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 Historical content remains viewable.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

Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 7)

23 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 11, 2007, 7:47:54 AM3/11/07
to
DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 7):

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

SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.

FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From April 2005, May
2005, July 2005, October 2006, November 2006, and March 2007.

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

CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- With no bone hit, there is no tumbling
of a bullet.

DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- Nonsense. That's a provably-incorrect
statement you've just made. A "tumbling" bullet after hitting
virtually nothing but soft flesh CAN occur (and HAS occurred in
tests).

The Discovery Channel test in October 2004 and (many years earlier
than that) the experiments conducted by Dr. John K. Lattimer both
indicate that a bullet can (and will) tumble upon exiting a simulated
JFK neck after never having struck any solid, bony surface.

Dr. Lattimer's tests, in fact, also provided ample evidence to show
that Stretcher Bullet CE399 almost certainly HAD to have struck John
Kennedy's body first, before it plowed into John Connally's back.

Using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and ammunition from the exact same
"lots" (batches) as the Oswald bullets, Lattimer conducted a series of
experiments, firing some shots through a simulated JFK neck first, and
then firing shots directly into a mock Connally target without going
through a mock Kennedy neck.

83% of Lattimer's test bullets (5 out of 6) that first transited a JFK
neck started to tumble after exiting the neck and therefore struck the
Connally target sideways (photos of the targets after the completion
of these tests can be found on page #237 of Dr. Lattimer's 1980 book,
"Kennedy And Lincoln").

Whereas, NONE of the test bullets that struck the Connally target
first (without hitting anything prior to striking a mock "Connally")
showed any signs of tumbling, and left a round hole in the target
rather than an oval-shaped hole.

And the Discovery Channel "SBT" re-creation also proved that a bullet
can become unstable and tumble after hitting nothing but soft tissue.
Without a doubt.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4f18bcb78b94d9d8

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2

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

CTer -- The SBT was DISPROVEN. Get that? DISPROVEN by the wounds
ballistics team at Edgewood Arsenal in 1964. The only way they could
reproduce the wounds in Connally was by firing TWO separate shots.

DVP -- I haven't the slightest idea why you're saying this outright
falsehood, but you must have some reason for doing it.

But, in fact, the Edgewood Arsenal (U.S. Army) tests conducted for the
Warren Commission in 1964 came to exactly the opposite conclusion from
what you just said.

Drs. Olivier and Dziemian, who did the Edgewood tests, "CONCLUDED THAT
IT WAS PROBABLE THAT THE SAME BULLET PASSED THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S
NECK AND THEN INFLICTED ALL THE WOUNDS ON THE GOVERNOR". -- Warren
Commission Final Report; Page #109

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0067a.htm

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

CTer -- The plan was simpler than that....3 shooters from 3 locations.

DVP -- THAT'S a "simpler" Patsy plan?? "Simple" enough to ensure that
the bullets from the Patsy window are the ONLY bullets that enter the
official record? You must be high on goofy gas to say such a thing.

THREE shooters seal the failure of any SINGLE-PATSY plan. (If all the
shots hit their marks, that is; which IS the desired end result quite
obviously; because if it weren't, there's no need for Shooters #2 and
#3 in the first place.)

So-called "expert" researcher Robert J. Groden further complicates his
own personal many-gunmen theory by purporting that ZERO of 8 shots
fired (and perhaps up to TEN shots, per his 1993 book) likely came
from the "Oswald" window in the Book Depository -- NONE!

How incredibly-stupid is that scenario of Mr. Groden's? (Especially
within a "Blame It All On Oswald" framework?!)

And Mr. Groden has to be a believer in the "Patsy" scenario to frame
Oswald too. Because if he weren't a member of that fraternity, he'd
have at least ONE shot being fired BY OSWALD HIMSELF from the 6th-
Floor "Sniper's Nest" window.

But Groden thinks it's very likely that no shots came from that window
at all. Therefore he must think there was NO GUNMAN in that window
(despite witnesses who saw a shooter firing from there and despite
Harold Norman's testimony of hearing three shots being fired from that
southeast corner window and Norman's account of hearing three bullet
shells hitting the floor).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/002-2065385-6525668?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0140240039&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=R39QVLDORM057K&displayType=ReviewDetail

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fa26e26f62263eeb

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

CTer -- The pathologists were confused by no bullet and no exit wound.

DVP -- There was, of course, an "exit" wound, and Dr. Humes found out
about it the next day. Everything "fit" perfectly once Humes realized
that the trach done at Parkland also doubled as the previously-unknown
exit hole for a bullet.

Obviously, the autopsy doctors SHOULD have been "confused" (and were)
by the lack of an exit wound in JFK's body, given the fact that no
bullets were in the body, and the fact that the examination of JFK's
innards revealed virtually no damage where major damage WOULD have
been located had TWO bullets pierced his back and neck regions, with
neither bullet exiting the body (as most CTers believe did occur).

But when Humes talked with Dr. Perry on 11/23/63, the confusion
cleared up immediately -- one bullet found at Parkland (CE399); one
entry wound; one exit wound; no bullets in body; no damage in body
where damage would be found if bullet(s) had not exited body.

You don't even need to be a "pathologist" to figure this mystery out.
Any plumber could work his way to the one and only logical conclusion
given the above facts and conditions re. JFK and his wounds.

VIA DR. HUMES' ARRB TESTIMONY (FEBRUARY 1996):

"My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in
the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit
wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in
general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we
were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and
examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of
the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious
that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.

"Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to
go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was
not found anywhere in the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called
Parkland Hospital and talked with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And
he said, Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck
by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy." -- James J. Humes

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

CTer -- David, I guess the 80% or so of the population disagrees with
your conclusion that "such questions were answered in November of
1963".

DVP -- There is no limit to the number of people who can be duped into
believing unsupported (and unsupportable) conspiracy nonsense. No
limit. That's obvious by the current stats that show 70% to 80% of the
American public believe a conspiracy existed in Dallas in '63.

http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

It's doubtful, though, whether that percentage will remain that high
following the release of Vincent Bugliosi's book on the assassination.
Because anyone still believing in shadowy assassins and planted
bullets after reading Vincent's publication probably belongs on
another planet (or in a room with a lot of padding).

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df

"It's been said that if you push something at someone long enough,
eventually they're going to start buying it -- particularly if they're
not exposed to any contrary view. And I think that's precisely what
has happened here. For 25 years, the American people have been
inundated with an unremitting torrent of books, and radio and TV talk
shows, all alleging conspiracy.

"And what's happened, is that the shrill voice of the conspiracy buffs
finally penetrated the consciousness of the American people and
convinced the majority of Americans that there was a conspiracy. Even
though the reality is that no one in 25 years has come up with one
scrap of credible, substantive evidence pointing in the direction of a
conspiracy.

"In any event, throughout these same 25 years, apart from the early
media in 1963 and 1964, the United States Government's position hasn't
been told. True, it's been available. But how many Americans have gone
out and purchased the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission? They
haven't done that.

"I think it's very, very noteworthy that before this five-hour
{televised Docu-} trial, 85 percent of the American people believed in
a conspiracy. And being exposed to only five hours, it dropped
dramatically to 71. If they had seen the eighteen hours of testimony
and evidence, it would drop even further. And if they knew all the
truth about the case, very few people would conclude that there was a
conspiracy." -- Vincent Bugliosi; 1988

~~~~~~

"I am trying to finish my book on the assassination of President John
F. Kennedy. There is a need for a book on the non-pro-conspiracy side.
My view is that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy. I
know that somewhere between 75 percent and 80 percent of the American
people believe he was the victim of a conspiracy.

"But I want to tell you a story. I was speaking in Toronto on tactics
and techniques used in the movie 'JFK' just after the Oliver Stone
movie was released. After the speech, there was a Q & A, and I asked
for a show of hands of how many believed the assassination was a
conspiracy. It was 80 percent to 90 percent of the audience.

"Then I said that I'd like to have a show of hands as to how many saw
the movie 'JFK' or at any time in the past had read a book rejecting
the Warren Commission or believing in a conspiracy. Again, there was
an enormous show of hands. I told them they should hear both sides of
the story before making up their minds. With that thought in mind, I
asked how many had read the Warren Report. Hardly any raised their
hands.

"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." -- Vincent Bugliosi; 1997

http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring07/004525.htm

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

CTer -- {Eyewitness Howard} Brennan was probably pressured to change
his story "to go with the flow".

DVP -- Yeah, prob'ly. After all, not a darn thing is what it seems to
be in this whole case, right? All of the "It Was Oswald" evidence has
somehow been manipulated, and every witness who fingered Oswald (for
TWO murders) was "pressured" into telling blatant lies so that poor
innocent Lee Harvey would look guilty. Correct?

Those plotters and cover-up dudes were remarkable indeed. Truly
remarkable.

~Big Eyeroll~

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/002-2065385-6525668?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0898963311&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=R3NVHAOQQK4XLZ&displayType=ReviewDetail

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

CTer -- 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 is another example of a CTer asking a question and demanding a
perfect pro-LN answer; and if such an LN answer isn't forthcoming (or
known), then that CTer thinks he gets to believe a bunch of kooky
stuff.

And (naturally) the answer that a CTer provides in lieu of any FACTUAL
data is an answer that always leads to something "conspiratorial" and
"coverup"-related.

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

CTer -- 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 Oswald'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 when it comes to determining Oswald's guilt or
innocence, please let us know why.

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

CTer -- 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 hokum...plain and simple. The chain of evidence is
only said to be weak by the conspiracy mongers because those people
NEED 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 J.D. Tippit's murder), then Lee Harvey Oswald is
guilty as sin, and even the conspiracy-loving kooks must surely
realize that fact.

Parkland Hospital employee Darrell Tomlinson has stated in the past
that CE399 looked like the same bullet he found inside the hospital on
the afternoon of 11/22/63. Why this isn't good enough for the
conspiracy theorists is anybody's guess. (But, of course, not much is
good enough for those people.)

Vincent Bugliosi sums it up nicely in the quotes below (and these
words come from an ex-prosecutor who knows of what he speaks when it
comes to "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." -- VB

"Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck
by the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of
any separate bullet hitting Connally." -- VB

"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL
doubt THAT OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!" -- VB

"There's not one tiny grain of evidence....not one microscopic speck
of evidence that ANYONE -- other than Lee Harvey Oswald -- was
responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy." -- VB

"Based on the Himalayan mountain of evidence against him, anyone who
would believe he {Oswald} was innocent would believe someone who told
them they had heard a cow speaking Spanish!" -- VB

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1e2929be83607513

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/16b70728d9c8ecd4

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HNmqJO4dFDE

0 new messages