DEBATING MORE CONSPIRACISTS
David Von Pein
DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 1):
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY
--------------------------------------------------------------
John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963 is probably the most-studied
and scrutinized murder case in the history of the world. Hundreds of
books have been written on the subject, featuring almost as many
theories surrounding the details of how Mr. Kennedy met his awful and
bloody fate on the 22nd day of November back in '63.
I've had the opportunity to do verbal battle with several
"CTers" (conspiracy theorists) over the years via this wonderful
invention known as the Internet, and have encountered some pretty
fanciful theories being touted as the "real truth" by these critics of
the official lone-killer version of the assassination (a lone-gunman
position I agree with 100%, since there's not a scrap of physical
evidence that could possibly lead me, or any reasonable researcher, in
any other direction).
I've culled some of those "LNer vs. CTer" sessions below (just for the
fun of it, and to illustrate the patently-absurd nature of some of the
untenable positions put forth by some of the conspiracists).
The following online battles focus on the subject of the controversial
"Single-Bullet Theory", and originally took place in the months of
February, March, and May of 2005.
Let's listen in......
-------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- What is hilarious is that the WR
{Warren Report} claims that both mens' relative position between Z210
and Z225 were such that at any point during this timeframe the SBT
could work!
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- And, considering the fact that we can never
know with 100% certainty the exact location of the two men in the car
(and their precise to-the-inch relationship to each other in the
vehicle), this "Z210-Z225" "bracketing" of the SBT is a wholly
feasible and plausible conclusion. It's not an exact science. It can't
be.
Some of the angles/trajectories from the TSBD window to the victims
ARE just "guesses". Educated guesses, but guesses to a certain extent.
They've got to be. Can't be helped; and the same applies whether
you're an LNer or a CTer.
The difference in angle from the car/victims to the SN window would be
quite a small "difference" from Z210 to Z225 (less than 1 second in
time; with the car moving at about 11.2 MPH). Obviously this is true,
or the WC experts wouldn't have testified the angles could line up at
EITHER point in time.
CTers must believe that the FBI's Robert Frazier, et al, were "locked"
into the LN/SBT POV, and that these experts wouldn't have said
anything outside of that "pre-determined" SBT/LHO/LN "box" even if a
shotgun had been pointed at their temples. But that's a CT mindset
that I cannot accept whatsoever.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- John Connally testified that he was struck AFTER the
president.
DVP -- Anybody who would be stupid enough to rely on the EYEwitness
testimony of a man who WASN'T EVEN LOOKING AT THE PRESIDENT when the
President was hit is obviously also stupid enough to take Mr.
Connally's own unreliable words as the Gospel I suppose. Connally's
testimony in this specific regard is utterly worthless, and always has
been.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The wounds on Connally were inconsistent with the condition of
CE399, which again leads us to believe that CE399 was a planted
bullet.
DVP -- An assumption on your (CT) part. And NOT supported by the known
facts regarding CE399, and by further (later) tests done to see if the
SBT was possible (utilizing MC/WCC 6.5mm bullets just like Oswald's).
Such tests (in 2004) proved beyond a REASONABLE person's doubt that a
bullet COULD, indeed, have done even MORE damage to a mock (but
realistic) body double like that of John Connally and emerge in very
good condition.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- They wouldn't have seen any {bullets} in JFK because they
never looked. No X-rays were taken and no probing was done {at
Parkland Hospital}.
DVP -- That's right. But if you want to believe some theorists, the
JFK back bullet fell out during cardiac massage, meaning: It was
somewhere in that ER with JFK, and McClelland, and Perry, and Carrico,
and Jones, and Jenkins, et al. And NOBODY sees it.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- As for a bullet being found in Connally, it fell out didn't
it?
DVP -- Yes, CE399 fell out. But, per CTers, the REAL bullet that
struck Connally is another of the "vanishing" type. Never entered the
record; never was seen by anyone (including Dr. Shaw, even though he
did state on TV that there was still a bullet in JBC's thigh wound --
which we know was a misstatement, because he and Dr. Gregory both
testified to the effect that no bullets were ever recovered from JBC
or seen in JBC).
Gregory, in fact, had hospital staff searching all over the place for
a bullet; and none was found.
I guess the REAL Connally bullet must have been another piece of pure
luck for the plotters, in that it must have fallen out IN THE CAR, and
was then swept away by the "Auto Cover-Up Team" afterwards.
There must have also been a Cover-Up Team in the hospital too; because
these plotters could not possibly have known (at 12:35 PM) if MORE
"covering up" would be needed within the TWO rooms of Parkland where
the two victims laid.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- David, this was the original use for CE399 as established by
Humes on Friday night, it worked its way out during cardiac massage,
not some theorist's idea.
DVP -- Sure. But you miss the point. CE399 ISN'T a bullet connected
with the REAL wounds, per CTers (including you I assume).
So....Where did the REAL "cardiac massage fall-out" missile go? Where?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- I doubt they were thinking of finding or even looking for a
bullet at the time.
DVP -- But does that mean NOBODY would ever find it? Of course it
doesn't. Just because they might not have been LOOKING for bullets,
the bullets are THERE, SOMEWHERE (especially JFK's TWO in-the-body
bullets, per CTers).
-------------------------------------------
DVP -- I think a large part of the difficulty in honing in on just
exactly when the SBT occurred over the years (in the pre-digital era),
has been the generally-lousy Z-Film copies that have been used when
trying to determine the precise time the SBT happened.
The WC and the HSCA obviously knew there was a "SBT" to be extracted
from that Zapruder movie -- no question about that fact.
Why?
Obviously a "SBT" was the ONLY possible logical explanation given the
lack of any rear-seat limo damage (and lack of whole bullets recovered
from rear seats)...plus: given the lack of bullets in the body of JFK,
and the lack of any bullets being found elsewhere (car, hospital,
Dealey Plaza) that could have possibly represented the bullets that
were inside JFK had a bullet not gone completely through him.
Given these facts, there is no question there was just ONE single
bullet that went through Kennedy and on into Connally. And the WC and
HSCA knew this full well.
Regardless of what exact Z-Film frame the SBT equates to, the point
is: There IS a Z-Frame (somewhere on that film) that DOES equate
perfectly to the "SBT". There is no way there's NOT such a Z-Frame
given the totality of the evidence with respect to the initial
wounding of both victims.
Both the WC and HSCA did the best they could when attempting to piece
together the mystery of what time the SBT occurred on the film
(hampered greatly, quite obviously, by that damn freeway sign).
Now, just WHY the obvious (IMO) involuntary Connally reactions were
apparently never noticed by anybody who looked at the film for the WC
and HSCA, I cannot say (lousy copies used?).
But the Digital copies we have now positively point to a Z224 hit to
JBC -- that open-mouthed grimace and shoulder drop and ultra-fast hat
flip, are, in my view, the closest "proof positive" indicators that
we're going to find when it comes to verifying a bullet striking him
at ANY point on the film.
There is no other point on the Z-Film that gives us that much evidence
of a "hit" than do the frames just after Z223.
The WC and HSCA did "get it right" (overall) -- meaning: they were
right about only ONE bullet hitting both men simultaneously. They just
didn't have it pinpointed on the Zapruder Film with 100% accuracy.
But, circa 21st century, we CAN now pinpoint the SBT bullet strike.
-------------------------------------------
DVP -- It really doesn't matter WHERE Gerald Ford "moved" the wound
to. Because the detailed "14 cm." remarks of Dr. Boswell's original
Face Sheet still stand as the definitive location of JFK's back wound.
And Dale Myers' detailed animation work, plus the 2004 SBT re-creation
test, have (IMO) proven that the SBT is possible, based on the "14
cm." anatomical measurements.
Gerald Ford has said, over and over again, that he moved the wound to
place it in a more accurate location on JFK's back, for clarification
purposes and to "match" more appropriately the "14 cm." Boswell
measurement. This is EXACTLY the same reason, of course, that Boswell
moved his "dot" on the back, as well.
Mile-high mountains have been manufactured out of proverbial back-
wound mole hills with regard to both Boswell's and Ford's "moving" of
the wound location.
If Ford's (or Boswell's) "dots" are too high on the back, it's because
BOTH of these men were estimating the wound, without having the
benefit of measuring body landmarks on a chart to make the "dots"
precisely accurate.
But, again, it really makes no difference at all where these
unimportant "dots" are located -- because we still have the "14-cm."
notes to guide us on the back wound.
The problem with attempting to place the back wound in an exact
location on a static non-JFK figure on a piece of paper is that it
won't equate perfectly to JFK's exact Mastoid location. Therefore, any
"dots" placed on just a piece of paper will be (obviously) just pure
"guesses" (and that applies to Dr. Boswell or Gerald Ford or whoever
is doing the dot-placing; it's just not going to be super-exact; which
is why, obviously, Dr. Boswell put in not only the "dot" on the Face
Sheet, but the "14 cm." remarks as well).
"14 cm. from the tip of the Mastoid Process" will equate to a slightly
different place from person to person, depending on length of neck,
etc. It's going to vary a little bit on virtually each individual
human being (obviously).
I've performed this easily-done measurement on myself -- and when I
measured 5.5 inches (which is exactly 14 cm.) below the "Right Mastoid
Process" (which is located approx. at the tip of the right earlobe),
an assumed "wound" on my back would be very close to just where we
find it on President Kennedy's upper back (via the autopsy photograph
showing his back wound).
And, given the known exit wound on the front of JFK's neck per the
official autopsy report (which was signed by all three principal
autopsists) -- a throat wound that was totally obliterated, granted,
by Dr. Malcolm Perry's trach at Parkland Hospital, but we know within
a few millimeters where that wound must have been -- there is a
definite DOWNWARD trajectory from back-to-front when connecting these
bullet holes.
-------------------------------------------
DVP -- The CTers (as usual) misrepresent drastically the nature of the
JFK throat wound. It was said to POSSIBLY have been an entrance wound
on 11/22/63. But it was ALSO said by the doctors who saw it that it
could very well have been EITHER "an entry or an exit wound for a
bullet"......
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone,
could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"
DR. MALCOLM PERRY -- "It could have been either."
===========================================
RELATED "SBT" LINKS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e06a29392572c072
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
===========================================
David Von Pein
DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 2):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From May 2005, June 2005,
March 2006, and February 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- As far as Kennedy being killed by his
enemies being conjecture, this may come as a shock to you, Von Pein,
but in homicides, that's usually the way it goes. People are usually
killed by their enemies.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- True. But the "enemy" you're referring to
isn't an estranged spouse or a single distraught employee who went to
work one day and decided to mow down the boss with an AK-47. You're
claiming there was some broad, vast conspiracy of MANY different
"enemies" -- which is a theory that is totally unprovable in any
fashion on your part.
And you're purporting that these "people" got together (whoever the
heck they might have been who hated Kennedy's guts) and made the pre-
planned decision to kill the Chief Executive, rather than just simply
rigging the election in November 1964 to get JFK out of the White
House.*
* = Which, of course, would be a far less-risky operation than
actually becoming willingly involved in an assassination plot -- a
"plot" that would pepper the "enemy" with up to 10 bullets from
varying directions, per some theorists, and then attempt to have the
blame placed at just one "Patsy's" doorstep. That type of plan is just
plain dumb; but no CTer can see that it is, due to the CT blinders
being about a mile thick.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Can he {DVP} possibly believe that the federal institutions
who were involved {in the assassination} would allow the real evidence
to surface?
DVP -- They would have had NO CHOICE -- that's the whole point of why
such a nutty "Erase All The Evidence Immediately After It Happens"
assassination plot couldn't have possibly been pulled off in a million
years -- and my whole point of just WHY such a nutty "Patsy" scheme
would NEVER HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED IN THE FIRST PLACE (unless those
involved had a Death Wish themselves).
There would have been NO POSSIBLE WAY to "control" ALL of the bullet
(and wound-location) evidence five minutes after the assassination
(especially inside TWO different victims, the intended victim, JFK,
plus a person they obviously never meant to hit at all, John
Connally).
Somebody is going to see something they shouldn't in all this
confusion and chaos just after it occurred (probably LOTS of people;
i.e., non-plotters!) at the place the plotters have got to know the
President is going to be taken just after the shooting -- a local
Dallas hospital.
Such a plot to eliminate a sitting President is just ASKING to be
caught. Especially when there were obviously so many other better ways
to eliminate the target, rather than doing it via a crackpot "Patsy"
plan, which includes the possibility of needing to eradicate God knows
how many bullets and wounds, and strong-arming God knows how many
military people, making them keep their mouths shut for the rest of
their lives.
And just that mere POSSIBILITY of these things occurring is enough to
make any plotters put on the brakes when it comes to considering that
type of screwy plan.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/30f318ea48653a72
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The forensic evidence shouts out the word TAMPERED!
DVP -- JFK's body could not POSSIBLY have been "tampered with" prior
to the Bethesda autopsy. Too many witnesses to confirm that the casket
was NEVER left unattended. Kennedy aide Dave Powers verified that
fact....
"The coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack
of malarkey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off
of it during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got
up to go to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenny O'Donnell
went with her, but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let
go of it. In fact, several of us were with it through the whole trip,
all the way to Bethesda Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the
way that fellow said. Not even thirty seconds. I never left it." --
David Powers; 1987
Dave Powers is a "plotter" too, I suppose. Right?
You are wrong. Simple as that. And you're kooky at the same time, for
even BEGINNING to believe in the Lifton-esque crap you're advocating.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- You do realize that if they {the proverbial "Real Assassins"}
had gotten a kill shot from behind, that all the cameras and all the
witnesses would not have made any difference. They did not get that
kill shot, so that is why we are where we are today.
DVP -- Well, obviously, I don't "realize" that at all (since there was
only ONE shooter to begin with). But you realize, don't you, that the
ONLY way any type of "Blame The Lone Patsy Named Oswald" scheme could
have possibly succeeded is if one of the following two things
happened?......
1.) The conspirators planned the Patsy plot correctly and wisely from
the beginning and used JUST the ONE shooter in the Oswald window (with
an Oswald look-alike using Oswald's own rifle).
--Or:--
2.) If ALL the frontal shots miraculously MISS everybody in Dealey
Plaza.
And, to the best of my knowledge, NO CTer believes EITHER of the above
occurred in 1963.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Since two of the shots came from the front and you and the
Bugman {aka Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi} buy the idea that they came from
the rear, it looks like the "MULTI-SHOOTER Patsy plot" worked.
DVP -- You're, naturally, looking at the event through CT-tainted
eyeballs. And you, naturally, will retort that I am crazy and only
looking at the event through rose-colored, Vincent-slanted "LN eyes".
So, with that argument out of the way -- Let me ask you if you truly
think it was a GOOD idea to "Frame" the lone Patsy by using 3 or 4
guns, and 5 to 10 gunshots (depending upon which crazy theory you're
examining)?
And was it truly a GOOD plan to shoot President Kennedy from the FRONT
at all -- the exact OPPOSITE direction from where your one and only
"Patsy" is located?
You realize, don't you, that the people organizing such a nutty multi-
shooter scheme SHOULD have at least considered the POSSIBILITY that
EVERY SHOT FIRED BY EVERY SHOOTER WOULD HAVE HIT THE TARGET!
Agreed?
Or was it the INTENTION of the plotters to have only SOME of the non-
Oswald shots strike the target? What would be the point at all, then,
of even placing those shooters to the front of the limo in the first
place, if the INTENT wasn't to hit the President with EVERY shot?
In short, you have no leg to stand on in this argument. Because ANY
"Patsy" plot that features shooters at locations where your patsy is
NOT located is a plan that only a band of lunatic conspirators would
have OK'ed and a plan that only a person living in a fantasy world
could possibly have thought would have even the slimmest chance of
succeeding.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7448f602cc9b26e3
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- As much as I hate to, I agree with your assessment. If the
secondary object of the plan was to frame LHO as a lone nut (the first
obviously was to kill the President), it makes no sense to fire
multiple times from 3 different locations, especially from the front.
DVP -- Exactly. But as far as the "Patsy" plot being "secondary", it
sure seems like a lot of CTers have put a lot of effort into proving
Oswald was just what he said he was -- "A Patsy" -- including the
CTers' belief that covert operatives were utilizing "Fake Oswalds" all
over the place....plus "faking" multiple photographs of Oswald with
his guns to further implicate their "Patsy"....plus the "planting" of
multiple pieces of evidence (including CE399 at Parkland)....plus the
after-effects of the Patsy scheme, which would include the faking of
various autopsy photos and X-rays -- or (as some believe) the actual
physical altering of JFK's wounds.
Seems to me like a LARGE-SCALE effort to pin the murder of JFK (plus
J.D. Tippit too!) on that one lone "Patsy" named Oswald is being
implied with great force by the CTers (but of course has never been
"proven").
For something that I now see via some messages on this board is being
declared by Forum members as "secondary" in nature, an awful lot of
effort and energy seems to have been exhibited by both the (supposed)
conspirators AND the CTers who wish to promote such an unproven Patsy
theory.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd321914097fcd2d
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- What if you couldn't keep Oswald on the 6th floor?
DVP -- Kind of an odd question coming from a CTer who obviously
believes Oswald WASN'T kept on the 6th Floor during the shooting
(where the plotters SHOULD have made sure they kept him at 12:30 PM on
November 22).
Which, of course, is just another (in a lengthy series) of items that
makes the widely-accepted multi-shooter & multi-directional "Patsy"
plot so irrational and illogical and reckless in nature.
For, if Oswald was truly being "set up" (by any number of "real"
shooters, be it 1, 2, or 52 gunmen), the conspirators would have
certainly kept an eye on their patsy during the time of the actual
shooting (to make sure he wasn't seen wandering elsewhere in the TSBD
or in Dealey Plaza). Isn't this just COMMON SENSE on the part of these
"covert operatives" organizing such a supposedly well-orchestrated and
finely-tuned "Patsy" plot?
But, per many CT accounts, do the 6th-Floor "plotters" KNOW where Lee
Oswald is located at precisely 12:30? No. Many CTers feel Oswald was
in the second-floor lunch room, potentially in full view of any non-
plotters who would be wandering through that room at 12:30 PM.
They try to frame a single Patsy using several guns, including FRONTAL
shots, opposite from the patsy's window. And they then throw all
common sense out the window by firing way more bullets at the target
than Oswald (alone) could have possibly squeezed off in this given 8-
second timeframe. And then, if that's not reckless enough, they don't
even seem to know where their patsy is located at the exact time the
assassination is taking place!
For sheer recklessness, this activity might take home first prize!
If the above style "Patsy Plot" DID somehow succeed (as apparently
most CTers think it did), then heaven-sent miracles truly are possible
in this world.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- CE729 is the photo that Studebaker took at about 1:15 PM that
day. There is no paper bag where the cops claim they found one.
DVP -- Lookie, kids! A CT-Kook is making up his own evidence (and
testimony) again! In actuality, CE729....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce729.jpg
....was taken AFTER the SN boxes had been dusted for prints. Let's
listen to J.C. Day of the DPD (a main conspirator/teller of lies, per
many CT buffs, of course).....
MR. BELIN -- "I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Commission
Exhibit 729 and ask you to state if you know what this is."
MR. DAY -- "729 is a photograph of the inside wall, south and east
walls, right at the corner of the building at the sixth floor of the
Texas Book Depository."
MR. BELIN -- "I notice some pipes on the right portion of this picture
as you face it, and I also notice a box. I will first ask you to state
if this picture was taken before or after anything was removed from
the area."
MR. DAY -- "The sack had been removed."
MR. BELIN -- "Had any change been made of the position of that box
that is set off by itself in the center of the picture?"
MR. DAY -- "Well, it is possible the box had been moved. This is an
approximate position of it. The box had been dusted for powder and--
dusted for prints. The black powder is visible on it. It is possible
the box may have been moved a tiny bit."
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- I defy anybody to imagine that the bag Montgomery was carrying
would be thought of as a "guncase". ... It's nothing but a large
rectangular paper sack. And the creases on it indicate it had been
folded around some books.
DVP -- LOL. Some conspiracy-loving kooks apparently think that Oswald
would have taken that long paper bag to Irving in an UNFOLDED,
PRISTINE, STRAIGHT-OFF-THE-ROLLER state.
Obviously, if Oswald wanted to take measures to HIDE what he was doing
prior to November the 22nd, he would have concealed the paper for the
makeshift bag in some manner....which, naturally, would mean FOLDING
the darn thing in various places prior to placing the rifle into
it...just like you might do if wrapping the paper around books.
Voila! A makeshift guncase that STILL HAS FOLDS/CREASES/WRINKLES in
it!
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag2.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag3.jpg
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The smoke was seen and smelled.
DVP -- Yep. And seen up to several MINUTES after the gun supposedly
went off on the Grassy Knoll. A passenger on one of the press busses
at the rear of the motorcade is said to have seen smoke. Did these
goofball assassins KEEP ON FIRING even AFTER Kennedy's car left the
Plaza...just for the practice maybe?
That's a GREAT plot (and gun) there. ....
Let's NOT use silencers on the Knoll gun(s) -- even though we want Oz
blamed for this whole thing.
And: Let's use a musket that emits scads of LINGERING SMOKE (for
MINUTES, or at the very least, MANY, MANY SECONDS after being
discharged).
And: Let's use a gun that results in gunpowder that can be smelled
also for MINUTES after the gun is fired.
A reasonable person just MIGHT ask themselves -- Gee, if a person that
deep in the motorcade said smoke was visible, I wonder if SOMETHING
ELSE BESIDES A RIFLE could have caused that smoke?
Your make-believe plotters were reckless as all get out, I'll tell ya
that much. But since they are make-believe, they can be anything a
kook wants them to be. Right?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- He {JFK's main body-shielding SS agent, per this CT-Kook} was
left at the airport.
DVP -- And yet, even WITHOUT Agent Rybka in that Secret Service
follow-
up car, that car was PACKED to the gills with SS agents -- eight of
them. Including the MAXIMUM on each running board (two on each side).
Was Rybka supposed to run alongside X100 (or hang onto one of the
handrails) ALL THE WAY TO THE TRADE MART -- including while the cars
were on Stemmons, moving 50 MPH or more?
Sorry, but an "LOL" is mandatory at this point. Let's all join
in....LOL!
===========================================
AN AUXILIARY (AND FUN) KOOK-BASHING SESSION:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e089ee8b738cad76
===========================================
David Von Pein
DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 25):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From June 2006, July
2006, October 2006, November 2006, and December 2006.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- The best piece of evidence of a
conspiracy is the way JFK's head jerks backward after being shot.
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- The "head snap to the rear" is totally
meaningless, because of the medical/autopsy evidence associated with
President John F. Kennedy's head wound, to wit.....
1.) One entry wound (on the back of JFK's head).
2.) One exit wound (chiefly located on the right side of JFK's head).
3.) Bullet fragment from Lee Harvey Oswald's gun recovered from JFK's
head.
4.) Oswald's gun was located to the REAR of the President's car during
the entire shooting timeline on November 22, 1963.
Adding #1 through #4 = A frontal head shot is not even REMOTELY
possible, regardless of President Kennedy's head movements after he
was shot.
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 documented 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.
JFK Conspiracy Kooks = Isolationists of the worst kind.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e2a229774508e859
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Almost everything you propose {re. JFK's throat wound being
one of exit} should be dismissed immediately.
DVP -- Why do gobs of CTers always leave their common sense at the
door when it comes to so many different aspects of the JFK
assassination?
Simple Math 101:
1.) An entry (bullet) wound in JFK's back.
2.) A bullet wound in JFK's throat.
3.) No bullets in the body.
4.) No bones hit in body that would stop a bullet.
Logical solution = A bullet went clean through JFK's neck.
Give me something MORE logical from the CT perspective. I'd love to
hear it. Should I hold my breath waiting though?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- If it was actually Oswald, then several other people were seen
on the 6th floor as well, which also means conspiracy by definition.
DVP -- It most certainly means nothing of the kind. If it DID mean
that (and couldn't be anything else BUT "conspiracy"), we'd therefore
have to say that Bonnie Ray Williams is definitely a conspirator as
well (which, of course, is nonsense), since he WAS on the 6th Floor of
the Depository eating his lunch shortly before the assassination, and
was very likely seen by some witnesses on the ground before leaving
the sixth floor at approximately 12:15 PM.
The "Multiple People On The 6th Floor Prior To 12:30 PM" theory does
NOT automatically equal "conspiracy". Never has. And there's not a
single witness who claims to have seen MULTIPLE RIFLES on the 6th
Floor. There was one man, holding one rifle. And that one man was
(without question, IMO) Lee Harvey Oswald.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/182cecc7c4e37bb2
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The killer would not need to run if he knew that the police
were going to blame the murder on Lee Oswald.
DVP -- This would, of course, assume that (somehow) EVERY policeman
near Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 had been "in" on the "Let's Frame
Oswald" plot.
Because if just ONE cop wasn't "in" on this massive plot, and that one
cop ran into the real killer with a smoking gun....what do the CT-
Kooks think would have happened next?
The kooks will probably answer -- 'That cop's days are numbered;
probably numbering in single digits.'
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d52845e6c744cccf
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The fear increased when the cops took him {Howard Brennan} to
police headquarters and "warned" him that they couldn't keep his
identity secret and he and his family could be in great danger.
DVP -- Did the DPD use this same "warned of danger" process on all of
the J.D. Tippit witnesses too? Is that why those witnesses identified
Oswald as a murderer on 11/22/63, too?
Or did the so-called crooked cops just get lucky when their lone patsy
in the Kennedy case just happened to ACTUALLY kill a person on the
very same day the police were in the process of setting him up as a
patsy in the President's death?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- He {Howard Brennan} knew Lee was not the man whom he had seen
with a rifle.
DVP -- It was very nice of Brennan to provide a pretty fair
description of the "patsy" in his 11/22/63 affidavit, though, wasn't
it?
I guess both Brennan and the Patsy-Framers just got lucky (yet again)
when the description Brennan provided in his initial November 22
affidavit just happened to be a description which did NOT EXCLUDE THE
PATSY.
Sure, I realize Brennan's affidavit description isn't spot-on perfect
for Oswald -- but it's very doubtful that any description from a
witness under those circumstances would be absolutely 100% perfect.
Howard Brennan was giving GENERALITIES concerning the man he saw in
the sniper's window. Brennan didn't have a tape measure or a weighing
scale handy at the time (with which to verify every last detail).
Brennan, on November 22nd, described a "white man" (which Oswald
was) .... "slender" (which Oswald was) .... "early 30s" (Oswald looked
older than 24, IMO, and possibly in Brennan's opinion too) .... 5'10"
in height (Oswald was 5'9").
Brennan's "weight" figure was too high, true...but at the SAME time he
described the man as "slender", which Oswald certainly was.
Pretty fortunate for all concerned, huh? It was certainly fortunate
for Brennan (if he was really a liar later on, as most CTers seem to
think). And it was fortunate for those ever-lucky Patsy-Framers, in
that Brennan didn't happen to describe a "black man; age 50; 6'2"; 210
lbs.; with a beard".
The luck never runs out for those conspirators it seems. They must
have had a patent on it.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- {Bonnie Ray} Williams was presented with what sounds like a
direct quote from Brennan, the gist of which was that he, Brennan, had
seen Williams on the 5th floor, but Williams denied that Brennan had
pointed him out.
DVP -- It looks like the "Let's Blame Anybody Except Oswald" club and
the CT-Kook's "Hairsplitters" club are meeting at the same time now
(via the above idiocy).
Fact is -- Brennan POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED two people who were just one
floor below Oswald in the TSBD.
Jarman, Williams, and Norman were all in the windows on the 5th
Floor....with Jarman just one window to the west of the others.
Even if Brennan had only IDed ONE of the black men he had seen, it
would be enough to PROVE that a person COULD positively identify
another human being located on the upper Depository floors from
Brennan's vantage point across Elm Street.
Any more hairs you kooks care to split? And after splitting those, you
can then split the split hairs. That oughta be fun too.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- One photo was taken of a bullet being recovered that is
nowhere in evidence.
DVP -- Kook Logic at its finest. Something that is "nowhere in
evidence" is considered a prime reason for certain CTers to disbelieve
something else (i.e., Oswald's lone guilt) that has all of the stuff
that IS in evidence favoring its likelihood.
Badge Man and "his" shot are "nowhere in evidence" either....so let's
make believe a bullet came out of BM's gun and went into JFK's brain.
Sound reasonable?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Simple. More than one shooter.
DVP -- Here we have the "Kook Double Standard"....i.e., CT clowns
require detailed SBT re-creations from LNers to show that the SBT is
doable. And when a very-acceptable re-creation does come along (the
2004 "Beyond The Magic Bullet" test in Australia, which proved to a
reasonable certainty that the SBT is possible), CTers say "Not good
enough! It's gotta be more accurate! Start again!".
But when I ask a CTer for a much-less-demanding verbal item, such as
some type of logical (and at least semi-detailed) anti-SBT shooting
scenario, here's the type of response I'm treated to:
"Simple. More than one shooter."
Gotta love those CTers. They never fail to fail the "logic" test.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The cigarette package and the cigarette butts that were
removed from the sniper's nest could NOT have been left there by
Oswald...because Oswald did not smoke.
DVP -- It sure was stupid of those "real killers" to leave cigarette
remnants in the Sniper's Nest when they knew (or should have known,
what with their keeping constant tabs on their patsy in the months
leading up to the murder) that Oswald did not smoke. Silly mistake
indeed, huh?
In the final analysis, however, cigarette butts and a Viceroy package
in the SN in no way lets Oswald off the hook...and if you think it
does, you're crazy.
Did anybody search the rest of the sixth floor, to see if there were
discarded cigarette remnants elsewhere on that floor?
That "warehouse" floor of the TSBD was described as dusty and dirty
(hence, not exactly bound to make Good Housekeeping magazine as a
prime example of tidiness). Cigarette butts could have very well been
all over the place, and not just in the SN.
-------------------------------------------
DVP -- The JFK Assassination....In Verse:
A one-patsy plot featuring more than one gun?
Why would that plan be needed to get the job done?
Did the plotters get lucky when Oswald wouldn't crack?
Or could it be true that Lee really did kill Jack?
The Z-Film, the photos, the gun, and every shell...
Is there ANYTHING in this case that kooks think doesn't smell?
A plot of this size was a pretty big job...
How many were there -- an Army-sized mob?
Is there any coherence to any kook's plots?
I kinda doubt it -- they've got from 4 to 12 shots!
Did Badge Man really fire the head shot that day?
And if he did -- where's the BOH spray?
I have a strong feeling the conspiracy end is near...
Because Bugliosi is coming -- and he's an LNer kooks should fear.
David Von Pein
>>> "I'm glad to see you take DVP to task for his mish-mash and gobbleygook. It gets tedious showing him to be a liar time after time....{further bullshit excised}..." <<<
Somebody take a picture of the above text....it's needed for the next
edition of "Pot & Kettle" magazine.
>>> "Von Pea Brain is using the same methods the Warren Commission taught him over 40 years ago." <<<
Yeah, the WC taught me their methods in the early '60s....when I was 3
years old. (I learned pretty well for such a young-un, huh?)
>>> "He {Von Pea Brain} has nothing original or new." <<<
And why in this world would I need something "original or new"? The
case was solved by the DPD (for all intents and purposes) the very
weekend the assassination occurred in November 1963.
Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself, shot and killed 2 men in Dallas, using
his own guns to do so. Mark VII.
Why do I need to add something "new" here? Or is it your opinion that
I should somehow be able to come up with the missing (Tague) bullet?
Or maybe I'm supposed to come up with a new tape recording taken in
DP, wherein we can hear Oswald's distinct voice yelling out, "Take
THAT, John Kennedy! This one's for Fidel!"?
What type of "new" LHO-did-it stuff should I be unearthing, circa
2007, do you think?
It's the CTers who feel the need for a "new" batch of guesswork every
so often. Take Don Willis as a good example, and Don's wild fairy tale
about how 18-year-old kid Danny Arce killed JFK from the FIFTH floor
of the TSBD, while other Depository employees ran around waving
useless rifles out of the WRONG windows as they complicated their
crazy plot to absurd heights of complexity.
For the full "ARCE DID IT" laughfest, click the link below (and ya
GOTTA love this...if for only the SHEER BALLS it took to write this
fantasy!):
That's just one example, among many, of CTers stepping up to the plate
and striking out on three straight pitches (every time).
Although I must give Donald at least a teeny bit of credit, in that at
least he had the gonads to actually place that crackpot theory on the
Internet CT table for all to read (and laugh at).
A good many (most, in fact) CTers fail to EVER state their precise
scenarios of how JFK met his death at the hands of these sinister
forces that supposedly surrounded him that November day.
Ben "Mega Kook" Holmes being a prime example of an "isolationist" type
of CTer who lives in a piecemeal world of shadowy conspiracy 24/7. But
he's smart enough to never, EVER put on the table a shot-by-shot,
detailed CT scenario re. the way things really went down on 11/22/63.
Because if Holmes ever DID do that, he'd be laughed at even harder
than we laugh at Mr. Willis' "Arce" theory.
In summary...nothing "new" is required to solve the JFK and Tippit
murder cases. The Dallas Police solved both of those cases back in
'63. All the Warren Commission did was to verify the guilt of one Lee
Harvey Oswald (beyond all reasonable doubt).
David Von Pein
>>> "Why would anyone need to join in when I've been able to KO you on my own?" <<<
You couldn't KO a dead ant when it comes to your idiotic theory about
JFK's brain. And I doubt very seriously that there's even a single
mega-kook in this place who believes that a group of nutty plotters
placed the loose brain of JFK back into his head before Humes'
autopsy. (And these kooks will believe about anything.)*
* = Or do you merely believe Paul O'Connor's story ("No brain in head
at all")? Which, if true, means that Humes & Co. were all liars and
they just PRETENDED that the brain was removed at autopsy. Which also
means (if you're correct about every single "cut" of a brain cord
being ultra-important on an autopsy report) that Humes & Co. were
utter fools for not CONTINUING THEIR CHARADE when they failed to say
they cut these cords in their report. (Pretty stupid of them, huh?)
So, which is it? ---
1.) Believe O'Connor's nutty story and also, by necessity, believe
Humes is "double the fool/cover-upper" for just forgetting to put
something in the report about "brain snips".
Or:
2.) Believe that some idiot henchmen removed JFK's brain and then
decided to put it back into the head before the autopsy. (And, via
this option, Humes is an honest man...but still fails to say a word
about the brain just lying loose in the President's skull. Nor does
anyone else.)
You're dead either way, Mr. Kook. Neither version makes a lick of
sense. But keep on a-tryin'. Somebody'll come along and lap up your
silliness. Some day.
Also (re. #2 option above) ---
Of course, there's no possible TIMEFRAME available for which this team
of idiots to have accomplished this grisly task prior to Humes, et al,
opening that casket at Bethesda at approx. 7:35 PM ET on 11/22/63.
But don't let that little "time" problem bother you. After all, it's
never made David Lifton flinch for a minute either. He's not sure when
or how the body was swiped...but by golly he KNOWS it was swiped! So
you can believe that too...if you wanna remain a Mega-Kook.
>>> "Did you notice that no one came in to defend you..." <<<
So? There's no need. Any sane person knows your theory is loony and
outlandish to begin with. There's no real need to reinforce that fact.
And I took note of this many people defending your insanity --- Zero.
Nice.
>>> "One of the things that NEVER HAPPENED that we both agree on is that Humes didn't record severing a single attachment." <<<
So what? Who the hell cares?
Show me proof that EVERY AUTOPSY report ever written makes specific
mention in its written report of the cutting of EVERY single brain-
holding cord.
I want that proof on my desk, by noon, May 31st. Good luck. (Kook.)
cdddraftsman
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/8ed1c075...
And nary a word from our resident psycho-drama cases ? Can you imagine
that ?
Excellent post DVP !
tl
David Von Pein
>>> "Bugliosi is a sloppy researcher." <<<
Bullshit.
>>> "On page 25, he {Vincent Bugliosi} describes the Presidential limousine: Weighing about seventy-five thousand pounds with its special build and heavy armor..." <<<
BUZZ! Wrong. Bugliosi never said "seventy-five thousand pounds". He
said "seventy-five hundred pounds".
That's just one of the many errors made by Anthony Marsh in his
ongoing 99,000-page Internet volume entitled: "LET'S CONCENTRATE ON
MEANINGLESS CHAFF DAY-&-NIGHT AND NIGHT-&-DAY".
>>> "BUZZ! Wrong. Kennedy's Lincoln was not armored." <<<
I think Vince did make a mistake there indeed. I've always been under
the impression that no portion of JFK's limo [SS-100-X] was armor-
plated prior to 11/22/63.
And via the two source notes that VB provides on Page 25 of his book
relating directly to the "armored" issue ["2 H 66, WCT Roy H.
Kellerman; 2 H 129, WCT William Robert Greer"], the word "armor" does
not appear on either of those two WC pages of testimony.
So, yes, it appears that Vince did make an error when he said "heavy
armor" on Page 25.
Okay. So, with that small error being revealed, let's move on to
Anthony Marsh's next chaff-happy gripe about Vincent T. Bugliosi's
very good book....
>>> "Again on page 25: {Quoting Mr. Bugliosi, despite Mr. Marsh failing to put in any quotation marks at all, just like the previous VB quote mentioned by Mr. Marsh above:} There is also an electrical system, operable by the president [sic] himself provided the top is down, to raise that seat and its footrest by as much as eight inches from their normal positions. {/VB quote off} .... BUZZ. Wrong again. The documents show that it could be raised 10-1/2 inches." <<<
BUZZ. Wrong. At least you're wrong based on the source note provided
by Bugliosi regarding this point, which is a source note that points
to this citation: "2 H 129, WCT William Robert Greer".
Bugliosi got the "8 inches" figure directly from the Warren Commission
testimony of Secret Service Agent Bill Greer (in Volume #2 of the WC,
page 129, linked below), where Greer specifically says the following
about the mechanical nature of the rear seat of SS-100-X:
"The back seat on this car would raise 8 inches. It was
electric, and you could lift, you could raise, the seat up 8 inches
from the ground, from the floorboards. It had a little step that went
with it. The President could raise it up and down himself. He had a
button alongside that would cause it to go up and down when the top
wasn't down. It wouldn't go up and down when the top was down. But
when it was off he could raise it up or down, and it would be above
the other seat." -- WILLIAM R. GREER
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0069a.htm
So, Greer was certainly of the opinion during his 1964 WC session that
the rear seat could only be raised "8 inches", not "10-1/2 inches".
Perhaps other sources regarding the rear-seat mechanism do, indeed,
indicate that the seat could be raised higher than the "8 inches"
indicated by Agent Greer. I do not know.
But I do know this -- the above detailed reference to the exact number
of inches that the rear seat of Limo SS-100-X could be raised, plus
the details regarding the exact weight of the car ("seventy-five
hundred pounds"), are things that indicate to me that author Vincent
Bugliosi was doing an excellent job of digging deep into the Warren
Commission volumes while searching and verifying trivial little facts
like the two mentioned above.
And my guess would be that Mr. Bugliosi probably didn't think it was
altogether necessary to look BEYOND the WC testimony of Secret Service
agent Bill Greer in order to double- and triple-check relatively-
trivial details like the exact weight of the President's limousine and
the precise number of inches the rear seat could be raised.
Yes, Vince B. strives for accuracy as much as possible. I'm sure
that's true. But with so many details and ultra-trivial facts being
revealed in VB's "Four Days In November" chapter of his book
"Reclaiming History", I would expect to have a few small details and
facts ending up slightly off the mark.
In fact, I myself have amassed my own list of such minor errors that
pop up in "RH" (via my September 2007 Internet post below):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ac345c6c5a9afaf2
So, yes, there are some minor errors in Mr. Bugliosi's massive
publication....there are bound to be some errors like that in a work
that immense. But none of the errors that appear within the 2,800+
total pages of VB's book amount to a hill of beans when it comes to
the FINAL "LONE ASSASSIN" CONCLUSION reached by Bugliosi in
"Reclaiming History".
If you'd like to start a battle of "errors" within certain books
relating to JFK's assassination, I'm quite sure I could dig deep into
a couple of conspiracy-slanted volumes that I have on the shelf and
provide quite a list of errors and omissions and outright distortions
that reside within those CT publications.
But, I guess Tony thinks Bugliosi's bottom-line "LHO DID IT ALONE"
conclusion should be tossed out the window because of a potential 2.5-
inch error made by VB regarding the back seat of the President's car.
(Even though, as I mentioned before, Vincent's "error" there really
isn't an "error" at all, based on the Greer citation provided by
Source Note #118 on Page 25 of VB's book.)
>>> "These are just two obvious errors in the first few pages. His book is full of thousands of such errors and lies. And you praise him for his errors and lies." <<<
<chuckles warmly at the above blatant exaggeration>
"Thousands of such errors and lies", eh?
Geez, looks like Tony's been busy micro-analyzing VB's book for the
"thousands" of "errors and lies" that rest within its covers. (But,
perhaps Tony really meant to say "hundreds" instead of "thousands"?
Kind of like the mistake he made when he said "thousand" earlier in
his post. ~shrug~)
REPRISE:
>>> "There is also an electrical system, operable by the president [sic] himself..." <<<
On this "[sic]" point I fully agree with Tony Marsh. I think that the
word "President" should always be capitalized. Vince B., though, never
capitalizes that word in his JFK book (unless the word is immediately
followed by the actual name of a certain President).
Technically-speaking, however, spelling the word "president" with a
lower-case "p" is not incorrect at all (if the President's name
doesn't immediately follow it, that is).
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/president
So, at least Tony Marsh can't throw all of the evidence against Lee
Harvey Oswald out the window based solely on Vinnie's use of a lower-
case "p" on occasion. (Whew! Thank goodness for that.)
=============================================
MEGA-REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY":
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
=============================================
David Von Pein
PATRICK SPEER WROTE:
>>> "From our exchanges I've come to accept that there is more to you than there is to many LNers (e.g. cdddraftsman, who just likes to hate and be hated in return). Your review--not all positive--of Bugliosi's book shows that you aren't afraid to point out errors made by other LNs, even errors made by your hero. Furthermore, your acknowledgment that much of your theory regarding the assassination is YOUR theory, and not some mythical "official" theory (as purported by most LNs unfamiliar with the uncomfortable fact that the WC and the HSCA were in wide disagreement on many issues, and that the HSCA itself was in disagreement with itself on many others, including the locations of Kennedy's wounds) is admirable. Now, if you would just measure 14 cm from the lower tip of your right mastoid process, and acknowledge that this places the wound on your back, and not on the base of your neck, we could get somewhere." <<<
Are you kidding, Pat? I've ALWAYS acknowledged that "upper back" fact
re. the "14 cm from mastoid" measurement.
I've measured it on myself, my mom, and other people too. And such
measurements ALWAYS place the "wound" in the upper "back", not the
"neck"....just where we see it in the autopsy pic....and just where
Arlen Specter's probe/rod is located in CE903.
The Single-Bullet Theory works PERFECTLY with the wound in President
Kennedy's UPPER BACK, not his "neck"....and it always did. CE903
PROVES this to be true. Just look:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
=============================
THE SBT PERFECTION OF CE903:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
=============================
RECLAIMING HISTORY:
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
=============================
Papa Andy
it makes me wonder
were you in the Wizard of Oz?
A
lazu...@webtv.net
know everything..
robcap...@netscape.com
> DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 1):
>
> THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
"John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963 is probably the most-studied
and scrutinized murder case in the history of the world. Hundreds of
books have been written on the subject, featuring almost as many
theories surrounding the details of how Mr. Kennedy met his awful and
bloody fate on the 22nd day of November back in '63.
I've had the opportunity to do verbal battle with several
"CTers" (conspiracy theorists) over the years via this wonderful
invention known as the Internet, and have encountered some pretty
fanciful theories being touted as the "real truth" by these critics of
the official lone-killer version of the assassination (a lone-gunman
position I agree with 100%, since there's not a scrap of physical
evidence that could possibly lead me, or any reasonable researcher, in
any other direction)."
Not a scap of physical evidence that shows LHO to be innocent?
Amazing comment since NONE of the official "evidence" shows him to be
guilty in the least.
"I've culled some of those "LNer vs. CTer" sessions below (just for
the fun of it, and to illustrate the patently-absurd nature of some of
the untenable positions put forth by some of the conspiracists).
The following online battles focus on the subject of the controversial
"Single-Bullet Theory", and originally took place in the months of
February, March, and May of 2005.
Let's listen in......"
Let's do that and see how wrong DVP is, okay?
> -------------------------------------------
> CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- What is hilarious is that the WR
> {Warren Report} claims that both mens' relative position between Z210
> and Z225 were such that at any point during this timeframe the SBT
> could work!
"DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- And, considering the fact that we can never
know with 100% certainty the exact location of the two men in the car
(and their precise to-the-inch relationship to each other in the
vehicle), this "Z210-Z225" "bracketing" of the SBT is a wholly
feasible and plausible conclusion. It's not an exact science. It can't
be."
You are right that we cannot know for sure the position of the two men
so why not go with one of them in terms of what they said? JBC said
he was NOT hit with the same bullet as JFK, therefore, the SBT is out
the window.
"Some of the angles/trajectories from the TSBD window to the victims
ARE just "guesses". Educated guesses, but guesses to a certain extent.
They've got to be. Can't be helped; and the same applies whether
you're an LNer or a CTer."
Most of the guesses are on the official side as the trajectory given
for the SBT bullet is ridiculous.
"The difference in angle from the car/victims to the SN window would
be quite a small "difference" from Z210 to Z225 (less than 1 second in
time; with the car moving at about 11.2 MPH). Obviously this is true,
or the WC experts wouldn't have testified the angles could line up at
EITHER point in time.
CTers must believe that the FBI's Robert Frazier, et al, were "locked"
into the LN/SBT POV, and that these experts wouldn't have said
anything outside of that "pre-determined" SBT/LHO/LN "box" even if a
shotgun had been pointed at their temples. But that's a CT mindset
that I cannot accept whatsoever."
Of course they were as they said very little that diagreed with the
official theory. The bullet would have hit JFK in a downward
trajectory, yet it could still move up and out so it could go into
JBC. It is a miracle.
> -------------------------------------------
> CTer -- John Connally testified that he was struck AFTER the
> president.
"DVP -- Anybody who would be stupid enough to rely on the EYEwitness
testimony of a man who WASN'T EVEN LOOKING AT THE PRESIDENT when the
President was hit is obviously also stupid enough to take Mr.
Connally's own unreliable words as the Gospel I suppose. Connally's
testimony in this specific regard is utterly worthless, and always has
been."
He was more than an EYEwitness Dave, he was hit by several bullets.
He had a clear memory of JFK reacting to being shot before he was
himself hit, therefore, his statement is absolutely correct. It is
corroborated by his wife as well.
> -------------------------------------------
> CTer -- The wounds on Connally were inconsistent with the condition of
> CE399, which again leads us to believe that CE399 was a planted
> bullet.
"DVP -- An assumption on your (CT) part. And NOT supported by the
known facts regarding CE399, and by further (later) tests done to see
if the SBT was possible (utilizing MC/WCC 6.5mm bullets just like
Oswald's). Such tests (in 2004) proved beyond a REASONABLE person's
doubt that a bullet COULD, indeed, have done even MORE damage to a
mock (but realistic) body double like that of John Connally and emerge
in very good condition."
And this mock up shooting is accurate because? I wouldn't believe
this staged and rigged event for anything. I love how you quote it
like it is 100% proven.
> -------------------------------------------
> CTer -- They wouldn't have seen any {bullets} in JFK because they
> never looked. No X-rays were taken and no probing was done {at
> Parkland Hospital}.
"DVP -- That's right. But if you want to believe some theorists, the
JFK back bullet fell out during cardiac massage, meaning: It was
somewhere in that ER with JFK, and McClelland, and Perry, and Carrico,
and Jones, and Jenkins, et al. And NOBODY sees it."
Not true, it was recovered and Hoover mentions this in his memo to
LBJ. It was also noted by FBI agents O'Neill and Siebert in their
report. SS agent Sorensen took possession of it as well and passed it
along. Hoover, O'Neill, Siebert and Humes would all say the bullet
found at Parkland was on JFK's stretcher.
> -------------------------------------------
> CTer -- As for a bullet being found in Connally, it fell out didn't
> it?
"DVP -- Yes, CE399 fell out. But, per CTers, the REAL bullet that
struck Connally is another of the "vanishing" type. Never entered the
record; never was seen by anyone (including Dr. Shaw, even though he
did state on TV that there was still a bullet in JBC's thigh wound --
which we know was a misstatement, because he and Dr. Gregory both
testified to the effect that no bullets were ever recovered from JBC
or seen in JBC).
Gregory, in fact, had hospital staff searching all over the place for
a bullet; and none was found."
What are you talking about? It was thrown out by the nurse in the
operating room with Connally as it had NO chain of evidence. For once
the officials actually worried about this issue, but we all know it
was really because it was NOT a 6.5 mm round.
"I guess the REAL Connally bullet must have been another piece of pure
luck for the plotters, in that it must have fallen out IN THE CAR, and
was then swept away by the "Auto Cover-Up Team" afterwards.
There must have also been a Cover-Up Team in the hospital too; because
these plotters could not possibly have known (at 12:35 PM) if MORE
"covering up" would be needed within the TWO rooms of Parkland where
the two victims laid."
It was recovered at the hospital and disposed of.
> -------------------------------------------
> CTer -- David, this was the original use for CE399 as established by
> Humes on Friday night, it worked its way out during cardiac massage,
> not some theorist's idea.
"DVP -- Sure. But you miss the point. CE399 ISN'T a bullet connected
with the REAL wounds, per CTers (including you I assume).
So....Where did the REAL "cardiac massage fall-out" missile go?
Where?"
In the dumpster with all the other real evidence that showed the real
killers were NOT LHO.
> -------------------------------------------
> CTer -- I doubt they were thinking of finding or even looking for a
> bullet at the time.
"DVP -- But does that mean NOBODY would ever find it? Of course it
doesn't. Just because they might not have been LOOKING for bullets,
the bullets are THERE, SOMEWHERE (especially JFK's TWO in-the-body
bullets, per CTers)."
What is your point with all of this gibberish? They found the real
bullet(s) and got rid of them. No one believed CE-399 did the damage
to all of the wounds of JBC.
> -------------------------------------------
"DVP -- I think a large part of the difficulty in honing in on just
exactly when the SBT occurred over the years (in the pre-digital era),
has been the generally-lousy Z-Film copies that have been used when
trying to determine the precise time the SBT happened.
The WC and the HSCA obviously knew there was a "SBT" to be extracted
from that Zapruder movie -- no question about that fact.
Why?
Obviously a "SBT" was the ONLY possible logical explanation given the
lack of any rear-seat limo damage (and lack of whole bullets recovered
from rear seats)...plus: given the lack of bullets in the body of JFK,
and the lack of any bullets being found elsewhere (car, hospital,
Dealey Plaza) that could have possibly represented the bullets that
were inside JFK had a bullet not gone completely through him."
So you really believe any other bullets found would have been
mentioned? Gullible through and through. Why should there be rear
seat damage? They were shooting for JFK's head to kill him, not wound
him one limb at a time.
"Given these facts, there is no question there was just ONE single
bullet that went through Kennedy and on into Connally. And the WC and
HSCA knew this full well.
What facts? As usual this is all a bunch of DVP thoughts but there is
nary a clue of evidence or proof.
"Regardless of what exact Z-Film frame the SBT equates to, the point
is: There IS a Z-Frame (somewhere on that film) that DOES equate
perfectly to the "SBT". There is no way there's NOT such a Z-Frame
given the totality of the evidence with respect to the initial
wounding of both victims."
The Z-film shows quite concisely there were more than three shots
fired and that the SBT is a bunch of bull.
"Both the WC and HSCA did the best they could when attempting to piece
together the mystery of what time the SBT occurred on the film
(hampered greatly, quite obviously, by that damn freeway sign).
Now, just WHY the obvious (IMO) involuntary Connally reactions were
apparently never noticed by anybody who looked at the film for the WC
and HSCA, I cannot say (lousy copies used?).
But the Digital copies we have now positively point to a Z224 hit to
JBC -- that open-mouthed grimace and shoulder drop and ultra-fast hat
flip, are, in my view, the closest "proof positive" indicators that
we're going to find when it comes to verifying a bullet striking him
at ANY point on the film.
There is no other point on the Z-Film that gives us that much evidence
of a "hit" than do the frames just after Z223.
The WC and HSCA did "get it right" (overall) -- meaning: they were
right about only ONE bullet hitting both men simultaneously. They just
didn't have it pinpointed on the Zapruder Film with 100% accuracy.
But, circa 21st century, we CAN now pinpoint the SBT bullet strike."
You are making this up as there is NO proof to justify the SBT because
it NEVER happened. Vincent Salandria did this for us:
"The trajectory is impossible when you look at the real wounds of the
two men. President Kennedy's body showed reaction at frame 225
(W-112). "Governor Connally reviewed the film and testified that he
was hit between frames 231 and 234" (W-106). According to Willis'
photograph, the President was hit at frame 210 of the Z film.
According to the Commission the President was clearly registering a
hit at frame 225. We are now in a position to determine the time lapse
between the hit on the President and the hit on the Governor by
translating Z frames into units of time.
The fewest possible frames separating the hit of the President and the
Governor is 6 (President hit at Z 225 and Connally hit at Z 231). The
greatest possible frames separating the hit of the President and the
Governor is 24 (President hit a Z 210 and the Governor hit at Z 234).
To translate this into time is a simple operation of allowing 1/18.3
seconds for each frame. We get thereby a time span of 0.34 to 1.31
seconds separating the first hit on the President from the first hit
on the Governor.
We know that the top accomplishment of the Commission's expert
marksmen, firing the 6.5 mm. Carcano at stationary, not moving
targets, was a minimum firing time of 2.3 seconds. The time span of
the hits, 0.34 to 1.31 seconds, is below the minimum firing time.
Therefore, we can safely infer that the photographic evidence
indicates the existence of at least another gunman, not the alleged
Carcano operator, who was firing at that time."
> -------------------------------------------
"DVP -- It really doesn't matter WHERE Gerald Ford "moved" the wound
to. Because the detailed "14 cm." remarks of Dr. Boswell's original
Face Sheet still stand as the definitive location of JFK's back wound.
And Dale Myers' detailed animation work, plus the 2004 SBT re-creation
test, have (IMO) proven that the SBT is possible, based on the "14
cm." anatomical measurements."
Of course it matters or Ford wouldn't have moved the wound in the
first place!!! The Death Certificate said the wound was at the T-3
thoracic vertebre, not at the T-1 level so Humes is incorrect as well.
"Gerald Ford has said, over and over again, that he moved the wound to
place it in a more accurate location on JFK's back, for clarification
purposes and to "match" more appropriately the "14 cm." Boswell
measurement. This is EXACTLY the same reason, of course, that Boswell
moved his "dot" on the back, as well."
Baloney!! There is NO reason to justify moving wounds around. You
must report them were they are in the autopsy for legal reasons. This
was done for one reason, and one reason only, to try and make the
ridiculous SBT work.
"Mile-high mountains have been manufactured out of proverbial back-
wound mole hills with regard to both Boswell's and Ford's "moving" of
the wound location."
What about the molehill regarding the Clark Panel who would move the
BOH wound by 4 inches!!
"If Ford's (or Boswell's) "dots" are too high on the back, it's
because BOTH of these men were estimating the wound, without having
the benefit of measuring body landmarks on a chart to make the "dots"
precisely accurate."
Estimating? Why not go by the autopsy report? Either the wound was
were the moved it to or not, and we all know it was NOT where they
moved it to.
"But, again, it really makes no difference at all where these
unimportant "dots" are located -- because we still have the "14-cm."
notes to guide us on the back wound."
Makes no difference? Then why did they move the wound if it was not
important.
"The problem with attempting to place the back wound in an exact
location on a static non-JFK figure on a piece of paper is that it
won't equate perfectly to JFK's exact Mastoid location. Therefore, any
"dots" placed on just a piece of paper will be (obviously) just pure
"guesses" (and that applies to Dr. Boswell or Gerald Ford or whoever
is doing the dot-placing; it's just not going to be super-exact; which
is why, obviously, Dr. Boswell put in not only the "dot" on the Face
Sheet, but the "14 cm." remarks as well)."
You keep missing the main point here, it is NOT normal procedure for
the marking of back wounds to be done from the mastoid point in the
head. You are supposed to use the spinal column for this as the death
certificate did when it listed the wound at the T-3 level. Here are
some comments from agents who observed JFK's back wound:
SS agent Glen Bennett's oft-repeated testimony that he observed a
missile "hit the President about four inches down from the right
shoulder" (W-111).
Special Agent Clinton L. Hill saw the President's body being worked on
at the morgue in Bethesda during the course of the autopsy. He stated
to the Commission that just before the body was placed into a casket
"I saw an opening in the back, about six inches below the neckline to
the right-hand side of the spinal column" (II, H-143).
Special Agent Roy H. Kellerman testified about his experience at
Bethesda during the autopsy studies there.
There were three gentlemen who were performing this autopsy. A Colonel
Finck--during the examination of the President, from the hole that was
in his shoulder, and with a probe, and we--were standing right
alongside of him, he is probing inside the shoulder with his
instrument and I said, "Colonel, where did it go?" He said, "There are
no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's shoulder." (II,
H-93)
The prosectors also did NOT dissect the throat wound and there is no
way to know for sure it went clean through without doing this.
Therefore, the SBT is not proven since it was not proven this was a
through and through wound.
"14 cm. from the tip of the Mastoid Process" will equate to a slightly
different place from person to person, depending on length of neck,
etc. It's going to vary a little bit on virtually each individual
human being (obviously)."
Exactly, this is why it is standard procedure to use the spinal column
for back wound measurements.
"I've performed this easily-done measurement on myself -- and when I
measured 5.5 inches (which is exactly 14 cm.) below the "Right Mastoid
Process" (which is located approx. at the tip of the right earlobe),
an assumed "wound" on my back would be very close to just where we
find it on President Kennedy's upper back (via the autopsy photograph
showing his back wound)."
And this proves what? The death certificate and eyewitnesses place
the wound in a different location that Ford did who was NOT even
there.
"And, given the known exit wound on the front of JFK's neck per the
official autopsy report (which was signed by all three principal
autopsists) -- a throat wound that was totally obliterated, granted,
by Dr. Malcolm Perry's trach at Parkland Hospital, but we know within
a few millimeters where that wound must have been -- there is a
definite DOWNWARD trajectory from back-to-front when connecting these
bullet holes."
To bad they never dissected the wound to prove it went completely
through, huh? You are out of luck on that one. Besides, the angle of
the shot should have caused the bullet to exit to the left, not the
right.
> -------------------------------------------
"DVP -- The CTers (as usual) misrepresent drastically the nature of
the JFK throat wound. It was said to POSSIBLY have been an entrance
wound on 11/22/63. But it was ALSO said by the doctors who saw it that
it could very well have been EITHER "an entry or an exit wound for a
bullet"......"
Baloney.
"ARLEN SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone,
could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"
DR. MALCOLM PERRY -- "It could have been either.""
It did say this but he was waffling. Dr. Charles James Carrico
likewise described the President's throat wound as "fairly round, had
no jagged edges" (III, H-32). Fairly round with NO jagged edges is a
clear sign of entry, NOT exit.
Dr. Charles Rufus Baxter of Parkland Hospital saw this neck wound and
described it as follows:
4 to 5 mm. in widest diameter and was a spherical wound. (VI, H-42)
Well, the wound was, I think, compatible with a gunshot wound. It did
not appear to be a jagged wound such as one would expect with a very
high velocity rifle bullet. We could not determine, or did not
determine at that time whether this represented an entry or an exit
wound. **Judging from the caliber of the rifle that we later found or
became acquainted with, this would more resemble a wound of entry.**
However, due to the density of the tissue of the neck and depending
upon what a bullet of such calibre would pass through on the way to
the neck, I think that the wound could well represent either exit or
entry wound. (II, H-42)
Specter did let this rest and he continued with Dr. Baxer:
Mr. Specter. What would be the considerations which, in your mind,
would make it, as you characterized it, unlikely?
Dr. Baxter. It would be unlikely because the damage that the bullet
would create would be--first its speed would create a shock wave which
would damage a larger number of tissues, as in its path, it would tend
to strike, or usually would strike, tissues of greater density than
this particular missile did and would then begin to tumble and would
create larger jagged--the further it went, the more jagged would be
the damage that it created; **so that ordinarily there would have been
a rather large wound of exit.** (VI, H-42)
The original hole was anything but a rather large, jagged wound of
exit. Mr. Specter had even more severe problems with Dr. Ronald Coy
Jones of Parkland Hospital, whom he asked about the neck wounds:
Mr. Specter. In this report, Dr. Jones, you state the following,
"Previously described severe skull and brain injury was noted as well
as a small hole in the anterior midline of the neck thought to be a
bullet entrance wound." What led you to the thought that it was a
bullet entrance wound, sir?
Dr. Jones. **The hole was very small and relatively clean cut, as you
would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a
patient.** If this were an exit wound, you would think that it exited
at a very low velocity to produce no more damage than this had done,
and if this were a missile of high velocity, you would expect more of
an explosive type of exit wound, with more tissue destruction than
this appeared to have on superficial examination. (VI, H-55)
David Von Pein
>>> "I've been in contact with a television producer that is looking to produce another JFK assassination related episode for the Discovery Channel. He is currently seeking ideas that could be pursued and is looking for input. .... If you have an idea, please pass it along on this thread and I will be sure that the producer is made aware of the ideas." <<<
How about this one:
A detailed study into the mindset of a group of conspirators and pre-
assassination patsy-framers who would have actually given the green
light to a "Frame The Lone Patsy In The TSBD" plot that included
firing multiple guns at President Kennedy from both the FRONT and the
rear of JFK's car.
The above scenario is just exactly the kind of ludicrous pre-11/22
assassination plot that the movie-going public was being asked to
swallow by Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison in Stone's 1991 film "JFK".*
* = With Mr. Garrison, incredibly, actually believing that not only
was the above type of crackpot plot in the works prior to 11/22/63,
but with Jimbo also believing that the "patsy's" gun wasn't even used
in such a patsy plot AT ALL on November 22! Can you beat that for
insane "Patsy" pre-planning? I sure couldn't beat it.
Perhaps the Discovery Channel documentary could be called:
"HOW TO FRAME A LONE PATSY--IF YOU'RE A TOTAL MORON AND WANT TO
HAVE YOUR SILLY PLOT EXPOSED WITHIN MINUTES OF ITS
IMPLEMENTATION." (Part 1 of 12.)
~wink~
David Von Pein
>>> "Hey asshole you asked for it.....I delivered." <<<
Yep....you (an "asshole/kook combo") delivered the same old CT
guesswork that you're best known for....right on cue. Nice job.
Brennan never ever hinted he saw anyone in any 6th-Floor window except
the southeast corner window and everybody knows it....even you.
But you, being a kook, have invested way too many useless Google posts
on your nutsville "BRENNAN SAW A WEST-END SHOOTER" bullshit that you
can't simply stop cold-turkey. So....you'll continue to peddle your
nonsense.
You'll continue this charade despite the fact that Brennan HIMSELF is
on camera (during his one TV interview) telling America he looked
straight across Elm St. and looked up at the sniper (i.e., at the east
side of the TSBD). Not to mention Brennan's circling two different WC
exhibits showing where the gunman was located...in the SN.
Anyone who thinks Vince Bugliosi has "re-written history" should take
a good look at Walt's crackpot posts of make-believe events. It's
certainly not the LNers who have done any re-writing of history...it's
the CT fruitcakes like Walt & Co.
David Von Pein
August 2007
David Von Pein
>>> "The LNer's have dug themselves a hole and are being buried alive by diggin' deeper." <<<
Buried by the LN truth, huh? A curious notion.
>>> "They can't HONESTLY refute the facts..." <<<
Such as Brennan seeing a shooter on the WEST end? Just exactly HOW
have you, Sir Walter The Kook, established beyond all reasonable doubt
that Howard Leslie Brennan saw ANYONE on the west side of the
Depository's sixth floor on 11/22/63?
I'd really like to know how Walt has established that beyond
reasonable doubt.
Obviously, he has not established any such thing.....and never
will....because he cannot establish something that never happened. But
that never stopped a CTer from trying. (Just watch Oliver Stone's film
for proof of that last statement.)
>>> "There was almost nothing of substance being posted..." <<<
Bullshit. .....
http://davidvonpein.blogspot.com
>>> "I love a good HONEST debate, but there are no LNer's that can provide an HONEST debate." <<<
We're about as likely to get some "HONEST" debating out of Walt as we
were to get the truth out of Lee Harvey Oswald, circa November 1963.
Walt is a total disgrace. He believes stupid shit that not only never
happened, but he believes in ultra-stupid shit that never would have
even been contemplated by any of Walter's make-believe idiot plotters
who were preparing to kill JFK, even if such plotters REALLY DID exist
in 1963.
For some reason, Walt cannot seem to see the illogic that surrounds
most of the stupid theories he has placed his faith in. Or, more
likely, he just doesn't WANT to see it.
The same goes for Oliver Stone (and Jim Garrison before him) and
millions of other CTers worldwide.