Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 11)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From October 2005,
November 2005, December 2005, May 2006, October 2006, November 2006,
and March 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- The bullet {CE399} was found and
handled by a civilian, Darrell Tomlinson. Therefore, the bullet is not
evidentially preserved.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- Bull. By this odd (and definitely dead-wrong)
reasoning, it would also have to mean that Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet
shells at the crime scene of Police Officer J.D. Tippit's murder are
worthless and cannot be used as evidence against LHO either -- because
all of those shells were "handled by civilians" prior to the police
getting ahold of them (one picked up by Barbara Davis, one picked up
by Virginia Davis, and two picked up by Domingo Benavides and placed
into an empty cigarette package before being given to the police).
Via the above silly argument being presented by yet another resident
for life in Conspiracy-Land, all any killer would have to do to get
away with murder (or at least avoid the most critical part of the
physical evidence from getting into the record at his trial) would be
to have an accomplice aid him by simply "handling" or picking up the
knife, or gun, or bullet hulls, or boomerang, or whatever the evidence
is....and then hand it over to the authorities (instead of having the
police find it first). An insane notion on its face.
Another example of how wrong this line of thinking is comes from the
Charles Manson case. .... By the above "CT Rules", Manson's Buntline
Special revolver (a key piece of evidence, in that it was used to kill
Steven Parent in Sharon Tate's driveway and to fire bullets into the
body of another victim, Jay Sebring, in 1969) would never have been
allowed into evidence for Vincent Bugliosi's prosecution argument
against Manson and "Family", because it was found and handled by a
young boy (and his father) before turning it over to the police.
But Manson's Buntline WAS allowed in as evidence -- just exactly the
same way Bullet CE399 would have found its way into Lee Harvey
Oswald's trial, had he lived to stand trial.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cece399.txt
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0038a.jpg
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- LHO was seen jumping into a Rambler after the shooting,
witnessed by Roger Craig.
DVP -- If Lee Oswald had gotten into that Rambler, we would have to
necessarily believe the following --- Oswald gets into the Rambler on
Elm Street (moving west); he then gets OUT of this Rambler somewhere
very close by and gets on a bus to the EAST of the Depository he just
vacated (with the bus moving west on Elm).
Now, can you provide a single good (and believable) reason WHY Mr.
Oswald would do such a silly thing as that? If he's got an accomplice
to whisk him away from the scene of the murder, why in heck would he
then abandon his free car ride and suddenly have an urge to get on a
city bus just minutes later?
Oswald would be a fool to do that. And you're a fool to actually
believe the "Rambler man" was Lee H. Oswald; because we KNOW it
wasn't. Many pieces of evidence tell us he was on that bus at about
12:40 PM, the precise time Craig says Oswald got into the Rambler.
Included among that evidence is Warren Commission Exhibit #381 (linked
below), which is the bus transfer (dated "Fri., Nov. 22, '63") that
was issued to Lee Oswald by Dallas bus driver Cecil J. McWatters. This
transfer was found in Oswald's shirt pocket after his arrest. .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0499b.htm
Plus: Oswald HIMSELF admits he got on a bus just after leaving the
Depository. (Do I even need to mention the name "Mary Bledsoe" here?
She provides further proof that Oswald was on a bus at the exact time
that CTers say he was in a station wagon.)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bledsoe.htm
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Why did he {LBJ} have the limo detailed and repaired before
anyone could trace bullet paths from it or gather any evidence from it
at all?
DVP -- That's a silly statement/question. Why on Earth are you
claiming that no evidence was gathered from the limo "at all"?
Lots of evidence was gathered and gleaned from the limousine -- e.g.,
2 bullet fragments in the front seat (from Oswald's gun)....other
smaller fragments recovered from the car's interior....windshield and
chrome damage documented and photographed....blood and brain matter
located throughout the limo's interior and exterior noted and
documented by the FBI....and a detailed examination done of the entire
limo to search for all possible signs of bullet damage.
Or do you consider only "conspiracy-leading" evidence garnered from
the vehicle to be of any value? All of this other stuff (all
consistent with Oswald and his gun) is to be dismissed, is that it?
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0485a.jpg
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0485b.jpg
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0486b.jpg
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- No matter where Oswald's fingerprints are found, you cite it
as proof of guilt. Even in the place where he worked every day.
DVP -- LOL. So, Oswald's right palmprint (perfectly corroborating the
testimony of Wesley Frazier) being on an empty paper bag in the
Sniper's Nest isn't the slightest bit out of the ordinary in any
fashion to your way of thinking...is that correct?
OK. Let's try to re-construct Oswald's actions then (based on Lee
Harvey's own claim that he carried ONLY a "lunch bag" into work with
him on November 22nd).....
Oswald just happened to pack his lunch (consisting of a 10-course meal
by the size of its wrappings) in the same general type of paper as the
TSBD wrapping paper from the workbench there.
And then (based on where the empty bag was later found) Oswald decided
he'd eat his lunch in the exact same place where a sniper would be
firing at the President a few minutes later.
Either that, or he ate his 66,000-calorie midday meal elsewhere, but
then (for some unknown reason) decided he wanted to discard the paper
"lunch" bag next to the sniper's window. (Maybe it just innocently
blew there somehow; the wind was strong that day, remember.)
In short, you can't possibly believe that the paper bag being found
where it was (the SN) with Oswald's prints on it was just a part of
ordinary everyday TSBD occurrences. I wonder how many other times an
empty bag like that was taken up to the 6th Floor and abandoned
beneath the southeast corner window? Do you think that happened every
day of the week?
And please don't talk about the paper sack not being photographed by
Lt. Day or other DPD officers. It should have been, yes. I admit that.
But the lack of a photo doesn't prove the bag was "planted" by the
cops; and certainly doesn't eliminate the devastatingly-incriminating
LHO palmprint on that bag.
Anyway, I doubt it would have made a lick of difference if the bag had
been properly photographed in the SN. Because the CTers would STILL be
screaming "it's fake" even if an official picture did exist of it.
They'd merely state that the cops planted the bag, then took a photo
of it.
So we'd still be back in the same place -- i.e., every cop under the
sun being accused of wrong-doing without a speck of verifiable
evidence to support such vile charges. (As usual.)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/182cecc7c4e37bb2
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Why does the Altgens photo show {Officer James} Chaney in a
position that he's never seen in in the extant Z-film?
DVP -- The Jim Altgens photo and the Z-Film are certainly genuine
articles....so this silly question is a moot one. This CTer obviously
is purporting that the Z-Film has been faked in some manner.
Conspiracy Kook Rule #16B applies here, which states -- "When all else
fails, just say something is "fake" or "phony" or "doesn't look quite
right", and the CTer is off the hook".
Attempts to deflect attention away from the basic core of ballistics
(and other) evidence in the JFK case (which all leads inexorably to
Lee Harvey Oswald) by crying "It's All Fake" is a sign of a patently-
weak case with which the conspiracy kooks try to combat the physical
evidence.
And, I'm sorry, but the "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be" CTer argument
with respect to virtually everything surrounding the JFK assassination
is about as likely to be true (and provable) as a blizzard in Phoenix.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Your interpretation of the evidence is exactly that -- your
interpretation.
DVP -- Sure it is. And it's up to the researchers to evaluate those
"interpretations" and test them for good old logic and value, and come
to a conclusion based on that research and study. Correct?
IMO, the "interpretations" of virtually all conspiracy theories I've
bumped into are filled with many holes and, even worse,
contradictions. The theories even contradict each other many times.
Case in point: Many CTers place Oswald in the 2nd-Floor or 1st-Floor
lunchroom at 12:30 when the shooting is occurring -- but others want
to put Oswald outside on the TSBD front stoop at 12:30, per the
Altgens photo (despite tons of evidence saying it wasn't Oswald
standing there).
Another example: Some CTers spell out elaborate 10- and 12-shot
shooting scenarios, even though NOT ONE SOLITARY PERSON heard close to
that number of shots. But then some of these same theorists might go
on to explain why this is -- saying that it was possible some of the
shots were "silenced" with sound-suppression devices on the non-
Sniper's Nest guns.
But this flies in the face of logic when thinking about it for a
moment -- for WHY (if these same theorists are right about some
witnesses hearing, correctly, shots from the Knoll) would only SOME of
the non-SN shots be silenced and not others? Why wouldn't ALL of the
frontal shots have been silent ones? And, therefore, NO ONE would have
heard those Knoll shots.
See, it doesn't add up for the CTers.
Nor does the theory about the "planting" of multiple Oswald bullets in
multiple locations after the shooting. That's just stupid, and utterly
reckless from the Patsy-Frame-Up POV. If they've already got a bullet
at Parkland (or fragments in the limo; take your pick) from Oswald's
rifle -- then they've got Oswald tied to the shooting right there.
Not to even mention the three spent bullet shells from Rifle #C2766
(CE139) that were found directly beneath the sniper's TSBD window
(which, naturally, many conspiracists ALSO think were "planted").
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The facts lead me to conclude that the murder of John
Fitzgerald Kennedy was a conspiracy.
DVP -- You certainly cannot be referring to ANY physical evidence
(i.e., "facts") in the JFK case then. Because none of the physical
evidence/facts points to conspiracy. None.
A CTer, therefore, MUST go the "Everything That Points Only To Oswald
Was Faked And/Or Planted" route. Logical conclusion? If so...why? Why
is the evidence that's on the table any more unbelievable than the CT
counterpart theory of "All Of This Is Fake"?
Another thing regarding any possible "Cover-Up" that no CTer ever
addresses is -- Why on Earth would the FBI even WANT to pin the crime
on only Oswald if, in fact, there was evidence to lead them down a
different path toward a different gunman?
The FBI's painting of Oswald as the only guilty party in the crime
only places a goodly amount of egg on the face of J. Edgar Hoover's
Bureau; because they knew of Oswald's existence in Dallas weeks and
months prior to November 22nd (via the Hosty file and James Hosty's
actual visits to see Lee's wife, Marina Oswald).
In my view, if the FBI wanted to "save face", they should have been
anxious to find a conspiracy, and therefore get Oswald off the hook.
Why would the FBI deliberately want to pin the FALSE blame on the man
who they SHOULD have kept a closer eye on prior to 11/22/63? (This
question is especially valid considering who was in charge of the
Bureau at the time....a fruitcake named Hoover, who by all accounts
hated it when the Bureau was given a black eye via any case, let alone
a Presidential assassination.)