

At one point in the endnotes in his JFK book, when Vincent Bugliosi
cited his source for a "six-inch gap" between the jump seat and the
limo door, Vince cited the HSCA and not Thomas Kelley's WC testimony:

"A six-inch gap separated Connally's jump seat from the right
door [6 HSCA 49]." -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 344 of Endnotes

Final Thought:

In my opinion, BOTH Thomas Kelley and the Hess & Eisenhardt
measurements are accurate. It's just that each of those figures was
calculated in a different manner, utilizing a different starting point
on the SS-100-X limousine. That's all.


2008 "JUMP SEAT" DISCUSSION:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/35fbd3b213ef4d86

[pjsp...@aol.com]

You need to read up a bit, and catch up. Specter never checked the
horizontal trajectory, only the vertical. As a result he could have
aligned the rod with the level of the back wound to the side of the
stand-in. You also seem to forget that the far end of the rod passing over
the Kennedy stand-in's shoulder was aligned with the Connally stand-in's
armpit, thereby proving that the SBT trajectory wouldn't work if the
bullet entered the chalk mark on the Kennedy stand-in's back.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...

Open your eyes, David. The wound was on the back. The doctors knew the
trajectory wouldn't work if they said as much, so they depicted it on the
base of the neck on the Rydberg drawings. Specter wanted Humes to
double-check the accuracy of these drawings. Warren denied him access.
Specter convinced the SS, however, to show him the back wound photo on the
day of the re-enactment. He knew at that time that the wound was really on
the back, and NOT the base of the neck.

So what did he do about it?

1) He had Kelley testify that they used the location shown in the
Rydberg drawings during the re-enactment.
2) He corrected Kelley's testimony when Kelley referred to the wound--
CORRECTLY--as a back wound, and made clear this was the wound on the
base of the neck.
3) He had Shaneyfelt testify that the SBT trajectory approximated this
wound location.
4) He entered one photo into the record from this part of the re-
enactment--that conveniently FAILED to show the back wound location.
5) He wrote in the WR that the SBT trajectory approximated the wound
location shown on the Rydberg drawing. (WHILE KNOWING THE ACTUAL
LOCATION WAS INCHES BELOW).

In short, he lied, and covered-up that he saw a photo of the back
wound on May 24, 1964--that proved the Rydberg drawings inaccurate,
and made the SBT unlikely.

Then, years later, after Epstein's book came out and got people thinking
about such things, White House counsel wrote some memos telling the AG and
the Pres they needed to convince people Epstein was wrong, for political
reasons. And then BINGO--Dr. Boswell, while sworn to silence, does a
series of interviews in which he says he looked at the autopsy photos and
the wound in question was on the neck and that they confirmed the location
in the Rydberg drawings.

This, also, was a lie.

SEMANTICS????? WAKE UP!!!!!!!

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Apr 14, 1:04 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA&feature=results_main&playn...

>
> > At the 3:15 mark, he slides the seat over 6 inches. Are you saying you
> > believe he started off with the right side of the seat 3 1/2 inches
> > outside the interior of the door?
>
> Yes. Exactly. He did not even depict the lab robes. But do you see it
> actually move over by 6 inches or is that just based on what he said?

When you compare the distance to the size of Kennedy and the seats, it's
clear Myers moved the seat 6 inches.

I think I see the source of your (and possibly Kelley's) confusion. The
measurements across the jump seat section from left to right when viewed
from the back are 2.25, 20.5, 7.5, 20.5, and 2.5, for a total of 53.25.
The measurement across the back seat is 60. This suggests that the doors
stick 6.75 inches into the compartment along side the jump seat, most
logically 3.5 on the Nellie side, and 3.25 on the Connally side. This
suggests that the right side of Connally seat was 5.75 inches inboard the
right side of Kennedy's seat.

But LOOK AGAIN. The 2.5 inches between the door and the jump seat on the
schematic is 3 or more times as wide as the intrusion of the door. This
suggests that the door does not intrude 3.25 inches, but less than 1 inch.

And LOOK AGAIN, the 60 inch measurement is a measurement to the outside of
the back seat compartment, not inside. This outside lip would have to be a
few inches on each side. Which means the 3.25 inches is really 1.25 at
most. This suggests that the jump seat was not 5.75 to 6 inches inboard of
the right side of Kennedy's seat, as claimed by Kelley ad nauseum, but
3.75 inches, at best.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here is how he defended himself on his website, after being made aware of
> > my
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Anthony Marsh]

But which schematic? The most inaccurate or the most accurate? The first
drawing was not accurate. Again the lap robe compartment is and needs to
be 2-1/2" wide to hold the lap robes. Then the gap between the lap robe
compartment and the jump seat is always 3-1/2". What Myers did when
criticizing the conspiracy diagrams is pretend that the conspiracy diagram
artists were not even aware of or erased the lap robes compartment. That
would be fine if he explained that's what he thinks they did. I might too,
but I would take the time as I did now to explain the source of the error.
A long time ago Todd Vaughan, a WC defender, discussed the many errors in
the original WC diagram of the limo and came to some consensus about the
source of the errors and what the correct measurements should be. As a
result of that consensus I was able to make my own crude limo drawing on
the Commodore 64 where the scale must be one pixel equals 1/2". If you use
my drawing you will see that the lap robe compartment stick out into the
back seat by about 2-1/2" and the gap between the lap robe compartment and
the jump seat is about 3-1/2" so that the total difference between the
right edge of the back seat and the right edge of the jump seat is about
6". That is what Myers meant to say, but got confused. And his concept is
correct. I don't think the difference was exactly 6" because of very minor
differences in the surface materials, but the design is for 6".

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/limo.gif

So his drawing to make fun of conspiracy believers starts the jump seat
impossibly inside the lap robe compartment.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Here is how he defended himself on his website, after being made aware of
>>> my
>>
>> ...
>>

>> read more ?
>
>
>
>

[bigdog]

Give me a break. That last statement is absolutely ridiculous. You are
still trying to claim that Specter was trying to show the exact trajectory
of the bullet when that was impossible to do. Decades later, computer
technology made it possible to do what Specter couldn't do, first by
Failure Analysis and later Dale Myers. Both showed the same thing. A line
from the entry wound on JBC's back through the entry wound on JFK's back
pointed right back to Oswald's sniper's nest, establishing the straight
line trajectory. If there was a better explaination for the wounds to JFK
and JBC than the SBT, somebody would have come up with one by now. They
haven't. And never will.

[David Von Pein]

I wonder what there is about that key word --
"approximately" (utilized 24 different times in Lyndal Shaneyfelt's WC
testimony) -- that Patrick J. Speer doesn't understand?

Most curious.

And why do CTers continue to fail to realize the inherent illogic in
ANY anti-SBT theory, all the while implacably resisting the built-in
logic, cohesiveness, and sensibleness of the Single-Bullet Theory?
Why?

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Open your eyes, David. The wound was on the back." <<<

And the wound is on the stand-in's back in CE903 too. So, as I asked
before--why are conspiracy theorists complaining?

You seem to still want to believe that Specter's pointer has the entry
wound way up in the neck someplace. Why do you continue to believe
that, Pat?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/14/2012 10:56 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> REGARDING THE LIMOUSINE'S JUMP SEAT MEASUREMENTS:
>
> The more I think about the topic of this topic, the more convinced I
> am becoming that the U.S. Secret Service (Thomas J. Kelley) merely
> measured the "inboard" distance of John Connally's jump seat from a
> different place from that which appears on the official Hess&
> Eisenhardt body draft of the 1961 Lincoln limousine, just as I
> speculated the other day when I said this:
>

I am convinced that Kelley answered the question which he thought SHOULD
be asked.

> "I think BOTH Kelley and the Hess& Eisenhardt schematic are

> correct. And that's because Kelley's measurement must have been taken
> from a slightly different place on the car than was the H&E
> measurement for the jump seat location. Do you really think Kelley
> just MADE UP his six-inch figure? I don't. I think that measurement

The 6 inch measurement is almost correct for the difference between
JFK's right armpit and the edge of the jump seat.
And remember that they were trying to recreate the positions on a
different limousine.
It is the relative positions of the two men which matters, not the
measurements of the car. They didn't even try to move Connally over more
to his left as Myers had to do.

> must have been different because they were measuring from a different
> starting point. Or, perhaps the "finishing point" was different than
> H&E's." -- DVP; 4/12/12
>
> Now, when we look at the two pictures below, I can easily envision the
> Secret Service's measurement for the jump seat being calculated from a
> different starting point on the car to account for the 3.5-inch
> difference in the measurements when compared to H&E.
>

The Cadillac didn't have lap robe holders.

> If the Secret Service measurement also included the area between the
> arrows in the second picture linked below, it looks to me as though
> that would add up to just about six inches when the 2.50-inch
> measurement in the H&E diagram is included too.

Close enough for government work.

>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPi7vWjHAeI/AAAAAAAAHYU/ym4sMBkmCVs/s1600/JFKs_Limousine_After_Assassination.jpg
>
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K2TjOn2QvIw/T4n59EXr9AI/AAAAAAAAHzA/6jvLAoOB8mI/s1600/JFK-Limo-Schematic.gif
>
>
> Furthermore, the HSCA also used the six-inch figure, when it said
> this:
>
> "Connally...was seated well within the car on the jump seat
> ahead of Kennedy. A gap of slightly less than 15 centimeters separated
> this seat from the car door." -- HSCA Volume 6; Page 49
>

Slightly less? Yes, that's being extremely accurate now, isn't it? So is
15 centimeters exactly 6 inches? Not on my ruler. Doesn't matter, because
they were just repeating the WC mistake. You have to remember that when
Canning was doing his calculations the HSCA was preparing to rubber stamp
the WC.

> Moreover, the HSCA's "slightly less than 15 centimeters" figure was
> obviously NOT being derived solely from Thomas Kelley's testimony,
> because just after citing the "15 centimeters" measurement at 6 HSCA
> 49, the HSCA gives a source for the 15-cm. measurement--Figure II-19,
> at 6 HSCA 50--which is the H&E body draft of the limo, which says the
> jump seat is 2.50 inches inboard. Which makes me think the HSCA was
> also using a measurement that included the 2.50-inch measurement we
> see specified in the H&E body draft PLUS an additional 3.5 inches of
> space that I've outlined with arrows in my photo above.
>

Exactly.
They did not include the lap robes in the "door."
Maybe they measured from the kick plates. Maybe the factory
specifications did not include the lap robe holders.

> I'll also add this:
>
> At one point in the endnotes in his JFK book, when Vincent Bugliosi
> cited his source for a "six-inch gap" between the jump seat and the
> limo door, Vince cited the HSCA and not Thomas Kelley's WC testimony:
>
> "A six-inch gap separated Connally's jump seat from the right
> door [6 HSCA 49]." -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 344 of Endnotes
>
> Final Thought:
>

> In my opinion, BOTH Thomas Kelley and the Hess& Eisenhardt

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/14/2012 10:53 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "The WC thought so. They thought it lined up with the hole in "the
> base of the neck" in the Rydberg drawings."<<<
>
> Which means we're really only arguing about semantics, because it couldn't
> be more obvious that Specter doesn't have the pointer entering the "NECK"
> of JFK in CE903; he's got it entering the UPPER BACK, just where the wound
> on Kennedy was really located.
>

No, he doesn't. Are you blind? He holds the rod ABOVE the top of the
shoulder. That area is ABOVE the back. The BACK ends at the top of the
shoulder.

> So, where's the big beef (after looking at this visual demonstration of
> the WC putting the wound in the UPPER BACK, not the NECK?:
>

But that's not what they did. The lied and said NECK, not UPPER BACK.

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

So your claim is now that the Failure Analysis simulation is EXACTLY the
same as Dale Myers? Let's see a side by side comparison? Same frame
number? Same alignment of JFK and Connally? Wounds in the same locations?

> from the entry wound on JBC's back through the entry wound on JFK's back
> pointed right back to Oswald's sniper's nest, establishing the straight
> line trajectory. If there was a better explaination for the wounds to JFK
> and JBC than the SBT, somebody would have come up with one by now. They
> haven't. And never will.
>

How come there are so many SBT drawings by so many WC defender which all
disagree with each other? Were you impressed with the Free Frank drawing
which had the bullet going through Connally's thumb? How come some allow a
deflection off the wrist and others do not? Not much of a theory when you
keep changing it every five minutes.

[Anthony Marsh]

We only complain that you WC defenders claim that his demonstration
PROVES the SBT. I like it because it PROVES that Connally could have
been hit with a bullet which missed JFK.

[Anthony Marsh]

Why haven't you made a point by point critique of the doctors SBT and
explain why it is impossible.

Maybe you forgot, but I have said hundreds of times that the SBT is not
impossible, just that the WC defenders have been too lazy to prove it. By
that I mean YOU. You don't prove things you just proclaim them.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Maybe you forgot, but I have said hundreds of times that the SBT is
not impossible, just that the WC defenders have been too lazy to prove it.
By that I mean YOU. You don't prove things you just proclaim them." <<<

As if the SBT could ever be proven to you CT zealots/buffs. Give me a
freakin' break.

And I think I HAVE proven the Z224 SBT "beyond a reasonable doubt" on my
SBT site. You, Tony, will naturally disagree with every single thing I say
here. ~Yawn~

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Apr 15, 3:02 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

How the heck would you know that? HE SAID he was convinced Connally
slid over in his seat, and that the middle of Connally's back was 6
inches to the left of Kennedy. HE SAID nothing about the HSCA's
exhibit being incorrect and the seat actually being 6 inches to the
left.

Are you referring to a dialogue you had with him? Or simply assuming
he read something you wrote years ago, that he then forgot about?

>And his concept is
> correct. I don't think the difference was exactly 6" because of very minor
> differences in the surface materials, but the design is for 6".
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/limo.gif
>
> So his drawing to make fun of conspiracy believers starts the jump seat
> impossibly inside the lap robe compartment.

So...you're claiming the HSCA exhibit is incorrect? And you determined
this how...exactly?

[pjsp...@aol.com]

NO. You give me a break. Show us at what point on Elm Street a bullet
fired from the SN and entering the stand-in's back would exit from his
throat, or forever hold your peace.

>You are
> still trying to claim that Specter was trying to show the exact trajectory
> of the bullet when that was impossible to do.

He didn't need to show the exact trajectory, but a trajectory from the
SN and entering the chalk mark would have exited from the middle of
the stand-in's sternum at ANY point ever proposed for the SBT.

.Decades later, computer

> technology made it possible to do what Specter couldn't do, first by
> Failure Analysis and later Dale Myers. Both showed the same thing. A line
> from the entry wound on JBC's back through the entry wound on JFK's back
> pointed right back to Oswald's sniper's nest, establishing the straight
> line trajectory.

Failure Analysis did it twice, for each side of the trial. In one they
skewed the evidence to make the SBT work. In the other one they played
it straight and showed how it didn't.

As far as Myers, I debunked his nonsense years ago.

> If there was a better explaination for the wounds to JFK
> and JBC than the SBT, somebody would have come up with one by now.

This is the least logical argument in existence. History has shown,
over and over, that people close their minds once they think they know
something, and that "better explanations" are rarely accepted by
people who think they know "better." Read Thomas Kuhns' The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions. It applies to history as well as science.