Let's Play "21 Questions" .... An LN Response To 21 CT Inquiries
David Von Pein
same "quiz" was posted at the Simkin JFK Forum recently too). Simkin
Forum members are encouraged to copy-&-paste this post into the
associated thread there at the Simkin Forum too.
If someone (Mr. Healy or otherwise) should decide to post this at
Simkin's Forum, please copy the text via the "Show Original" option
provided here at Google Groups, to preserve the full weblinks/URLs.
Much obliged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(1) Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder, who just coincidently would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, was never questioned by the FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR?" <<<
DVP: It's rather remarkable, isn't it, that the author of the above
question somehow knows for a fact what Mr. Chaney's testimony would
have been, even though no testimony exists?
Many of the closest witnesses were questioned at length about the
shooting, including other motorcycle officers, plus John & Nellie
Connally, Jackie Kennedy, Kellerman, and Greer.
The CTer who wrote this question seems to think that the Warren
Commission KNEW for a fact that Officer Chaney was going to say
something the WC desperately didn't want to have in the record of the
WR. Any chance of providing any proof that the WC didn't call Chaney
specifically because Chaney was going to say something that was
"conspiracy" oriented?
No, of course there's no proof of this. And this # 1 question here only
illustrates a rabid CT-Kook's desire to paint everything as "hinky" and
"shady" and "hidden" in some manner...despite any proof to back up such
notions.
Why did the WC call S.M. Holland...or Jean Hill...or various other
witnesses whose testimony didn't aid the "LN" scenario? Many witnesses
weren't called that could have been called, sure; but 552 people did
testify (or were interviewed). Why some CTers think Chaney's testimony
would have suddenly changed all the physical evidence in the case, or
would have somehow nullified the perfectly-logical SBT is a crazy CT
notion indeed.
Jackie Kennedy could (and should) have been questioned in a more
in-depth manner by the Commission, IMO. But she wasn't -- which was no
doubt out of deference to the grieving widow's feelings. The WC didn't
want to upset Jackie any more than was absolutely necessary. Although I
think she should at least have been asked, in a tactful manner, where
the wounds on JFK were located (seeing as how Jackie was certainly the
very best eyewitness to Mr. Kennedy's head wounds, as she was literally
holding his head during the ride to the hospital).
But Jackie wasn't asked such questions, and that leaves a bit of a hole
in the record concerning Mrs. Kennedy's 11/22 observations. But it's
something we'll just have to live with and accept. The same applies to
James Chaney and his lack of any official WC testimony.
I will say, however, that Chaney's "unofficial" comments made to ABC-TV
on 11/22/63 certainly do nothing at all (overall) to harm the
SBT/LHO/LN case. Chaney told ABC that he heard "three shots", and that
these shots all came from "over my right shoulder", which is
information that perfectly aligns with three Oswald shots coming from
the Book Depository.
Chaney's remark about seeing JFK being "hit in the face" is an
understandable misrepresentation of the true nature of the JFK head
wound (given the confusion and suddenness of the crime)....and is an
obvious error on the part of Mr. Chaney, since everybody knows that
President Kennedy was NOT struck "in the face" by any bullet that day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Chaney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(2) Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?" <<<
DVP: Did they dig a hole in the backyard for them or something? Was
JFK's brain placed in this hole too?
This # 2 question is another of those inquiries that a CTer demands a
perfect pro-LN answer to....and if such an LN answer isn't forthcoming
(or known), then that CTer thinks he gets to believe a bunch of kooky
shit with respect to the inquiry at hand. And (naturally) the answer
that a CTer provides in lieu of any FACTUAL data is an answer that
always leads to something "hinky", "conspiratorial", and
"coverup-related".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(3) Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most LNT'ers today?" <<<
DVP: See answer to # 2.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(4) Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse their theory?" <<<
DVP: Proof please. Names please. Who was fired? And who exactly did the
firing? And provide the precise reason(s) for such a "firing" please.
(And CT paranoid guesswork is not good enough.)
Any chance that a CTer can provide these needed hunks of verification
regarding this matter? Highly doubtful, as per the norm in such
instances of CTers who accuse people of doing things that are perceived
to be conspiratorial in nature, when a perfectly-logical
non-conspiratorial explanation is just as likely (and probably more
so).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(5) Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted?" <<<
DVP: Please provide ONE solitary example of KNOWN and verifiable
"intimidation" by the FBI in order to "get the statements they wanted".
Number five here is merely more CT hogwash...much like the silliness
that was purported in Oliver Stone's high-handed 1991 motion picture.
.... E.G. (a fanciful conversation between Jean Hill and a scary
"Gummint" guy of some ilk): "Echoes! You heard ECHOES!! We have three
shots coming from the Book Depository! And that's all we're willing to
say!"
~LOL~ (That scene always induces a large laugh whenever it's cued up.)
:-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(6) What is the 6.5mm virtually-round object that no one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy? And why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy?" <<<
DVP: Didn't Ebersole say he DID see this "object" on 11/22...and
mentioned to a colleague it was nothing but an "artifact"? I believe
this is the case. And if so, why isn't this explanation good enough to
calm the CTers in this regard?
Does a "6.5mm artifact" of some kind automatically indicate
"conspiracy"? If so...please say how you arrived at that fantastic
leap-of-faith judgment?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(7) How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?" <<<
DVP: In some cases, I suppose the spine might have been damaged by the
passing bullet. But in THIS (JFK) case, that did not happen (the CAT
scan stuff notwithstanding).
Does the CAT scan analysis prove that a bullet transiting in the way
CE399 is said to have transited JFK's body (via the AR doctors
themselves) MUST always hit JFK's spine in particular? If so...how was
this "proven"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(8) Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?" <<<
DVP: Show me proof-positive that the doctors were FORBIDDEN to dissect
the neck/back wounds.
Humes stated that further probing of the back wound (after his stupid
pinky probe) might have caused a "false passage through the
body"...therefore he testified that no further probing was done.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(9) Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the government had control of them." <<<
DVP: How do you know anything about stuff that apparently
"disappeared"? (The same way you assume that several bullets were made
to "disappear" on 11/22 too, perhaps? How can something that never
existed in the first place all of a sudden "disappear"?)
Also -- Do you truly believe another photo or X-ray (or two) would undo
what the other pictures and X-rays depict? Seems like a curious notion
if you think that. Which makes this pretty much another in a series of
moot CT points being raised in this "JFK quiz". Par for the CT course
(of course).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(10) Why did the CIA have a program of harrassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?" <<<
DVP: Huh?? I'll toss up my hands on this one and admit I haven't the
foggiest idea what this craziness is all about. (But, yeah, it sounds
like some more kooky CT-created crappola. But, who knows. And who
really cares? Does it somehow wipe Oswald's slate clean...yet again?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(11) Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body -- as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was NO valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas -- or was there? Can you provide it?" <<<
DVP: Sure. All of the other evidence (save the Book Depository Building
itself) in the case was being released to the FBI on 11/22. The main
FBI HQ was in Washington, and while killing the President wasn't
officially a "Federal" crime in 1963, I'm not surprised the Feds took
control of the case to a great extent. Why wouldn't they have done so?
And the limo was one of those pieces of evidence that was "turned over"
to the FBI in Washington.
The "jurisdiction" question is only hinky if one wishes to believe that
a massive cover-up was put into place almost immediately following the
shooting. But is that truly a "reasonable" assumption to make?
IMO...no, it is not.
And if the FBI was above-board with the evidence, moving things to
Washington for examination is not the least bit out of line...or, as
mentioned, the least bit surprising to me. I would have expected that
to happen in the case of a murdered POTUS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(12) Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it." <<<
DVP: This is pure crap...plain and simple. The chain of evidence is
only weak because a CTer NEEDS the chain to be weak. No other reason.
Because if there IS a "chain" (and there is...for every single piece of
evidence in this case, including Tippit's murder), then Oswald is
guilty as sin, and even CT-Kooks must realize this is true.
Darrell Tomlinson has stated in the past that CE399 "looked like the
same bullet" he found at Parkland on 11/22/63. Why this isn't good
enough for some CTers is anybody's guess. (But, of course, not much is
good enough for those guys.)
Tomlinson stated that CE399 "looked like" the same stretcher bullet
that he found...period. And common sense alone tells any reasonable
person that CE399 HAD to have been inside John Connally on 11/22. Any
other explanation pales by comparison, and is laughable in every way.
More on that here.....
Vince Bugliosi sums it up nicely in the quotes below (and these words
come from an ex-prosecutor who knows of what he speaks re. "chain of
evidence" matters and what would be admissible vs. inadmissible in a
court of law):
"Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons, was determined
by firearms experts to be the rifle that fired the two bullets that
struck down President Kennedy. .... There may have been fifty people
firing at President Kennedy that day; but if there were, they all
missed; only bullets fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the
President." -- V. Bugliosi
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(13) Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned by LHO?" <<<
DVP: This is more CT guesswork (and shows a CTer at work as he attempts
to sidestep the major issues of LHO's guilt by turning the focus of
attention on something peripheral and meaningless).
Does this "FBI"/"camera" stuff wipe out all of the evidence that tells
the world Lee Oswald was a double-murderer on 11/22/63? If it's of
major importance, please let us know why?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(14) Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released...even to government investigators?" <<<
DVP: What files (specifically)? And if something has never been
"released", please tell the world how you even know they exist?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(15) Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to LIE about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable -- they lied blatantly about the medical testimony...why??" <<<
DVP: It's not "disputable", eh? Please give one such example of a
verified "lie" from the HSCA. (A "mistake" does not qualify.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(16) Why have so many new "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard -- such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"?" <<<
DVP: Those last two items had "never before" been heard of?? That's a
rather odd statement about the unreliable witness thing and the fact
that genuine photos WILL, in fact, most of the time trump
sometimes-unclear, hazy eyewitness recollections. Those things aren't
"new" in the slightest. They're basic common-sense things.
And the "jet effect" item is perfectly reasonable as well...except to
the CTers who will look for any excuse to dismiss certain "experts".
And if you want to bring up stuff that has "never before been heard
of", then we could go into several items on the pro-CT table that had
never before been seen in any case in history prior to the JFK murder
--- e.g.: the "Let's Frame A Lone Patsy By Shooting The One Slow-Moving
Target With Multiple Guns And Then Expect To Have All Of The Unwanted
Evidence To Magically Disappear Immediately" theory.
And then there's the theory that has two killers being needed to murder
J.D. Tippit on 10th Street (even though it's a point-blank killing,
requiring just one gunman)...with all of the evidence surrounding this
murder expected to also fall neatly into the "It Was Oswald" pile.
Plus: There's the famous theory that has these silly plotters planting
the wrong rifle on the 6th Floor (they must have forgotten that their
Patsy didn't own a Mauser I guess).
And the smile-inducing "Umbrella Man Shoots JFK With A Poisoned
Projectile While Standing Out In Plain Sight For All To See And Film"
hunk of nonsense.
And lots more to be found here:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(17) Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film?" <<<
DVP: This is CT-Kookshit and nothing more. The Altgens photo and the
Z-Film are certainly genuine articles....so this silly question is a
moot one. This CTer obviously is purporting that the Z-Film is fake in
some manner.
Conspiracy Kook Rule #16B applies here, which states -- "When all else
fails, just say something is "fake" or "phony" or "doesn't look quite
right", and the CTer is off the hook".
As Vince Bugliosi would say -- You can tell when someone has a very
weak physical-evidence case....because they'll start arguing
impossible-to-prove theories re. evidence manipulation or contamination
or cover-up, etc. This invariably occurs when there simply is nothing
else for the defense TO argue.
Attempts to deflect attention away from the basic core of ballistics
(and other) evidence in the JFK case (which all leads inexorably to Lee
Oswald) by crying "It's All Fake" is a sign of a patently-weak case
with which these kooks try to combat the physical evidence.
And, I'm sorry, but the "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be" argument with
respect to virtually everything surrounding the JFK assassination is
about as likely to be true (and provable) as a blizzard in Phoenix.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(18) How is it possible to not have a "first frame flash" at Z-133, as the engineers who designed the camera assert must happen?" <<<
DVP: If somebody can tell me what the heck this has to do with pretty
much anything relating to the question of "Who Shot JFK?", please let
me know. It's another attempt, I guess, at a "Z-Film Hoax" allegation.
But I've never heard of such an argument heretofore. Must be a new
kook-invented theory (circa 21st century) or something. Beats me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(19) Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?" <<<
DVP: There was a "slowdown". There's no disputing this fact. The limo
never stopped however. Some witnesses might have thought the limo had
fully stopped due to its already-slow (then slower) speed at about the
time of the head shot, and due to the fact that the motorcycles
"overtook" the limousine to an extent at around that time, making it
appear to some witnesses the limo had completely stopped.
But one look at the Nix Film proves the limo did not fully stop. It's
very hard to see the "slowdown" on the Z-Film, because the whole film
frame (left-to-right) is taken up by the limo itself, with Zapruder
panning with his camera and keeping the limo centered. But Nix proves
without question the limo "slowdown", but not a full stop. (Or is Nix
supposedly "faked" too?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(20) Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?" <<<
DVP: A possible explanation is that they all saw blood and gore
"pooling" to the very back of the head, which obviously did occur.
Are we to actually believe that McClelland, Peters, Dulany, and Jenkins
were all "in" on the "plot" to conceal the truth concerning JFK's head
wounds when they all said that the photos they examined at the National
Archives in 1988 for "NOVA" television showed no signs of
tampering...i.e., the photos depict JFK the way he looked to each of
these doctors in '63 at Parkland.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm
I will readily admit that I don't have all the answers to this odd
"BOH" matter re. the witnesses who said they saw a BOH hole in JFK's
head. It's my #1 "mystery" in the whole case. But it's not something
that must equate to conspiracy, IMO....because there are many things
contradicting these witnesses, including the Z-Film, which shows no
such BOH wound at all; plus the Z-Film shows no blood at the supposed
"exit" (BOH) point on JFK's head; not a bit of "spray" at the so-called
exit point. Impossible, if JFK had been hit from the front, causing a
massive BOH exit wound.
Plus there are the "authenticated by the HSCA and Clark Panel" autopsy
photos and X-rays.
Plus there's the huge "clue" of there being only ONE single entry hole
on the back of JFK's head (regardless of the exact millimeter on the
head this wound was located). There was no frontal entry hole, period.
That fact in itself (backed up by the autopsy report and the three
autopsists who signed that AR and testified multiple times to this "One
Entry Hole" effect) disproves the long-held CTer notion that President
Kennedy was hit in the head from the front -- regardless of what ANY of
the witnesses say about the location of JFK's wounds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(21) Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?" <<<
DVP: The autopsy report does no such thing. The autopsy "Summary" is
perfectly consistent with the photos and the X-rays (and the SBT as
well). In fact, the autopsy report itself is really the genesis to the
SBT, with the writing of these words:
"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
structures in its path through the body."
Re. the BOH question specifically, we find this in the autopsy Summary:
"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed
the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. 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."
The author of Question 21 is no doubt, though, referring to this
passage in the AR (which also does not contradict the autopsy photo of
JFK's head; the CTer who poses the inquiry needs to look up the word
"somewhat"):
"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."
http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DVP Post-Script:
In the final analysis, no matter how hard a CTer tries, that
conspiracist cannot debunk this statement made by my main man, Vincent
T. Bugliosi, in 1986:
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80% of the
evidence against him out the window and there would still be more than
enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the
crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
The hard physical evidence in total (coupled with a ten-mile-high pile
of circumstantial evidence, including Oswald's own actions before and
after 12:30 PM on 11/22/63) does NOT lead to multiple gunmen in Dealey
Plaza.
No matter what spin a conspiracy theorist wants to utilize regarding
this physical evidence (e.g., guns, bullets, fragments, shells, prints,
fibers, and eyewitnesses who saw Oswald kill two men on Nov. 22), the
physical evidence will still remain on the table in the JFK and Tippit
murder cases. And it's evidence that points directly at one man -- Lee
Harvey Oswald. And it's evidence that undeniably points to only
Oswald's weaponry being used to murder John Kennedy and Officer Tippit.
And anyone saying differently is only fooling themselves into believing
that many, many police officers, FBI agents, and SS agents would have
all possessed a UNIFIED DESIRE to want to frame an innocent man for two
1963 first-degree murders.
And even if we were to accept the absurd notion that all of those DPD
officers would want to frame a man named Oswald for JFK's killing, and
possibly (per many CTers) the death of Officer Tippit as well (all the
while not giving a damn that the real killer/killers of their fellow
police officer was getting away scot-free with the murder of J.D.
Tippit), the amount of "real" (non-Oswald-implicating) evidence that
would have needed to be magically turned into "All Oswald" evidence in
very short order (times two murders) on 11/22 is pretty hefty.
And it defies logic to think that this could have been so perfectly
orchestrated on the spur of the moment by any number of "Let's Frame
Oswald" operatives...operatives from multiple law-enforcement agencies
as well.
It's just plain nonsense to think that such a massive switcheroo of
evidence could have been performed so perfectly -- from the bullets, to
the bullet shells, to the guns, to the witnesses who fingered only
Oswald (and they can't ALL be Government shills, can they?), to somehow
"controlling" the actions of a very guilty-acting "Patsy" named Oswald
just after 12:30 PM on 11/22, and right on down to Oswald's many lies
that he told to the nation on Live TV after his arrest.
Larry Sturdivan possibly said it best in his book when he wrote this
excellent passage in that publication......
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in
complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- L. Sturdivan;
Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"
Vince Bugliosi, too, knows that the CTers are full of nothing but empty
theories and piecemeal guesswork. And he'll be exposing the many
conspiracy theories for what they all are (i.e., unsupportable
conjecture-based tripe with no basis in solid fact) in his book "Final
Verdict: The Simple Truth In The Killing Of JFK" (probably coming in
mid-2007)......
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=31246
"No one has produced one piece of evidence to support a conspiracy
theory. And the thing about a conspiracy is, you can't keep it secret.
More than 25,000 interviews have been conducted by the FBI, the Warren
Commission, and independent investigators. No one has come up with one
piece of solid evidence {to support a conspiracy theory}. Just theories
and motives." -- Vincent Bugliosi
If I were a CTer (heaven help me), I'd listen intently to ex-prosecutor
Bugliosi when he says......
"I believe there was no conspiracy, and I think I can convince the
average reader in 25 pages that Oswald killed JFK. .... My conclusion
is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed
Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted alone. .... Very
few had heard both sides of the story. It was easier and more romantic
to believe in the conspiracy. My book will show otherwise. Many of the
conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual palate at first
glance, but they do violence to all notions of common sense." -- V.
Bugliosi
Even a rabid CTer should realize that Vince B. does not make bold
assertions like the ones above without thinking things through
beforehand. And the following quote only solidifies VB's proof-positive
LN stance even more......
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." -- V.
Bugliosi
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allow me to close with a mini 1-question quiz of my own for CTers to
ponder......
Can anyone tell me why in the world ANY sane person (who wants to
succeed with their covert plan) would deliberately concoct a "1-Patsy"
assassination plot that involves multiple gunmen located in various
locations throughout Dealey Plaza in Dallas, all aiming at the same
target at pretty much the very same time?
How could any reasonable person planning such a crackpot plot think for
a single second that such a plan could have a prayer of succeeding?
Were these conspirators ALL high on some type of "Miracles Are
Possible" drugs?
And yet many CTers (including the likes of Oliver Stone and the late
"Conspiracy Kook Extraordinaire" Jim Garrison) actually believe(d) that
such a Multi-Gun, One-Patsy plot was planned ahead of time in 1963, and
was somehow pulled off successfully to boot. Go figure out that
mindset. I sure haven't been able to.
Some additional LN common sense:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8b5fe5e258b39f17
lazu...@webtv.net
How can you nutters claim with such certitude that there was no
conspiracy, when it's a well-known fact that one cannot prove a
negative?
muc...@gmail.com
The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a type of
logical fallacy of the following form: "This exists because there is no
proof that it does not exist."
On proving a negative:
http://myweb.cableone.net/silentdave/proving_a_negative.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html
-Mark
David Von Pein
This is an interesting back-door kind of response by CTer Laz-man --
i.e., he seems to be hinting that there's not much (or any) hard
evidence to hang his "Conspiracy Hat" on (which, of course, is correct
-- there isn't any hard CT evidence at all)....with Laz's case being
reduced to the incredibly-weak-sister argument of, in essence....
***There must have been a conspiracy in the JFK case, because (even
though there's no hard evidence on the table that supports any
conspiracy plot) LNers can never prove beyond all doubt that CTers are
wrong when those conspiracists purport that one or more hidden and
never-to-be-identified "plotters" had a hand in President Kennedy's
death.***
I can just imagine what Mr. Bugliosi would do with the above CTer
argument in a courtroom (after he got permission from the Judge, that
is, to excuse himself from the courtroom so that he could laugh
uncontrollably in the corridor for ten minutes).
[VB Mode On]......
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury....you heard Mr. Lazuli-(Kook) right
here in this courtroom, didn't you? Somebody tell me they heard him say
these things about 'not being able to prove a negative' -- because I'm
not sure I really heard that flimsy and preposterous argument with my
own ears.
Mr. Laz-man, therefore, without a speck of physical evidence to support
his claims of a conspiracy plot, is actually asking for this jury to
accept the notion that a conspiracy did exist with respect to John F.
Kennedy's assassination merely because the prosecution in this case
cannot prove with 100% certainty that additional unseen, unidentifiable
gunmen-slash-henchmen were plotting to have JFK murdered in 1963??!!
Somebody pinch me! Did he REALLY expect you folks to accept that
pathetic argument?! Unbelievable! Where does the defense GET gonads
like that?! I'd truly like to know!
Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, per Mr. Laz-Kook's explanation of
'possible conspiracy', a 'conspiracy' could possibly exist in EVERY
murder case known to man! Or in EVERY criminal case ever brought into
court as well.
I guess this silly defense team over here thinks that all they need to
do is to waltz into a court of law -- armed with no physical support of
their 'conspiracy' claims whatsoever -- and just HINT at the idea that
some shadowy figures behind the curtain were pulling the strings (and
setting up Golden Boy Lee Oswald to take the rap)....and you folks are
supposed to throw up your hands in an act of placation and say 'OK,
I'll buy that'.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm here to tell Mr. Kook over there for
the defense that it's NOT QUITE THAT EASY!!"
.....[/VB Mode Off]
Vince then excuses himself for a second time as he bursts into fits of
laughter at the thought of the wonderful theory that suggests the
following -- "JUST BECAUSE THERE'S NO HARD EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY,
THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE (THE CT-KOOKS) CAN'T BELIEVE THAT A CONSPIRACY
EXISTED ANYWAY".
~~LOL Break~~
cdddraftsman
assnine comment spews uncontrollably forth ?
Shit heal ............
Robert Harris
wrote:
I agree with you there, although we can see for ourselves, what she
saw at the time, thanks to Abraham Zapruder,
http://jfkhistory.com/protrusion.jpg
And it's easy to see that Dr. Boswell's measurements match perfectly
with the Zapruder film, and the Xrays.
http://jfkhistory.com/4chad.jpg
>
>But Jackie wasn't asked such questions, and that leaves a bit of a hole
>in the record concerning Mrs. Kennedy's 11/22 observations.
Not really.
She did manage to tell us that she was having difficulty holding the
back of his head together, and she told us that her original
impression was that she heard two shots, after Governor Connally began
to shout - which matches perfectly with the statements of the others
in the limo, and most of the other witnesses throughout Dealey Plaza
that day.
But like countless other testimonies and facts, that puts the lie to
the SA theory.
Robert Harris
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Anthony Marsh
> Wikipedia:
>
> The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a type of
> logical fallacy of the following form: "This exists because there is no
> proof that it does not exist."
>
> On proving a negative:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/silentdave/proving_a_negative.htm
Atheism has nothing to do with this. One can prove a negative. It is
called rejecting the null hypothesis.
Robert Harris
wrote:
>
>Robert Harris:
>
>At the risk of getting you started again on Z285, how do you explain
>away the mountain of physical evidence against Oswald?
I don't explain things away, Chuck.
As I have said many times before, I think he was guilty as hell.
>Is your theory
>that he fired a shot-or some shots-at JFK but had help?
I try not to waste time on "theories" Chuck.
I know for a fact, that the attack was not carried out by a single
assassin.
I don't know whether he fired a rifle that day or not. If he was
firing the MC however, he only fired it once.
I would be happy to explain all this to you, but since you have
repeatedly asked me the same question about Oswald's involvement, I
have to doubt that you would bother to read it.
>What about
>Tippit?
Yes, I think he shot Tippit, but I cannot say that with absolute
certainty.
The question of Oswald's guilt is relatively unimportant to me, Chuck.
If he was involved, as I think he was, then he certainly got what he
had coming.
I am infinitely more concerned about the people who didn't get caught,
and their affiliations.
I am also concerned about the motives of people who try to pretend
that the SA theory is a certainty. Even without the mountain of
evidence proving that a SA couldn't have carried out the attack alone,
the question would remain, a nonfalsifiable.
You could NEVER state with absolute certainty, that there was no
conspiracy. The best you can claim is that you are not convinced by
the evidence presented so far.
By trying to claim otherwise, you define yourself as a pitchman,
rather than an honest researcher.
Robert Harris
lazu...@webtv.net
both untenable and unreasonable. If the evidence is truly followed and
examined, then reasonable doubt about at least some aspects must arise
in the open-minded researcher. The fact that there are no doubts in the
nutters' minds whatsoever, despite overwhelming evidence to the
contrary, places them in the "true believers" category of dishonest and
non-critical thinking.
Old Laz, a "true believer" in conspiracy----
who at least questions the evidence, instead of blindly accepting the
gospel according to Warren and company.
muc...@gmail.com
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> muc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Wikipedia:
> >
> > The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a type of
> > logical fallacy of the following form: "This exists because there is no
> > proof that it does not exist."
> >
> > On proving a negative:
> >
> > http://myweb.cableone.net/silentdave/proving_a_negative.htm
>
> Atheism has nothing to do with this. One can prove a negative. It is
> called rejecting the null hypothesis.
Tony, it was the previous poster who claimed that you can't prove a
negative. I posted links to a couple of articles that deal (rather
appropriately, I think) with that particular myth. Should you decide to
read the articles, please focus on the reasoning and not whether the
opposing sides happen to be theists and atheists or CT's and LN's...
Ben Holmes
>
>On 15 Oct 2006 21:14:42 -0700, "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>These are the 21 questions posted by Ben Holmes in another thread (this
>>same "quiz" was posted at the Simkin JFK Forum recently too). Simkin
>>Forum members are encouraged to copy-&-paste this post into the
>>associated thread there at the Simkin Forum too.
>>
>>If someone (Mr. Healy or otherwise) should decide to post this at
>>Simkin's Forum, please copy the text via the "Show Original" option
>>provided here at Google Groups, to preserve the full weblinks/URLs.
>>Much obliged.
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(1) Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder, who just coincidently
>>>>>would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, was never questioned by the
>>>>>FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: It's rather remarkable, isn't it, that the author of the above
>>question somehow knows for a fact what Mr. Chaney's testimony would
>>have been, even though no testimony exists?
Actually, there is no need whatsoever to "know" what Chaney would have said. He
was the closest non-limo eyewitness, he was looking right at JFK (shown by the
Altgen's photo), and it's not exactly a secret that police are considered better
than average eyewitnesses to any event in court.
So why wasn't he called?
The *ONLY* reason that can be offered, and LNT'ers are too dishonest to give it,
is that what he would have testified to *IS* known. Davey-boy insists that "no
testimony exists", and true though that is, it's not exactly the same as "no
eyewitness statements by Chaney exists"...
So Davey-boy is forced to be dishonest in order to uphold his beliefs...
>>Many of the closest witnesses were questioned at length about the
>>shooting, including other motorcycle officers, plus John & Nellie
>>Connally, Jackie Kennedy, Kellerman, and Greer.
>>
>>The CTer who wrote this question seems to think that the Warren
>>Commission KNEW for a fact that Officer Chaney was going to say
>>something the WC desperately didn't want to have in the record of the
>>WR. Any chance of providing any proof that the WC didn't call Chaney
>>specifically because Chaney was going to say something that was
>>"conspiracy" oriented?
The question is on you... *YOU* must provide a reasonable reason for the
closest police eyewitness not to be called. Indeed, he was not even officially
*QUESTIONED* by anyone prior to the release of the WCR. There is a perfectly
understandable and reasonable reason - but unfortunately for the LNT'ers, they
can't offer it.
>>No, of course there's no proof of this.
Dishonest to the very end. We don't have his "testimony", because he was never
asked to testify. We don't have his affidavit, because the FBI, Secret Service,
and WC failed to ask him *ANYTHING*.
But we *DO* know what he saw, and what, in general terms, he would have
testified to - because he told people, and those people told the WC.
So there is indeed "proof" that what Chaney would have testified to was
"conspiracy oriented."
This explains why when I ask LNT'ers to provide those known statements of
Chaney, they always fail to do so.
Rather dishonest, isn't it?
>> And this # 1 question here only
>>illustrates a rabid CT-Kook's desire to paint everything as "hinky" and
>>"shady" and "hidden" in some manner...despite any proof to back up such
>>notions.
And liars are forced to lie to make points. Sad... isn't it?
>>Why did the WC call S.M. Holland...or Jean Hill...or various other
>>witnesses whose testimony didn't aid the "LN" scenario? Many witnesses
>>weren't called that could have been called, sure; but 552 people did
>>testify (or were interviewed). Why some CTers think Chaney's testimony
>>would have suddenly changed all the physical evidence in the case, or
>>would have somehow nullified the perfectly-logical SBT is a crazy CT
>>notion indeed.
The notion that Chaney was not a "conspiracy" eyewitness, and the closest police
eyewitness at that... is a dishonest lie.
Nor is it a secret among those of us who've *read* the eyewitness testimony that
the WC made a special effort to discredit eyewitnesses who reported facts
contrary to their theory.
Or failed to ask appropriate (and obvious) questions.
>>Jackie Kennedy could (and should) have been questioned in a more
>>in-depth manner by the Commission, IMO. But she wasn't -- which was no
>>doubt out of deference to the grieving widow's feelings.
Hogwash. Murder is a crime against the state, and widows are *routinely*
questioned in depth in courts across the land.
Another widow was Marina... do you suppose that she was treated the same as
Jackie?
>>The WC didn't
>>want to upset Jackie any more than was absolutely necessary.
Nor did they want the facts she would supply in the public record. She would
have been a 'believable' eyewitness to many in the public.
>>Although I
>>think she should at least have been asked, in a tactful manner, where
>>the wounds on JFK were located (seeing as how Jackie was certainly the
>>very best eyewitness to Mr. Kennedy's head wounds, as she was literally
>>holding his head during the ride to the hospital).
And when she *did* comment on this topic, it was promptly classified. Since it
didn't match what the WC wanted to spin.
>I agree with you there, although we can see for ourselves, what she
>saw at the time, thanks to Abraham Zapruder,
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/protrusion.jpg
>
>And it's easy to see that Dr. Boswell's measurements match perfectly
>with the Zapruder film, and the Xrays.
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/4chad.jpg
>
>
>>
>>But Jackie wasn't asked such questions, and that leaves a bit of a hole
>>in the record concerning Mrs. Kennedy's 11/22 observations.
>
>Not really.
>
>She did manage to tell us that she was having difficulty holding the
>back of his head together, and she told us that her original
>impression was that she heard two shots, after Governor Connally began
>to shout - which matches perfectly with the statements of the others
>in the limo, and most of the other witnesses throughout Dealey Plaza
>that day.
>
>But like countless other testimonies and facts, that puts the lie to
>the SA theory.
Yep. What she *did* tell us is perfectly in line with the conspiracy.
>Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
>>But it's
>>something we'll just have to live with and accept. The same applies to
>>James Chaney and his lack of any official WC testimony.
No... no-one has to "accept" that Chaney wasn't questioned. It will always be a
black mark on the "investigation". It will forever be a question that LNT'ers
cannot honestly answer. And it will forever be an example of the coverup being
conducted by the WC.
>>I will say, however, that Chaney's "unofficial" comments made to ABC-TV
>>on 11/22/63 certainly do nothing at all (overall) to harm the
>>SBT/LHO/LN case. Chaney told ABC that he heard "three shots", and that
>>these shots all came from "over my right shoulder", which is
>>information that perfectly aligns with three Oswald shots coming from
>>the Book Depository.
>>
>>Chaney's remark about seeing JFK being "hit in the face" is an
>>understandable misrepresentation of the true nature of the JFK head
>>wound (given the confusion and suddenness of the crime)....and is an
>>obvious error on the part of Mr. Chaney, since everybody knows that
>>President Kennedy was NOT struck "in the face" by any bullet that day.
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Chaney
Everyone does *NOT* know that JFK wasn't struck "in the face". There is a
rather clear bullet entry hole in his right temple that anyone can see for
themselves. There's testimony that this hole had to be patched. There's
initial evidence from Parkland that this was the entry.
And, as I noted previously that LNT'ers can't be honest with Chaney's
statements, note the complete absence of his remarks which destroy the SBT...
>>www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=1413475221&reviewID=RL0C7XHOJKVR7&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>> "(2) Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: Did they dig a hole in the backyard for them or something? Was
>>JFK's brain placed in this hole too?
When you can't answer, ridicule...
>>This # 2 question is another of those inquiries that a CTer demands a
>>perfect pro-LN answer to....and if such an LN answer isn't forthcoming
>>(or known), then that CTer thinks he gets to believe a bunch of kooky
>>shit with respect to the inquiry at hand. And (naturally) the answer
>>that a CTer provides in lieu of any FACTUAL data is an answer that
>>always leads to something "hinky", "conspiratorial", and
>>"coverup-related".
All Davey-boy is admitting is that there is *no* non-conspiratorial
explanation... but I already *knew* that... since no LNT'er has ever stepped up
to the plate and offered one.
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(3) Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are
>>>>>still denied by most LNT'ers today?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: See answer to # 2.
To be accurate: "See non-answer to # 2".
The *real* answer, of course, is that should these results have been released,
they would be in contradiction to the WC's "theory".
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(4) Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to
>>>>>endorse their theory?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: Proof please. Names please. Who was fired? And who exactly did the
>>firing? And provide the precise reason(s) for such a "firing" please.
>>(And CT paranoid guesswork is not good enough.)
From a previous post on the topic...
**************************************************************************
The name is Dr. Joseph Dolce, who was the Army's Chief of Wound Ballistics, and
who supervised the tests for the commission at Edgewood Arsenal to determine if
a bullet could do what the WC was alleging it did, and come out in the condition
that it clearly is. Dr. Dolce, stated that... well, let's look at the original
memo:
"...in a discussion after the conference Drs. Light and Dolce (two wound
ballistics experts from Edgewood Arsenal) expressed themselves as being very
strongly of the opinion that Connally had been hit by two different bullets,
principally on the ground that the bullet recovered from Connally's stretcher
could not have broken his radius without having suffered more distortion. Dr.
Olivier (another wound ballistics expert) withheld a conclusion until he has had
the opportunity to make tests on animal tissue and bone with the actual rifle."
- "Memorandum for the Record," dated April 22, 1964, written by Melvin Eisenberg
about a conference held on April 21, 1964.
So because of Dr. Dolce's opinion, he was merely 'fired' as the WC's ballistics
expert, and never called for testimony.
**************************************************************************
So simply denying that this happened is silly and factually untrue.
>>Any chance that a CTer can provide these needed hunks of verification
>>regarding this matter?
Of course. As above. Care to explain it, now? Or will you continue to deny
the facts?
>>Highly doubtful, as per the norm in such
>>instances of CTers who accuse people of doing things that are perceived
>>to be conspiratorial in nature, when a perfectly-logical
>>non-conspiratorial explanation is just as likely (and probably more
>>so).
And, as demonstrated in this post, LNT'ers cannot provide *non* conspiratorial
explanations.
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(5) Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the
>>>>>statements they wanted?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: Please provide ONE solitary example of KNOWN and verifiable
>>"intimidation" by the FBI in order to "get the statements they wanted".
I provided far more than one... Try this link:
>>Number five here is merely more CT hogwash...much like the silliness
>>that was purported in Oliver Stone's high-handed 1991 motion picture.
>>.... E.G. (a fanciful conversation between Jean Hill and a scary
>>"Gummint" guy of some ilk): "Echoes! You heard ECHOES!! We have three
>>shots coming from the Book Depository! And that's all we're willing to
>>say!"
LNT'ers are forced to be dishonest about history... how sad!
>>~LOL~ (That scene always induces a large laugh whenever it's cued up.)
>>:-)
>>
>>www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=0882899228&reviewID=R1IP8ODVIT6YOA&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>>
>>
>>www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=B000E1A32K&reviewID=R11BVG8L8NOWSC&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(6) What is the 6.5mm virtually-round object that no one saw in the AP X-ray on
>>>>>the night of the Autopsy? And why was everyone so blind on the night of the
>>>>>autopsy?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: Didn't Ebersole say he DID see this "object" on 11/22...and
>>mentioned to a colleague it was nothing but an "artifact"? I believe
>>this is the case. And if so, why isn't this explanation good enough to
>>calm the CTers in this regard?
Because there *were* objects seen... but no 6.5mm virtually round ones.
>>Does a "6.5mm artifact" of some kind automatically indicate
>>"conspiracy"? If so...please say how you arrived at that fantastic
>>leap-of-faith judgment?
It's quite simple. If it was never seen on the night of the autopsy, then it
was *added* to the X-ray. Who had sole control of the X-rays?
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(7) How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been
>>>>>conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: In some cases, I suppose the spine might have been damaged by the
>>passing bullet. But in THIS (JFK) case, that did not happen (the CAT
>>scan stuff notwithstanding).
Yep... let's just ignore human physiology...
>>Does the CAT scan analysis prove that a bullet transiting in the way
>>CE399 is said to have transited JFK's body (via the AR doctors
>>themselves) MUST always hit JFK's spine in particular? If so...how was
>>this "proven"?
CAT scan. Clearly, a topic you don't know much about. Perhaps you should
educate yourself.
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(8) Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the
>>>>>prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were
>>>>>clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: Show me proof-positive that the doctors were FORBIDDEN to dissect
>>the neck/back wounds.
Denying historical fact is silly:
From the Shaw trial... Finck testifying...
Q: Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in
the victim as it lay on the autopsy table?
A: I did not dissect the track in the neck.
Q: Why?
A: This leads us into the disclosure of medical records.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would as the
Court so to direct.
THE COURT: That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.
THE WITNESS: We didn't remove the organs of the neck.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Why not, Doctor?
A: For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the --
Q: Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?
THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.
THE WITNESS: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I
recall, the head and chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn't remove the
organs of the neck, to my recollection.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: You have said they did not, I want to know why didn't you as an autopsy
pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the
autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?
A: I had the cause of death.
Q: Why did you not trace the track of the wound?
A: As I recall I didn't remove these organs from the neck.
Q: I didn't hear you.
A: I examined the wounds but I didn't remove the organs of the neck.
Q: You said you didn't do this; I am asking you why didn't do this as a
pathologist?
A: From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound the
best I can remember, but I didn't dissect or remove these organs.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my
question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track
of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the
autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that
question.
A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?
A: Right.
Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?
A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that
doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the time, and
you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the
President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only
interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck,
is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising
between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the
front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your
testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
>>Humes stated that further probing of the back wound (after his stupid
>>pinky probe) might have caused a "false passage through the
>>body"...therefore he testified that no further probing was done.
Meaningless, not responsive to the question.
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(9) Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the
>>>>>government had control of them." <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: How do you know anything about stuff that apparently
>>"disappeared"? (The same way you assume that several bullets were made
>>to "disappear" on 11/22 too, perhaps? How can something that never
>>existed in the first place all of a sudden "disappear"?)
Because the doctors and photographer testified to photos that no longer exist.
Surely you know this, yet you're willing to lie about it. Why is that?
>>Also -- Do you truly believe another photo or X-ray (or two) would undo
>>what the other pictures and X-rays depict?
Of course. The photo showing the inside of the chest, for example, could
conclusively prove that no bullet transited.
>>Seems like a curious notion
>>if you think that. Which makes this pretty much another in a series of
>>moot CT points being raised in this "JFK quiz". Par for the CT course
>>(of course).
The fact that you need to keep denying historical fact, and lie about it, is
just "par for the LNT'er course".
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(10) Why did the CIA have a program of harrassment of CT authors, and why did
>>>>>they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: Huh?? I'll toss up my hands on this one and admit I haven't the
>>foggiest idea what this craziness is all about. (But, yeah, it sounds
>>like some more kooky CT-created crappola. But, who knows. And who
>>really cares? Does it somehow wipe Oswald's slate clean...yet again?)
Another denial of historical fact.
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(11) Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the
>>>>>DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body -- as Johnson
>>>>>needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was NO valid
>>>>>reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas -- or was there? Can you
>>>>>provide it?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: Sure. All of the other evidence (save the Book Depository Building
>>itself) in the case was being released to the FBI on 11/22.
Sorry... not a fact.
The FBI didn't get involved until *HOURS* later... as far as control of the
evidence went.
>>The main
>>FBI HQ was in Washington, and while killing the President wasn't
>>officially a "Federal" crime in 1963, I'm not surprised the Feds took
>>control of the case to a great extent. Why wouldn't they have done so?
>>And the limo was one of those pieces of evidence that was "turned over"
>>to the FBI in Washington.
No, it *wasn't* turned over to the FBI in Washington. The Secret Service
*NEVER* released any control over the limo. Why bother to lie???
>>The "jurisdiction" question is only hinky if one wishes to believe that
>>a massive cover-up was put into place almost immediately following the
>>shooting. But is that truly a "reasonable" assumption to make?
>>IMO...no, it is not.
In *your* opinion... yet you can't explain the known facts any other way, can
you? (Other than lying about it, of course)
Care to try answering this one again?
>>And if the FBI was above-board with the evidence, moving things to
>>Washington for examination is not the least bit out of line...or, as
>>mentioned, the least bit surprising to me. I would have expected that
>>to happen in the case of a murdered POTUS.
>>
>>www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=0812693663&reviewID=R50F3YZWYPBOB&displayType=ReviewDetail
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(12) Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this
>>>>>case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify
>>>>>it." <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: This is pure crap...plain and simple. The chain of evidence is
>>only weak because a CTer NEEDS the chain to be weak. No other reason.
>>Because if there IS a "chain" (and there is...for every single piece of
>>evidence in this case, including Tippit's murder), then Oswald is
>>guilty as sin, and even CT-Kooks must realize this is true.
"The chain of evidence is only weak because a CTer NEEDS the chain to be weak."
How silly! The example I gave, CE399... the facts are what they are. It has
*nothing* to do with CT'ers...
>>Darrell Tomlinson has stated in the past that CE399 "looked like the
>>same bullet" he found at Parkland on 11/22/63. Why this isn't good
>>enough for some CTers is anybody's guess. (But, of course, not much is
>>good enough for those guys.)
Oh? Do you accept that Darrell Tomlinson said this? Do you accept that he was
correct?
Read what he stated about FBI intimidation, and tell me the same thing.
I suspect that you will suddenly decide that he's either a liar or mistaken...
>>Tomlinson stated that CE399 "looked like" the same stretcher bullet
>>that he found...period. And common sense alone tells any reasonable
>>person that CE399 HAD to have been inside John Connally on 11/22. Any
>>other explanation pales by comparison, and is laughable in every way.
>>More on that here.....
More reasonable explanations fail *YOUR* test because they reveal the
conspiracy.
>>www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=B0006PH9CG&reviewID=R25JSR5TXBI66L&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>>
>>
>>www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=1413475213&reviewID=R3R52AKF7TXMHY&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>>
>>Vince Bugliosi sums it up nicely in the quotes below (and these words
>>come from an ex-prosecutor who knows of what he speaks re. "chain of
>>evidence" matters and what would be admissible vs. inadmissible in a
>>court of law):
>>
>>"Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons, was determined
>>by firearms experts to be the rifle that fired the two bullets that
>>struck down President Kennedy. .... There may have been fifty people
>>firing at President Kennedy that day; but if there were, they all
>>missed; only bullets fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the
>>President." -- V. Bugliosi
Bugliosi is provably wrong.
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(13) Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera
>>>>>owned by LHO?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: This is more CT guesswork (and shows a CTer at work as he attempts
>>to sidestep the major issues of LHO's guilt by turning the focus of
>>attention on something peripheral and meaningless).
>>
>>Does this "FBI"/"camera" stuff wipe out all of the evidence that tells
>>the world Lee Oswald was a double-murderer on 11/22/63? If it's of
>>major importance, please let us know why?
Another denial of historical fact.
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(14) Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released...even to
>>>>>government investigators?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: What files (specifically)? And if something has never been
>>"released", please tell the world how you even know they exist?
Another denial of historical fact.
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(15) Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to LIE about their own
>>>>>collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the
>>>>>HSCA, it's not even disputable -- they lied blatantly about the medical
>>>>>testimony...why??" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: It's not "disputable", eh? Please give one such example of a
>>verified "lie" from the HSCA. (A "mistake" does not qualify.)
Here's one example:
*********************************************************
The fact that the HSCA also chose to lie about the medical testimony and the BOH
photo is another troubling issue that LNT'ers simply cannot deal with.
Quoting from the History-Matters website, here's an example:
"At least as troubling is the HSCA's handling of the medical evidence. The HSCA
had a tougher row to hoe, there having been several well-written critiques of
the Warren Commission which required answering. One "problem" that presented
itself was the stark contrast between the statements of physicians who treated
Kennedy at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, who almost uniformly described a large
rear head wound (which would tend to indicate a shot from the front), and the
autopsy report, which asserted a right-side head wound which did not reach the
back of the head. The HSCA met this problem head on, explaining why they sided
with the autopsy doctors: "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland
doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who
attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted
in the photographs. None had differing accounts."
This written statement, it turns out, is utterly false. With the release in the
1990s of the HSCA's files, which include transcripts of these unpublished
interviews (complete with drawings made by the witnesses), we now know that
several autopsy witnesses indeed corroborated the Dallas doctors' observations.
See the Medical Coverup topic on this website for the transcripts and audiotapes
of the interviews. More recent medical interviews, conducted in 1996 and 1998 by
the Assassination Records Review Board, contain even starker indications of a
medical coverup to conceal evidence of a frontal shot, and therefore a second
shooter."
http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/LastingQuestions/Lasting_Que...
This brings to mind the question that I've asked many times, yet no LNT'er has
undertaken a serious reply... Why, if the WCR is correct, did both the WC and
HSCA need to lie about their own evidence to make their case?
*********************************************************
Going to answer the question now, Davey-boy??
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(16) Why have so many new "scientific" theories been developed for this case?
>>>>>Never before heard -- such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability"
>>>>>and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: Those last two items had "never before" been heard of?? That's a
>>rather odd statement about the unreliable witness thing and the fact
>>that genuine photos WILL, in fact, most of the time trump
>>sometimes-unclear, hazy eyewitness recollections. Those things aren't
>>"new" in the slightest. They're basic common-sense things.
Cite for it prior to the JFK case.
And, just for your general fund of information, eyewitness testimony does
*indeed* trump photographic evidence in a court of law. I've previously give
citations for this fact.
>>And the "jet effect" item is perfectly reasonable as well...except to
>>the CTers who will look for any excuse to dismiss certain "experts".
Cite for it prior to the JFK case.
Another simple denial of fact...
>>Conspiracy Kook Rule #16B applies here, which states -- "When all else
>>fails, just say something is "fake" or "phony" or "doesn't look quite
>>right", and the CTer is off the hook".
>>
>>As Vince Bugliosi would say -- You can tell when someone has a very
>>weak physical-evidence case....because they'll start arguing
>>impossible-to-prove theories re. evidence manipulation or contamination
>>or cover-up, etc. This invariably occurs when there simply is nothing
>>else for the defense TO argue.
>>
>>Attempts to deflect attention away from the basic core of ballistics
>>(and other) evidence in the JFK case (which all leads inexorably to Lee
>>Oswald) by crying "It's All Fake" is a sign of a patently-weak case
>>with which these kooks try to combat the physical evidence.
>>
>>And, I'm sorry, but the "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be" argument with
>>respect to virtually everything surrounding the JFK assassination is
>>about as likely to be true (and provable) as a blizzard in Phoenix.
Wow! That's a lot of words for someone who evaded answering the question!!
The question really was a *simple* one...
>>www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=B000F6Q4KO&reviewID=R1ZT6UEZEK777R&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(18) How is it possible to not have a "first frame flash" at Z-133, as the
>>>>>engineers who designed the camera assert must happen?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: If somebody can tell me what the heck this has to do with pretty
>>much anything relating to the question of "Who Shot JFK?", please let
>>me know. It's another attempt, I guess, at a "Z-Film Hoax" allegation.
>>But I've never heard of such an argument heretofore. Must be a new
>>kook-invented theory (circa 21st century) or something. Beats me.
Another simple denial. How sad that denials and lies are all we see from the
LNT'er side...
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(19) Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo,
>>>>>yet we can't see it in the Z-film?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: There was a "slowdown". There's no disputing this fact.
"... yet we can't see it in the Z-film?"
>>The limo
>>never stopped however. Some witnesses might have thought the limo had
>>fully stopped due to its already-slow (then slower) speed at about the
>>time of the head shot, and due to the fact that the motorcycles
>>"overtook" the limousine to an extent at around that time, making it
>>appear to some witnesses the limo had completely stopped.
And yet, as you well know, the *closest* eyewitnesses all stated that the limo
*stopped*.
>>But one look at the Nix Film proves the limo did not fully stop. It's
>>very hard to see the "slowdown" on the Z-Film, because the whole film
>>frame (left-to-right) is taken up by the limo itself, with Zapruder
>>panning with his camera and keeping the limo centered. But Nix proves
>>without question the limo "slowdown", but not a full stop. (Or is Nix
>>supposedly "faked" too?)
You didn't answer the question... care to try again?
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>>"(20) Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of
>>>>>the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?"
>>>>><<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: A possible explanation is that they all saw blood and gore
>>"pooling" to the very back of the head, which obviously did occur.
>>
>>Are we to actually believe that McClelland, Peters, Dulany, and Jenkins
>>were all "in" on the "plot" to conceal the truth concerning JFK's head
>>wounds when they all said that the photos they examined at the National
>>Archives in 1988 for "NOVA" television showed no signs of
>>tampering...i.e., the photos depict JFK the way he looked to each of
>>these doctors in '63 at Parkland.
>>
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm
>>
>>I will readily admit that I don't have all the answers to this odd
>>"BOH" matter re. the witnesses who said they saw a BOH hole in JFK's
>>head. It's my #1 "mystery" in the whole case. But it's not something
>>that must equate to conspiracy, IMO....because there are many things
>>contradicting these witnesses, including the Z-Film, which shows no
>>such BOH wound at all;
Untrue.
>>plus the Z-Film shows no blood at the supposed
>>"exit" (BOH) point on JFK's head; not a bit of "spray" at the so-called
>>exit point. Impossible, if JFK had been hit from the front, causing a
>>massive BOH exit wound.
>>
>>Plus there are the "authenticated by the HSCA and Clark Panel" autopsy
>>photos and X-rays.
Not "authenticated" at all. The HSCA couldn't tie the photos to the camera.
>>Plus there's the huge "clue" of there being only ONE single entry hole
>>on the back of JFK's head (regardless of the exact millimeter on the
>>head this wound was located).
Located, of course, in a position that would have been impossible for a shooter
in the SN.
Another fact you can't explain.
>>There was no frontal entry hole, period.
Unfortunately for you, it can be seen in one of the autopsy photos. Right
temple. Same place the mortician described filling up a hole.
>>That fact in itself (backed up by the autopsy report and the three
>>autopsists who signed that AR and testified multiple times to this "One
>>Entry Hole" effect) disproves the long-held CTer notion that President
>>Kennedy was hit in the head from the front -- regardless of what ANY of
>>the witnesses say about the location of JFK's wounds.
Contrary to known facts... isn't it?
>>www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=0965658287&reviewID=R2AIDTHV5M8XP4&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>> "(21) Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?" <<<
>>
>>
>>DVP: The autopsy report does no such thing.
Of course it does. The BOH doesn't show what the Autopsy report states... that
there was a wound that was chiefly parietal, but extended into the occipital and
temporal, and was DEVOID OF BONE AND SCALP.
The BOH photo shows no such thing.
Again... a simple denial of fact.
"Somewhat"??? The BOH photo show *NO SUCH WOUND ANYWHERE *NEAR* WHERE THIS
DESCRIPTION PLACES IT*.
You really should take the time to learn where the occipital is located. I know
that this is a word that LNT'ers simply hate...
>>http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>DVP Post-Script:
>>
>>In the final analysis, no matter how hard a CTer tries, that
>>conspiracist cannot debunk this statement made by my main man, Vincent
>>T. Bugliosi, in 1986:
>>
>>"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
>>Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
>>the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80% of the
>>evidence against him out the window and there would still be more than
>>enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the
>>crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
Of course it can be debunked. The assertion Bugliosi is making hasn't ever been
*SHOWN* yet.
>>The hard physical evidence in total (coupled with a ten-mile-high pile
>>of circumstantial evidence, including Oswald's own actions before and
>>after 12:30 PM on 11/22/63) does NOT lead to multiple gunmen in Dealey
>>Plaza.
Untrue... as this post illustrates...
>>No matter what spin a conspiracy theorist wants to utilize regarding
>>this physical evidence (e.g., guns, bullets, fragments, shells, prints,
>>fibers, and eyewitnesses who saw Oswald kill two men on Nov. 22), the
>>physical evidence will still remain on the table in the JFK and Tippit
>>murder cases. And it's evidence that points directly at one man -- Lee
>>Harvey Oswald. And it's evidence that undeniably points to only
>>Oswald's weaponry being used to murder John Kennedy and Officer Tippit.
Untrue.
>>And anyone saying differently is only fooling themselves into believing
>>that many, many police officers, FBI agents, and SS agents would have
>>all possessed a UNIFIED DESIRE to want to frame an innocent man for two
>>1963 first-degree murders.
Done all the time. The FBI, as one recent example showed... had the evidence
that a man was innocent, but let him go to prison to save one of their sources.
>>And even if we were to accept the absurd notion that all of those DPD
>>officers would want to frame a man named Oswald for JFK's killing, and
>>possibly (per many CTers) the death of Officer Tippit as well (all the
>>while not giving a damn that the real killer/killers of their fellow
>>police officer was getting away scot-free with the murder of J.D.
>>Tippit), the amount of "real" (non-Oswald-implicating) evidence that
>>would have needed to be magically turned into "All Oswald" evidence in
>>very short order (times two murders) on 11/22 is pretty hefty.
Actually, the evidence *ON* 11/22 was not for the Lone Gunman... it was for
conspiracy. It was gradually sifted *down* to the Lone Gunman...
>>And it defies logic to think that this could have been so perfectly
>>orchestrated on the spur of the moment by any number of "Let's Frame
>>Oswald" operatives...operatives from multiple law-enforcement agencies
>>as well.
Not difficult at all.
>>It's just plain nonsense to think that such a massive switcheroo of
>>evidence could have been performed so perfectly
It wasn't. We have evidence of some of the evidence switching... CE399 for
example.
>> -- from the bullets, to
>>the bullet shells, to the guns, to the witnesses who fingered only
>>Oswald (and they can't ALL be Government shills, can they?), to somehow
>>"controlling" the actions of a very guilty-acting "Patsy" named Oswald
>>just after 12:30 PM on 11/22, and right on down to Oswald's many lies
>>that he told to the nation on Live TV after his arrest.
>>
>>Larry Sturdivan possibly said it best in his book when he wrote this
>>excellent passage in that publication......
>>
>>"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
>>been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
>>team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
>>whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in
>>complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- L. Sturdivan;
>>Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"
That's his opinion...
>>Vince Bugliosi, too, knows that the CTers are full of nothing but empty
>>theories and piecemeal guesswork. And he'll be exposing the many
>>conspiracy theories for what they all are (i.e., unsupportable
>>conjecture-based tripe with no basis in solid fact) in his book "Final
>>Verdict: The Simple Truth In The Killing Of JFK" (probably coming in
>>mid-2007)......
It'll come someday... maybe...
And if it ever does, it'll be revealed for the pack of misrepresentations and
lies that it will be. And I predict that you'll be unable to defend his lies
either...
Bugliosi isn't going to convince anyone... answering these questions could
certainly convince people that CT'ers are wrong. But you can't answer the
questions, can you?
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>Allow me to close with a mini 1-question quiz of my own for CTers to
>>ponder......
>>
>>Can anyone tell me why in the world ANY sane person (who wants to
>>succeed with their covert plan) would deliberately concoct a "1-Patsy"
>>assassination plot that involves multiple gunmen located in various
>>locations throughout Dealey Plaza in Dallas, all aiming at the same
>>target at pretty much the very same time?
Because it's easier than framing multiple people.
>>How could any reasonable person planning such a crackpot plot think for
>>a single second that such a plan could have a prayer of succeeding?
Because they had control of the "investigation".
>>Were these conspirators ALL high on some type of "Miracles Are
>>Possible" drugs?
>>
>>And yet many CTers (including the likes of Oliver Stone and the late
>>"Conspiracy Kook Extraordinaire" Jim Garrison) actually believe(d) that
>>such a Multi-Gun, One-Patsy plot was planned ahead of time in 1963, and
>>was somehow pulled off successfully to boot. Go figure out that
>>mindset. I sure haven't been able to.
Actually, as high as 90% of America believes that it happened.
Ben Holmes
schuyler says...
>
>
>Robert Harris wrote:
>> On 16 Oct 2006 06:23:12 -0700, "chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Robert Harris:
>> >
>> >At the risk of getting you started again on Z285, how do you explain
>> >away the mountain of physical evidence against Oswald?
>>
>> I don't explain things away, Chuck.
>>
>> As I have said many times before, I think he was guilty as hell.
>>
>> >Is your theory
>> >that he fired a shot-or some shots-at JFK but had help?
>>
>> I try not to waste time on "theories" Chuck.
>>
>> I know for a fact, that the attack was not carried out by a single
>> assassin.
>
>I've read it, heard it and responded to you about it many times in the
>last year.
>>
>> I don't know whether he fired a rifle that day or not. If he was
>> firing the MC however, he only fired it once.
>>
>> I would be happy to explain all this to you, but since you have
>> repeatedly asked me the same question about Oswald's involvement, I
>> have to doubt that you would bother to read it.
>>
>> >What about
>> >Tippit?
>>
>> Yes, I think he shot Tippit, but I cannot say that with absolute
>> certainty.
>>
>> The question of Oswald's guilt is relatively unimportant to me, Chuck.
>> If he was involved, as I think he was, then he certainly got what he
>> had coming.
>
>
>> I am infinitely more concerned about the people who didn't get caught,
>> and their affiliations.
>
>>
>> I am also concerned about the motives of people who try to pretend
>> that the SA theory is a certainty.
>
>that the WC did a pretty good job.
>
>Even without the mountain of
>> evidence proving that a SA couldn't have carried out the attack alone,
>>the question would remain, a nonfalsifiable. You could NEVER state with absolute
>>certainty, that there was no
>> conspiracy. The best you can claim is that you are not convinced by
>> the evidence presented so far.
>
>in a storm drain is not evidence. Selectively picking on holes in
>eyewitness testimony is not evidence. You treat this like a trial, and
>much of what you claim as 'evidence' would never be allowed in a trial.
The 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray *IS* evidence. The dozens of
eyewitnesses to a large wound on the *BACK* of JFK's head, along with the
autopsy report, *IS* evidence. The lack of a proper chain of possession on so
much of the critical evidence *IS* evidence that can be (and would be) brought
out in trial. The attempted assassinations as early as just two weeks prior
*WOULD* have been evidence in a trial. Had a trial occurred, we'd have much
more in the way of admissible evidence... take, as merely one example, the
testimony of James Chaney. Who, any *honest* person will admit, testify to a
sequence that makes nonsense of the WCR's theory.
Interestingly, the eyewitnesses most relied on by the WC would have either not
been allowed (Marina), or been made fools of in any decent cross-examination
(rather than I naming them, can you?)
The WCR and HSCA would never have been able to provide *LIES* to support their
theories... interestingly, no LNT'er has been able to explain that.
Much of the evidence that *YOU* believe is evidence would never have been
permitted at trial.
>Of course one can never state with absolute certainty that there was no
>conspiracy. Real life doesn't work that way, however. You don't run
>your personal life that way, and neither should anyone.
>
>Oswald is not on trial. Unfortunately, Jack Ruby arrived in the DPD
>basement just a minute too soon from the Western Union office, or maybe
>there would be more clarity here.
>
>Oswald is guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, and he would've roasted in
>the electric chair sometime in late 1964 or early 1965 for killing JFK
>and JDT, wounding JBC, and for the attempted murder of Walker.
>>
>> By trying to claim otherwise, you define yourself as a pitchman,
>> rather than an honest researcher.
>
>I readily confess to not being a JFK 'researcher'.
This, of course, explains your confusion below.
>The thought of being
>described as one horrifies me. What interests me is how so many
>reasonably bright people can continue to believe in a conspiracy here
>when so much good, solid work has been done that shows Oswald as the
>guilty party beyond any reasonable doubt.
Your faith does you justice. Unfortunately, you don't recognize it as 'faith'.
>Any luck selling your 'theory' to law enforcement to get the case
>reopened?
The last investigation *already* concluded that this was a conspiracy. The
Justice Dept. didn't go anywhere with that, what would make you think that
they'd go anywhere with even *more* evidence?
Particularly with the strong evidence of the Justice Dept. being involved in the
coverup? (I'm thinking about the forced signatures to the document asserting
that all the photos & X-rays were there...)
>Chuck Schuyler
bail...@gmail.com
chuck schuyler wrote:
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > Your faith does you justice. Unfortunately, you don't recognize it as 'faith'.
>
>
> It's Oswald's rifle, bullets, prints and he worked in the building the
> shots were fired from. He is the only TSBD employee who was in the
> building at the time shots were fired who immediately fled the murder
> scene. He killed Tippit in cold blood, and ballistics evidence confirms
> at least one bullet from the handgun Oswald was arrested with just a
> little while later.
>
> And because little details are so interesting and telling in an event
> like this, he left just about every penny he had-and his wedding
> ring-on the nightstand next to Marina after his only mid-week
> unannounced visit to the Paine's.
>
> Game, set and match.
>
> Everything else is entertainment.
>
> How 'bout it, Ben?...Is the government mixed up in the 9-11 thing,
> too???
Ben was having Cheerios for breakfast one day last week. He
immediately noticed ONE of the Cheerios was cut in half! Suspicious of
this, he quickly called General Mills demanding and explanation. He
asked how many other Cheerios in ANY boxes sold the previous year had
half cut Cheerios in them! General Mills checked their records and
responded, they'd heard from NO other Cheerio eaters about this
anomoly. Ben grew more suspicious. He called his Congressman
requesting an investigation.....more to follow.
Ben Holmes
bail...@gmail.com says...
Looks like Baileykooknme is really another Lowry knockoff. Plonk!
Ben Holmes
schuyler says...
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>>Your faith does you justice. Unfortunately, you don't recognize it as 'faith'.
>
>And you have no 'faith' here, Ben?
Nope... and that's the difference between LNT'ers such as you, and CT'ers such
as I.
I believe what the *EVIDENCE* shows me - and when evidence piles up that a point
I'd previously believed is incorrect, I toss it out. But LNT'ers can't do that.
The evidence *DOESN'T* support their views, as you would know if you become
familiar enough with the evidence.
This is why no LNT'er can answer the simple questions that we CT'ers post on the
evidence... and why the kooks and trolls always appear to come from the LNT'er
side.
>It's Oswald's rifle, bullets, prints and he worked in the building the
>shots were fired from. He is the only TSBD employee who was in the
>building at the time shots were fired who immediately fled the murder
>scene.
That's simply untrue. Why do you feel the need to lie about historical fact to
support your beliefs?
>He killed Tippit in cold blood, and ballistics evidence confirms
>at least one bullet from the handgun Oswald was arrested with just a
>little while later.
>
>And because little details are so interesting and telling in an event
>like this, he left just about every penny he had-and his wedding
>ring-on the nightstand next to Marina after his only mid-week
>unannounced visit to the Paine's.
>
>Game, set and match.
Then *YOU* won't mind answering a few simple questions, right? Look for the
post with your name on it.
>Everything else is entertainment.
>
>How 'bout it, Ben?...Is the government mixed up in the 9-11 thing,
>too???
How silly. Provide any evidence of governmental involvement, first.
You seem not to understand that roughly the same percentage of the American
population believes in the theory proposed by the WC as do government
involvement in 9/11. Or, for that matter, that Elvis is still alive. The
question can far more suitably be asked of you.