Rebutting A CT Rebuttal
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/424cd6487b5ee00d/#
REBUTTAL TO THE ABOVE CTer DRECK.........
===============================================
>>> "Now that I've read RH from cover to cover, here are a few points: 1) VB's lists are not that convincing. ... Not doing any work that day is not proof of murder." <<<
That's not at all what Vincent Bugliosi says in his book, "Reclaiming
History". You're misrepresenting what Vince said. In his comprehensive
53-item list of things that lead toward Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt (in
the chapter called "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt"), Bugliosi's 44th
numbered item among the 53 reads like this.....
"44. Oswald's clipboard was found on the sixth floor after the
assassination. Three orders for Scott, Foresman & Company were on the
clipboard, all dated November 22, 1963. Oswald had not filled any of
the orders." -- Page 965 of "RH"
So, based on that 44th item on VB's list, Vince isn't saying that
Oswald didn't do any work ALL DAY LONG on November 22nd. VB is only
saying that the three orders on LHO's clipboard had not been filled.
And I see nothing else on VB's list that has anything specifically to
do with Oswald's lack of work performed on 11/22/63.
Vince could have actually strengthened a few of the 53 items on his
list by adding certain other facts relating to some of the
items....with that 44th item being one such time.
I.E.: Vince could have significantly strengthened that item about the
clipboard (which he did not do in the "Summary" chapter) by reminding
readers exactly WHERE on the sixth floor the clipboard was found--very
near the back staircase where Oswald hid the rifle after the shooting.
In fact, the precise LOCATION of the clipboard when it was discovered,
to me, is the most significant thing about the whole "clipboard"
topic. It's my own opinion that Oswald probably left his clipboard in
that location near the stairs at the same time he pre-arranged his
little "nook" that he planned on using to hide the rifle.
He arranged the boxes in just such a fashion where it would be fast
and easy to drop his rifle down between box stacks. It was during this
"pre-arranging" of those boxes that Oswald very likely left his
clipboard in the same general area.*
* = IMO, that is. Yes, it's just a guess. But given the sum total of
all evidence surrounding Oswald's obvious guilt, I think the above
scenario makes a good deal of sense. YMMV, of course.
FOOTNOTE RE. VB's "BIG 53" --- It's my opinion that only one thing on
Vincent's 53-item list of incriminating evidence against Oswald
doesn't really belong there....and that is item #41 (re. the paraffin
test). Here's a passage from my review of "RH" concerning that
subject:
~~~~~
"The only item on Vince's list that I think really doesn't belong
there is #41, where VB talks about the results of the paraffin test on
Oswald's hands being positive. In my opinion, it was a mistake for
Vince to have placed that particular item on his list because he knows
that paraffin tests are not considered very reliable. And VB even
discusses the unreliability of such tests on page 164.
"However, in VB's defense of including the paraffin test results on
his 53-item list, I'd like to add this .... While it is, indeed, true
that paraffin tests are inherently unreliable (since the presence of
nitrates on a person's hands can be caused by various other things
besides just gunpowder residue) -- I'd also ask this question with
respect to Lee Oswald's "positive" paraffin results in this case:
"What do you suppose the odds are of something OTHER than gunpowder
residue causing that "positive" result in his paraffin test when we
also know that Lee Oswald was CARRYING A GUN ON HIM when he was
apprehended in the Texas Theater on November 22nd, 1963?
"I'd say, given these circumstances (plus the fact that the very gun
Oswald had on him when he was arrested was determined beyond all doubt
to be the weapon that killed Officer J.D. Tippit), the odds would be
pretty doggone low that something other than gunpowder resulted in
that positive paraffin conclusion.
"I think Vince Bugliosi should have probably included the above "What
are the odds?" argument as an addendum to his 41st item on page 965,
but he did not include any such addendum." -- DVP; June 2007
=========================
>>> "2) VB claims that since it is beyond doubt that LHO was the LN killer, that therefore there is no reason to discuss much of the evidence that the critics have uncovered." <<<
The exact VB quote from "RH" concerning that matter is re-printed
below....and it makes a good deal of (common) sense to me:
"With respect to the Kennedy assassination, once you establish and
know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also
NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known
or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged
discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists
have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- Page 953 of
"RH"
Now, of course, the above Bugliosi statement doesn't negate the notion
that there might have been some kind of conspiracy BEHIND Oswald's
lone-gunman actions. But I think it's a statement that makes a lot of
sense from the standpoint of arriving at the FACT that Lee Oswald shot
JFK (which is a raw fact that so many conspiracists simply refuse to
accept).
As everyone here knows very well, there are many CTers who love to
engage in the hobby of micro-analyzing every tiny thing surrounding
the JFK murder case. Everything is looked at by these curious people
with a wary eye of potential "conspiracy"; when, in fact, all of these
things that CTers "over-manage" (IMO) do not necessarily lead down a
"CT" path at all.
For example -- Take two very small incidents that Vince mentions (at
some length too) in his book -- the "Dial Ryder" incident (where an
Oswald-like person had a scope mounted on a rifle prior to November
22)...and the "Bogard" incident (which has "Oswald" taking a high-
speed test drive in a new car shortly before the assassination).
Those things are certainly "fringe" things, at best. But to hear the
conspiracy-loving kooks tell it, these things (in some way) "prove" a
conspiracy existed, with these "imposter Oswalds" running all around
Dallas.
But CTers fail to see the built-in illogic being exhibited by any
string-pullers and "patsy"-creators when it comes to incidents like
this. The CTers who think things like this lead down a CT path must
also think that the plotters were performing these NEEDLESS acts of
silliness to frame Oswald, even though each of these incidents goes
AGAINST the grain of the overall patsy plot they are trying to pull
off.
Example: The "used car" incident has Oswald apparently telling the car
dealer he'd be coming into some money in "2 or 3 weeks". That'd be
silly for any plotters to do....i.e., to essentially tell people that
Oswald will be PAID for something he'll be doing right about the time
of the assassination! Just...dumb.
And in the Ryder example, evidently some Oswald imposter was getting a
scope mounted on a NON-Carcano rifle (which is a weapon the plotters
won't be using to frame their patsy with on 11/22 anyway).
So what were these plotters trying to do here? Were they trying to
blow their plot wide open by announcing to the world (in a fashion)
that Oswald had a SECOND rifle in his possession, when we know he
really had only one rifle, his Carcano?
Anyway, those are just two of the dozens of similar examples of things
that GO NOPLACE, but CTers love to dredge them up anyway...because
such CTers fail to see the inherent illogic of these things (not to
mention the totally-MEANINGLESS nature of peripheral silliness like
the incidents mentioned above).
And those same CTers, let's face it, WANT a conspiracy to exist in the
JFK case. They NEED it. And they'll do whatever it takes and skew as
much evidence as possible in order to work the word "conspiracy" into
this murder case. Simple as that.
Because, to borrow from VB once again, to face the Oswald-Probably-
Did-
It-Alone reality is, for them, to forfeit a large section of their
lives. And who likes the idea of doing that?
=========================
>>> "He {VB} says things like 'if you were going to kill the President...you would never employ anyone like LHO' or 'if you were....., you would arrange a better escape route' or alternatively 'you would kill the killer as soon as possible'. How you or I or VB might kill a president is truly irrelevant." <<<
But Vince's GENERAL IDEA of how a PROFESSIONAL TEAM OF HITMEN who were
going to try to pull off the biggest murder in the history of the
country would LIKELY approach such a major assassination project
cannot be brushed aside...and that's because VB makes sense!
Perhaps you (or others), if they had to map out a Presidential killing
weeks/months in advance, would want to choose a marginally-decent (but
certainly not an "expert") gunman with an old 1940 Mannlicher-Carcano
to perform the biggest "hit" in history.
But I doubt a lot of people would want to rely on Mr. Oswald to get
the President killed -- and, after all, the NUMBER ONE objective of
this "hit" is to have a dead President Kennedy by the end of the day,
isn't it?
Did the "Frame The Patsy" plot actually SUPERCEDE the importance of
the "KENNEDY MUST DIE" objective/goal in the minds of these behind-
the-
scenes conspirators (conspirators that almost all CTers think existed
in the days, weeks, and months before November 22)?
That type of mindset amongst so-called "pro" assassination plotters
doesn't seem too logical to me. Seems as though the plotters got their
priorities mixed up.
And if "they" were going to frame a solo patsy for the murder, why on
this Earth would they have used multiple shooters firing from both
front and rear? That is SUICIDE...plain and simple.
No patsy plan could succeed under those conditions....which are
conditions fully endorsed, incredibly, by Jim Garrison and Oliver
Stone, and many others as well.
=========================
>>> "4) VB has a double standard for people who change their story. If they change to an LN perspective they are OK, otherwise they are either liars or silly." <<<
Have you got any specific examples you could provide here?
I'm not saying this particular argument of yours is without some
degree of merit (it probably is), but while trying to recall the many
pages of VB's book from memory right now, I cannot think of many such
examples.
It is, indeed, possible that Vince is guilty of this "double standard"
to a degree. (He's only human, after all.) One possible example
(although I'm not entirely sure as of this writing) could be with
respect to the Parkland doctors who appeared on the NOVA PBS-TV
program in 1988 and stated, in essence, that they were mistaken in
their earlier observations about a BOH wound in JFK's head.
=========================
>>> "The same applies to those who come forward years later with their stories." <<<
Again, can you provide an example or two? Offhand, I can think of only
one such example -- Jack Tatum.
There could be others, I suppose; but right now I'm drawing a blank.
Maybe Andy can refresh my memory.
=========================
>>> "5) If it is proven beyond doubt that LHO was the LN, why bother hiding the evidence?" <<<
Examples?? What evidence of a dastardly conspiracy was "hidden"?
A better question might be -- WHY in the world didn't the conspirators
merely DESTROY such plot-proving evidence, instead of leaving it lying
around somewhere for Harold Weisberg and others to uncover years
later?
=========================
>>> "VB claims that CE399 is not pristine and shows us the bottom of the 'magic' bullet. Weisberg discovered that the missing metal was removed by the FBI for testing and had nothing to do with any wounds." <<<
And did Weisberg know (and prove beyond all doubt) that all of the
approx. 2.4 missing metal from CE399 was "removed by the FBI for
testing"? First I've heard of that.
In fact, such a bold declaration re. CE399 is utterly impossible.
Why?
Because, given that pesky SUM TOTAL of everything that makes up the
mosaic of "evidence" in this case (a "sum total" that CTers love to
skew and/or completely ignore, while they throw ordinary common sense
down the toilet in the process as well), Bullet 399 HAD to have been
inside Governor Connally on 11/22/63.
There is simply no way around this basic fact surrounding this not-at-
all-"magic" bullet called CE399. (At least there's no way around this
fact when it comes to reasonable people looking at the evidence who
aren't in the habit of shouting "It Was Planted" at every fork in the
road.)
THE NON-MAGIC NATURE OF CE399: www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7bf79593cce78406
=========================
>>> "VB mentions the nick on JFK's tie, but not the evidence that shows that {a} nurse cut the tie or the evidence that no bullet residue was found in the 'nick'." <<<
Very minor points overall.
Why?
Because VB emphasizes that the SBT is true (without a shred of a
doubt)....and that a bullet (which was CE399 without a speck of a
doubt, for various reasons, which are detailed nicely in "RH")
obviously HAD to have come out of JFK's throat (tie nick or no tie
nick).
And the damage to both President Kennedy's shirt and tie are fully
consistent with the exiting point for the bullet. So the CT argument
concerning the tie damage doesn't go anywhere useful at all, because
given the totality of evidence, that single bullet DID come out of
JFK's throat and went into John Connally.
FOOTNOTE --- Vince could have buttressed his overall pro-SBT arguments
some more, IMO, by including some additional info about the importance
of CE903 (which is a Commission exhibit that depicts a workable SBT
bullet path, without doubt).
Vince does mention the "1964 photograph" (CE903) on page #502 of
"Reclaiming History", but doesn't go into any major details about what
the photo depicts. Exploring a few more of the details of that
important Commission exhibit in his book would have aided Mr. Bugliosi
to some extent, IMO.
CE903 Talk: www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
=========================
>>> "6) RH does not add any new evidence to the WCR." <<<
Nor does the book really need to add any "new evidence". What possible
"NEW" evidence could be unearthed at this post-1963 stage anyway? I
suppose it's possible something brand-new could pop up; but I can't
imagine anything earthshaking coming up 44 years after the murder.
But a task that Vince does skillfully perform in "Reclaiming History"
is to (quoting Vince): "Organize and analyze the evidence in such a
way that it makes Oswald's guilt irresistible".
I, naturally, agree. But CTers no doubt think that Vince's "in such a
way" comment indicates that he has ignored a bunch of stuff that some
people say leads down a conspiracy path.
But, of course, there are also about 1,200 or so pages (including the
CD's endnotes) that have Vince addressing and debunking gobs of
conspiracy theories.
And it's surprising how many of the silly theories being purported by
conspiracy-favoring authors can be debunked by way of ordinary,
garden-
variety common sense ALONE. Mellen, Garrison, Armstrong, Horne, and
Waldron to name but a few examples.
=========================
>>> "Even LNs are not persuaded by VB's analysis of when the shots were fired." <<<
I disagree with Vince about a few minor points regarding the SBT
timeline. But when it comes down to the brass tacks of the shooting
(e.g., 3 shots coming from Rifle C2766; the first shot at Z160; the
SBT is a rock-solid fact; a total shooting timeline of 8.4 seconds), I
agree 100% with VB.
But I will say this -- Upon reflecting on Mr. Bugliosi's unwillingness
to pin himself down to one single frame on the Zapruder Film for the
SBT shot (he thinks the SBT shot came within a range of frames, Z210-
Z222), I'm inclined to respect him for that ambiguity. Because he's
admitting, in essence, "I don't know when the SBT shot occurred, but I
know from all the evidence it DID occur".
That's not necessarily a bad thing to admit. The Warren Commission
said the very same thing (although with a slightly-different "range"
of Z-Film frames, Z210-Z225).
The WC admitted to the world that they couldn't positively pinpoint
the exact place on the film when the SBT occurred...but that doesn't
mean the SBT is wrong. Far from it.
The overall mountain of evidence (and basic common-sense factors too)
that favor the SBT being true simply cannot be ignored...with or
without Z-Film evaluation. And Vince knows this full well, too. (And
so do I.).....
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
=========================
>>> "7) VB ignores the real controversy about the wound in JFK's {back}. He only mentions the location of the wound described by the FBI agents at the autopsy--below the shoulder. ... If that was the true location of the wound and Weisberg...indicates that it was, then a lot more than the SBT goes out the window." <<<
And yet at the end of all the wrangling we're still left with the
following official evidence and information and testimony:
1.) This autopsy photo of JFK's back:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
2.) This declaration from the HSCA in 1978:
"From the reports of the experts' analyses of the autopsy photographs
and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-
rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and
that they had not been altered in any manner."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt
3.) And the all-important written-in measurements on this Face Sheet
(written on the Face Sheet by Dr. Boswell on 11/22/63):
http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif
"14 cm. from rt. acromion; 14 cm. below tip of rt. mastoid process."
And when we add up all three of the above things, the TRUE location of
John F. Kennedy's back wound can easily be located. And that location
does NOT debunk the Single-Bullet Theory in any way.
So much for Mr. Weisberg.
=========================
>>> "8) VB loves to triumphantly proclaim that any claims of {non-Oswald} shots fail because there are no other bullets found. Yet he claims 3 shots and only has 2 bullets to show for it." <<<
Well, quite obviously, Vince is talking about bullets that WENT INTO
VICTIMS' BODIES when he's talking about no non-C2766 bullets (or
fragment thereof) being found.
Common sense tells a reasonable person that any shots that totally
missed everyone and everything in Dealey Plaza do not have a very good
chance of being recovered and placed into evidence.
But almost all CTers have a much rougher road to hoe in this "Lack Of
Bullets" regard. The CTers say that JFK was hit from multiple
directions (and, hence, multiple weapons)....and yet they (the CTers)
have absolutely no non-C2766-consistent bullets or fragments to show
anybody to back up such multi-shooter claims.
THAT'S what Vincent Bugliosi is talking about when he berates CTers
about the lack of "other" bullets. And, as usual, he makes a lot of
sense. Because if JFK were hit by one or more non-Oswald
bullets.....WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE BULLETS AND/OR FRAGMENTS?
In the final analysis (with or without NAA analysis factored in;
because NAA is completely unneeded to support the following statement)
---
There is not a single bullet or bullet fragment connected with John F.
Kennedy's assassination that can be declared as having positively come
from a weapon other than Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle. All bullets and bullet fragments connected with JFK's murder
are either conclusively linked to Rifle #C2766 to the exclusion of all
other weapons, or are consistent with having come from that very same
Carcano rifle.
The above statement is (and always has been) rooted in 100% fact.
=========================================
"RECLAIMING HISTORY": FACTS AND EVIDENCE....NOT FANTASY (BOOK REVIEW):
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
=========================================
Papa Andy
David
I admire your prose style but how many times do you intend to post
this?
A few small points:
the main witness who changed his story and is accepted by VB (and DVP)
is of course Brennan
VB also approvingly mentions the HSCA uncovering a Tippitt witness in
1977
you failed to mention the lie detector 'proof' by VB which is as
irrelevant as the clipboard
you give the clipboard a nice spin but VB is saying that LHO didn't do
any work (fill any orders)
the clipboard being near where the books are kept doesn't seem like
much
you sound like VB when you talk about CE399 -- we know it hit the
Governor
because the Governor was hit
this barely qualifies as circular logic
it smacks of desperation
the missing metal is very important whether you heard of it before or
now
actually you're not knowing about Wesiberg's FOIA work in this area is
very telling
VB lists all the relevant books in his bibliography but choses to
avoid the issue
yet VB can carry on endlessly about Horne (I never heard of him or his
memo until I read RH) or George de M's early years or Martians and
Venusians
and VB has a whole chapter on a movie that was not released as a
documentary
you also misrepresent the back wound issue
it is not a question of what Weisberg wrote, 2 FBI agents were at the
autopsy and they saw the back wound in a different position than any
discussed by VB, except in a vague reference in a caption of a
picture. The agents did not have to make what they saw or claimed to
see fit any theories or try to account for any embarrassing details,
they just reported what they saw
presumably they had no reason to lie
The FBI bureaucracy never rejected those findings
I saw VB on BookTV where he repeated his claim that evidentiary points
are not important because we know LHO did it and therefore the
evidence must support it
This works for you, but it still defies logic
evidence is how cases are made and evidence must be examined
For some reason, VB is not content to stick to his best points
He could say, we have the rifle that belongs to LHO, it was fired from
LHO's workplace, we found a bullet from that rifle in the car, that
bullet hit someone in the car
This might have convicted LHO in a real court, but would have left
many questions open
I say real court because VB is over-reliant on his docudrama
It seems clear that Spence thought he had a clear winner because of
what he found in CT books, did no research or preparation, just picked
up a check
big whoop
and, btw, if a nurse testified that she cut the tie, how is that
consitent with the path of a bullet
A
aeffects
thank you
David Von Pein
>>> "David, I admire your prose style but how many times do you intend to post this?" <<<
Until you see the obvious "LN Light" perhaps? (Or is that like leaving
the porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa, as VB said in his book?)
>>> "The main witness who changed his story and is accepted by VB (and DVP) is of course Brennan." <<<
Brennan's INITIAL descriptions that he gave of the assassin (whether
you want to accept EITHER the Sawyer 12:44 APB or Brennan's 11/22
affidavit; take your pick) fully support the LN/LHO scenario. Any
reasonable person knows this. Why not you?
Brennan's fear for his life resulted in the only "change" in his
story...period. All reasonable people understand and can fully accept
this logical explanation. Why not you, Andy?
>>> "You sound like VB when you talk about CE399." <<<
Thank you. No bigger compliment can be showered upon a human being
(IMO).
>>> "{Per your evaluation of what VB says:} We know it {CE399} hit the
Governor because the Governor was hit. This barely qualifies as
circular logic. It smacks of desperation." <<<
Not when the sum total of all the evidence (and LACK of all other
bullets/fragments to account for the double-man wounding) is taken
into account.
All reasonable people can see the logicality and feasibility of the
SBT. Why not you, Andy?
There simply was nowhere else for that bullet to go except into JBC.
Period. Live with that fact, or find another bullet someplace.
Preferably several others, if you think THREE bullets must replace the
SBT, as many CTers do incredibly believe is the case (including
Garrison, Stone, et al).
Good luck on reconciling that scenario with nary a bullet in evidence
(except a "planted" 399).
>>> "You also misrepresent the back wound issue." <<<
Never. I've merely presented the FACTS of the back-wound issue. The
wound IS where it is, per the authenticated photo, the AR, the Boswell
Face Sheet, and the autopsists' never-wavering testimony.
Why you think that 2 FBI agents (who did NOT do the autopsy or write
up the AR) trump all of the above is frankly rather baffling.
But, then again, that's what CTers do best -- they try to baffle
people with speculation and supposition....rather than utilizing the
best evidence. A curious hobby.
>>> "2 FBI agents were at the autopsy and they saw the back wound in a different position..." <<<
And they were obviously (and provably) dead wrong. Most reasonable
people (when examining the sum total of the evidence surrounding the
back-wound issue) can easily accept this fact. Why can't you, Anj?
>>> "Presumably they had no reason to lie..." <<<
They weren't lying. They were just wrong. Simple as that.
Plus: For the CTers who think a blanket type "cover-up" existed, I'm
wondering why Sibert & O'Neill never get that all-important "WE'RE
FRAMING OSWALD" memo they should have received?
After all, J. Edgar was one of the key cover-uppers, and he was S&O's
boss. So why on Earth were S&O left out of the cover-up operation and
remained free to tell the "truth" re. the back wound?
>>> "VB...claim{s} that evidentiary points are not important because we know LHO did it and therefore the evidence must support it." <<<
All reasonably-intelligent people who have looked into the JFK case
for any length of time know that Oswald was certainly as guilty as
Jeffrey Dahmer of the 2 murders he (LHO) was charged with in 1963.
And reasonably-intelligent people also know that Lee Oswald was not
just some innocent patsy/puppet being manipulated by behind-the-
curtain string-pullers. Why can't you accept the obvious, Papa?
And Vince is right, as usual, when he says.....
"Once you establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done,
then you also NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the
answer is known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the
endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the
conspiracy theorists have raised through the years about Oswald's
guilt." -- "RH'; Page 953
>>> "Evidence is how cases are made and evidence must be examined." <<<
Even the "evidence" that doesn't exist? -- Like the 2 or 3 anti-SBT
bullets that surely must have taken the place of 399? Where did that
"evidence" disappear to? Or should we merely ASSUME that those 2 or 3
other bullets DID exist, and then vaporized after each one of them
WENT INTO A HUMAN BODY ON 11/22/63?
What solid, reliable PHYSICAL evidence of a conspiracy REALLY exists
in this case?
Name one piece. Just one.
>>> "And, btw, if a nurse testified that she cut the tie, how is that consistent with the path of a bullet?" <<<
Sure, the tie was certainly cut off of JFK's neck. So what? How does
that suddenly ELIMINATE the bullet hole in that same tie?
Or do CTers think it was similar to Dr. Perry's trach incision, with
the removal of the tie at Parkland totally obliterating the bullet
hole too?
And btw....don't even most CTers think that there WAS, indeed, a
bullet hole in JFK's tie? They think it went through the tie the other
way, though, right? (From front to back.)
So where does the "no bullet hole in the tie" argument end up taking
the CTers here? I'd like to know.
bigdog
There is a point regarding the removal of the tie that should be
obvious. If you are going to cut JFK's tie off, are you going to cut
through the knot. The idea is to get the tie off ASAP. I really don't
think she would try to cut through the knot.
Ben Holmes
says...
There was *no* "bullet hole" in the tie.
Another LNT'er factoid.
>> And btw....don't even most CTers think that there WAS, indeed, a
>> bullet hole in JFK's tie?
Of course not. Those who've taken the time to study the evidence know:
#1 - That there was *NO* bullet hole in the tie.
#2 - That according to testimony, the entry wound in the neck was ABOVE the tie
#3 - That testimony makes it a virtual certainty that the 'slits' and the
*abrasion* on the tie were from a nurse's scalpel.
#4 - That the spectrography results *PROVE* that no bullet passed through there.
>> They think it went through the tie the other
>> way, though, right? (From front to back.)
Of course not.
>> So where does the "no bullet hole in the tie" argument
Tain't an "argument", merely a statement of fact.
>> end up taking
>> the CTers here? I'd like to know.
>
>There is a point regarding the removal of the tie that should be
>obvious. If you are going to cut JFK's tie off, are you going to cut
>through the knot. The idea is to get the tie off ASAP. I really don't
>think she would try to cut through the knot.
Why not review the evidence on this point??? That way, instead of "thinking",
you'd *know*.
David Von Pein
huh, Ben?
That's kinda curious....don't you think?
How is it possible?
Only in a kook world, I suppose.