MISC. ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/17/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=419&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxJ8EGCAW6PEID#MxJ8EGCAW6PEID
RE.: JOHN CONNALLY'S THIGH WOUND (AND FRAGMENT FOUND THERE):
>>> "Oh, and you forgot the large fragment left in JBCs leg. It was nearly 3/8th of an inch long." <<<
This is 100% wrong. And I can't imagine why you're saying this.
The leg (thigh) fragment left inside John Connally, like the rest of
the fragments seen in JBC's body, was said (by Dr. Charles Gregory) to
be a "very small fleck of metal". It wasn't even large enough to begin
to remove it. Let's listen.....
GREGORY - This I understand is Exhibit E, then and it is a single X-
ray made on the anterior posterial view of Mr. Connally's thigh. The
only thing found is a very small fleck of metal marked with an arrow
here. It is that small, and almost likely to be overlooked. .... A
fragment of metal, again microscopic measuring about five-
tenths of a millimeter by 2 millimeters, lies just beneath the skin,
about a half inch on the medial aspect of the thigh.
SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the weight of that metallic
fragment?
GREGORY - This again would be in micrograms, postage stamp weight
thereabouts, not much more than that.
SPECTER - Could that fragment, in your opinion, have caused the wound
which you observed in the Governor's left thigh?
GREGORY - I do not believe it could have. The nature of the wound in
the left thigh was such that so small a fragment as this would not
have produced it and still have gone no further into the soft tissues
than it did.
SPECTER - Would the wound that you observed in the soft tissue of the
left thigh be consistent with having been made by a bullet such as
that identified as Commission Exhibit 399?
GREGORY - I think again that bullet, Exhibit 399, could very well have
struck the thigh in a reverse fashion and have shed a bit of its lead
core into the fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never have
penetrated the thigh sufficiently so that it eventually was dislodged
and was found in the clothing. I would like to add to that we were
disconcerted by not finding a missile at all. Here was our patient
with three discernible wounds, and no missile within him of sufficient
magnitude to account for them, and we suggested that someone ought to
search his belongings and other areas where he had been to see if it
could be identified or found, rather.
[Later in his WC testimony.....]
GREGORY - I would say that that {thigh} wound was about a centimeter
in diameter, much larger than the identifiable fragment of metal in
the thigh. I might add that this prompted some speculation on our
part, my part, which was voiced to someone that some search ought to
be made in the Governor's clothing or perhaps in the auto or some
place, wherever he may have been, for the missile which had produced
this much damage but which was not resident in him.
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/18/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=442&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxE9J6I21AUEIX#MxE9J6I21AUEIX
>>> "David: for your review:
www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/The%20Wounding%20of%20John%20Connally.htm "
<<<
Well, the measurement noted there on that webpage is a total crock.
All a person need do is look at the THREE different X-rays of John
Connally's thigh (taken from three different angles, of course) to
know that the tiny little "fleck" of a bullet fragment is so very,
very small as to almost be completely invisible.
On one of the X-rays (marked CE694), in fact, it took a drawn-in arrow
to make sure people would know that there was even a metal fragment in
the thigh.*
* = Although, per Dr. Charles Gregory's Warren Commission testimony,
it seems that he might have mixed up his WC exhibits, because he
claimed that CE694--or Exhibit E in a series of E, F, and G--contained
the arrow on the X-ray. But from a look at all three of the X-rays
(CE694, 695, and 696), the only arrow I can see is on Exhibit "G",
which is CE696.
And just take a look at the incredibly-tiny size of this fragment that
you, Richard, insist was "nearly 3/8th of an inch long". You can
barely see it. It's a DOT on the X-ray. And in the other two thigh X-
rays, the fragment looks similarly microscopic in size. Almost totally
invisible. .....
CE694:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0189a.htm
CE695:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0189b.htm
CE696:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0190a.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "Is this a game to you? Marina Oswald and her daughters have been forced to endure a lifetime of pain because of people like you...{VIETNAM CRAP SNIPPED DUE TO ITS TOTAL ABSURDITY}...Best Regards {DVP said to close a previous post to Ed-Kook}?...Like Hell!" <<<
DVP SAID:
What would you have preferred, Ed? Would "Fuck You" have been nicer
than "Best Regards"? Geesh. Try to be nice to a conspiracy kook and
look what happens.
And Marina has had to "endure a lifetime of pain" because of people
like me?? What a crock that is! Marina knows her husband killed 2
people. She felt that way for years (before changing her mind
completely--no doubt due to the skewing of the known facts by people
like you and Ollie Stone and Jim Garrison and Mark Lane, etc.).
A "lifetime of pain" caused by LNers who know without doubt that LHO
was guilty as Hitler??!! Come now! Even the O.J. jury wouldn't buy
such nonsense! Excluding the JFK murder, Marina's hubby is still the
proven murderer of J.D. Tippit.
Of course, Marina now thinks Lee was innocent of the Tippit crime too.
Go figure that turnaround. I can't. Except for the probability that
Oliver Stone has her brainwashed.
tomnln
Something you're totally Unfamiliar with.
Otherwise youl'd address these>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1189618686.2...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
My guess is: She's read none of them.
tomnln
I sent her 3 sets on CD Rom.
1 for her & Ken
1 for June
1 for Rachael.
No wonder you Refuse to address evidence/testimony.
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1189619778....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
<belly laugh>
And that means she HAD to read them, huh?
Plus: When did you send her the CD-ROMS? Was it before or after she
had already done her mysterious flip-flop re. LHO's guilt?
Via VB's JFK book......
"At what point in time, I {VB} asked her {Marina Oswald-Porter}, did
she come around to the belief that her husband {Lee Harvey Oswald} was
innocent? "About 15 to 20 years later," she said." -- "Reclaiming
History"; Page 1486
Did you mail Marina the WR volumes on CD-ROM prior to 1978 (or 1983),
Mr. Nutsack? CD-ROMs didn't even exist in those days.
<belly laugh #2>
Per Marina's "15 to 20 years" comment (assuming she is accurate re.
that estimate, which is by no means certain), that would mean that
Oliver Stone's 1991 movie had nothing to do with Marina's crazy about-
face. (Must've been Mark Lane then.)
But I'd be willing to bet that Oliver's flick has certainly cemented
her "patsy" feelings even more since 1991.
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/19/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=452&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1J7TL3PISX4K0#Mx1J7TL3PISX4K0
>>> "David: did Frazier directly vet Weldon's work? No. So, now you're accusing nine people of lying. The research is not without corroboration. It has not been proven false." <<<
Frazier (plus common sense) proves that the nuttiness re. the
windshield is "false".
Wouldn't the mindset of the FBI (or whoever) have HAD to be something
along the following hypothetical lines if the "Windshield Hole /
Dearborn, MI." stuff were actually true?......
Frazier & his fellow FBI cover-up agents receive the limo in evidence
at the White House on Nov. 22.
They find a hole in the windshield glass. And I guess they have
determined it was positively from a FRONTAL gunshot, which will never
fit the proverbial "EVERYBODY HAS TO FRAME ONLY OSWALD" cover-up game
that all organizations GOT TOGETHER TO PLAY ON 11/22! (LOL time.)
So, knowing he's going to have to lie anyway to any official Govt.
Commission about the hole in the windscreen (or he'll have to lie
through his teeth at Oswald's trial, which was still probable as of
11/23/63 when this "hole" would have first been discovered), Bob
Frazier -- who doesn't need to do this at all, because the car will be
under wraps until it's rebuilt anyway -- decides it would be best to
whisk the limo off to Michigan to have the windshield replaced.
And then, I guess, after they got the car back to the White House,
Frazier, et al, fired a low-powered bullet at the windshield, to crack
it and create the spider-webbing and to place the bullet lead on the
inside surface of the glass??? Is that what they did??? Or did they
just whack it with a hammer or something and smear some lead on it??
They MUST have proceeded in the above manner to a goodly degree,
right?
The big question I have is: WHY on God's green Earth would ANYBODY
feel the need to jump through these type of nutty hoops (even within
the framework of a "Let's Get Oswald" plot), when they could have
avoided having anybody at Dearborn see the limo who could have
potentially blown the "cover-up" to bits?
That's the big question....Why?
Can any CTer answer that question in a reasonable-sounding manner?
I doubt it.
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/19/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=456&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx8LUFPD9JKIR#Mx8LUFPD9JKIR
>>> "There are the other 8 {"Hole-In-The-Windshield"} witnesses, including two reporters and two police officers. Why don't you believe them?" <<<
I guess (mainly) because the story is just so unbelievably stupid. I
can't get around that fact.
If there had been a hole in the glass, Robert Frazier, who as I said
was going to lie anyway (per your CT account of events), could have
merely added in another of his many lies (per CTers again) and told
the Warren Commission that the hole was merely caused by one of Lee
Oswald's shots.
Done deal.
Can you tell me why nobody on Hoover's FBI team of "liars" thought of
that little ruse? Just say the hole was from an Oswald bullet (whether
it was or not).
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/19/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=461&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1R61G05MSEUCI#Mx1R61G05MSEUCI
>>> "Wrong. Not a done deal. The hole {in the limo's windshield} was "front to back", indicating a shot from the front. Any examination of the glass would contradict all shots from behind. So it wasn't as easy as you say." <<<
And WHO examined the glass? Yep, it was LIAR FRAZIER....i.e., a man
who was GOING TO HAVE TO LIE ABOUT LOTS OF STUFF ANYWAY UNDER OATH
(proverbial "per CT accounts" included here again, of course).
Who ELSE would have examined that windshield while it was under guard
at the White House (and before the car was to be rebuilt) EXCEPT
ROBERT A. FRAZIER (or a fellow member of the vast "Let's Frame Lee
Oswald" team of plotters/cover-uppers, who evidently were running wild
in the streets of both Washington and Dallas in late 1963)?
Were they expecting ADDITIONAL people to examine the windshield AFTER
LEE OSWALD WAS ALREADY DEAD (which is when you say the car went to
Michigan...on November 25th)?
Plus: Who's going to contradict Hoover and his FBI boys (no matter
what Frazier says under oath) once the FBI boys have got it in their
crawl to FRAME THE MAN WHO THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN KEEPING A BETTER EYE
ON PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 22?? (By the way, that's a really great motive
for Hoover to want to frame Mr. Oswald, isn't it?)
~Laugh Break~
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx1QZLPUW9X64W6/1/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=6&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxBMI4XXUDAS3Z#MxBMI4XXUDAS3Z
>>> "Are LN liars so fanatically devoted to the WC that they cannot see the facts? Or are they honestly misinformed?" <<<
My, my. That's a really cordial way to introduce yourself, C.
Chow. ;)
Truth is, I'm neither "misinformed" nor am I a "liar". But I know
several "CTers" who do fit in both of those categories.
>>> "While Gerald Posner is certainly a liar such as claiming 12 witnesses saw Oswald kill Tippit. (There is no way anyone could find 12 witnesses to say they witnessed the murder.)" <<<
What Gerald meant there, of course, is that 12 witnesses (it's
actually 13 or 14 to be more accurate) saw EITHER the actual murder of
J.D. Tippit OR saw Oswald fleeing the murder scene, gun in hand,
immediately after the murder.
If Posner said 12 people saw Oswald pull the trigger, he was
incorrect, of course. That number is only 4 (Markham, Benavides,
Scoggins, Tatum). If you wish to place the proverbial granule of salt
next to both Benavides and Tatum, feel free....since Domingo only
LATER claimed with 100% certainty (on CBS-TV in 1967) that Oswald was
positively Tippit's killer; and Tatum didn't come forward until years
later, in 1978.
>>> "Von Pein may just be misinformed. Very misinformed." <<<
And what books are YOU reading and what people are YOU talking to that
make you so much more "informed" than myself? (A lot of CT books,
would be my guess.)
>>> "Von Pein should read the WR itself, NOT online synopses of it." <<<
You obviously haven't read TOO many of my online posts then....because
it becomes quite obvious after a time that I have, indeed, read the WR
itself....and rely heavily upon that document and its supporting
volumes for my fact-based conclusions.
And, to quote Vincent Bugliosi.....
"In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be
considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history.
Even leading Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg acknowledges
that the Commission "checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew"."
-- Vince B.; From "Reclaiming History"
I can't disagree with Vince re. the above declaration either. With
6,500 source notes, 552 witnesses interviewed, and thousands of
exhibits placed into evidence, the WC is a very thorough investigation
into a terrible series of 1963 murders.
And I have no reason to discount and/or disregard any of the bottom-
line conclusions reached by the Warren Commission. CTers disagree
vehemently. Well, so it goes. And probably always will.
>>> "Your misquotation of Dr. Tomlinson's testimony is another example..." <<<
When did Darrell become a doctor? That's news to me. ;)
>>> "...He {Tomlinson} never stated he found a bullet on Connally's stretcher. He never stated CE399 was the bullet he found." <<<
Correct. But when applying just a small dose of common sense, a
reasonable person (i.e., one who is not prone to cry "Planted!" with
no supportable data to back up such a vile charge) can easily come to
the logical conclusion that Bullet CE399 WAS, indeed, the bullet that
had to have been found on that stretcher by Darrell C. Tomlinson on
November 22nd.
>>> "The bullet may have been planted by Jack Ruby himself." <<<
That's total nonsense of the first order. You're living inside Oliver
Stone's movie screen, it would seem.
Do you believe Seth Kantor's account of seeing Ruby at Parkland
shortly after the assassination on Friday? I, myself, think it might
have been Ruby there with Seth. I'm just not certain; but it fits
Ruby's overall profile of always wanting to be "where the action is".
So why shouldn't he have been at Parkland at that time? But the
timeline of Ruby's activities that day, detailed by Bugliosi in his
book, might not leave time for a Parkland visit with Kantor.
Anyway, if we're to accept Kantor's story about seeing Ruby there as
being true...let me ask this common-sense question: WHY in the world,
if Ruby had just finished planting a bullet on a stretcher inside the
hospital, would he have had any desire at all to draw attention to
himself around the very time he was engaging in this conspiratorial
activity by approaching somebody WHO KNEW HIM ON SIGHT--Seth Kantor--
who could then, in turn, later tell the authorities, "Hey, I saw Jack
Ruby at Parkland Hospital on Friday"?!
That sounds like screwy behavior for a member of the proverbial "Let's
Frame Oswald" conspiracy team...don't ya think?
David Von Pein
There's not really too much of a "problem". Mainly because there's no
possible chance that any goofball plotters would have been stupid
enough to even WANT to plant (or switch) that bullet.
1.) No plotter would be stupid enough to plant CE399 at Parkland at
approx. 1:30 PM on the day of the assassination. Connally had just
entered surgery. And JFK's body hadn't been examined at all for
bullets. Too FEW bullets is certainly better than too MANY. (That's
basic stuff from Pg. 2 of "Planting Bullets At Murder Scenes; Volume
1"; c.1958.)
2.) No plotter would dare (MUCH LATER*) "switch" a "real" (pointy?)
bullet that had been found at Parkland...placing CE399 (a non-pointy
one) in evidence and just tossing out the true stretcher missile.
* = Why? Because of ALL THE OTHER OSWALD-INCRIMINATING STUFF that
surely was known to anyone who would have been in charge of
"switching" out the bullets MANY HOURS (DAYS?) AFTER THE
ASSASSINATION. .... Oswald's prints all over everything in the
Sniper's Nest; Oswald's shells in the Nest and on 10th St.; Oswald's
gun on the 6th Floor; Oswald picked up and already very much suspected
of both the JFK & Tippit murders; and (a biggie) bullet/ballistic
evidence INSIDE THE LIMO ITSELF (CE567/569) that leads straight to the
proverbial "patsy's" rifle.
Why mess up all of that by placing in evidence a bullet that obviously
didn't look anything like the "real" stretcher missile? That little
snafu could lead to nothing but trouble for the plotters.
It'd be much safer for the rotten, lowlife cover-up agents (who were
running rampant on 11/22 evidently) to merely later say that the
"real" Tomlinson/Stretcher bullet was simply not connected with the
JFK case at all. Done deal. (After all, Tomlinson never did remember
for sure whose stretcher it came off of.)
It's a loose end that doesn't do the cover-uppers much good, true.
They can always hope that nobody will ask too many questions about
this strange pointy bullet found near JBC's stretcher.
But, alternatively, is it possible that ANYONE could be so stupid and
reckless by performing EITHER #1 or #2 above? Were the cover-uppers
truly that brain-dead?
So, in the end....common sense (and Occam's good old Razor) must rule
the day. And that means, beyond REASONABLE doubt, that Bullet CE399 is
indeed the "real" stretcher bullet and always was....it wasn't planted
there....and that means that that bullet, 399 from Oswald's gun, HAD
to be inside John Connally's body on the 22nd of November in nineteen
sixty-three (A.D.).
MARK VII.
David Von Pein
>>> "Altgens 7 can easily be construed to have a HOLE." <<<
Total nonsense. It's absolutely impossible to discern whether or not
there's a "hole" in the car's windshield via this picture:
http://timesunion.com/photogalleries/jfk/11.jpg
I dug up a thread from JFK-Lancer's forum and found a few interesting
photo blow-ups (linked below, along with the whole Lancer thread in
question).
But in none of these images is it humanly possible to determine with
certainty that there is a "hole" vs. just a "crack" in that
windshield.
There are photos of both Altgens #6 and Altgens #7 below.....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10694.jpg
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10693.jpg
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10695.jpg
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10696.jpg
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10736.jpg
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=58043
=========================
More......
http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/windshield.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/Ferguson.gif
The Ferguson memo linked above certainly doesn't do CT Myth #239 any
favors either. That ongoing myth says: "LBJ ordered the IMMEDIATE
rebuilding of the limo".
David Von Pein
This, of course, is a vast overstatement here (via use of the word
"entire").
And it's also quite humorous when CTers who HAVE studied the WCR in
some depth (and, naturally, think it's full of pretty much nothing but
lies and distortions) then turn around and start CITING portions of
the Report that they seem to think aid their pro-CT cause.
Ben Holmes (resident Google CTer) is an expert at doing this.
Great tactic huh? -- Trash the WR and then use the trashed Report to
prop up your own theories.
I think (last I checked) that's called: "Talking out of both sides of
your mouth".
David Von Pein
>>> "The evidence/testimony in the 26 volumes PROVE those {WC/LN} "Conclusions" WRONG." <<<
Of course, the evidence and testimony in the 26 volumes do no such
thing. Not even close. But it makes Tom feel better if he can type
something utterly foolish and totally idiotic on a daily (or hourly)
basis, like his above stupid declaration about the WC/WR.
Go figure kooks.
tomnln
(sorry for the typo)
From the 26 volumes>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
Let's see you address those Lies.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1189749047....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Tom-SACK (aka: MEGA-KOOK) BABBLED:
>
>>>> "The evidence/testimony in the 26 volumes PROVE those {WC/LN}
>>>> "Conclusions" WRONG." <<<
>
> Of course, they do no such thing. Not even close. But it makes Tom R.
> feel better if can type something utterly foolish and totally idiotic