ISOLATING THE EVIDENCE: A CONSPIRACIST'S FORTE
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16189&view=findpost&p=197146
I saw the above-linked message on The Education Forum today and wanted
to share a portion of its inane craziness and pot/kettle-ism with
other readers. Quoting Lee Farley:
"You see, what a “Lone Assassin” mind does is it fixates on the
individual details. Each one must be looked at in isolation to all
others. If one sticks to this formula then one cannot form patterns
within the evidence or become concerned with the connections that
would be formed if the formula was dispensed with.
[...]
"You see, the “whole” doesn’t matter to a “Lone Nut.” They are
only interested in the “bits.” The “whole” frightens them. It creates
a world where the illusion of “democracy” becomes threatened, where
our institutions cannot be trusted, and demonstrates that we live in a
world that “is”, and it is kept “as is” for the benefit of a small
minority of people. John Kennedy was looking for what the world “could
be” rather than “what was”, however one must not spend too long
looking at the politics of the man whose death we all debate."
-- Lee Farley; July 2010
[End Kook Quote.]
-------------------------------
Lee Farley must surely be kidding (or maybe he was sniffing something
funny when he wrote the above message).
But, alas, I fear he did not have his tongue rooted in his cheek when
he said: "You see, the “whole” doesn’t matter to a “Lone Nut.”"
Incredible, isn't it?
The truth is, of course, that the people who believe Lee Harvey Oswald
acted alone in killing President Kennedy are nearly ALWAYS looking at
the "whole" as far as the evidence in the JFK case is concerned. I
sure do anyway.
The truth that the conspiracy fantasists refuse to face is still the
raw and unvarnished truth nonetheless....and that truth is: Based on
the totality of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases (i.e.,
based on that "whole" that Lee Farley thinks LNers have ignored), it
would be virtually impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to be innocent.
It's the conspiracy theorists who choose to "isolate" the "bits" and
forever keep those pieces of isolated evidence AWAY from the "whole".
CTers perform this "isolation" trick all the time, and particularly
the "Anybody But Oswald" kooks who want to pretend that LHO never
fired a shot at ANYBODY on November 22, 1963.
I can provide many examples of CTers doing that very thing. Take all
of the various pieces of ballistics evidence connected with JFK's
assassination, for instance.
1. ) There's the rifle (which was OSWALD'S, of course).
2.) There are the three bullet shells beneath the Sniper's-Nest window
(which were fired in OSWALD'S rifle, of course).
3.) There is CE399 (which was fired in OSWALD'S rifle, too). And,
whether any conspiracy theorists like it or not, that exact bullet--
Commission Exhibit 399--was deemed by both the Warren Commission and
the HSCA to be THE bullet that passed through both JFK and Governor
Connally in Dealey Plaza.
4.) There are the two front-seat bullet fragments (which also came out
of OSWALD'S rifle).
The above batch of physical evidence (which ALL points straight to
OSWALD'S Mannlicher-Carcano rifle) were found in THREE separate
locations too! Three different places -- The Book Depository, Parkland
Hospital, and the President's limousine!
But what do conspiracy theorists do with this very incriminating
evidence against OSWALD? They choose to "isolate" the "bits" (to use
Lee Farley's words), and they take each isolated part away from the
"whole" and attempt to discredit each "bit" individually.
And in the case of my #2 item listed above--the bullet shells in the
TSBD--the conspiracy kooks go one step further in their "isolation" of
that ballistics evidence -- they focus on only ONE of the three bullet
shell casings and attempt to discredit it alone, via the oddball
argument that it couldn't possibly have really been fired in Oswald's
rifle on the day of the assassination, due to that "dented lip" on the
cartridge case (which is just a flat-out lie, of course; tests have
been done with Carcano rifles that prove that a cartridge can, indeed,
get dented upon ejection from the rifle's chamber after a live round
has been fired).
But the other two shells--also fired from OSWALD'S rifle--don't have a
dented lip, so the CTers can't utilize that same poor argument about
the other two shells being "fakes".
So, the CTers in the "Anybody But Oswald" club will just throw their
"It's All Planted" blanket over ALL THREE shells, and they'll pretend
that the Dallas Police Department was up to no good on the sixth floor
of the Book Depository Building (even though the cops allowed a TV
cameraman to FILM THEIR ACTIVITY while they were supposedly fiddling
around with the evidence). Brilliant plan there.
And CTers do the very same thing with the ballistics evidence in the
Tippit case too. They love to harp on the two "Poe" bullet shells, all
the while totally ignoring the fact that TWO OTHER SHELLS FROM
OSWALD'S REVOLVER were also found at the SAME MURDER SCENE on Tenth
Street in Oak Cliff.
And those other two shells that positively came out of Oswald's gun
(the same gun LHO had on him when he was arrested 35 minutes after
shooting J.D. Tippit) were picked up by TWO additional civilian
witnesses--Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis.
And I've yet to hear any conspiracy promoter argue that the two Davis
shells were "planted" or are otherwise tainted evidence in the case
against Oswald.
But since the conspiracy kooks can argue about Officer Poe's initials
not being on the two bullet shells that were found by Domingo
Benavides (who is yet another civilian witness who saw Tippit's killer
dumping empty shell casings from his gun), those same kooks think they
have somehow proven that the OTHER two "Davis" shells from Oswald's
gun are fake or planted shells too.
But since all reasonable people know that there was only ONE gunman
dumping shells out of ONE gun on Tenth Street just after Officer
Tippit was shot, this fact MUST mean that ANY AND ALL bullet shells
that littered the corner of 10th & Patton on 11/22/63 had to have been
left there by someone who was carrying Lee Harvey Oswald's Smith &
Wesson revolver.
And who was the person who had that very gun in his possession just 35
minutes after Tippit was killed?
Answer -- Every kook's favorite patsy: Lee H. Oswald.
The above is an example of how a reasonable person puts the "whole"
together in this case. But conspiracy theorists who are bent on
ignoring the "whole" proceed to do the things I described above--they
nitpick the Poe shells and refuse to admit that the only person on
Planet Earth who could possibly have murdered Officer J.D. Tippit,
based on that "whole", is Lee Harvey Oswald.
And CTers never present a "whole" that makes any sense at all from
their conspiracy point-of-view. In fact, that's one of the biggest
problems with JFK conspiracy theorists. And I've said that very thing
in several of my Internet messages on the subject over the years, like
the ones highlighted below:
"Every single discrepancy in the case, and every gaffe made by
the Dallas Police or the FBI (and there were some mistakes, as can be
expected in any criminal case), have been blown up by CTers to
Herculean importance and isolated from the "whole" of the JFK case in
an attempt to prove that somebody else besides Oswald committed the
two murders that LHO was charged with on November 22nd. (Although,
implacably, the identity of this "somebody else" is never, ever
revealed by conspiracists. We're just supposed to take it on "faith",
I guess, that there was "somebody else", despite a complete lack of
physical evidence to bolster such "somebody else" allegations.)
"And by isolating those individual items that CTers claim don't
add up to LHO's guilt, the theorists have succeeded in some circles in
turning a relatively-simple murder case (two cases including Tippit's,
which is and was a no-brainer in favor of Oswald's guilt from Day 1)
into a convoluted, complicated case of massive conspiratorial
proportions, with Oswald not only being innocent of BOTH murders --
but with many CTers also wishing to absolve Lee Oswald of ALL
connection with even the massive "plot" they advocate. Totally and
outrageously ridiculous.
"A few examples of what I'm talking about -- re: the "isolation"
of certain evidence that makes CTers scream "frame up" and
"conspiracy", etc.----
"The Tippit murder weapon being identified initially as an
"automatic" weapon, instead of what it turned out to be -- Oswald's
non-automatic revolver.
"The rifle in the TSBD being innocently mis-labelled a "Mauser"
initially by police, instead of what we later know it really was --
Oswald's "Carcano".
"The ONE single witness at the Tippit scene who said she saw two
men involved in the shooting of Officer Tippit -- instead of what we
later KNOW occurred: Oswald, ALONE, was at the scene of the murder,
per the multiple witnesses who do not back up Acquilla Clemmons' claim
of two killers.
"JFK's head moving violently backward after the fatal head shot
-- which is probably the single biggest example of "isolating" a
particular item in the case which has CT promoters telling us that it
"proves conspiracy", instead of examining ALL the possibilities of why
JFK's head did what it did on November 22 -- with a PROVEN possibility
being: a head can go backward, toward the source of the gunfire, when
shot from behind. That fact has been proven by people WAY more
qualified than I (or the CTers) to make such an assessment. But
staunch theorists in the popular "It Couldn't Have Been Oswald" club
stand firm by their "I just don't believe it" stance.
"Oswald's not being out of breath or excited when confronted by
Officer Baker in the lunch room after the shooting. This, to many
CTers, is somehow virtual PROOF that Oswald was innocent. IMO, the
CTers who espouse that belief just aren't looking at the situation in
the proper context and light. For, if Oswald had just shot the
President on the 6th Floor, he would have no doubt somewhat EXPECTED
the building to be crawling with cops a very short time after the
shots rang out. ....
"See what I mean about isolating certain things and removing
them from the bigger picture? The CTers are experts at doing this and
then attaching the word "conspiracy" around each item as if that
single item itself proves the whole "CT case". Well, it does not." --
DVP; February 2006
http://Amazon.com/review/R10A8UNAG60FJB
---------------
"The Rabid Kooks will continue to isolate the evidence and then
hold up each "isolated" piece and shout "Look! Here's proof of
conspiracy!", without placing that piece back into the TOTALITY of the
overall evidence in the case (in order to figure out if this isolated
hunk of data really DOES, in fact, point away from Oswald's lone
guilt).
"Several recent "isolation" examples have been demonstrated by
crazy CT-Kooks. Such as (but certainly not limited to the following):
"The "Irving Sports Shop" controversy. Did LHO have some repair
work done on his rifle (C2766)? Or was it part of the grand "plot" to
set him up as the "Patsy"? .... Bud provided various reasonable
examples of why the CT-Kooks have totally misinterpreted the Sports
Shop incident. But the kooks fail to re-assess that incident. They,
instead, will INSIST it was an act of "conspiracy". ....
"Howard Brennan's testimony, which has been dissected to totally-
ludicrous levels of craziness by some CT-Kooks. The kooks will
"isolate" things within Brennan's testimony, and will single these
things out as being that ever-desired "proof of conspiracy" in JFK's
murder. And such isolation regarding Brennan's remarks is just plain
screwy -- esp. when it comes to the kooks who wish to tear down
Brennan's physical description of the sixth-floor assassin, which was
a description that comes remarkably close, indeed, to matching Lee
Oswald---"A [white] man in his early thirties, fair complexion,
slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot-10, 160 to 170
pounds." -- Howard L. Brennan
"That description, when taken as a "general" witness
observation, certainly does NOT exclude Lee Harvey Oswald. In fact, it
"fits" Lee Harvey Oswald pretty darn nicely in most crucial respects
-- e.g., Oswald was "slender"; Oswald was a "white man"; Oswald did
have a "fair complexion"; Oswald was 5'9" (Brennan was a mere one inch
off there); Oswald weighed an "estimated 150 pounds" (per his autopsy
report). So Brennan was only ten pounds off on his weight estimate of
the assassin. .....
"But the kooks will isolate the "early 30s" reference, or the
"170 pounds" remark, and attempt to make it appear that Mr. Brennan
could not POSSIBLY have been looking at Lee Oswald for those few
fleeting moments on 11/22/63." -- DVP; August 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aa0dfed2f3951967
---------------
"JFK's head could have performed a Linda Blair imitation and
spun around thirteen times after the bullet hit him, and it still
wouldn't have altered the verifiable entry and exit wounds on his head
that were discovered at the President's autopsy.
"But CTers love to isolate the "Back And To The Left" motion of
JFK's head, instead of looking at the autopsy photos and autopsy
report which verify that JUST ONE BULLET hit Kennedy in the head. And
that one bullet positively came from behind." -- DVP; December 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ce06b353b6ff7f7d
---------------
"The plain truth of the matter is that ANY kook can easily pick
apart the Warren Report (they've had ample time, and desire, to do
this of course) and then isolate some things that (on the surface)
appear to lead down Conspiracy Avenue.
"But what these CTers fail to EVER do is place those isolated
items back into a COHESIVE WHOLE that adds up to a logical and
reasonable...conspiracy plot to kill JFK.
"Have we EVER seen such a COHESIVE WHOLE from the CTers? Ever? I
sure haven't. Their theories are scattershot and piecemeal (at best);
and utterly laughable (at worst)." -- DVP; February 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fc83ec42c74e4601
-------------------------------
In summary:
For Lee Farley to actually suggest that it's the "lone nutters" who
"isolate" the "bits" and never look at the "whole" is just
mindbogglingly farcical on his part. But, as usual, it's yet another
instance where a conspiracy theorist has been caught changing day into
night and the truth into silliness.
But, that's just par for the course for a JFK conspiracy nut, I guess.
David Von Pein
July 12, 2010
lazu...@webtv.net
this really depicts the rear of President Kennedy's skull during the
Autopsy, despite all the observations at Bethesda, and Parkland Hospital
by Medical personnel directly contradicting this, there is nothing, and
I do mean nothing you won't accept...Laz
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
This is why I always think of the Queen in "Alice in Wonderland":
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible
things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger,
I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as
six impossible things before breakfast."
This describes LNT'ers & trolls quite well...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
drummist1965
> In article <14722-4C3BFD52-3...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazuli...@webtv.net says...
Hmmmm...Ben is a guy who plays with a "crystal ball", and watches
"Alice in Wonderland". Typical of a conspiracy fanatic!
aeffects
[...]
I think you shithead, right here on this bopard have made a case for
*pure lone nut idiocy*.... ya need a life ya lone nut, WCR supporting
moron! Swimming around in that KFC frying fat has done you
irreversible brain damage...
Simply start with the 45 questions and show us your mental prowess....
ROTFLMFAO!
timstter
> In article <14722-4C3BFD52-3...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
Hi Ben,
Say, speaking of impossible things, is it true that you once believed
that the presence of *a lady in yellow pants* in the Nix film was an
indicator of Zapruder film forgery?
And that David Healy owned a black and white *galley proof* copy of
the UPI book Four Days?
Sounds like you fit your own definition of a troll, Ben.
Helpful Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
mucher1
Oh my. So that must be how Ben got his *Yellow Pants* moniker! I was
afraid the old guy had a nervous bladder or something. Imagine the
stir it would create down at the judo club if he occasionally wetted
himself during the act of fondling (sorry: fighting) the other guys.
aeffects
i can always depend on the little lone nut pussies here.... ya whoine
your way onto the board -- face it shithead, the 45 questions
destroyed your nutterism.... carry on moron!
David Von Pein
PAT SPEER SAID:
>>> "David...you PROVED Lee's point. You itemized reasons to believe Oswald did it. You DID NOT look at the whole. It's an entirely different way of thinking than that engaged by most CTs." <<<
DVP SAID:
Nonsense.
CTers never look at the "whole". Ever. (Especially the "Anybody But
Oswald" CTers.) They chop out, whittle down, and misrepresent each
"bit" of the evidence, until it's the "messiest case ever" (to use the
words of Patrick Speer).
But it's only the messiest case ever because of the conspiracy
theorists--and everybody knows it.
Take the examples I previously cited (and I didn't cite every part of
the "Oswald Did It" whole, of course, in my thread-starting post; I
just talked about a few things that are part of the "whole" that CTers
always ignore or misrepresent; so I must disagree with Pat Speer when
he says I proved Lee Farley's point by citing just a few things; I was
merely using those items as an example of the parts of the "whole"
that CTers want to misrepresent and "isolate" all the time):
It's utterly foolish to believe that just ONE of the three spent
bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest couldn't have been fired on Nov. 22
(due to the "dented lip" argument). That shell was right there with
TWO OTHERS from Oswald's rifle. And over 90% of the witnesses heard
THREE SHOTS.
Shouldn't those two things--in tandem--be a pretty big hint as to how
many shots really were fired in Dealey Plaza? And those two things in
combination with one another--i.e., the THREE spent shells and the
incredibly large number of THREE-SHOT witnesses--are certainly part of
"the whole" too.
Is it truly reasonable to "isolate" that ONE bullet shell from the
other two and pretend that that one shell couldn't be fired on the day
of the assassination, but the others could have been...even though ALL
THREE of the shells are right there near each other in THE VERY SAME
SNIPER'S NEST?
No. Frankly, that argument is just plain silly. And furthermore, as
John McAdams pointed out to Jim DiEugenio during their radio debate
last year, the argument made by CTers about the dented lip is just a
flat-out lie too--because Prof. McAdams HIMSELF said he fired a
Carcano rifle and got a dented lip on a cartridge case after firing a
round.
Do CTers think McAdams just MADE THAT UP?
(Don't answer, CTers. I know what the answer will likely be anyway.)
Bottom Line: If conspiracy theorists really did look at "the whole",
they couldn't possibly REALISTICALLY believe that Lee Harvey Oswald
was innocent of shooting John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit. Because the
"whole" tells any rational-thinking person that Oswald had to be the
killer of BOTH Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Tippit.
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html
David Von Pein
BUD SAID:
>>> "I had the idea to list all the known events, and have the LN explanation for each event given, and allow the CT the chance to give their explanation for each event. .... After all the known events were filled in, we could compare the "whole" of each, and dismiss the CT position as too silly to even be considered once and for all." <<<
DVP SAYS:
That's pretty much what I was going to do to Jim DiEugenio in my
proposed debate with him (which is a debate he won't agree to
participate in, because he doesn't like the idea of me getting to ask
him questions; he thinks I'll just "make stuff up", which is
hilarious, due to the built-in pot/kettle nature of Jim's excuse).
I currently have a list of 33 questions for Jim D., all of them
centered on pretty much the physical evidence in the case. The
questions would force DiEugenio (who resides in the Anybody-But-Oswald
club, you know) to admit that he thinks every last piece of evidence
against Oswald has been faked or planted, etc.
This type of onslaught via my long list of questions which go toward
the crux of the whole case (i.e., the physical evidence of Oswald's
guilt in two murders) is an onslaught that DiEugenio obviously doesn't
want to have to face. So, Jim has decided that my format which has the
debaters asking the questions is no good, because he has decided that
I will be inclined to "make stuff up" out of thin air.
That excuse is doubly hysterical--coming as it does from a kook who
"makes stuff up" continuously....such as when he decided (on his own)
that Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle were liars when they each said
they saw LHO with a paper bag on Nov. 22.
Seems to me that *I* should be the one complaining about my opponent
"making stuff up". Just another example of the upside-down world that
conspiracy kooks like James DiEugenio reside in.
aeffects
...
> Seems to me that *I* should be the one complaining about my opponent
> "making stuff up". Just another example of the upside-down world that
> conspiracy kooks like James DiEugenio reside in.
you've NO opponents here, moron! you're cannon fodder for the lone nut
brigade... don't ya wish daBug had his shit together?
Bud
> In article <14722-4C3BFD52-3...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
>
>
>
> >If you can accept an intact back of the head in the Autopsy Photos, and
> >this really depicts the rear of President Kennedy's skull during the
> >Autopsy, despite all the observations at Bethesda, and Parkland Hospital
> >by Medical personnel directly contradicting this, there is nothing, and
> >I do mean nothing you won't accept...Laz
>
> This is why I always think of the Queen in "Alice in Wonderland":
>
> "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible
> things."
> "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger,
> I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as
> six impossible things before breakfast."
>
> This describes LNT'ers & trolls quite well...
<snicker> Ben believes ridiculously complex and impossible
conspiracy theories. Off with his head!
Baron Wrangle
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16189&view=find...
>
> read more »
David:
You're not very good at perceiving the whole truth, but you do a very
good job at presenting arguments cut from whole cloth. Vince also
does it well. Here's a link to the thread where I demonstrate how he
isolated the Mannlicher-Carcano's round to round dispersion and
presented it as evidence of its accuracy:
This shouldn't come as a surprise, since it's the way of the Warren
Report:
"When the six blind men of the fable felt the elephant, they described
six different things. This is the approach of the Report. At one
point it evaluates Oswald's relations with the government (Chapter
15), at another his possible participation in a possible conspiracy
(Chapter 6), and at two points (Chapters 6 and 7), his 'politics'. In
each case, the evaluation was in vacuo, isolated from everything else
and considered as a separate and in itself distinct thing." Harold
Weisberg, "Whitewash: The Report on the Warren Report" (Hyattstown,
Md.: Weisberg, 1965), p. 119.
I would never say that Oswald never fired a shot on 11/22/1963, only
that he's the least likely suspect. As for your questions:
1) In what sense was the rifle Oswald's? In the sense that it was
his legally? That doesn't mean much.
2) See (1) above.
3) See (1) above.
4) See (1) above.
I will pass over the Tippit murder, as a favor to the Commission.
It's just common courtesy. One does not speak well of the sherriff in
the house of the hanged man. The Commission used the Tippit murder as
a red herring, to strengthen their weak case. They failed. Seeing
the whole does not mean bringing in extraneous matter. One of
Weisberg's strengths was that he dealt with the Tippit murder and
Ruby's murder of Oswald relatively briefly and focused on the main
chance.
Let's see if you can answer some questions yourself: the questions in
the conclusion of "Whitewash" (pp. 189-91), or direct us to the
answers. They've only been available to the public since 1966. If
you can't produce enough stuff and nonsense on your own, you can use
your lifeline to Bugliosi.
BTW, did you see "JFK" on AMC? Wasn't it great? Was it all true? Of
course not, but the public likes some variation in untruths. The
Commission's untruths have been around for four decades. Stale old
bilgewater, unlike wine, doesn't get better with time.
BW
The commission stared at this dream by Lavrenti Beria: the perfectly
prefabricated assassin.
"The Manchurian Candidate"
Ben Holmes
Baron Wrangle says...
>
>On Jul 12, 10:28=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3D16189&view=3Dfind=
>...
>>
>> I saw the above-linked message on The Education Forum today and wanted
>> to share a portion of its inane craziness and pot/kettle-ism with
>> other readers. Quoting Lee Farley:
>>
>on the
>> individual details. Each one must be looked at in isolation to all
>> others. If one sticks to this formula then one cannot form patterns
>> within the evidence or become concerned with the connections that
>> would be formed if the formula was dispensed with.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>=94 They are
>> only interested in the =93bits.=94 The =93whole=94 frightens them. It cre=
>ates
>> a world where the illusion of =93democracy=94 becomes threatened, where
>> our institutions cannot be trusted, and demonstrates that we live in a
>l
>> minority of people. John Kennedy was looking for what the world =93could
>> be=94 rather than =93what was=94, however one must not spend too long
>> looking at the politics of the man whose death we all debate."
>>
>> -- Lee Farley; July 2010
>>
>> [End Kook Quote.]
>>
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> Lee Farley must surely be kidding (or maybe he was sniffing something
>> funny when he wrote the above message).
>>
>> But, alas, I fear he did not have his tongue rooted in his cheek when
>y
>> the Dallas Police or the FBI (and there were some mistakes, as can be
>> expected in any criminal case), have been blown up by CTers to
>> Herculean importance and isolated from the "whole" of the JFK case in
>> an attempt to prove that somebody else besides Oswald committed the
>> two murders that LHO was charged with on November 22nd. (Although,
>> implacably, the identity of this "somebody else" is never, ever
>> revealed by conspiracists. We're just supposed to take it on "faith",
>> I guess, that there was "somebody else", despite a complete lack of
>> physical evidence to bolster such "somebody else" allegations.)
>>
>'t
>> add up to LHO's guilt, the theorists have succeeded in some circles in
>> turning a relatively-simple murder case (two cases including Tippit's,
>> which is and was a no-brainer in favor of Oswald's guilt from Day 1)
>> into a convoluted, complicated case of massive conspiratorial
>> proportions, with Oswald not only being innocent of BOTH murders --
>> but with many CTers also wishing to absolve Lee Oswald of ALL
>> connection with even the massive "plot" they advocate. Totally and
>> outrageously ridiculous.
>>
>on"
>> of certain evidence that makes CTers scream "frame up" and
>> "conspiracy", etc.----
>>
>> "automatic" weapon, instead of what it turned out to be -- Oswald's
>> non-automatic revolver.
>>
>r"
>> initially by police, instead of what we later know it really was --
>> Oswald's "Carcano".
>>
>two
>> men involved in the shooting of Officer Tippit -- instead of what we
>> later KNOW occurred: Oswald, ALONE, was at the scene of the murder,
>> per the multiple witnesses who do not back up Acquilla Clemmons' claim
>> of two killers.
>>
>ot
>> -- which is probably the single biggest example of "isolating" a
>> particular item in the case which has CT promoters telling us that it
>> "proves conspiracy", instead of examining ALL the possibilities of why
>> JFK's head did what it did on November 22 -- with a PROVEN possibility
>> being: a head can go backward, toward the source of the gunfire, when
>> shot from behind. That fact has been proven by people WAY more
>> qualified than I (or the CTers) to make such an assessment. But
>> staunch theorists in the popular "It Couldn't Have Been Oswald" club
>> stand firm by their "I just don't believe it" stance.
>>
>by
>> Officer Baker in the lunch room after the shooting. This, to many
>> CTers, is somehow virtual PROOF ...
>>
>
>David:
>
>You're not very good at perceiving the whole truth, but you do a very
>good job at presenting arguments cut from whole cloth. Vince also
>does it well. Here's a link to the thread where I demonstrate how he
>isolated the Mannlicher-Carcano's round to round dispersion and
>presented it as evidence of its accuracy:
>
DVP won't answer questions. He'll avoid and evade them.
My list of 45 Questions has been around a long time. Pointing out that Bugliosi
ran from the 16 Smoking Guns he provably knew about has been around for a long
time. Gil has a list of questions that the trolls can't answer either.
The evidence is paramount, and LNT'ers & trolls must run from it...
>the questions in
>the conclusion of "Whitewash" (pp. 189-91), or direct us to the
>answers. They've only been available to the public since 1966. If
>you can't produce enough stuff and nonsense on your own, you can use
>your lifeline to Bugliosi.
>
>BTW, did you see "JFK" on AMC? Wasn't it great? Was it all true? Of
>course not, but the public likes some variation in untruths. The
>Commission's untruths have been around for four decades. Stale old
>bilgewater, unlike wine, doesn't get better with time.
>
>BW
>
>The commission stared at this dream by Lavrenti Beria: the perfectly
>prefabricated assassin.
>
>"The Manchurian Candidate"
David Von Pein
>>> "I would never say that Oswald never fired a shot on 11/22/1963, only that he's the least likely suspect." <<<
LOL.
No further discussion required.
LOL.
David Von Pein
>>> "My list of 45 Questions has been around a long time [I TACKLED KOOK HOLMES' LIST YEARS AGO, WHEN IT WAS A MERE 21 Qs; SEE SECOND LINK BELOW]. Pointing out that Bugliosi ran from the 16 Smoking Guns he provably knew about has been around for a long time. [SEE TOP LINK BELOW.]" <<<
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/16-smoking-guns-or-16-misfires.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6db9ac1c27e26e32
aeffects
> >>> "My list of 45 Questions has been around a long time [I TACKLED KOOK HOLMES' LIST YEARS AGO, WHEN IT WAS A MERE 21 Qs; SEE SECOND LINK BELOW]. Pointing out that Bugliosi ran from the 16 Smoking Guns he provably knew about has been around for a long time. [SEE TOP LINK BELOW.]" <<<
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6db9ac1c27e26e32
you're taking it personal David Von Pein, why? Bugliosi has been made
to look the fool Jimmy Di is kicking your sorry ass all over the place
so you head here to whine, lmfao..... btw, you haven't touched the 45
questions much let-alone answered any of them... get-a-grip, troll!
mucher1
Regular posters are aware of Ben's line of inquiry. It goes nowhere
and impresses only nitwits like you.
Baron Wrangle
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16189&view=find...
Proved by whom? Luis Alvarez? He theorized that the friction from a
bullet that struck Kennedy's head raised the temperature of his brain
to the point where it vaporized, shooting a jet out through the exit
wound. As Sarah Palin would say, "That's some proof, you betcha!"
BW
Ach, du lieber Dave von Pein, Dave von Pein, Dave von Pein,
Ach, du lieber Dave von Pein, alles ist weg!
Bud ist weg, Vince ist weg, alles weg, alles weg,
Ach, du lieber Dave von Pein, all' ist kaput!
> "Oswald's not being out of breath or excited when confronted by
> Officer Baker in the lunch room after the shooting. This, to many
> CTers, is somehow virtual PROOF ...
>
> read more »
Jeff
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16189&view=find...
>
> to share a portion of its inane craziness and pot/kettle-ism with
> other readers. Quoting Lee Farley:
>
> "You see, what a “Lone Assassin” mind does is it fixates on the
> individual details. Each one must be looked at in isolation to all
> others. If one sticks to this formula then one cannot form patterns
> within the evidence or become concerned with the connections that
> would be formed if the formula was dispensed with.
>
This started out a great message but then went downhill.
1. ) There's the rifle (which was OSWALD'S, of course).
evidence could be manipulated / fabricated
2.) There are the three bullet shells beneath the Sniper's-Nest window
(which were fired in OSWALD'S rifle, of course).
but by who ?
3.) There is CE399 (which was fired in OSWALD'S rifle, too). And,
whether any conspiracy theorists like it or not, that exact bullet--
Commission Exhibit 399--was deemed by both the Warren Commission and
the HSCA to be THE bullet that passed through both JFK and Governor
Connally in Dealey Plaza.
bullet was placed on hospital stretcher by Ruby
4.) There are the two front-seat bullet fragments (which also came out
of OSWALD'S rifle).
who knows where these came from. limousine was crushed in Detroit.
melted down.
Jeff Marzano
bigdog
> On Jul 12, 11:28 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16189&view=find...
>
> > I saw the above-linked message on The Education Forum today and wanted
> > to share a portion of its inane craziness and pot/kettle-ism with
> > other readers. Quoting Lee Farley:
>
> > "You see, what a “Lone Assassin” mind does is it fixates on the
> > individual details. Each one must be looked at in isolation to all
> > others. If one sticks to this formula then one cannot form patterns
> > within the evidence or become concerned with the connections that
> > would be formed if the formula was dispensed with.
>
> > read more »
>
> This started out a great message but then went downhill.
>
> 1. ) There's the rifle (which was OSWALD'S, of course).
>
> evidence could be manipulated / fabricated
>
manipulation or fabrications come from the CTs who have to invent
excuses to dismiss the mountain of solid evidence of Oswald's guilt.
CTs can't explain the evidence so they attempt to explain it away.
> 2.) There are the three bullet shells beneath the Sniper's-Nest window
> (which were fired in OSWALD'S rifle, of course).
>
> but by who ?
>
Oswald.
> 3.) There is CE399 (which was fired in OSWALD'S rifle, too). And,
> whether any conspiracy theorists like it or not, that exact bullet--
> Commission Exhibit 399--was deemed by both the Warren Commission and
> the HSCA to be THE bullet that passed through both JFK and Governor
> Connally in Dealey Plaza.
>
> bullet was placed on hospital stretcher by Ruby
>
Right, dumbass. Why the fuck would somebody bother planting a bullet
that came from the murder weapon. Why wouldn't they just allow the
bullets that were fired at JFK to be traced back to the murder weapon.
As with most everything else you assholes come up with, this makes no
sense.
> 4.) There are the two front-seat bullet fragments (which also came out
> of OSWALD'S rifle).
>
> who knows where these came from. limousine was crushed in Detroit.
> melted down.
>
Are you really that fucking dumb? The limosine was never crushed. It
is in the Ford Museum in Dearborn, MI.
Raymond
Right The JFK limousine was stripped down to metal and rebuilt in
December, 1963
and is now permanently displayed at the Henry Ford Museum in
Dearborn,MI
http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/car_solo.jpg
See a full-sized photo of the limousine SS-100-X as it stands today in
the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. As you can see from the
large photo, the privacy window is in place. However, look at the
metal frame around it and compare that with the metal frame in the
motorcade photo at the top of the page. What do you think? Here are
two photos that Pamela Brown took of the limo at Dearborn. The first
is of the second windshield , the second of the limo itself.
Click here for page one of a newly-released document 180-10120-10021.
It presents evidence that the privacy window was installed at the time
the limo was delivered to the White House, but then may have been
removed in September, 1961. However, the supporting pages to this
document refer to the D-2 fix, which supposedly took place following
the assassination. What do you think? Page two, Page three, Page four,
Page five, Page six, Page seven, Page eight
Gil Jesus
> of the various pieces of ballistics evidence connected with JFK's
> assassination, for instance.
>
> 1. ) There's the rifle (which was OSWALD'S, of course).
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=3&topic_id=85804&mesg_id=85804&page=
> 2.) There are the three bullet shells beneath the Sniper's-Nest window
> (which were fired in OSWALD'S rifle, of course).
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=389634
> 3.) There is CE399 (which was fired in OSWALD'S rifle, too). And,
> whether any conspiracy theorists like it or not, that exact bullet--
> Commission Exhibit 399--was deemed by both the Warren Commission and
> the HSCA to be THE bullet that passed through both JFK and Governor
> Connally in Dealey Plaza.
Show us where an FBI test found blood, clothing fibers or bone
particles on CE 399 that connected it with either shooting victim.
> 4.) There are the two front-seat bullet fragments (which also came out of OSWALD'S rifle).
Show us the photographs of those fragments in situ.
Typical Von Pein. A lot of opinion and no evidence.
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Jul 12, 11:28=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> I can provide many examples of CTers doing that very thing. Take all
>> of the various pieces of ballistics evidence connected with JFK's
>> assassination, for instance.
>>
>
>> 1. ) There's the rifle (which was OSWALD'S, of course).
>
>_id=3D85804&mesg_id=3D85804&page=3D
>
>
>> 2.) There are the three bullet shells beneath the Sniper's-Nest window
>> (which were fired in OSWALD'S rifle, of course).
>
>
>634
>
>
>> 3.) There is CE399 (which was fired in OSWALD'S rifle, too). And,
>> whether any conspiracy theorists like it or not, that exact bullet--
>> Commission Exhibit 399--was deemed by both the Warren Commission and
>> the HSCA to be THE bullet that passed through both JFK and Governor
>> Connally in Dealey Plaza.
>
>
>Show us where an FBI test found blood, clothing fibers or bone
>particles on CE 399 that connected it with either shooting victim.
>
>
> OSWALD'S rifle).
>
>
>Show us the photographs of those fragments in situ.
>
>
>Typical Von Pein. A lot of opinion and no evidence.
More importantly, "DVP" will refuse to even *try* to refute or debate your
refutation. He really *cannot* explain the evidence, so he simply doesn't try.
aeffects
> In article <ef842a4b-a553-44f0-afc5-42e47057a...@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>,
> Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 12, 11:28=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> I can provide many examples of CTers doing that very thing. Take all
> >> of the various pieces of ballistics evidence connected with JFK's
> >> assassination, for instance.
>
> >> 1. ) There's the rifle (which was OSWALD'S, of course).
>
> >_id=3D85804&mesg_id=3D85804&page=3D
>
> >> 2.) There are the three bullet shells beneath the Sniper's-Nest window
> >> (which were fired in OSWALD'S rifle, of course).
>
> >634
>
> >> 3.) There is CE399 (which was fired in OSWALD'S rifle, too). And,
> >> whether any conspiracy theorists like it or not, that exact bullet--
> >> Commission Exhibit 399--was deemed by both the Warren Commission and
> >> the HSCA to be THE bullet that passed through both JFK and Governor
> >> Connally in Dealey Plaza.
>
> >Show us where an FBI test found blood, clothing fibers or bone
> >particles on CE 399 that connected it with either shooting victim.
>
> >> 4.) There are the two front-seat bullet fragments (which also came out of=
> > OSWALD'S rifle).
>
> >Show us the photographs of those fragments in situ.
>
> >Typical Von Pein. A lot of opinion and no evidence.
>
> More importantly, "DVP" will refuse to even *try* to refute or debate your
> refutation. He really *cannot* explain the evidence, so he simply doesn't try.
Of course! It also appears he's distancing himself from those two
primary icons: Vin da Bugliosi and RH! Wonder why? LMFAO!
Baron Wrangle
DeSalles wrote (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/
showDoc.do?docId=4885&relPageId=22) "I shot thirty melons with a
Mannlicher-Carcano and generally saw no significant motion of the
target." Oh, well, there's always "The Journal of Irreproducible
Results."