Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 43)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From March 2005, May
2005, June 2005, October 2005, January 2006, and February 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- Military ambushes often use multiple
shooters from different locations. The conspiracy did not and does not
depend upon a "Lone Nut" finding after the fact.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- Then there's no reason for anybody to buy into
the following "Patsy"-related crap (although a very high % of CTers DO
buy into these items, esp. #1).......
1.) There was no reason to "plant" Bullet CE399 (if nobody cared if
Oswald was a "Patsy" or not).
2.) There was no reason to "plant" and "fake" any Backyard Photos of
Lee Harvey Oswald.
3.) There was no reason for any "Imposter Oswalds" to be popping up in
several locales prior to 11/22/63.
4.) There was no reason for anyone to alter JFK's wounds or to alter
the autopsy pictures and X-rays.
Actually, even if you buy into the absurd "Oswald Was Nothing But A
Patsy" nonsense, my #1 and #2 points above are both totally unneeded
as well.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- One could argue that two weapons were used from the front, one
silenced, one not.
DVP -- That's one of the dumbest "plans" I've ever heard. If they're
going to silence the frontal shots (which WOULD make sense in such a
'plot', granted) -- they're going to silence EVERY frontal shot;
otherwise, what is the point of silencing ANY shots at all -- because
just ONE frontal shot that's heard by lots and lots of people blows
their cover right there.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- I thought the vast majority of witnesses heard four or more
shots?
DVP -- Not even close. Only in a CT-created world of witnesses, maybe.
But the much-larger majority of witnesses heard EXACTLY THREE SHOTS --
which, coincidentally (??) just HAPPENS to equal the EXACT number of
shots that LHO was said to have fired from his Nest in the Book
Depository -- and matching the EXACT number of rifle shells found in
the same Nest.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
Plus -- If you've ever watched the original "As-It's-Happening"
11/22/63 TV broadcasts, you'll find that virtually all of the first-
hour witnesses who gave an opinion as to the precise number of shots
they heard said "Three Shots" (no more, no less).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/addeb5d529d1fb03
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cd63a71d7fdbc83d
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Explain how the hole in {JFK's} shirt matches up with the hole
in the jacket.
DVP -- Regardless of exactly where the holes were located in Kennedy's
suit coat and shirt, the explanation is as simple as A, B, C -- unless
you want to start adding in the words "faked" or "tampered with" along
the way. But if you do add those words, a little proof of such fakery
and/or tampering would be helpful to aid your conspiratorial
cause. .....
1 hole in shirt.
1 hole in jacket.
1 hole in the back of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (35th POTUS).
Equals = _____________.
Guess what I'd put in that blank?
Instead...why don't you (or any CTer) fill it in for me. I'd enjoy
seeing any type of logical alternative to the obvious one.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7f44c24bac057c54
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/248f3c71b1e967b7
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3607a3be80aa87af
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- There was someone who claimed that analyzing {Lee Oswald's}
speech indicated that he was telling the truth.
DVP -- Perhaps Miss Cleo and Kreskin should have been called in to
tell us all about what Oswald meant.
And just exactly which "analyst" performed this "He's Telling The
Truth" evaluation of Oswald's "I'm just a patsy" declaration?
That "patsy" statement has also been taken completely out of context
by CTers too. Oswald said (via an obvious lie) that the DPD was
framing him...not any pre-11/22 "plotters" who "set him up" in advance
of the assassination.
Either way, however, he's obviously lying....which becomes glaringly
obvious by his lie uttered just PRIOR to the "Patsy" remark --
"They've taken me in because of the fact I lived in the Soviet Union".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
-------------------------------------------
DVP -- Oswald replied to the reporter's question with this remark:
"Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir".
CTer -- That was not specifically about the time of the shooting.
DVP -- LOL. Of course it was regarding the "time of the shooting"! For
Pete sake, why would the reporter give a damn if Oswald was in the
building HOURS or DAYS earlier?! The question was obviously meant to
inquire where Lee Oswald was WHEN JOHN KENNEDY WAS KILLED. What else?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Something described as being in the "parietal" doesn't mean it
can't be in the back of the head. For where the parietal meets the
occipital is CLEARLY in the back of the head.
DVP -- Yeah, that must be why these words are in the same paragraph of
the autopsy report:
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right..."
"ON THE RIGHT". Not "IN THE BACK". Instead, the word "RIGHT" is
indicated, without the word "back" being used at all.
Arrange a hair-splitter's argument to battle the undeniable "RIGHT"
reference in the autopsy report, which indicates where the large exit
wound "CHIEFLY" was located on John F. Kennedy's head.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The logical deduction then is that apparently someone was
guiding Oswald on this from the inside.
DVP -- Only if you wish to consider ALL of the following people
"conspirators" in this thing (which, of course, is pure nonsense):
1.) Wesley Frazier (who initially informed his sister an opening was
possibly available at the TSBD).
2.) Linnie Mae Randle.
3.) Marina Oswald.
4.) Ruth Paine.
5.) Roy Truly.
Lee Oswald's Depository job came about as a direct result of the
actions and/or recommendations of all of the above individuals. And I
challenge anyone to come up with one single valid reason as to why any
of the above people would have had a desire to become involved in a
plot to kill President John F. Kennedy. (And to provide some actual
concrete PROOF of their complicity in the conspiracy.)
-------------------------------------------
Re. my above list:
CTer -- You do not need everyone on that list.
DVP -- Yes, you do. Because if just one of those persons doesn't
follow-up with the job recommendation, chances are that Oswald would
never have been hired and would not have been on that 6th Floor of the
Depository on 11/22/63.
I.E.:
Wes Frazier is the first link, because it's Frazier who works at the
Depository.
Frazier then has to tell his sister (Randle), who in turn must say
something to Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine (at the coffee-break get-
together at Dorothy Roberts' home down the street from Frazier's/
Randle's home).
Then Marina must follow-up and tell Lee. And then there's Paine
actually making the personal pitch/phone call to the Depository on
Oswald's behalf.
And then two other important things must occur in order for these
incredible "plotters" to get Oswald "planted" in the Texas School Book
Depository Building.....
Oswald has got to WANT to go for the job interview;
And:
TSBD Superintendent Roy Truly has to actually hire Oswald.
Failing any of the above, Oswald does not get the Depository job.
If 19-year-old Frazier (who started the job-hunting ball rolling for
LHO by mentioning a possible job opening to his sister) was the only
"conspirator" among this group, then why didn't he act upon it
HIMSELF, instead of passing it on to Linnie Mae?
It's a domino effect that got Lee Harvey Oswald that job. And the idea
that he was "placed" in the building by conspirators is simply an
absurd and asinine notion.
And to those who point an accusing finger at Ruth Paine ONLY in this
"plot" to get Oswald hired....that's absurd as well, because she
wasn't even made aware of the Depository opening until after being
told about it by Randle.
Like the assassination itself, Oswald acquired his job by way of a
chain of purely innocent acts and recommendations by a group of people
who would have had no reason to join forces and conspire to kill the
President of the United States.
-------------------------------------------
More about Oswald getting his job at the TSBD:
CTer -- You haven't got a chain. Start again...this time using the
actual evidence.
DVP -- You're sadly mistaken if you think I have NOT utilized the
"actual evidence" in this instance. And you're also sadly mistaken if
you think the "chain has been broken" with Mrs. Randle. The chain is
fully intact -- from Frazier - to Randle - to Paine - to Marina - to
LHO - to Truly.
You've "broken" the chain at Randle without any valid reason for doing
so -- because we KNOW that Ruth and Marina were given the info about a
"possible opening at the Depository" by Linnie Mae Randle, who
obviously got that tidbit of info via her own brother (Buell Wesley
Frazier), who worked there himself.
Via the Mock Trial of LHO ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"; Nov.
1986)......
RUTH PAINE (under oath when questioned by Vincent T. Bugliosi) --
"Another neighbor who was there said that her brother was working at
the Texas School Book Depository, and he mentioned that they may have
more openings there."
You've misrepresented Linnie Mae's testimony quite obviously. Linnie
Mae might not have KNOWN that an opening existed at the Book
Depository, but the "chain" certainly was NOT broken with Linnie Mae.
Because Linnie obviously mentioned to Ruth and Marina during the
neighborhood coffee break that an opening MIGHT be available at the
TSBD, and Mrs. Paine verified this fact (under oath) in 1986.
Plus, there's this WC testimony from Linnie Mae that you conveniently
omitted......
JOE BALL -- "And then you also mentioned the Texas Book Depository?"
LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Well, I didn't know there was a job opening over
there."
MR. BALL -- "But did you mention it?"
MRS. RANDLE -- "But we said he might try over there. There might be
work over there because it was the busy season; but I didn't have any
previous knowledge that there was any job opening."
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Only a complete idiot would attempt to make it appear that the
general public hasn't learned many of the facts that were available to
Lyin' Bastard Johnson's Commission in 1964.
DVP -- The "general public" HASN'T learned most of the facts and
evidence surrounding the JFK case. Just ask anybody off the streets
(i.e., the "general public" at large) if they've read the Warren
Report, or studied the case in any depth at all. What you're likely to
hear is something that Vincent Bugliosi discovered many years ago,
which is something he revealed via the following comments......
"I was speaking in Toronto on tactics and techniques used in the movie
'JFK', just after the Oliver Stone movie was released. After the
speech, there was a Q & A, and I asked for a show of hands of how many
believed the assassination was a conspiracy. It was 80% to 90% of the
audience.
"Then I said that I'd like to have a show of hands as to how many saw
the movie 'JFK' or at any time in the past had read a book rejecting
the Warren Commission or believing in a conspiracy. Again, there was
an enormous show of hands. I told them they should hear both sides of
the story before making up their minds. With that thought in mind, I
asked how many had read the Warren Report. Hardly any raised their
hands.
"Very few had heard both sides of the story. It was easier and more
romantic to believe in the conspiracy. My book will show otherwise.
Many of the conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual
palate at first glance, but they do violence to all notions of common
sense." -- V. Bugliosi; April 1997