Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

IF OSWALD HAD ACCOMPLICES, WHERE WERE THEY WHEN LEE NEEDED THEM THE MOST?

91 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
May 28, 2008, 6:21:25 PM5/28/08
to


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12866&view=findpost&p=146403


TIM GRATZ SAID:


>>> "In my opinion the [Sylvia] Odio incident has nothing to do with the plot to kill JFK. [Gaeton] Fonzi and others who say it is proof of the plot are, to put it simply, wrong." <<<

WILLIAM KELLY THEN SAID:


>>> "Simply wrong that three men show up at Odio's door in Dallas, two latins seeking support for an anti-Castro Cuban group and one who appears to be Oswald on a day after leaving New Orleans for Mexico, who is said to be an ex-Marine who [will?] shoot the President? The same ex-Marine accused of killing the President two months later? .... And those who see a connection are simply wrong? While that's not my strongest proof of the plot, I think Fonzi and Russell and others who have followed this line of inquiry are onto something." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:


But if there WAS a "connection" (with respect to the assassination of
JFK) between Lee Harvey Oswald and the two Cubans who visited Sylvia
Odio on September 25, 1963, then the next logical question that should
be asked is:

Where the hell were these two Cubans WHEN OSWALD NEEDED THEM MOST (on
November 21 and 22)?!

Via the theory that has Oswald "conspiring" with Cubans "Angelo" and
"Leopoldo" in late September of '63 in a plot to kill the President,
we would surely have to assume that one or both of those Cubans who
were evidently "involved" in some way in this assassination plot would
have been AIDING and HELPING their triggerman (Oswald) during the
critical days leading up to the November 22nd murder attempt....not to
mention helping their gunman named Oswald escape the scene of the
crime on the day of the assassination itself.


Instead, what do we find? -- Oswald is totally alone, and left to fend
for himself after firing the shots that killed the President in Dealey
Plaza. He has to walk here and there....he resorts to using public
transportation (a city bus) for a short time just minutes after the
murder....and he then switches to a taxicab when the bus fails to move
in the traffic jam on Elm Street caused by the assassination that
Oswald has just committed.

Then, after getting out of William Whaley's cab, Oswald walks some
more (to his rented room)....and then he is forced to walk still more
mileage after quickly picking up his revolver at his roominghouse
(another risky move, which would have been completely unnecessary if
Oswald had had an accomplice--ANY accomplice!--to help him escape and
to supply him with any guns he might require after the dirty deed was
accomplished in Dealey Plaza).

Plus -- The day before the assassination (Thursday, November 21st),
Oswald is forced to make up a lie to tell his co-worker--Buell Wesley
Frazier--who would be needed to transport LHO to Irving, Texas, to
retrieve Oswald's one and only rifle.

But if Oswald had been working in concert with "Angelo" or
"Leopoldo" (or ANYBODY else who had a vehicle at their disposal), it's
highly doubtful that Oswald would have even needed to return to Irving
for his unusual Thursday-night visit in order to get his rifle out of
Ruth Paine's garage -- and that's because (logically) if Oswald was
working with other people (dating all the way back to September, no
less!) in a plot to murder John Kennedy, he almost certainly WOULD NOT
HAVE NEEDED TO USE HIS OWN TRACEABLE RIFLE TO KILL THE PRESIDENT.

Why didn't this group of plotters buy another (non-traceable) rifle
with which to kill the President, instead of making Oswald use his own
gun that has a paper trail leading straight back to him? They
certainly had plenty of time to get Oswald another rifle....and Lee
would have had ample time to practice with it as well (if the plot was
hatched as early as September '63).

These THREE guys (or however many people the conspiracy theorists want
to think were possibly "in" on the plot to kill JFK) couldn't even
pool their financial resources over the course of a two-month time
period and scrape together enough cash to purchase another gun, so
that Oswald would be able to avoid using his own weapon in a
Presidential assassination attempt, and also avoid the trip to Irving
on Thursday, November 21st to get his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle out of
Mrs. Paine's garage?

And, per some CTers evidently, Oswald supposedly just went right along
with this plan, eh? He didn't INSIST that his co-plotters help him out
by purchasing (or stealing) some other gun to be used in this
Presidential murder?

Oswald was just satisfied to use his own gun, even though (per this
make-believe theory I'm discussing here) he has multiple other
associates and accomplices he could rely on to help him out in this
"Get Me Another Gun" regard?

Crazy.

Did Lee Oswald's co-plotters decide to stop aiding him at some point,
leaving Oswald to take the full blame, by himself, after the
assassination?

Oswald was just being used as the "patsy" or the "fall guy", right?
That's what many conspiracy theorists seem to believe.

Well, if so, he must have been one of the most cooperative patsies the
world has ever known.

If Lee Harvey Oswald had been planning to kill President Kennedy as
far back as late September of 1963....and if he was doing this
"planning" WITH OTHER PEOPLE (the two Cubans who visited Odio, or
anyone else a CTer cares to name...or not name)....does anyone believe
for a single minute that things would have unfolded the way things did
unfold both before and after 12:30 PM on November 22nd....

....With Oswald using his own gun to murder JFK and then with LHO
being forced to rely on his own devices (his own two feet and a bus
and cab) to take him from Point A to Point B immediately after
performing an assassination that he had actually planned WITH TWO
OTHER MEN months earlier?

That's just....nuts.

Every single thing Lee Harvey Oswald did on November 21st and November
22nd, 1963, indicates that he was WORKING ALONE, sans any accomplices
or co-conspirators at all.

In summary --

Oswald's very own actions on those two critical days (November 21-22)
speak much, much louder than any conspiracy theorist when confronted
with the all-important question of: WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD PERFORMING A
SOLO MURDER ACT IN DEALEY PLAZA?

Just follow all of Oswald's movements and actions on both of those
days, and you'll get the most-reasonable answer to that question.


David Von Pein
May 28, 2008


www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com


==================================================

"No one examining the evidence in the Odio matter can feel too
sanguine about the conclusion he reaches, yet I feel that the slight
preponderance of evidence is that Oswald was, in fact, the American
among the three men who visited Odio. ....

"While admittedly the [Odio] incident does raise suspicions that
go in that direction [toward conspiracy], the suspicions seem to be
spontaneous and visceral in nature. A more sober analysis of what
actually transpired and what was said would seem to substantially
diminish the virility of the conspiracy conclusion. ....

"There is no evidence that the anti-Castro leadership, or even
rogue members of any anti-Castro exile group, ever participated, in
any way, in the assassination [of JFK], and three separate
investigations [WC, HSCA, and Church Committee] have so concluded." --
Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 1309, 1314-1315, and 1335 of "Reclaiming
History: The Assassinatiuon Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)


==================================================


RELATED ARTICLES:

AN OSWALD 11/22/63 "TIMELINE":
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/679eb16f02238b52

EVERYTHING LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID SAYS "I'M GUILTY!":
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8845d85a86407d31


THESE TWO THINGS PROVE OSWALD'S GUILT:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/909b5b194cab1cbe

HOW TO FRAME A LONE PATSY FOR JFK'S MURDER (AND HOW NOT TO DO IT):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f4466b08f8be7c36

==================================================

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
May 28, 2008, 7:32:40 PM5/28/08
to
I will use many fewer words than Dave by simply saying Dave does NOT
understand the term
"Patsy" in the least. If he did this long-winded post would NOT have
been necessary. See
Dave, NO ONE comes to the rescue of the man they have chosen to take
the fall, that is the
whole point of a "Patsy" in the first place.

On May 28, 6:21 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12866&view=find...

David Von Pein

unread,
May 28, 2008, 7:40:48 PM5/28/08
to

>>> "NO ONE comes to the rescue of the man they have chosen to take the fall, that is the whole point of a "Patsy" in the first place." <<<


REPRISE:

"Oswald was just being used as the "patsy" or the "fall guy",
right? That's what many conspiracy theorists seem to believe. Well, if
so, he must have been one of the most cooperative patsies the

world has ever known. ....

"And, per some CTers evidently, Oswald supposedly just went
right along with this plan, eh? He didn't INSIST that his co-plotters
help him out by purchasing (or stealing) some other gun to be used in
this Presidential murder? Oswald was just satisfied to use his own
gun, even though (per this make-believe theory I'm discussing here) he
has multiple other associates and accomplices he could rely on to help

him out in this "Get Me Another Gun" regard?" -- DVP; 05/28/08

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
May 28, 2008, 7:56:46 PM5/28/08
to
On May 28, 7:40 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "NO ONE comes to the rescue of the man they have chosen to take the fall, that is the whole point of a "Patsy" in the first place." <<<
>

"REPRISE:

      "Oswald was just being used as the "patsy" or the "fall guy",
right? That's what many conspiracy theorists seem to believe. Well, if
so, he must have been one of the most cooperative patsies the world
has ever known. ...."

Who said he was cooperative? True, he did not spill the beans in the
first 48 hours because he believed they would (the FBI, CIA and
military intelligence) get him out of this sticky situation. This is
why he was killed when he was killed, as these forces had to know he
would be at the point of realizing he was sold out, and they had to
shut him up before he left the DPD jail. Why else was LHO so calm
when talking with his brother? He was still thinking they would get
him out of it, but by Sunday morning I'm sure he had no illusions
anymore about the role he was playing.

      "And, per some CTers evidently, Oswald supposedly just went
right along with this plan, eh? He didn't INSIST that his co-plotters
help him out by purchasing (or stealing) some other gun to be used in
this Presidential murder? Oswald was just satisfied to use his own
gun, even though (per this make-believe theory I'm discussing here) he
has multiple other associates and accomplices he could rely on to help
him out in this "Get Me Another Gun" regard?" -- DVP; 05/28/08"

Dave really has no understanding of how intelligence agencies work, he
thinks LHO knew all the components of this complex conspiracy. How
untrue, LHO knew his small part and that is all. He could finger the
lower level guys like Bannister, Ferrie, "Maurice Bishop", Ruby and
one of the Hunts (probably E.H. Hunt) but that would have led nowhere
really as the authorities would have just stopped this dead in its
tracks just like all the evidence that did NOT tie LHO to the crime.

David Von Pein

unread,
May 28, 2008, 8:24:04 PM5/28/08
to

>>> "Who said he [LHO] was cooperative?" <<<


He took his own rifle into the TSBD on the morning of the
assassination.

THAT'S being a really "cooperative" patsy, idiot.

>>> "Dave really has no understanding of how intelligence agencies work..." <<<


But thank the Maker I (and all others here) have Robcap The Kook to
tell us all about "how intelligence agencies work".

>>> "He thinks LHO knew all the components of this complex conspiracy." <<<

Oh, you mean the vast conspiracy that you have never come close to
proving existed? That one?


>>> "LHO knew his small part and that is all." <<<


And he wasn't bound to rock the boat either, right?

"Yes sir! I'll take a brown package into work on 11/22."
"Yes sir! I'll act like the guiltiest person in Dallas right after
SOMEBODY ELSE shoots JFK!"
"Yes sir! I'll gun down a cop just to make things look good for the
people framing me!"
"Yes sir! I'll lie like the cheapest rug in Wal-Mart after I'm
arrested! Anything to make my framing more convenient for you guys.
Anything!"

David Von Pein

unread,
May 28, 2008, 10:28:24 PM5/28/08
to

>>> "Why else was LHO so calm when talking with his brother?" <<<

Because a guilty man like Oswald (i.e., a man who knows he's guilty of
two murders and who also almost certainly expected to be caught)
doesn't really need to be nervous. He knows he's guilty...and he also
knows that he's very likely going to get what's coming to him.

An innocent "patsy", OTOH, is likely to be climbing the walls of the
DPD jail.

Was Oswald doing that?

IOW--Did Lee Harvey Oswald act like a person who was unjustly charged
with two murders he did not commit? Or did he act more like a guilty
person who seemed very content and satisfied to just sit back and let
the cops (as LHO himself said) "figure it out"?

=================================================


"No one knew Oswald as well as his wife, Marina. .... Marina
told [Priscilla] McMillan that when she visited her husband in jail on
the day after the assassination, she came away knowing he was
guilty. .... She said she knew that had he been innocent, he would
have been screaming to high heaven for his "rights," claiming he had
been mistreated and demanding to see officials at the very highest
levels." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 962 of "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.
2007)

~~~~~~~~~


"The reader [of pro-conspiracy books] will understand the
difficulty these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent
a story that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for
'curtain rods', left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought
a package into the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against
Oswald is strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up
will inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt."
-- Jean Davison; Page 276 of "OSWALD'S GAME" (c.1983)


=================================================

curtjester1

unread,
May 29, 2008, 11:45:26 AM5/29/08
to
On 28 May, 16:56, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:

Amusing. DVP needs a little more DA training if he's going to make
Vinnie Bugs' 'Dream Team'.

CJ

Richard Coleman

unread,
May 29, 2008, 12:13:53 PM5/29/08
to

"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:338acc55-a85a-4750...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

"REPRISE:

-----------------------------

Not to nitpick, but I wouldn't call Maurice Bishop (Phillips) or Howard Hunt
"lower level guys". And I don't believe Howard Hunt was related to ("one of
") THE Hunts of Dallas. That would really be something though, wouldn't
it!!??

P.S. DVP seems to assume that Oswald was notified in advance that he was to
be the fall guy! "Get me another gun", etc.


David Von Pein

unread,
May 29, 2008, 5:30:42 PM5/29/08
to

>>> "DVP seems to assume that Oswald was notified in advance that he was to be the fall guy! "Get me another gun", etc." <<<


That's not the point at all. You missed the crux of it.

If Lee Oswald had been involved in an assassination plot against
Kennedy in the weeks and months prior to 11/22 (as CTers certainly
MUST believe was the case if they're going to fully believe Sylvia
Odio's account of events)....and if we assume, for the sake of
argument, that not ALL of these "plotters" were totally penniless or
close to being destitute (as was pretty much the case with Oswald, who
was earning a whopping $1.25 an hour when he could find work)....

Then it becomes virtually impossible to believe that via such a pre-
arranged MULTI-CONSPIRATOR plot that Oswald would have been forced to
take his own traceable weapon into the Book Depository Building on the
morning of the President's assassination.

And this is REGARDLESS of whether you want to believe Oswald was going
to be used as the proverbial "patsy" after the murder. Because if
Oswald was "in" on the plot, to ANY degree at all, he then surely must
realize that he wouldn't be required to use his own cheap gun on a job
this important. (Unless, as I said, ALL of Ozzie's cohorts in the plan
are paupers too, like Oswald.)*

* = And in reality, of course, Oswald could have very easily purchased
for himself a better rifle (and probably a totally-untraceable one
too) prior to November 22nd. We know he had $185 (total) on the
morning of the murder, and he left $170 of this amount in Irving for
Marina.

So, quite obviously, if LHO had contemplated the crime a little bit
MORE IN ADVANCE (which he obviously did not, per the totality of
evidence that indicates his plan to shoot JFK was practically a last-
minute decision), he could have afforded a better gun with which to
kill John Kennedy.

Which, actually, could bring up yet another sidebar argument in this
same discussion about guns -- i.e., since we know that Oswald DID have
almost $200 to his name prior to 11/22/63, and IF he had actually been
involved with some Cubans named "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" (or whoever
else you want to dream up as make-believe associates of LHO's), and IF
this plan to murder the nation's President had really been in the
works as far back as late September of 1963, then another logical
question is:

Why didn't Oswald (or one of his cohorts in crime) go out and acquire
a better weapon to use in this hugely-important "hit" on the President
of the United States?

It just makes no sense IF IT WAS A PRE-PLANNED CONSPIRACY DATING ALL
THE WAY BACK TO SEPTEMBER.

But it DOES make a lot more sense for Oswald to use his 1940
Mannlicher-Carcano if he was a SOLO ACT on November 22nd....and if he
had not planned out the assassination very far in advance.

The very fact that Lee Harvey Oswald's semi-crappy Carcano rifle was
used to shoot at President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza (and it positively
was used--with limo fragments CE567 and CE569 proving that fact beyond
all doubt) is extremely strong evidence that Oswald was a LONE SNIPER
in Dallas on 11/22/63.

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,
May 29, 2008, 6:30:04 PM5/29/08
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ebb528c3dbde2b50/de71e805df689451?#de71e805df689451


>>> "To play devil's advocate here: if the two Latino men at Odio's door were indeed conspiring with Oswald in September 1963 to kill the president, they may have gotten cold feet by November, and pulled out of the plot, leaving Oswald alone again. Or they may have gone as far as to offer to be Oswald's getaway car from the TSBD, but then may have gotten cold feet and driven away when police swarmed the TSBD after the shooting. I'm not suggesting that either of those events actually happened, though." <<<

Possibly. But I cannot totally buy into those "cold feet" scenarios.

Because....IMO, if Oswald had been "plotting" with ANYONE as far back
as September '63, it's highly unlikely that he would have used his own
traceable gun on November 22nd.

The fact that Rifle C2766 was used at all on 11/22/63 (and it most
certainly was used; CE567/569 prove this beyond all doubt) indicates
that the assassination was practically a last-minute thought in
Oswald's mind. (Again, "IMO".)

But then too, by the same token, Oswald did use his own traceable gun
to try and kill somebody else months earlier (General Walker)....and
we can assume he planned that murder attempt much farther in advance
than his successful attempt against JFK in November.

In fact, it's my firm belief that Oswald bought the rifle via mail-
order for the SPECIFIC purpose of murdering Edwin Walker with it just
after he received it in the mail.

The Walker attempt, of course, was carried out in the dead of night,
instead of in a book warehouse with hundreds of potential witnesses
nearby. So in Oswald's mind, he might have thought that tracing the
murder back to him (via Rifle C2766) would be a virtually-impossible
task.

I've always kinda wondered, though, why Oswald didn't dispose of that
rifle after the Walker murder attempt? Even though he didn't kill
Walker, it still would have been wise for him to get rid of the gun so
that it could never be found by the authorities in the future.

It's just too bad he didn't chuck that rifle in the trash. For if he
had, President Kennedy might very well have lived to see a second term
of office (assuming that Mr. Nuthatch Oswald wouldn't decide to spend
another $21 on a second rifle from the Klein's catalog before November
rolled around).

I'll admit, I could be totally wrong when I suggested that Oswald
wouldn't have wanted to use his own traceable gun if he was conspiring
with others months in advance of November 22.

It's hard to know what is going through the mind of a man who is
contemplating the murder of the President of the United States. A
mindset like that one is certainly far afield from what we could call
"normal" or "average". (Thank goodness.)

But from everything we know about this strange guy, Lee Harvey Oswald
was most certainly a kook...a screwball...a nutjob. And with
credentials like that, it's difficult to know for certain what he's
going to do from one day to the next. And we can never know what
seemingly-suicidal risks he might engage in either -- like deciding to
take his own rifle to work one day in November and shoot at a passing
President.

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

curtjester1

unread,
May 30, 2008, 8:36:02 AM5/30/08
to

Two Oswalds (CIA The one who stayed in the U.S....and consorted with
the plotters and right-wing causes, and the other...had leftist
causes, and was only slightly briefed on the assassinaton and was the
surprised patsy. It doesn't work any other way.

CJ

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
May 30, 2008, 6:52:46 PM5/30/08
to
On May 28, 8:24 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Who said he [LHO] was cooperative?" <<<

"He took his own rifle into the TSBD on the morning of the
assassination.

THAT'S being a really "cooperative" patsy, idiot."

He states SOMETHING NEVER PROVEN to be true and I'm an idiot. Go
figure. Dave, when will you step up and PROVE this assertion??


> >>> "Dave really has no understanding of how intelligence agencies work..." <<<

"But thank the Maker I (and all others here) have Robcap The Kook to
tell us all about "how intelligence agencies work"."

Most CTers don't need me to do this as they have an understanding of
this issue, only paid trolls are oblivious to all the facts of the
case.


> >>> "He thinks LHO knew all the components of this complex conspiracy." <<<

"Oh, you mean the vast conspiracy that you have never come close to
proving existed? That one?"

It has been proven simply by showing the case against LHO was fasle
and unprovable. Therefore there is has to be a conspiracy, and to be
honest there could easily be one even if LHO was the sole shooter,
which he was NOT.


> >>> "LHO knew his small part and that is all." <<<

"And he wasn't bound to rock the boat either, right?"

Why would he, he thought he was following orders, you have never
served your country, you know the one you act like you love, so you
have NO understanding of how these kinds of things work.

""Yes sir! I'll take a brown package into work on 11/22.""

NEVER PROVEN.

""Yes sir! I'll act like the guiltiest person in Dallas right after
SOMEBODY ELSE shoots JFK!""

This is ludicrous as he acted like a very innocent person according to
all the law enforcement people. Besides, you could NEVER prove this
crazy assertion to be true anyway.

""Yes sir! I'll gun down a cop just to make things look good for the
people framing me!""

NEVER PROVEN.

""Yes sir! I'll lie like the cheapest rug in Wal-Mart after I'm
arrested! Anything to make my framing more convenient for you guys.
Anything!""

Dave being silly when he CAN'T prove a thing, which is the majority of
the time by the way.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
May 30, 2008, 7:04:31 PM5/30/08
to
On May 28, 10:28 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Why else was LHO so calm when talking with his brother?" <<<

"Because a guilty man like Oswald (i.e., a man who knows he's guilty
of two murders and who also almost certainly expected to be caught)
doesn't really need to be nervous. He knows he's guilty...and he also
knows that he's very likely going to get what's coming to him."

Ah, ah, ah, an ALLEGED guilty man is the correct term, unless you can
cite a court ruling that proved LHO was the man who shot JFK and JDT.
But he did it for the fame, remember?? This is the baloney your side
says, yet here he has the whole world watching and what does he do? He
denies it and says he is just a "patsy", why?

"An innocent "patsy", OTOH, is likely to be climbing the walls of the
DPD jail."

And you know this due to you pysch degree and all the time you have
spent in law enforcement, right?

"Was Oswald doing that?"

Who knows all what LHO did as they kept much of what he did and said a
secret, but according to all the law enforcement agents and police who
spoke with him, he was very calm and cool.

"IOW--Did Lee Harvey Oswald act like a person who was unjustly charged
with two murders he did not commit? Or did he act more like a guilty
person who seemed very content and satisfied to just sit back and let
the cops (as LHO himself said) "figure it out"?"

Yes, he did. He answered their questions to be cooperative, and he
requested a lawyer to assist him. He did say he was innocent, but he
did not repeatedly say this as we all know every criminal says they
are innocent. It doesn't really matter what he said or didn't say, it
is up to the law enforcement people to PROVE their allegations, and we
all know they did NOT.


> =================================================

"       "No one knew Oswald as well as his wife, Marina. .... Marina
told [Priscilla] McMillan that when she visited her husband in jail on
the day after the assassination, she came away knowing he was
guilty. .... She said she knew that had he been innocent, he would
have been screaming to high heaven for his "rights," claiming he had
been mistreated and demanding to see officials at the very highest
levels." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 962 of "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.
2007)"

Wasn't it her uncle who was a Soviet KGB agent? We all know how
Marina was treated by the FBI, she was afraid of being seperated from
her kids and deported to Russia (although this was not the big threat
as she had tried to leave the U.S. for Russia once before so she was
not afraid of going back). Who knows what they treathened her with to
get her to talk. It doesn't matter and Bugman should know it was all
inadmissable in a court of law anyway.


> ~~~~~~~~~

"       "The reader [of pro-conspiracy books] will understand the
difficulty these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent
a story that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for

'curtain rods' left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought


a package into the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against
Oswald is strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up
will inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt."
-- Jean Davison; Page 276 of "OSWALD'S GAME" (c.1983)"

Difficulty explaining? It is easy, NONE of these actions were PROVEN
to be true or to have occured. Prove where the bag was made, what it
was made from and when he made it. Next, prove where it was found,
who found it, and show everyone the photos and inventory list that
shows it was found where it was claimed to have been.


robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
May 30, 2008, 7:07:28 PM5/30/08
to
On May 29, 12:13 pm, "Richard Coleman" <richcole...@sysmatrix.net>
wrote:
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message

When considered against LBJ, Hoover, the US military, and the super
rich of international bankers and bigwig, they were lower level. Hunt
could have been a shooter, although this has not been proven to be a
fact, but any shooter is lower level. Phillips is higher up than
Hunt, but he was not a bigwig compared to who else was involved, that
was my main point I guess.

David Von Pein

unread,
May 30, 2008, 7:08:09 PM5/30/08
to

>>> "Dave, when will you step up and PROVE this assertion??" <<<


If Rifle C2766 (Oswald's own) wasn't in the "bulky" paper bag that LHO
took into work on 11/22/63...then what WAS inside that bag, Rob?*

* = Use some logic and use some common sense and use at least SOME of
the known evidence surrounding this murder case when you go about
answering the above question, Rob. Okay?

Or would you like to now go on record (if you aren't already--I'm not
certain) and purport that both Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle were
liars with respect to seeing LHO with a large-ish brown bag on the
morning of Nov. 22?

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
May 30, 2008, 7:19:59 PM5/30/08
to
On May 30, 7:08 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Dave, when will you step up and PROVE this assertion??" <<<

"If Rifle C2766 (Oswald's own) wasn't in the "bulky" paper bag that
LHO took into work on 11/22/63...then what WAS inside that bag, Rob?*"

What bag Dave? Dave keeps missing the point doesn't he? The "bag" was
never proven to exist, period.

"* = Use some logic and use some common sense and use at least SOME of
the known evidence surrounding this murder case when you go about
answering the above question, Rob. Okay?"

I have, so I ask again, what bag? Who saw the bag? Who proved the
rifle found belonged to LHO? You have so much to prove and so little
time.

"Or would you like to now go on record (if you aren't already--I'm not
certain) and purport that both Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle were
liars with respect to seeing LHO with a large-ish brown bag on the
morning of Nov. 22?"

They did NOT see a bag big enough to carry even a disassembled
Carcano, period. This helps the clear up the picture, but the big
issue is the WC COULD NEVER PROVE anything regarding the bag. They
couldn't prove when it was made, where it was made, whether LHO made
it, where it was found, that the rifle could fit into it, and finally
they never proved via photographic evidence that a bag was found in
the TSBD.

Now to be fair, I can't have it both ways like I said to Vince P.,
therefore, I will forfeit the statments by Frazier and Randle (the one
that proves the bag was not big enough) and stick with my point that
you have NO PROOF whatsoever the bag was ever made and that the rifle
was LHO's and inside this alleged bag. You have a lot of proving to
do.

David Von Pein

unread,
May 30, 2008, 9:26:18 PM5/30/08
to

>>> "What bag?" <<<

'Nuff said.

Thanks for (re)-proving your Mega-Kook status once more, Robby.

Message has been deleted

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Jun 1, 2008, 4:20:48 PM6/1/08
to

"'Nuff said.

This is Dave's way of surrendering I guess since he can't prove there
was a bag in the first place. Oh well, at least Dave now admits there
was no gun in a bag in LHO's hands on 11/22/63.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Jun 1, 2008, 4:29:52 PM6/1/08
to
On May 31, 4:04 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 6:19 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>

"Rob,

What is your proof for at least six shots (as you've stated before)
that include at least two shots from the Dal-Tex building?"

The proof is in the hits. Gov. Connally was hit twice according to him
and witnesses close by, JFK was at least three times (some like
Kellerman and Clint Hill say four) and the miss that hit the curb near
Tague. We also clearly had a hit to the street near the limo (and
this may have damaged the sideview mirror - this damage is rarely
discussed but proved another shot possibly, or could have been caused
by a bullet exiting JBC), we have the damage to the chrome, the
windshield, the Stemmons freeway sign (which was promptly taken down
so the WC members couldn't see it when they toured DP and eventually
became lost), the curb near the storm drain was hit and the manhole
cover in the famous photo of the man kneeling picking up a possible
bullet. That is at least 3-4 more bullets, thus the true count is
between 6-10 shots.

Don't take my word for it (which I know you won't) but the Dallas
surveyor said there were at least two gunmen based on the
trajectories, and he was working for the WC!! He also said there is
NO WAY the shot that hit Tague could have come from the SE window as
the trajectory was all wrong. He said it would have come from a
source 25 yards to the right, and this matches up with a shot from the
Dal-Tex building.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 1, 2008, 7:34:01 PM6/1/08
to

Mr. "Robcap", like all other CT-Kooks of his "Anybody But Oswald" ilk,
prefers his own unique brand of "evidence" over ANYTHING put forth by
the WC and/or HSCA.

The WC and HSCA said that Kennedy was hit by just TWO bullets and that
Connally was hit by just ONE bullet (the SBT bullet) -- and these
bullets came only from behind the victims.

Naturally, since Rob The Kook MUST find some way to work an "Anybody
But Oswald" plot into the mix (where none exists and never did), Robby
must scoff at BOTH the Warren Commission's SBT conclusion AND the
HSCA's conclusion that said the WC was right when the Commission said
that one bullet went through both limo victims.

In other words, per the CTers like Robby, a kook's "evidence" is
always better than the evidence and conclusions reached by the TWO
OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS.

Also -- I'd like to see Robcap come up with a single quote from John
B. Connally Jr. wherein he stated his belief that he was struck by
more than one single bullet.

In Connally's famous news conference where he describes the shooting
to the world, he says nothing about being hit by more than one bullet.
In fact, he specifically used the words, "Then I felt the impact of
the bullet [singular] that hit me".

Governor Connally uses those same words in this June 22, 1964, KRLD-TV
interview:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQq0diqVbgM

Some CT-Kooks want to stretch their anti-SBT theories to impossible-to-
reconcile lengths of absurdity by claiming that not only was Kennedy
hit by separate bullets in the back and throat...but that Connally
ALSO was hit by MULTIPLE SEPARATE bullets.

This would make a minimum of FOUR shots and FOUR separate bullets that
somehow merged into ONE for the Warren Commission (and the HSCA).

A miraculous "Four Bullets Funnel Down To One" scenario, wherein ALL
of those four bullets vanish as well (assuming the kook purporting
such crap believes that CE399 never hit anybody on Nov. 22, as almost
all CT-Kooks do believe is the case).

Plus: The total amount of metal/bullet fragments that were taken out
of (or left inside of) the two victims also just happens to be
minuscule in total weight.

How likely is it that that kind of CT scenario is true, just with
respect to the incredibly-small amount of metal being found in TWO
victims if, in fact, they had actually been pelted by FOUR bullets (or
3, or even just 2 bullets) instead of only one that day?

Answer: It's not likely at all. In fact, when some common sense is
applied to it, it's a conspiracy-flavored scenario that's just flat-
out laughable in every single respect. (Another of which is the "Lack
Of Injuries Inside JFK's Body That Would Have Caused TWO Bullets To
Stop Without Exiting" respect as well.)

Such conspiracy-tinged revising of history (and abandoning of all
common sense when dealing with the issue of the Single-Bullet Theory)
is, and always shall remain, utter nonsense.

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Jun 2, 2008, 12:31:46 PM6/2/08
to
On Jun 1, 6:11 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 3:29 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>

"ou've got to be kidding me...

"The HSCA only found evidence of four shots, and that work was later
debunked."

Wrong, the HSCA found the same evidence the WC did, with a bonus miss
shot. Anyone who looks at the damage to the car, the two men, the
areas around the car and thinks realistically on 3-4 shots were fired
are not being honest with themselves.

"The vast majority of earwitnesses that had an opinion as to the
number of shots settled on three."

This proves nothing, and it is trumped by physical damage which was
very evident throughout the limo and the Plaza.


> > Don't take my word for it (which I know you won't) but the Dallas
> > surveyor said there were at least two gunmen based on the
> > trajectories, and he was working for the WC!!  He also said there is
> > NO WAY the shot that hit Tague could have come from the SE window as
> > the trajectory was all wrong.  He said it would have come from a
> > source 25 yards to the right, and this matches up with a shot from the

> > Dal-Tex building.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>

"What are the credentials of the "Dallas surveyor", and why is his
analysis more profound than that of the experts that actually worked
on the crime/crime scene?"

He was the surveyor for the city of Dallas, he held the office for
this role, so if you are thinking of attacking his credentials forget
it. He had access to the Zapruder film during the weekend as well as
he was working on a story for LIFE magazine, so he saw the extant Z-
film. He did work the crime scene for the WC, they just decided NOT
to use his finding because they did NOT fit the lone gunman scenario.

"You can't be serious with this source, robcap..."

Sure am, look him up, his name is Robert West.


>
> Who was/is this Dallas surveyor? I'm not familiar with whom you are
> referring to.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Message has been deleted

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Jun 2, 2008, 2:32:26 PM6/2/08
to
On Jun 2, 1:44 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 11:31 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Wrong, the HSCA found the same evidence the WC did, with a bonus miss
> > shot.  
>

"Ummm...three plus one equals FOUR, robcap."

Ummm...bonus miss shot? You missed the miss shot I guess.

>
> Anyone who looks at the damage to the car, the two men, the
>
> > areas around the car and thinks realistically on 3-4 shots were fired
> > are not being honest with themselves.
>

"Read the autopsy report."

This is not accurate, why should I believe it? It is different from
what the doctors at Parkland and the autopsy doctors said in many
cases.


> > "The vast majority of earwitnesses that had an opinion as to the
> > number of shots settled on three."
>
> > This proves nothing, and it is trumped by physical damage which was
> > very evident throughout the limo and the Plaza.
>

"It virtually kills the theory you agree with-up to TEN shots."

Only in your distorted worldview, not to the majority of us.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Don't take my word for it (which I know you won't) but the Dallas
> > > > surveyor said there were at least two gunmen based on the
> > > > trajectories, and he was working for the WC!!  He also said there is
> > > > NO WAY the shot that hit Tague could have come from the SE window as
> > > > the trajectory was all wrong.  He said it would have come from a
> > > > source 25 yards to the right, and this matches up with a shot from the
> > > > Dal-Tex building.- Hide quoted text -
>

> > "What are the credentials of the "Dallas surveyor", and why is his
> > analysis more profound than that of the experts that actually worked
> > on the crime/crime scene?"
>
> > He was the surveyor for the city of Dallas, he held the office for
> > this role, so if you are thinking of attacking his credentials forget
> > it.  He had access to the Zapruder film during the weekend as well as
> > he was working on a story for LIFE magazine, so he saw the extant Z-
> > film.  He did work the crime scene for the WC, they just decided NOT
> > to use his finding because they did NOT fit the lone gunman scenario.
>

"The Dallas surveyor had access to the Z film before the CIA started
started altering it like Ben Holmes and David Healy claim?"

I'm not claiming anything, I'm simply stating he was given carte
blanche access to the Z-film over the weekend as part of his work with
LIFE. Make what you will of it, BUT don't put words in my mouth.


> > "You can't be serious with this source, robcap..."
>
> > Sure am, look him up, his name is Robert West.
>

"Okay...he testified that he was in Dealey Plaza when the
assassination occurred and that he heard four noises. The first he
took to be a car backfiring, and the next three he took to be shots.
So he says he determined three shots, one car backfiring. Not six
shots, not ten shots."

He said more than this and you obviously have not looked very hard to
find it. He checked all the trajectories out and he did not agree
with the WC's conclusion. We also no of no car backfiring so this is
a shot as well. Also, there could have been silencers in use and DP
is a known echo chamber. Funny how you LNers believe the ears but not
the eyes of the 2/3s who said the shot came from the Grassy Knoll.
How come? He also used an incomplete topographic survey of DP for the
WC, why?

Q: Let me ask you this, Mr. West: Is this a complete survey of Dealey
Plaza?
A: No, sir.
Q: In what respects is it incomplete?
A: It is not complete, it does not show all of the topographical
features within this particular quadrant of Dealey Plaza.
Q: Is there any particular reason why it does not show this?
A: This is what was required by an FBI agent. This is what he
instructed me to survey and to plat.

How about this?

Q: Is there anything on this survey which would indicate the number
and the size and the location of trees in this area?
A: There are several trees shown. The size, no. You mean the diameter
of the trunk of the tree?
Q: And the height of the trunk of the tree.
A: We didn't attempt to show the diameter or height of any trees.
Q: Would you call this, sir, a topographical survey or not?
A: Within its limits.
Q: Within what limits?
A: **Within the limits that were indicated to me by the FBI, that this
was the information that they wanted to be shown on this map.** Within
those limits it is a topographical map.

For more details go here:

http://www.jfk-online.com/westshaw.html

or here as I discussed this in December 2007:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/600773cfeee7544c/f2173abd74eb66e6?lnk=gst&q=Robert+West+%2B+Robcap#f2173abd74eb66e6


"He also presented a survey drawing of Dealey Plaza at the FBI's
request in 1964."

Yes, and it was fraught with inaccuracies and did not include anything
the FBI did not want included (see above).

"How does any of this make the guy an expert on forensic ballistic/
crime scene analysis, and why do you missrepresent what he said, his
relevance and importance in the case, and his credentials for
interpreting ballistic evidence?"

Never said it did, but he knows trajectories real well, and if the
shots can't line up with the asserted target zone (6th floor eastern
window of the TSBD building), guess what you have left with your
theory? Absolutely nothing as usual.

Message has been deleted

aeffects

unread,
Jun 2, 2008, 5:30:58 PM6/2/08
to
On Jun 2, 2:05 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 1:32 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> I said, regarding West:

>
>
>
> > "How does any of this make the guy an expert on forensic ballistic/
> > crime scene analysis, and why do you missrepresent what he said, his
> > relevance and importance in the case, and his credentials for
> > interpreting ballistic evidence?"
>
> robcap said:
>
>
>
> > Never said it did, but he knows trajectories real well, and if the
> > shots can't line up with the asserted target zone (6th floor eastern
> > window of the TSBD building), guess what you have left with your
> > theory? Absolutely nothing as usual.- Hide quoted text -
>
> This is pathetic, robcap...West was a SURVEYOR. Law enforcement/
> ballistics experts determined three shots.

the Secret Service and the FBI, in conjunction with West's DP
surveying work (in their recreations) stated 3 shots 3 hits....

You are quoting someone
> with no backround in the disciplines needed to determine what happened.

West had no need for a ballistics background, he had the SS, FBI and
the City of Dallas, Texas working with him -- the two formal
recreations were based on West's surveying work.... then along came
the Tague.....


robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Jun 2, 2008, 7:28:17 PM6/2/08
to
On Jun 1, 7:34 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

"Mr. "Robcap", like all other CT-Kooks of his "Anybody But Oswald"
ilk, prefers his own unique brand of "evidence" over ANYTHING put

forth by The WC and HSCA said that Kennedy was hit by just TWO bullets


and that Connally was hit by just ONE bullet (the SBT bullet) -- and
these bullets came only from behind the victims."

Mr. Von Pein can't even be honest here. I have said numerous times
LHO could have been involved in the conspiracy in a number of ways,
just not in the shooting anyone part. This is what the "evidence"
says, NOT what I want to believe. Bring forward real solid, stand-up
in court, evidence showing LHO shot someone and I'll change my mind.
Betcha you can't though because it doesn't exist. I prefer real
evidence over FAKED evidence, call me silly.

"Naturally, since Rob The Kook MUST find some way to work an "Anybody
But Oswald" plot into the mix (where none exists and never did), Robby
must scoff at BOTH the Warren Commission's SBT conclusion AND the
HSCA's conclusion that said the WC was right when the Commission said
that one bullet went through both limo victims."

Neither could ever PROVE a single bullet went through both men
though, could they? Where is the bullet or fragment with their blood,
tissue or clothing striations on it? They provided NO REAL PROOF of
one bullet causing these wounds, but Dave believes it anyway. How
silly.

"In other words, per the CTers like Robby, a kook's "evidence" is
always better than the evidence and conclusions reached by the TWO
OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS."

Usually it is, as most government conclusions are biased by their very
nature of being political. When was the last time the politicians did
anything big without a biased slant in one direction or another? IOW
the "evidence" they put forth is unsupportable and worthless.

"Also -- I'd like to see Robcap come up with a single quote from John
B. Connally Jr. wherein he stated his belief that he was struck by
more than one single bullet."

I think his comment for 30 plus years (up to his death) that he was
NOT hit by the same bullet as JFK is the proof you need. For if he
was not, and he and his wife say he was NOT hit with the same bullet,
there is NO other bullet in the WC's scenario that could have hit both
men. Therefore, you theory is out the window.

"In Connally's famous news conference where he describes the shooting
to the world, he says nothing about being hit by more than one bullet.
In fact, he specifically used the words, "Then I felt the impact of
the bullet [singular] that hit me"."

I love partial quotes. He was discussing one bullet that hit him,
this quote does NOT disclude other bullets from hitting him also. He
would staunchly say for the rest of his life he was NOT hit by the
same bullet as JFK, period.

Here are words from Nellie:

Nellie supports the timing issue with her testimony to the Warren
Commission, "...As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the
same time, I recall John saying, `Oh, no, no, no., Then there was a
second shot, and it hit John..."(WC IV, p. 147). She reinforced the
timing with her statement to the HSCA, "...John had turned to his
right also when we heard that first noise and shouted, `no, no, no,'
and in the process of turning back around so that he could look back
and see the President--I don't think he could see him when he turned
to his right--the second shot was fired and hit him. (HSCA I, p.40)

Here is what Gov. Connally told the HSCA:

He elaborated to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)
"...so I was in the process of, at least I was turning to look over my
left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could see him. I never
looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned back where
I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving,
I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the
bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below
and to the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my
body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I
was just drenched with blood." (2)

Does sound like the same bullet hitting him? He hears a shot, goes to
look and long after he should have been impacted he is, and note the
force he describes this bullet having. How could a bullet have this
much force behind it if it started as a low-to-medium velocity bullet,
and had gone through JFK in the way the WC said? It's impossible.

Gov. Connally always said he was hit after JFK received the throat
wound (meaning not by the same bullet) and he went on the record in
1964 in an interview saying this. Check out "John Connally interview
Sept 28th 1964, Reasonable Doubt video, CS Films Inc, 1988."

Perhaps Counsel Rankin summed it up best when he said this during a
1/27/64 meeting of the WC:

"It seems quite apparent now, since we have a picture of where the
bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder
blade, to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where
the picture shows the bullet came out the neckband of the shirt, in
front. So that how it could turn and ......"

>Governor Connally uses those same words in this June 22, 1964, KRLD-TV
> interview:
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQq0diqVbgM

"Some CT-Kooks want to stretch their anti-SBT theories to impossible-

to-reconcile lengths of absurdity by claiming that not only was


Kennedy hit by separate bullets in the back and throat...but that
Connally ALSO was hit by MULTIPLE SEPARATE bullets."

The only kooks are the ones who believe the SBT has any validity at
all!! I say what the evidence shows, and you have stated what it
shows. There were more than three shots.

"This would make a minimum of FOUR shots and FOUR separate bullets
that somehow merged into ONE for the Warren Commission (and the
HSCA)."

They were liars, what is your point?

"A miraculous "Four Bullets Funnel Down To One" scenario, wherein ALL
of those four bullets vanish as well (assuming the kook purporting
such crap believes that CE399 never hit anybody on Nov. 22, as almost
all CT-Kooks do believe is the case)."

Hey, any group that can invent pure fantasy like the SBT and get
people to believe it (you) can do anything they want.

"Plus: The total amount of metal/bullet fragments that were taken out
of (or left inside of) the two victims also just happens to be
minuscule in total weight."

So they say, do you know this for a fact? Of course not, you were NOT
there.

"How likely is it that that kind of CT scenario is true, just with
respect to the incredibly-small amount of metal being found in TWO
victims if, in fact, they had actually been pelted by FOUR bullets (or
3, or even just 2 bullets) instead of only one that day?"

Gullible Dave at work again. He believes everything he is told
without question. Why did you not serve in the military again? They
love guys like you. Dave, fall on that hand grenade. Sir, yes sir!

"Answer: It's not likely at all. In fact, when some common sense is
applied to it, it's a conspiracy-flavored scenario that's just flat-
out laughable in every single respect. (Another of which is the "Lack
Of Injuries Inside JFK's Body That Would Have Caused TWO Bullets To
Stop Without Exiting" respect as well.)"

Dave, you are blabbering, the amount of metal recovered from two men,
especially JFK is not really known. You are listening to people who
have been shown to lie on every important issue in this case.

"Such conspiracy-tinged revising of history (and abandoning of all
common sense when dealing with the issue of the Single-Bullet Theory)
is, and always shall remain, utter nonsense."

It is not conspiracy-tinged revising of history, it is simply the
truth. Most crimes are conspiracies as they involve more than one
person. Most assassinations in all of history were conspiracies, only
in America do we have lone nuts. Did Stauffenberg not have
accomplices?

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Jun 2, 2008, 7:34:23 PM6/2/08
to
On Jun 2, 5:05 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 1:32 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> I said, regarding West:
>
>
>
> > "How does any of this make the guy an expert on forensic ballistic/
> > crime scene analysis, and why do you missrepresent what he said, his
> > relevance and importance in the case, and his credentials for
> > interpreting ballistic evidence?"
>
> robcap said:
>
>
>
> > Never said it did, but he knows trajectories real well, and if the
> > shots can't line up with the asserted target zone (6th floor eastern
> > window of the TSBD building), guess what you have left with your
> > theory?  Absolutely nothing as usual.- Hide quoted text -
>

"This is pathetic, robcap...West was a SURVEYOR. Law enforcement/

ballistics experts determined three shots. You are quoting someone


with no backround in the disciplines needed to determine what
happened."

Do you not realize the importance of trajectories in a murder? Of
course not, just like you don't understand how our legal system works
either. Funny you should keep mentioning ballistic experts since not
one could give valid evidence tying LHO to the shootings. Sure they
claimed the CE399 and the two fragments came from CE139, but when one
considers they never could tie the rifle to LHO or to those bullets/
fragments being in JFK and JBC you have nothing left.

If you were in a room with 10 people and the lights went out and then
a shot or shots were fired how do you think the authorities would
determine where they originated from since no one could see? They
would line up the shots with the area of the person who fired them.
This is very valuable in proving a person did the crime. I would
normally say your failure to grasp this baffles me, but of course you
fail to grasp anything of real importance.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 2, 2008, 8:17:36 PM6/2/08
to

>>> "Perhaps Counsel Rankin summed it up best when he said this during a 1/27/64 meeting of the WC: "It seems quite apparent now, since we have a picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade, to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out the neckband of the shirt, in front. So that how it could turn and ...." " <<<


That was months before the 5/24/64 FBI reconstruction in Dealey Plaza.
CE903 demonstrates the workability of the SBT very, very nicely -- in
fact, it does so PERFECTLY, right down to the metal rod being inserted
into the exact bullet hole in Connally's jacket (being worn by the
stand-in for JBC here):

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/119.%20CE903?gda=LXe2QDsAAAD-9ulFIAhtwGD42eRJ2p0VX3PUa9feG5AzQstJ949IkGG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDQeXua_GAigK7LvjCezu4Fn&gsc=D47VHhYAAAC1ax35E405FHn2C338YARmNPZ7RetHcCszCObB1ASf7Q

The SBT fits.
The SBT works.
Always has.
Always will.
(Kookshit from Rob's ilk notwithstanding.)


>>> "I think his [JBC's] comment for 30 plus years (up to his death) that he was NOT hit by the same bullet as JFK is the proof you need." <<<

This isn't what I asked you to provide. I know full well that JBC
never cared much for the SBT. So what? It "proves" nothing. Connally,
in fact, was about THE worst EYEwitness to anything relating to the
SBT and especially the timing of when Kennedy was hit, because
Connally admitted he never even saw JFK during this critical "SBT"
period of time.

But that's a different subject entirely, because I asked you to
provide a specific quote from Connally's lips that indicated that he
(John Connally) ever believed that HE HIMSELF was hit by more than
just one bullet.

Alas, you cannot provide such a JBC quote, because AFAIK none exists
and never did.

And, yes, you did indicate that it was your belief (as of June 1,
2008) that Connally had said that he, himself, was hit "twice" by
bullets on 11/22/63:


"Gov. Connally was hit twice according to him and witnesses

close by..." -- Robcap; 06/01/2008


www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fa458a09acef8f9c

Question (again): WHEN did John Connally ever say it was his own
belief that he had been hit "twice" by rifle fire in Dealey Plaza?

Please provide your source for saying "Gov. Connally was hit twice
according to him".

And while you're at it, please provide your source for saying that
"witnesses close by" ever said that it was their belief that John
Connally was hit by two separate bullets.

You won't find a single witness who ever said any such thing.

Bottom line: Rob-Kook, as usual, is making shit up out of whole cloth.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Jun 2, 2008, 10:36:17 PM6/2/08
to
On Jun 2, 8:17 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Perhaps Counsel Rankin summed it up best when he said this during a 1/27/64 meeting of the WC: "It seems quite apparent now, since we have a picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade, to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out the neckband of the shirt, in front. So that how it could turn and ...." " <<<

"That was months before the 5/24/64 FBI reconstruction in Dealey
Plaza. CE903 demonstrates the workability of the SBT very, very nicely
-- in fact, it does so PERFECTLY, right down to the metal rod being
inserted into the exact bullet hole in Connally's jacket (being worn
by the stand-in for JBC here):"

~Yawn~

I don't care if it was ten years before, wounds DON'T MOVE by
themselves. How does this matchup with the WC's version of the wound
being in the neck by 9/14/64?

"...since we have a picture of where the bullet entered in the back,


that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade, to the right of the

backbone,..."

Well?


> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/119.%20CE903?gda=LXe2Q...

"The SBT fits."

Only when wounds are moved around, but then again to think a bullet
can cause seven wounds and break three bones yet come virtually
pristine is just too much.

"The SBT works."

Only to those in nuthouses or being paid to lie.

"Always has."

Never has since it was NEVER PROVEN to be what happened.

"Always will."

Only to nutcases like Dave. I guess Dave thinks all mice sing and
dance like "Mickey" too?

"(Kookshit from Rob's ilk notwithstanding.)"

IF I was a real kook, I would believe the SBT to be true!


> >>> "I think his [JBC's] comment for 30 plus years (up to his death) that he was NOT hit by the same bullet as JFK is the proof you need." <<<

"This isn't what I asked you to provide. I know full well that JBC
never cared much for the SBT. So what? It "proves" nothing. Connally,
in fact, was about THE worst EYEwitness to anything relating to the
SBT and especially the timing of when Kennedy was hit, because
Connally admitted he never even saw JFK during this critical "SBT"
period of time."

You are full of it, he heard JFK utter "I'm hit" that is why he was
turning to see, that and he heard a shot. He knew he was not hit by
this shot, period. More to the point, the only back wound JFK had was
too low and to the right and DID NOT transverse his body, so how could
it be part of the SBT?

"But that's a different subject entirely, because I asked you to
provide a specific quote from Connally's lips that indicated that he
(John Connally) ever believed that HE HIMSELF was hit by more than
just one bullet."

Check out that interview.

"Alas, you cannot provide such a JBC quote, because AFAIK none exists
and never did."

The doctors that worked on him all said they had doubts one bullet
caused all of this damage. If he was hit a Z223 like the WC said he
could not have turned so quickly as he does in the film. He also
could not have held his hat for 5 seconds after his wrist was broken.
Perhaps the quote doesn't exist, I will look before saying it doesn't,
but the point is he never accepted being hit by the same shot as JFK,
therefore, he had to have been hit by multiple shots.

"And, yes, you did indicate that it was your belief (as of June 1,
2008) that Connally had said that he, himself, was hit "twice" by
bullets on 11/22/63:

      "Gov. Connally was hit twice according to him and witnesses
close by..." -- Robcap; 06/01/2008"

Of course he knew he was hit by multiple bullets, he knew and said he
was NOT hit by the same bullet that hit JFK, therefore, he was hit
twice at different times. He had seperate wounds that could not have
been caused by one bullet. Perhaps he never said it this way, but the
mere fact he is saying the SBT is not valid leads to him being hit by
separate bullets. He was hit as Z223 and Z325.


> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fa458a09acef8f9c

"Question (again): WHEN did John Connally ever say it was his own
belief that he had been hit "twice" by rifle fire in Dealey Plaza?"

When he said the was NOT hit by the same bullet that hit JFK at
Z220.

"Please provide your source for saying "Gov. Connally was hit twice
according to him"."

My source is JBC saying he was NOT hit by the same bullet that hit
JFK, thus, he was saying he was hit more than once as there is no way
he had a chest wound and a broken wrist from the same bullet.

"And while you're at it, please provide your source for saying that
"witnesses close by" ever said that it was their belief that John
Connally was hit by two separate bullets."

Kellerman said he heard a flurry of shots at the end. How could there
be a flurry of shots with a bolt-actioned rifle? First shot, 3-5
second pause, flurry of shots (two - bang/bang) this does not support
the SBT theory. O'Neal and Siebert also said the back wound was not
transversed so the SBT theory is not possible. Most of the doctors
treating JBC believed the idea of one bullet causing his multiple
wounds unlikely.

"You won't find a single witness who ever said any such thing.

Bottom line: Rob-Kook, as usual, is making shit up out of whole
cloth."

Sure, if you take verbatim comments, but as you always say about
Grassy Knoll witnesses, they don't know anything. I'm talking about
the comments made by many close-up witnesses that make the WC's
assertion impossible. You are supporting a whole made up theory, so I
wouldn't be pointing any fingers if I was you.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 3, 2008, 1:05:04 AM6/3/08
to

>>> "You are full of it, he [John Connally] heard JFK utter "I'm hit"..." <<<


Oh good! The kook is going to magically turn Roy Kellerman's testimony
into John Connally's testimony. Lovely. (And somehow the person who is
"full of it" is me. Go figure the massive irony there.)

John B. Connally NEVER, EVER said that he heard John F. Kennedy say
"I'm hit" or anything else (he didn't even hear him say, "That bastard
Oswald is shooting at me from the 6th Floor!", which would, of course,
have been an accurate statement from President Kennedy's dying
lips). ;)

Rob, just how many times do you think you can just flat-out lie about
the evidence in this case? How many is too many times I wonder? 3,500?
6,000? Or is there no limit to the number of times you'll mangle the
evidence (whether it be on purpose in a "lie" or by just the fact you
are ignorant of the facts)?

Geesh.

>>> "My source [for JBC being hit "twice"] is JBC saying he was NOT hit by the same bullet that hit JFK, thus, he was saying he was hit more than once as there is no way he had a chest wound and a broken wrist from the same bullet." <<<


Why in the world not?

We know a bullet pierced his upper back and CAME OUT his chest. So,
WHERE DID THIS BULLET GO if not into some OTHER part of JBC's body?

It certainly didn't go into another victim in the car (there were
none).

And that bullet certainly didn't go into the limo's seats or
floorboards. No damage like that was found at all. (Robert Frazier's
probably up to his old lies again, right?)

So, where did that bullet go after it exited John Connally's chest if
NOT into John Connally's right wrist and then on into his left thigh?

(Let's watch as Rob The Kook invents some more "evidence" for us to
chew on regarding that last question.)

BTW -- Connally's wrist was almost certainly hit by Bullet CE399 just
milliseconds after Z-Film Frame #224, as we can easily see in this
toggling Z-Film clip, which shows Connally's right arm (attached to
the same right wrist that Robby apparently thinks has not been injured
yet) flying upward, then down again, starting at Z226:


http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif

>>> "The doctors that worked on him [JBC] all said they had doubts one bullet caused all of this damage." <<<

And yet we still have Dr. Shaw telling the world on live television on
11/22/63 (after having operated on the Governor) that all of JBC's
injuries had likely been the result of "one" bullet hitting him.

Go figure that.

>>> "If he was hit a[t] Z223 like the WC said..." <<<


Another error from the Error Machine known as "Robcap".

The Warren Commission never, ever placed a definitive (single)
Zapruder Film frame number on the SBT. Never. They bracketed the SBT
timing, saying it occurred between frames Z210 and Z225.

And they were right too (even via 1964 investigative technology),
because the SBT very, very likely DID, indeed, occur within that
bracketed WC timespan (at precisely Z224, IMO).


>>> "...He [JBC] could not have turned so quickly as he does in the film." <<<

Huh?

Making shit up again, I see.

<sigh>


>>> "He [JBC] also could not have held his hat for 5 seconds after his wrist was broken." <<<


And yet we KNOW (via Nellie Connally's own words on this very subject)
that not only did John Connally hold onto that white Stetson hat for
"5 seconds" after his right wrist was struck by Oswald's Carcano
bullet, but we also know that he held onto that hat with his right
hand ALL THE WAY TO PARKLAND HOSPITAL:


"He [JBC] had the hat in his hand when I pulled him over and
crouched him down and he was holding that hat up against him. He
closed up that wound that would've killed him before we got to the
hospital." -- Nellie Connally

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nellie.txt


>>> "The point is, he [JBC] never accepted being hit by the same shot as JFK, therefore, he had to have been hit by multiple shots." <<<

Why?

Connally HAD to have been hit by more than one bullet simply because
he was NOT (per you and JBC) hit by the same bullet that hit JFK?


I think these three letters are required here:

WTF???

And these three too:

LOL!


>>> "Kellerman said he heard a flurry of shots at the end. How could there be a flurry of shots with a bolt-actioned rifle?" <<<


Kellerman's "flurry of shells" that he said entered the car at the
tail-end of the shooting was almost certainly the result of Kellerman
hearing the two bullet fragments (CE567 and CE569) striking the
windshield and chrome strip very near where Kellerman himself was
seated. And this "flurry of shells" (fragments) came from the one
single shot that hit JFK's head.

But I'm sure that you, Rob, like your scenario better....a scenario
that has several extra WHOLE BULLETS entering the car in a "flurry",
with only CE567 and CE569 (from LHO's gun) being found after the
shooting.

Where did the bulk of these bullets from this "flurry" go after
entering the vehicle? Did they just vanish (like all other unwanted CT-
favoring evidence in this whole case)? Prob'ly so, huh?

DVP SAID (IN ANOTHER POST):

>>> "Question (again): WHEN did John Connally ever say it was his own belief that he had been hit "twice" by rifle fire in Dealey Plaza?" <<<


TO WHICH ROB RESPONDED (IN TYPICAL KOOK-LIKE FASHION):


>>> "When he said the was NOT hit by the same bullet that hit JFK at Z220." <<<


DVP NOW SAYS:


Again -- what in the heck does JBC's non-belief in the SBT have to do
(in ANY way) with the NUMBER OF SEPARATE BULLETS that struck
Connally's body on Nov. 22, 1963?

You're goofy.

And, btw, JFK wasn't hit at "Z220" either. The SBT bullet struck both
limo victims at Z224:

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4540.gif


====================================

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com


www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/topics

====================================

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Jun 3, 2008, 7:53:27 PM6/3/08
to
On Jun 3, 1:05 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "You are full of it, he [John Connally] heard JFK utter "I'm hit"..." <<<

"Oh good! The kook is going to magically turn Roy Kellerman's
testimony into John Connally's testimony. Lovely. (And somehow the
person who is "full of it" is me. Go figure the massive irony there.)"

He was closer, so how could he not hear something Kellerman claimed he
said? I realize some say JFK muttered nothing, and this is disputed on
both sides, but we have to go according to WC testimony like you say.
Which makes me wonder how a man who had been shot in the chest and
lung can utter his famous saying, "They're going to kill us all", as
this seems impossible. It is obvious to anyone with CS&L that he said
it before he was hit at Z-325 in the back.

"John B. Connally NEVER, EVER said that he heard John F. Kennedy say
"I'm hit" or anything else (he didn't even hear him say, "That bastard
Oswald is shooting at me from the 6th Floor!", which would, of course,
have been an accurate statement from President Kennedy's dying
lips). ;)"

Didn't mean to imply he did, but as you said Kellerman did say this,
and despite some thinking it is not true it has not been settled one
way or another.

"Rob, just how many times do you think you can just flat-out lie about
the evidence in this case? How many is too many times I wonder? 3,500?
6,000? Or is there no limit to the number of times you'll mangle the
evidence (whether it be on purpose in a "lie" or by just the fact you
are ignorant of the facts)?"

Not lying, using good 'ole CS&L. Kellerman testified he heard JFK say
it, Gov. Connally was closer to JFK than Kellerman, therefore, how
could he NOT hear it. NO one has disproved Kellerman's statement
100%. I agree it would seem unlikely for a man hit in the throat to
say anything, but the WC has JBC uttering things when he was hit in
the chest and lung, so who knows?

"Geesh."

Exactly.


> >>> "My source [for JBC being hit "twice"] is JBC saying he was NOT hit by the same bullet that hit JFK, thus, he was saying he was hit more than once as there is no way he had a chest wound and a broken wrist from the same bullet." <<<

"Why in the world not?"

Because he never said the bullet exited his chest and hit him in the
wrist, did he?

"We know a bullet pierced his upper back and CAME OUT his chest. So,
WHERE DID THIS BULLET GO if not into some OTHER part of JBC's body?"

Oh, I don't know Dave, into the windshield, the chrome, the sideview
mirror or any number of other places, but you want us to believe it
went one place, and one place ony, the wrist. JBC never said this
happened.

"It certainly didn't go into another victim in the car (there were
none)."

Why did it HAVE TO go into someone else?

"And that bullet certainly didn't go into the limo's seats or
floorboards. No damage like that was found at all. (Robert Frazier's
probably up to his old lies again, right?)"

It could have hit the windshield or the chrome and broke into pieces,
like the ones found under the jumper seats.

"So, where did that bullet go after it exited John Connally's chest if
NOT into John Connally's right wrist and then on into his left thigh?"

Only a fragment hit JBC in the thigh, this has been noted in many
sources. You are acting like NO other damage was found in the limo
and this is not true.

(Let's watch as Rob The Kook invents some more "evidence" for us to
chew on regarding that last question.)"

You have many things to look at in the limo as possible points for the
bullet leaving JBC, as well as the simple fact it may have just exited
the limo entirely. You are the one trying to convince people it went
to just one place, a tiny little wrist.

"BTW -- Connally's wrist was almost certainly hit by Bullet CE399 just
milliseconds after Z-Film Frame #224, as we can easily see in this
toggling Z-Film clip, which shows Connally's right arm (attached to
the same right wrist that Robby apparently thinks has not been injured
yet) flying upward, then down again, starting at Z226:"

His wife was pulling on him, this had been said for years by Nellie,
and it can account for the puffed cheeks and the lapel flip. CE399
was never proven to be inside either victim, and in addition to this
damning evidence is the fact that it was linked to a rifle that was
never shown to be ordered, owned or used by LHO.


> http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif


> >>> "The doctors that worked on him [JBC] all said they had doubts one bullet caused all of this damage." <<<

"And yet we still have Dr. Shaw telling the world on live television
on 11/22/63 (after having operated on the Governor) that all of JBC's
injuries had likely been the result of "one" bullet hitting him.

Go figure that."

You are right, and they would continue to say this for months until
they finally saw CE399 (as it was kept from them before this, why?)
and then Dr. Shaw had a different opinion. Here is his later
testimony:

Dr. Shaw: . . . this is still a possibility. (All wounds being caused
by one bullet) But I don't feel that it is the only possibility.
Sen. Cooper: Why do you say you don't think it is the only
possibility? What causes you *now* to say that it is the location --
Dr. Shaw: This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory
will be giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could
be caused by the same bullet, and we felt that it could but but we had
not seen the bullets until today, and we still do not know which
bullet actually inflicted the wound on Governor Connally.
Mr. Dulles: Or whether it was one or two rounds?
Dr. Shaw: Yes.
Mr. Dulles: Or two bullets?
Dr. Shaw: Yes; or three.
Mr. McCloy: You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were
caused by one bullet?
Dr. Shaw: I have no firm opinion. . . . *Asking me now if it was
true. If you had asked me a month ago I would have [had].*
Mr. McCloy: Could they have been caused by one bullet, in your
opinion?
Dr. Shaw: They could.
Mr. McCloy: I gather that what the witness is saying is that it
is possible that they might have been caused by one bullet. But that
he has no firm opinion *now* that they were.
Mr. Dulles: As I understand it too. Is our understanding
correct?
Dr. Shaw: That is correct. (IV, p.109)

Keeping the bullet from the doctors but making them testify about it,
go figure indeed.


> >>> "If he was hit a[t] Z223 like the WC said..." <<<

"Another error from the Error Machine known as "Robcap".

The Warren Commission never, ever placed a definitive (single)
Zapruder Film frame number on the SBT. Never. They bracketed the SBT
timing, saying it occurred between frames Z210 and Z225."

I'm not surprised but this is the time the majority of people say he
was hit first. I may have run two thoughts together there.

"And they were right too (even via 1964 investigative technology),
because the SBT very, very likely DID, indeed, occur within that
bracketed WC timespan (at precisely Z224, IMO)."

The SBT is a fantasy, it is not possible based on the real wound
location in JFK's back, and the small fact the bullet did not exit his
body.


> >>> "...He [JBC] could not have turned so quickly as he does in the film." <<<

"Huh?

"Making shit up again, I see."

Dave, this makes no sense to me and supposedly I typed it. Why don't
you put my entire sentence in? I don't edit or delete your long-winded
posts.


> <sigh>
>
> >>> "He [JBC] also could not have held his hat for 5 seconds after his wrist was broken." <<<

"And yet we KNOW (via Nellie Connally's own words on this very
subject) that not only did John Connally hold onto that white Stetson
hat for "5 seconds" after his right wrist was struck by Oswald's
Carcano bullet, but we also know that he held onto that hat with his
right hand ALL THE WAY TO PARKLAND HOSPITAL:

      "He [JBC] had the hat in his hand when I pulled him over and
> crouched him down and he was holding that hat up against him. He
> closed up that wound that would've killed him before we got to the
> hospital." -- Nellie Connally"

She is not talking about the wrist wound here, she is talking about
his chest wound. The wrist wound would hardly have been life
threatening.


> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nellie.txt

> >>> "The point is, he [JBC] never accepted being hit by the same shot as JFK, therefore, he had to have been hit by multiple shots." <<<

"Why?"

CS&L. He said he was NOT hit by the same bullet, ergo, he was hit by
a seperate bullet in the back, ergo he did not say this said bullet
exited his chest and hit his wrist. Here is HSCA testimony describing
the bullet hit:

About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight
ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just
doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came

out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The


force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I

looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. So, I
knew I
had been badly hit and I more or less straightened up. At about this
time, Nelly
reached over and pulled me down into her lap."

Where does he mention it coming out and hitting his wrist?

"Connally HAD to have been hit by more than one bullet simply because
he was NOT (per you and JBC) hit by the same bullet that hit JFK?"

No, he was hit by more than one bullet based on what he said
happened. He may have never come right out and said I was hit by two
bullets, but when you read his accounts there is nothing that supports
one bullet causing all of his wounds.

"I think these three letters are required here:

WTF???"

I agree, your theory is messed up.

"And these three too:

LOL!"

I find your theory quite funny too!


> >>> "Kellerman said he heard a flurry of shots at the end. How could there be a flurry of shots with a bolt-actioned rifle?" <<<

"Kellerman's "flurry of shells" that he said entered the car at the
tail-end of the shooting was almost certainly the result of Kellerman
hearing the two bullet fragments (CE567 and CE569) striking the
windshield and chrome strip very near where Kellerman himself was
seated. And this "flurry of shells" (fragments) came from the one
single shot that hit JFK's head."

This is all assumption by you, you can't prove this is what he meant.
I would think a trained agent would know the difference between shots
and ricochets. You have no proof the fragments came from the head shot
either.

"But I'm sure that you, Rob, like your scenario better....a scenario
that has several extra WHOLE BULLETS entering the car in a "flurry",
with only CE567 and CE569 (from LHO's gun) being found after the
shooting."

They were found 12 hours later in D.C., who knows what else would have
been found if it had been searched sooner. There is no chain of
evidence for these fragments, therefore, they would have been excluded
from the trial in all liklihood.

"Where did the bulk of these bullets from this "flurry" go after
entering the vehicle? Did they just vanish (like all other unwanted CT-
favoring evidence in this whole case)? Prob'ly so, huh?"

In a vacuum, out of the car completely just to name a few.

"DVP SAID (IN ANOTHER POST):

> >>> "Question (again): WHEN did John Connally ever say it was his own belief that he had been hit "twice" by rifle fire in Dealey Plaza?" <<<

TO WHICH ROB RESPONDED (IN TYPICAL KOOK-LIKE FASHION):

> >>> "When he said the was NOT hit by the same bullet that hit JFK at Z220." <<<

DVP NOW SAYS:

Again -- what in the heck does JBC's non-belief in the SBT have to do
(in ANY way) with the NUMBER OF SEPARATE BULLETS that struck
Connally's body on Nov. 22, 1963?

You're goofy."

Dave, you are low on CS&L today, if he said he was not hit by the same
bullet that hit JFK first, and he did not say the bullet that hit him
in the back and exited his right nipple hit his wrist - what do you
arrive at? I know of no other bullet in the official theory that was
claimed to have gone in both men.

"And, btw, JFK wasn't hit at "Z220" either. The SBT bullet struck both
limo victims at Z224:"

New studies have shown JBC was most probably not hit until after the
fatal head shot at Z315, and then the wrist shot was at Z338.

"So I continued to let the VCR run in slow motion. During the headshot
sequence I thought I saw the governor driven forward. I replayed the
headshot sequence time after time at normal speed, in slow motion, and
in single frame step mode, often covering the President with my hand
so as to be able to focus completely on the Governor without my eyes
being drawn to the headshot.

That was it. The bullet obviously impacted him under the armpit at
frame 315 as he attempted to raise himself from his wife's lap. The
first evidence of motion is visible at frame 316. He is driven forward
as is shown in frame 321 and hits the back of the front seat at frame
323. He immediately collapses just as Mrs. Connally had described in
frame 326. A second violent motion is noticeable at about frame 338
when run at normal speed. This motion is most likely the impact of the
wrist shot that then goes on to cause the thigh injury. Evidence of
the Governor's wounding after the headshot was noted by Robert Groden
in his book, "The Killing of a President. (Robert J. Groden, "The
Killing of a President" (New York: Penguin Books 1993) p.37) as Shot #
6.

The last shot, apparently a belated final round of the four shot
volley, strikes Connally in the wrist and thigh at about frame 338 as
he lay across the car. He can be seen to make a violent movement
immediately after frame 338, which is evidence of the bullet's impact.
Timing for this shot is supported by data developed during the
acoustic analysis of the Dallas Police radio tape, performed by Bolt
Beranek and Newman Inc., as well as data on the camera motion analysis
of the Zapruder film by W. K. Hartman, and Frank Scott separately for
the HSCA (VI, p.26). This bullet's trajectory, if extended back
through the approximate location of JFK's head, would most likely
originate from the roof of the Dallas County Records Building, where a
spent 30.06 cartridge was found in 1975 by an air-conditioner
repairman (Jim Marrs, "Crossfire - The Plot that Killed Kennedy" (New
York: Carrol & Graf Publishers 1989) p.308-09)."

From:
The Wounding of Governor John Connally
by Ron Hepler


> http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4540.gif


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 3, 2008, 8:48:52 PM6/3/08
to

>>> "[I] Didn't mean to imply he [JBC] did [ever say that he heard JFK say "I'm hit"], but as you said, Kellerman did say this." <<<

But you positively DID imply that John Connally said that he, himself,
heard JFK say "I'm hit" when you (the idiot you are) said this
yesterday:

"He [meaning JBC] heard JFK utter "I'm hit"."

What other POSSIBLE "implication" could I arrive at via the above
totally-incorrect quote?

Maybe you should actually think before racing to the keyboard to type
your non-stop string of kooky and unsupportable thoughts....ya think?

>>> "Kellerman testified he heard JFK say it; Gov. Connally was closer to JFK than Kellerman; therefore, how could he NOT hear it." <<<

Goodie! More Kook Logic!

I.E., Kellerman said he heard JFK say something...so I think I'll
decide that all other limo occupants heard it too.

Brilliant.

And yet you won't find a single other limo occupant who said they
heard JFK utter a single sound (let alone discernible words) after he
was shot.

Jackie testified she never heard JFK make any sound at all (and her
ear was pressed practically right up against JFK's head). Nellie never
heard JFK say anything. Greer never did either. Nor did John Connally.

But Rob (a Mega-Kook, of course) decides--on his own--that JBC
definitely heard Kennedy say "I'm hit"...which btw wasn't the whole
"quote" that Kellerman maintains was uttered by Kennedy...it was "My
God, I am hit".

As I've said so many times previously...Rob, you are pathetic.

>>> "Because he [JBC] never said the bullet exited his chest and hit him in the wrist, did he?" <<<

No. And do you have any idea WHY???

Do you?

I fear not.

It's because John B. Connally is on record as saying that he WASN'T
EVEN AWARE he was hit in the wrist (and thigh) until THE NEXT DAY IN
THE HOSPITAL (Nov. 23rd).

Any chance you could possibly LEARN THE FACTS before spewing your
crappola? Any chance at all? (I fear not.)

Like I said....

Rob = Pathetic.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Jun 4, 2008, 2:57:26 PM6/4/08
to
On Jun 3, 8:48 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "[I] Didn't mean to imply he [JBC] did [ever say that he heard JFK say "I'm hit"], but as you said, Kellerman did say this." <<<

"But you positively DID imply that John Connally said that he,
himself, heard JFK say "I'm hit" when you (the idiot you are) said
this yesterday:

    "He [meaning JBC] heard JFK utter "I'm hit".

"What other POSSIBLE "implication" could I arrive at via the above
totally-incorrect quote?"

Why are you so concerned with this instead of the obvious evidence you
are wrong about one bullet hitting JBC?

"Maybe you should actually think before racing to the keyboard to type
your non-stop string of kooky and unsupportable thoughts....ya think?"

Look who's talking! You should heed this advice everytime you post
something.


> >>> "Kellerman testified he heard JFK say it; Gov. Connally was closer to JFK than Kellerman; therefore, how could he NOT hear it." <<<

"Goodie! More Kook Logic!"

What is kooky about repeating his testimony?

"I.E., Kellerman said he heard JFK say something...so I think I'll
decide that all other limo occupants heard it too.

Brilliant."

Why thank you Dave. :-)

"And yet you won't find a single other limo occupant who said they
heard JFK utter a single sound (let alone discernible words) after he
was shot."

Hey I admitted it is being disputed. I may have been too zealous in
my statement about JBC saying that. I hate to admit it, but you are
probably right.

"Jackie testified she never heard JFK make any sound at all (and her
ear was pressed practically right up against JFK's head). Nellie never
heard JFK say anything. Greer never did either. Nor did John
Connally."

I agree.

"But Rob (a Mega-Kook, of course) decides--on his own--that JBC
definitely heard Kennedy say "I'm hit"...which btw wasn't the whole
"quote" that Kellerman maintains was uttered by Kennedy...it was "My
God, I am hit"."

Yes, I did. I perhaps was not on my game on Monday as I had a bad day
at work. How about admitting it is highly unlikely JBC could say a
word after being hit in the chest and lung with a high force bullet?

"As I've said so many times previously...Rob, you are pathetic."

Oh well, but I least I know the truth when I hear it. I don't support
a bunch of lies and phony evidence like you.


> >>> "Because he [JBC] never said the bullet exited his chest and hit him in the wrist, did he?" <<<

No. And do you have any idea WHY???

Do you?

I fear not.

It's because John B. Connally is on record as saying that he WASN'T
EVEN AWARE he was hit in the wrist (and thigh) until THE NEXT DAY IN
THE HOSPITAL (Nov. 23rd)."

The testimony I pasted was from 1978, are you saying by then he was
not aware of how the shots hit him?

"Any chance you could possibly LEARN THE FACTS before spewing your
crappola? Any chance at all? (I fear not.)"

Dave, I know the facts, and none of them agree with your theory. That
is why you are so mad at me because I simply point this out every day
to you.

"Like I said....

Rob = Pathetic."

I don't feel that way about you, I think you are just a man being
motivated to keep lies going, or, and this is even more scary, you
actually believe all these lies to be true.

0 new messages