Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 34)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From December 2004,
February 2005, and February 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- Can you honestly say that there isn't
a question in your mind about the authenticity of some of {the
evidence}?
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- No question in the least. Why? Because there's
no real, valid reason to discount and discredit ANY of the evidence as
"phony" or "faked" in some manner (regardless of WHERE it was
examined, Dallas or Washington).
Many CTers, however, lean (all too easily) toward the following
mindset: "If the evidence wasn't handled with 100% precision and 'to
the letter of the law', then it MUST be wrong or tainted in some
manner".
I do not believe this to be true. And I have NO REASON at all to
suspect U.S. Government officials of "covering up" true evidence in
the crime of the century.
Benefit of the doubt? Possibly. But to think otherwise is to implicate
a whole slew of people in a plot of fairly-good-sized proportions
(and, IMO, it WOULD have been a large number of individuals who would
have HAD to be involved -- from any pre-11/22 knowledge -- to Parkland
-- to Love Field -- to Bethesda -- to the WC -- and probably more).
I don't see how such a cover-up could have been confined to just a few
individuals. No way. (Especially given the grandiose types of covert
plots that many CTers believe took place in wake of the assassination,
which would have involved heaps of "covering up" on behalf of several
different agencies.)
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Remember also that the primary goal of any covert operation is
to set up a patsy and provide as much physical evidence as possible to
inculpate the patsy.
DVP -- There's that bending over backwards to make a conspiracy
possible again.
Tell me this....WHY the U.S. Government doesn't get any breaks (or
"benefit of the doubt") from CTers in the JFK case? Why is the
Government automatically suspected of criminal conspiracy and cover-up
here? Why? There's no proof to any of these claims. So why is the
Government automatically the "dark side" in this matter?
Sure, they wanted all the evidence in their hands asap (from the body,
to the limo, to the rifle, and other associated evidence). But -- so
what? Why does this mean they "tainted" everything they took out of
Dallas? In reality, it doesn't mean any such thing.
I do realize that killing a President was not (technically) a "Federal
crime" in 1963. It was still a state (local) crime at the time. But is
it truly surprising to anyone that the United States Government wanted
to take possession of the evidence connected with what really SHOULD
(even in '63) have been considered a "Federal" crime?
This "moving everything to Washington, where the U.S. Government is
based" tactic by the Feds doesn't surprise me in the least. In fact, I
would have EXPECTED such action to be taken after the President of the
U.S. had been murdered. No matter WHERE it had occurred.
So, no, I don't have any qualms at all about the validity of any of
the JFK assassination evidence examined by the FBI, the USSS, or
anyone else connected with a portion of the Official investigation --
no matter what city it was ultimately examined in.
And the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was simply a totally-innocent
"Patsy", who was "provided" by (whoever) to take the fall, is more
than ludicrous, IMO. It's just flat-out impossible in this particular
case (from many POVs). Not the least of which, of course, is the
timing of WHEN Oswald was hired at the Book Depository....and the
people who got him the job in October of '63.
Those who think that Wesley Frazier and Ruth Paine and Linnie Mae
Randle were somehow "involved" in some crazy "plot" to "place" Oswald
in the right spot at the right time must also consider Roy Truly (who
actually hired Oswald) an accomplice in the plot too. Correct?
Because JUST getting "recommended" by Paine (et al) certainly isn't
good enough for any plotters. They need him to get HIRED. Which means
they must get Truly to hire Oswald at all costs.
That whole notion of "planting" him in the building is foolish from
every angle. Note how the sheer number of "plotters" grows and grows
from just this ONE specific portion of the widely-accepted "Patsy
Conspiracy". The total is about four or five who would have been
"involved" just to get Oswald into the building.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/64195df0086af9b4
Overall, to think that ANY "Patsy" plot could have been pulled off by
utilizing THREE or FOUR different gunmen, all firing from various
front/rear angles at the President (and somehow, miraculously, have
ALL these shots leading back to just ONE man in the TSBD), is simply
suicide from a pre-11/22 mindset of any of these "plotters". Couldn't
have possibly been done in a million years. Nor would any "hired mob
hitmen" have even ATTEMPTED such a ludicrous scheme.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7448f602cc9b26e3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/606503e4d63e74ad
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- What has his {Lee Oswald's} defecting to Russia got to do with
his desire or ability to shoot JFK?
DVP -- It could very well have had an impact toward LHO's motive on
11/22/63. Why on Earth would you think it COULDN'T? Could there have
BEEN any more un-American thing to do in 1959 than to defect to a
Communist nation?
It's just too bad that Russia kicked the bastard back to the USA. And
it's also a damn shame that he failed to kill himself when he cut his
wrist while in Russia. If he had succeeded, this Assassination Forum
would not exist.
More on Oswald's possible motive(s):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/66803e710380d800
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9c2238388f0a72c3
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Well at least you're consistent....most everything you post is
just a wild guess.
DVP -- LOL! A CTer is certainly not the type of individual to
criticize when it comes to "wild guesses". Your scenario of TWO gunmen
on the Grassy Knoll is just plain ludicrous from every angle.
Not only is there no hard, verifiable evidence of ANY Knoll shooters
-- but you have now DOUBLED the number of phantom Knoll killers (with
one of these two unseen assassins missing not only JFK's body, but
missing the whole limousine as well with the one shot that you say he
fired at the President).
Now THAT'S some mighty hefty "guessing" of your own. And if you wish
to retort that by studying the horrible-quality Moorman photograph you
can make your "Badge Man Muzzle Flash" scenario more than just a
"guess", think again. It's the wildest of all guesses.
To believe that Moorman could have actually physically captured a
MUZZLE FLASH (which would have been available to photograph for --
what? -- 1/50th of a second or something similarly microscopic time-
wise) -- within her STILL Polaroid photo is to practically believe in
a miracle of the first order!
Plus -- If you think Moorman's picture was snapped AFTER the head shot
at Zapruder film frame 315.6 or so (which I do not believe, btw; it
appears to me that it was snapped an instant BEFORE the head shot) --
then WHY is the "muzzle flash" still glowing brightly in Moorman's
picture?
I know it's just a couple of frames, but a flash like that from a
rifle probably would have vanished within just ONE Zapruder frame,
wouldn't you think?
Not to mention the fact that the most logical (and likely) explanation
for the "flash" is simply sunlight filtering through the trees. There
are many of those same "flash"-like objects peppered ALL throughout
the "Badge Man" area of the Moorman picture. .....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/2879.jpg
Odds-wise, capturing a single, ultra-fast muzzle flash would be
probably a million to one (against). Even most conspiracists must
admit that the likelihood of Moorman being able to photograph that one
blink-of-an-eye instant in time is very small, and would have been an
incredible coincidence, to say the least.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- If I am not mistaken, the {1986} mock trial didn't call the
witnesses to the stand that Garrison did.
DVP -- Well, that's certainly no surprise, is it? The '86 Bugliosi/
Spence mock trial dealt with the main witnesses of substance with
regard to the events of 11/22/63.
Garrison's trial was a sham from Day 1, featuring nothing but shady
and shadowy figures who had nothing whatsoever to do with the events
in Dealey Plaza. It was a disgraceful exhibition from the start, and I
think the majority of even CTers would concur with that assessment.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2317ac73008b3c8a
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- I have never known someone like you that has so much to say
for and against things he has never read or really studied before. You
do realize that it makes you look like an idiot when you post opinions
about things you admit that you have not bothered to learn about
first?
DVP -- Kind of like when you raked me over the proverbial JFK coals
when I submitted to you that the Warren Commission proposed a "range"
of Z-Film frames for the first JFK bullet strike (Z210 through Z225),
and you retorted with.....
"That range crap is of your own making..."
Anything like that?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Bullets sparking off the street - hitting curbs by the
underpass - hitting JFK in the back - do these sound like crack shots
to you?
DVP -- Crummy argument -- because I am not the one who is purporting
that "hired gunmen" (probably "pros" of some ilk -- surely) were
assigned to rub out JFK.
Sure, Oswald's first shot was off (hit a tree). But I've never said he
was the top gun in the west, or even close to it. But he certainly was
GOOD ENOUGH with his OWN RIFLE to hit a slow-moving target, travelling
in nearly a straight line away from his position, 2 times out of 3,
with his high-powered weapon.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- You have to provide me with an alternative causative factor
for not only the witness statements, but the acoustical analysis. ....
I eagerly await your answer.
DVP -- Well, to begin with, the "acoustical analysis" you refer to has
been thoroughly torn to shreds via various means -- starting with
Steve Barber, then the NAS study, and also Dale Myers' extensive work
regarding that matter.
Myers proved beyond any doubt (via the "syncing" of the various films
taken in Dealey Plaza) that H.B. McLain's motorcycle could not
possibly have been in the precise area at the corner of Elm & Houston
when the HSCA needed McLain to be there (in order to back up the
HSCA's Dictabelt findings re. the so-called "gunshot impulses").
That fact--alone--is huge, since it was McLain's cycle the House
Select Committee claimed had the stuck-open microphone.
So, my having to come up with any "alternative causative factor" to
counter the now-discredited acoustics evidence is a bit like saying
I'm required to find an alternative cause of death for John F.
Kennedy's demise. (Hardly a necessary thing to do, is it?)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm
However, I do agree with you with regard to the need for LNers to
explain some of the things that lead to the impression of "conspiracy"
in the JFK case. This type of approach, too, I also expect from CTers
to "explain away" the vast mountain of evidence that shows that Lee
Oswald committed the crime.
The problem we have here, IMO, is that ANY shot that may have come
from the Grassy Knoll had to have missed, because there is rock-solid
conclusive evidence that ONLY shots from Oswald's weapon struck anyone
in Dealey Plaza. ....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e68af2a823062f43
~~~~~
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "What you're saying is that from your Neutron
Activation Analysis, there may have been 50 people firing at President
Kennedy that day....but if there were, they all missed....ONLY bullets
fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the President. Is that correct?"
DR. VINCENT P. GUINN -- "That's a correct statement; yes."
~~~~~
So, that's the rub right there. How do LNers "prove" that a MISSED
shot (or shots) from in front of the President's limousine DID NOT
occur? I wish I could elaborate more than with just "The witnesses
were all mistaken" -- and I know it must get tiresome for CTers to
hear that same old refrain over and over from the "LN" camp .... but I
really don't have the means (i.e., interviews with people connected to
the case, travelling to the scene of the crime, etc.) to expand upon
it further.
Which is exactly why I defer so often to my main man, Mr. Vincent T.
Bugliosi, with regard to tying up these loose ends that lead people
toward what I believe is a false "CT" conclusion.
Why should I constantly defer to V.B.? Because, #1, Mr. Bugliosi DOES
have the resources to dig deeper than I ever could (as he prepares to
release the ultimate volume on the JFK murder).
And, #2, Vince has a brilliant mind, and has some sort of sixth sense
(IMO) for getting at the truth of a particular matter he's evaluating,
which could probably be labelled a "truth sense".
He has a way of rooting out the real truth in many cases -- the
Charles Manson case being the prime example to date; but there are no
doubt many more instances where this "rooting out the whole truth"
analogy could be applied to Mr. Bugliosi's work as a prosecuting
attorney.
After all, it's highly doubtful that a lawyer could have had a felony
trial record of 105-1 (including a perfect 21-0 in murder cases) in
the courtroom without digging out a boatload or two of "truth" in
these cases.
And the same strengths that Mr. Bugliosi exhibited in various Los
Angeles courtrooms are also applied to his written words in his books
as well. A fellow lawyer, after reading one of Mr. Bugliosi's books,
once said, "The passion of Bugliosi's writing is undeniable".
I realize that "passion" doesn't necessarily equate to "truth" -- but
in Vince Bugliosi's case, I think it's fair to say that the two are
fairly synonymous.
I've said previously that I, too, am stumped by a few things that, on
the surface, seem to lead to a "CT" conclusion. But when stepping back
and evaluating the assassination as a WHOLE, the "LN" scenario is the
best and most reasonable conclusion, in my personal view. (Even WITH a
few discrepancies that lead many people to an opposite conclusion.)
The things that I most look forward to having Mr. Bugliosi (who is far
keener and wiser than I) explain in his book are .......
1.) Why so many witnesses claim there was a large wound in the back of
JFK's head.
2.) The lack of any discernible blood, human tissue, or clothing
fibers on bullet CE399.
3.) And why the Dealey Plaza witnesses claim to have heard what they
say they heard regarding shots coming from the Grassy Knoll (and
seeing smoke in the same general area).
I'm guessing, too, that Mr. Bugliosi will have a few "Things are not
always what they seem to be" examples sprinkled throughout his book --
i.e., he has quite possibly (I cannot be sure) dug into past criminal
cases, maybe even some he was involved in as Los Angeles Deputy
District Attorney in the 1960s and 1970s, and will be able to point
out "similarities" between the apparent CT vs. LN discrepancies and
other actual cases on the books, where some seemingly-very-strong
evidence pointed in one direction but turned out to be just plain
wrong -- which is exactly what I believe has occurred in the JFK case.
It is a difficult proposition, I'll grant you. But given the SUM TOTAL
of all the evidence taken from every aspect of the case (and NOT just
the eyewitness/earwitness accounts), there is NO DOUBT in my own mind
that some witnesses were simply wrong/mistaken about certain aspects
of what they thought they heard and saw.
"SUM TOTAL" of evidence which favors a likely Lone-Assassin conclusion
such as........
1.) A huge majority of witnesses who heard shots from not two
locations, but just ONE. And the majority of this figure leads us to
NOT the Knoll, but instead....the direction of the Depository. .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
2.) All bullet fragments in the limo were found to the FRONT of the
victims, perfectly consistent with a rear shooter only.
3.) No whole bullets were found inside JFK's neck/back, and no damage
was done to the limo in the back-seat area, indicating that (without
question) the bullet that struck Kennedy in the back went on to also
strike Governor Connally.
4.) Virtually every one of the experts who examined the autopsy photos
and X-rays for the HSCA verified ALL of them as real and authentic and
"unaltered". .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt
Were ALL of those HSCA photo experts part of a cover-up? Highly
unlikely. And if the photos and X-rays are genuine articles, then we
know ONLY shots from the rear hit the President. It doesn't prove (one
way or the other) whether another shot missed the car; but it
certainly negates the nearly universal pro-conspiracy claim that a
Knoll shooter HIT the President with a shot.
5.) Exactly 3 bullet shells were found in the TSBD, underneath a
window from where a man who closely resembled Lee Oswald was seen
physically aiming a rifle. And the THREE shells match the number of
shots heard by a vast majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza. .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
6.) The "Patsy" CT scenario would have been a virtual impossibility to
pull off by multiple gunmen aiming at the very same target. It's just
plain stupid, IMO, and wouldn't even have been attempted by ANY "pro
hit team".
7.) All bullets and bullet fragments in the JFK murder case lead
straight back to one single weapon: Lee Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle, which was a rifle found on the very same Depository floor that
also contained the three shell casings and was the very same floor
from which a person resembling Oswald was seen aiming a rifle toward
the President's car at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/16b70728d9c8ecd4