TAKING A PIECE OUT OF LISA PEASE
David Von Pein
==========================================
LISA PEASE SAID:
>>> "The hard evidence that more than three shots were fired has not changed." <<<
DVP SAYS:
In a word -- Bullshit!
Are you talking about the incredibly-low pct. of less than 9% of the
earwitnesses who heard more than three shots? Is that the type of
"hard evidence" you mean, Lisa?
More than 91% of the Dealey witnesses heard LESS THAN FOUR SHOTS fired
on November 22, 1963. That's absolutely incredible (to virtually
impossible) if four or more gunshots HAD really been fired that day.
And if you're in bed with any kind of Oliver Stone-like 6-Shot theory,
it gets even MORE ludicrous on the "belief" scale. Because Stone and
Garrison don't have ANY of those shots "silenced" and they don't have
any of those shots "synchronized" to "mask" any other shots.
In short, the "More Than 3 Shots Were Fired" theory sinks on virtually
all fronts. Let's just have a quick look at those witness figures.
(Note: And even if you think Mr. McAdams has these figures
intentionally skewed somehow in favor of "LN"...just TRIPLE the "4
shots or more" pie slice if you want. When tripled, it still comes out
way in favor of a THREE-SHOT shooting scenario. It's still almost 3-
to-1 in favor of 3 shots, even if you triple the smaller 4-shots
figure.).....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
And you surely can't be talking about PHYSICAL BULLETS/
FRAGMENTS....because there ain't none to support your 4-shots-or-more
claim. None.
All bullets/fragments lead straight into one gun (Oswald's #C2766
Carcano). All bullets/fragments in the whole case are either tied
irrevocably to that rifle or are consistent with having come from it.
And that type of ballistics evidence just does not equate to a multi-
gun conspiracy. Sorry, but it doesn't.
Next.....
>>> "The hard evidence that only two casings (not three) and one live round were found in the TSBD has not changed." <<<
Bullshit (again)! Sorry to be blunt...but you don't know your facts.
At all.
There's not a shred of evidence to support just TWO shell casings
being found in the TSBD. Three were found in the Sniper's Nest and
photographed in that Nest....plain as day, as can easily be seen here
in CE510. (Is one of these a "planted" bullet shell casing?
Pffttt.).....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm
One live round (ejected by Captain Fritz) was in the rifle when it was
found, true. But so what? Why is that important, at all?
Next.....
>>> "The fact that an audio tape and eyewitness accounts indicate at least one shot from the grassy knoll has not changed." <<<
And the fact that that audio (Dictabelt) tape has been completely
trashed via subsequent post-1979 study has NOT CHANGED EITHER.
The acoustics/Dictabelt evidence has been totally destroyed by various
people, one of whom is Dale Myers (via his excellent work on the
case).
At the very LEAST, the Dictabelt evidence is questionable. How can
even staunch CTers deny that fact, in light of the evidence that casts
serious doubt on that Dictabelt study since the HSCA disbanded in
early '79?
As for the witnesses, allow me to turn things over to the incomparable
Vince Bugliosi:
"With respect to whether or not any shots were fired from the Grassy
Knoll, I want to make the following observations -- firstly, it is
perfectly understandable that the witnesses were confused as to the
origin of fire. Not only does Dealey Plaza resound with echoes, but
here you have a situation of completely-unexpected shots over just a
matter of a few moments. When you compound all of that with the fact
that the witnesses were focusing their attention on the President of
the United States driving by, a mesmerizing event for many of
them....and the chaos, the hysteria, the bedlam that engulfed the
assassination scene....it's remarkable that there was any coherence at
all to what they thought they saw and heard. Human observation,
notoriously unreliable under even the most optimum situation, HAS to
give way to hard, scientific evidence. And we do have indisputable,
scientific evidence in this case that the bullets which struck
President Kennedy came from his rear, not his front." -- Vincent T.
Bugliosi; 1986
>>> "Anyone, especially Vince Bugliosi, who was responsible for putting evidence of conspiracy in Robert Kennedy's assassination into the sworn record of THAT case, who pretends to say this one was not a conspiracy is either incapable of evaluating evidence, or dishonest." <<<
A "bullshit hat-trick"! Nice job, Lisa!
Tell me...just because Mr. Bugliosi (in the mid to late '70s)
advocated a possible conspiracy in the RFK murder, WHY does that make
him a crazy person (or "dishonest", or something similar in a CTer's
eyes) when it comes to his "LN" beliefs in the JFK case?
What does one case have to do with the other? Answer--Nothing! They
are two entirely-different cases. No connection....at all.
In fact, I would think more people would be pointing out (as I am
going to right now) the fact that since Vince argued in favor of
conspiracy in the RFK case, he's obviously NOT ALLERGIC TO THE WORD
"CONSPIRACY" (should that word apply in a case he is investigating)!
Shouldn't that be considered a POSITIVE "V.B. QUALITY", rather than a
debit on his character? If not, why not?
>>> "Anyone who wants to challenge me on this need only pick up volume six of the Warren Commission hearings and start reading Spector's [sic] interview of Dr. Perry. It's so obvious he's leading the witness to a conclusion he desperately wants to make, rather than following where Perry's unled answers would have taken him." <<<
Specter merely got Dr. Malcolm Perry to say that that bullet hole in
the throat could have been "either" an entry or an exit wound. And
given the fact that Mr. Specter had studied the evidence in more
detail than had Dr. Perry at that time, and therefore knew pretty
doggone well that that hole in Kennedy's throat could not POSSIBLY
have been an ENTRY wound, well...just do the math.
For one (big) thing....where the heck did that bullet disappear to if
Dr. Perry's original 11/22/63 evaluation was right and the wound
really WAS an "entry" wound? No bullet was lodged in JFK; and no
bullet was found except for CE399, which couldn't possibly have come
out of JFK's body (given where the stretcher was located when 399 was
found on it; and don't start in on a "planted" 399, because you're
going to get blasted with common sense and LNer logic if you want to
purport that idiocy).
Specter knew full well that the throat wound MUST have been the exit
point for a bullet...just like the autopsy report unambiguously states
in so many words. (Were all three autopsy doctors "in" on a cover-up
plot, Lisa? Is that it? If you think so, think again. Because Mr.
Bugliosi is going to blow that nonsensical theory sky high, to boot,
in "RECLAIMING HISTORY", you can bet your last cent on that.)
>>> "So long as the CIA exists, there will always be those coming forward to say Oswald acted alone. That doesn't make it true." <<<
And the conspiracy-loving kooks who keep harping on "CIA involvement"
don't automatically make such "involvement" true either. Those kooks
just keep on making me laugh harder with their unsupportable
allegations of Government complicity.
In my opinion, everyone should read Larry Sturdivan's excellent 2005
book "THE JFK MYTHS" before buying Vince Bugliosi's undoubtedly
comprehensive and ultra-thorough "RECLAIMING HISTORY" tome.
Mr. Sturdivan's ballistics work is just outstanding (and so is his
common sense...much along the same common-sense track that is always
followed by Mr. Bugliosi as well, via everything I've ever read by
VB).
A top-notch example of Mr. Sturdivan's common sense can be found on
Page 246 of his book "The JFK Myths", where he makes this
unquestionably-accurate statement:
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence, that is
in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry M.
Sturdivan
Hard to argue with logic like that. Even if you're Robert "10 Shots &
None From The Sniper's Nest" Groden. ;)
My review of Sturdivan's very good volume is linked below:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html?reviewID=R6EGCI0WHHGAD
In summary -- The sum total of the evidence in the case just DOES NOT
SUPPORT A CONSPIRACY IN THE DEATH OF JOHN F. KENNEDY.
As Vince Bugliosi said in 1986 (and he's 100% correct, of course):
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. .... In fact, you could throw 80%
of the evidence against him out the window and there would still be
more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole
role in the crime. .... The Warren Commission looked at a tremendous
amount of evidence and concluded that Oswald acted alone. I've studied
the evidence, and I agree." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
David Von Pein
would have taken a "miracle" to have pulled off a multi-gun conspiracy
on Nov. 22, 1963.
That's a step toward the LN truth at any rate. Good job. :) ....
"When it comes to ANYTHING-ANYWHERE Vincent Bugliosi, David Von Pein
is there... and yes, David, miracles do occur, daily, EVERYWHERE!" --
D. Healy; 04/26/07
YoHarvey
> BTW, David H. -- Thanks for admitting (via the link below) that it
> would have taken a "miracle" to have pulled off a multi-gun conspiracy
> on Nov. 22, 1963.
>
> That's a step toward the LN truth at any rate. Good job. :) ....
>
> "When it comes to ANYTHING-ANYWHERE Vincent Bugliosi, David Von Pein
> is there... and yes, David, miracles do occur, daily, EVERYWHERE!" --
> D. Healy; 04/26/07
>
Like most kooks, Lisa Pease NEVER met
a conspiracy she didn't welcome!
David Von Pein
Yes, I'm beginning to discover that fact.
Thanks. ;)