Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 46)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From April 2006, June
2006, July 2006, September 2006, February 2007, and March 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- It's not rational for the lighter-
complected man to open an umbrella and pump it up and down in front of
JFK, just before they blew his brains out. Then they sit down calmly.
That's obviously not a normal reaction.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- There's no proof (of any kind) that "TUM" and
"DCM" were "involved" in JFK's death. Only true-blue kooks believe
they were.
You think it's strange for the two men to sit on the curb for a little
while following the assassination. But what I think would be
infinitely "stranger" would be two men doing that who were "involved"
in a plot to kill the President....ALL THE WHILE KNOWING THEY WERE
BEING PHOTOGRAPHED BY NUMEROUS CAMERAMEN AS THEY SAT THERE.
Conspirators who WANT to be photographed and filmed, eh? Now THAT is
odd indeed.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Knowing that the evidence leads up to 90% of Americans to
support my {CT} viewpoint makes YOU the kook, doesn't it?
DVP -- The vast majority of those Americans who believe in conspiracy
(which actually is a figure that is closer to 70%-75%, to date; your
inflated stats notwithstanding) haven't studied the "evidence" in any
great detail at all, and you know it.
And a goodly-sized percentage of that 70%-75% has gotten nearly 100%
of their conspiracy-favoring ideas from kook websites, pro-CT books,
and pro-CT movies like Oliver Stone's travesty. And you surely realize
that fact as well.
Don't you?
Re. "JFK Assassination Polls", there is this:
http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
An ABC News poll from November 2003 can be found at the above weblink.
One of the questions in the poll reveals the fact that a mere 7% of
those asked think that Lee Harvey Oswald was totally UNINVOLVED in
President Kennedy's assassination.
More ABC poll results.....
"Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man, or was
it part of a broader plot?".....
ONE MAN --------- 22%
BROADER PLOT -- 70%
NO OPINION ------ 8%
==================
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy
assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to
Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the
assassination at all?".....
ONLY OSWALD -------------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN --------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ---------------- 10%
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8bb11e92e282dcd5
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/16453684abb4314d
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Most LNers simply gag when it comes to saying "occipital".
DVP -- And certain conspiracy-spouting kooks gag on the word
"somewhat". I wonder why?
http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
>From JFK's Official Autopsy Report:
"There is a large, irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone, but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter. ....
"Based on the above observations, it is our opinion that the deceased
died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-
velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
level of the deceased. ....
"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
external occipital protuberance. ... A portion of the projectile made
its exit through the parietal bone on the right carrying with it
portions of cerebrum, skull, and scalp. The two wounds of the skull,
combined with the force of the missile, produced extensive
fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the superior saggital sinus,
and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Dr. Humes' WC Testimony: "Scientifically, sir, it is
impossible for it {the fatal bullet which struck JFK in the head} to
have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other
than behind".
DVP -- I've seen that quote from Dr. Humes before. It's not a bolt
from heaven.
However, Humes' OTHER comments made during his multiple Government
testimonies obviously indicate that his WC "exited from behind" remark
was either a slip of the tongue or (more likely) was simply a
misunderstood remark which came on the heels of speaking about WHERE
THE GUNMAN WAS LOCATED (i.e., "from behind" the President).
Both of Humes' "from behind" remarks were almost certainly meant to
convey strictly THE LOCATION OF THE ASSASSIN. Why? Because of the
exact words he used: "From Other Than Behind", which he says verbatim
TWICE. He's obviously ONLY talking about the LOCATION of the gunman in
both of his consecutive "from other than behind" remarks.
But some CTers want to jump on this statement by Humes as something
odd or "conspiratorial" I guess. But, then, that's why we employ kooks
here in the first place. What else are they good for, except to bring
up all the inconsistencies in EVERY last piece of testimony and
evidence that surrounds the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders?
It's what rabid conspiracy buffs do best -- i.e., muddy the waters, in
order to try to free guilty Presidential assassins.
The more I ponder Dr. Humes' Double-"FROM OTHER THAN BEHIND" verbiage,
it's obvious that BOTH comments dovetail into one another and that he
was referring solely to the location of the gunman at the time JFK was
hit in the back of the head "From Behind".
Conspiracists can continue to paint Humes as a liar if they please.
But read that WHOLE statement again and see the verbatim "From Behind"
comments via something other than a skewed CT-only context for
once. .....
"Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from
other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."
He obviously CANNOT mean that a bullet has ENTERED the back of JFK's
head AND EXITED from the same place.
With this basic knowledge in place, his statement makes more sense
(although it could have been worded better)....but Humes is talking
here ONLY about the location of JFK's killer ("from behind" JFK's
car).
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
-------------------------------------------
More Re. Dr. James J. Humes WC Testimony.....
CTer -- {Dr. Humes} said that the bullet could not have exited from
OTHER than behind.
DVP -- So, was Dr. Humes lying, or was he merely mistaken? Or was he
just being flat-out stupid when he claimed in the same breath that the
bullet that ENTERED Kennedy's head could not possibly have been fired
from a location other than from BEHIND the President, and then a
second later claimed that the same bullet had to have exited "from
behind" as well?*
* = Which is an "Other Than Behind" statement that some CTers
evidently take to mean "exited the back of JFK's skull" -- which, of
course, Humes did NOT mean there, quite obviously, based on the first
portion of his "other than behind" testimony.
Dr. Humes was talking only about the direction from which the bullet
had to have come in order to have achieved the exit wound that was
observed on JFK's head -- i.e., the bullet that caused the exit wound
in JFK's skull had to have come "FROM BEHIND" the President.
So, which is it? Was Humes an honest man, trying to tell the truth to
the Warren Commission in 1964? Or was he a lying S.O.B. who was "in"
on a cover-up operation from Day 1?
You seem to want Humes to be BOTH of the above things. On one hand,
per CTers, Humes is a lying asswipe, who told numerous lies to the
Warren Commission (et al) and who deliberately faked the autopsy
report.
But on the other hand, certain conspiracy theorists treat Humes as a
"teller of the truth" when it comes to the rather ambiguous-sounding
"from behind"/"from behind" double statement made by Humes. CTers seem
to think that Humes is telling the TRUTH in this one rare instance
(when it suits their pro-conspiracy needs, of course...and only then).
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Do you recall the HSCA determined the {SBT} bullet path in a
slightly UPWARD direction?
DVP -- Yes...and they were wrong. And all a person needs to do is try
a simple test on themselves or another person...and measure 5.5 inches
from their "Mastoids", and then compare it with the area of the neck
below the Adam's Apple to determine the slightly DOWNWARD trajectory
(back to front) between these two points.
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/jfk_zeroang.jpg
Obviously, that kind of self-test is not going to be perfect, since
the autopsy measurements were based on JFK's body and not yours or
mine or John Doe's. But such a "Mastoid Test" gives a good general
idea of the downward path the SBT bullet took through John Kennedy's
body.
Why more people don't try this easy-to-do "test" for themselves is
still a mystery to me. I guess it's better for CTers to stay ignorant
in this "angle" regard than try that simple test....a test that
requires absolutely no expertise in...anything (except a knowledge of
where the wounds were on JFK, and the ability to read a ruler).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Based on nothing but your wild specualtion?
DVP -- Oh, sure...it's my "wild speculation" that JFK and Connally are
reacting at an identical time to external stimulus here. Really "wild"
indeed. I just made it up from thin air and tissue paper.
Just how many billionths of a second between reactions do you see
here?.....
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- I couldn't care less about an animation, David. An animation
is an animation is an animation.
DVP -- And naturally you'll just ignore the painstaking effort and
research that Mr. Dale K. Myers put into his 10-years-in-the-making
animation project...a project which features exacting blueprint
measurements, limo body drafts, and precise-as-possible Zapruder Film
overlays (which this picture is based on almost entirely, btw)......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
But all that precision is to be flushed down the toilet I
guess....just because it's in "animated" form.
Good call. (If you're a conspiracy kook, that is.)
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/intro.htm
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The "coat bunch" is a non-issue. It is impossible for the coat
to rise up enough to make the SBT work.
DVP -- For ANYONE to use the clothing of the victim as a definitive
indication of where the bullet entered the victim is just crazy.
Quite obviously, regardless of WHERE the bullet hole resides in JFK's
jacket, since there was just ONE hole in the jacket JFK was wearing
when he was shot...and since there's just ONE single bullet hole in
his back --- this has to mean that the ONE bullet had to have gone
through that one hole in that jacket...no matter WHERE it was on the
clothing.
To believe anything else is to believe in something utterly nutty,
crazy, and just plain...kooky.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The CT theory explains ALL the eyewitness testimony...such as
those who testified that LHO was wearing different clothes.
DVP -- Aside from the fact that most people don't possess perfect
"recall" with respect to what certain other people were wearing at a
given point in time, there's also the fact that a decent-sized
percentage of human beings (especially men) are color blind. (I am one
of them.) That could affect some of the witnesses' observations as
well.
Obviously, that point doesn't apply to the "jacket vs. a shirt"
discrepancies that have cropped up with some witnesses when they
talked about Oswald's 11/22/63 clothing (with William Whaley and
Marrion Baker both stating that Lee Oswald was wearing a "jacket",
when it's almost a certainty that Oswald had no jacket on when seen by
those witnesses).
Similar to the clothing thing, the witnesses in Dealey Plaza really
had no reason to synchronize their watches and make a note of the
exact time they noticed a man in the window of the Book Depository.
So, CTers who think they can utilize the "timeline" of multiple
witnesses to piece together a conspiracy, I believe are sadly
mistaken.
The same goes with the Tippit witnesses. Did all of those witnesses
"synchronize" their watches just before the Tippit murder? Obviously
not.
I'd wager to say that if you placed 5 people with watches on their
wrists in a room, and asked each of them what the exact time
was....you're probably going to get at least 3 different answers
(probably 4 different ones).
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Ad hominem won't get you anywhere, Davey-boy.
DVP -- Will my Yoda imitation gain me any points though? Let me give
it a shot anyway ..... "Let the CT Force flowwwww through you, young
man....yessssss! It is a great conspirator the kooks seek! Files! They
seek Fiiiiiiiiiles (of the James variety)!!"
BTW, I can boogie-down too. Will that get me anywhere? .....
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/images/smilies/dance.gif