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 Historical content remains viewable.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

JFK DEBATES (PART 46)

29 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 20, 2007, 3:38:41 AM8/20/07
to

DEBATING THE OL' CASE OF THE JFK VARIETY (PART 46):

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

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

FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From April 2006, June
2006, July 2006, September 2006, February 2007, and March 2007.

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

CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- It's not rational for the lighter-
complected man to open an umbrella and pump it up and down in front of
JFK, just before they blew his brains out. Then they sit down calmly.
That's obviously not a normal reaction.

DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- There's no proof (of any kind) that "TUM" and
"DCM" were "involved" in JFK's death. Only true-blue kooks believe
they were.

You think it's strange for the two men to sit on the curb for a little
while following the assassination. But what I think would be
infinitely "stranger" would be two men doing that who were "involved"
in a plot to kill the President....ALL THE WHILE KNOWING THEY WERE
BEING PHOTOGRAPHED BY NUMEROUS CAMERAMEN AS THEY SAT THERE.

Conspirators who WANT to be photographed and filmed, eh? Now THAT is
odd indeed.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/002-2065385-6525668?ie=UTF8&ASIN=081269547X&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=R229R23VW1NJF7&displayType=ReviewDetail

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

CTer -- Knowing that the evidence leads up to 90% of Americans to
support my {CT} viewpoint makes YOU the kook, doesn't it?

DVP -- The vast majority of those Americans who believe in conspiracy
(which actually is a figure that is closer to 70%-75%, to date; your
inflated stats notwithstanding) haven't studied the "evidence" in any
great detail at all, and you know it.

And a goodly-sized percentage of that 70%-75% has gotten nearly 100%
of their conspiracy-favoring ideas from kook websites, pro-CT books,
and pro-CT movies like Oliver Stone's travesty. And you surely realize
that fact as well.

Don't you?

Re. "JFK Assassination Polls", there is this:

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

An ABC News poll from November 2003 can be found at the above weblink.
One of the questions in the poll reveals the fact that a mere 7% of
those asked think that Lee Harvey Oswald was totally UNINVOLVED in
President Kennedy's assassination.

More ABC poll results.....

"Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man, or was
it part of a broader plot?".....

ONE MAN --------- 22%
BROADER PLOT -- 70%
NO OPINION ------ 8%

==================

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy
assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to
Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the
assassination at all?".....

ONLY OSWALD -------------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN --------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ---------------- 10%

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8bb11e92e282dcd5

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/16453684abb4314d

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

CTer -- Most LNers simply gag when it comes to saying "occipital".

DVP -- And certain conspiracy-spouting kooks gag on the word
"somewhat". I wonder why?

http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html

>From JFK's Official Autopsy Report:

"There is a large, irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone, but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter. ....

"Based on the above observations, it is our opinion that the deceased
died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-
velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
level of the deceased. ....

"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
external occipital protuberance. ... A portion of the projectile made
its exit through the parietal bone on the right carrying with it
portions of cerebrum, skull, and scalp. The two wounds of the skull,
combined with the force of the missile, produced extensive
fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the superior saggital sinus,
and of the right cerebral hemisphere."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5

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

CTer -- Dr. Humes' WC Testimony: "Scientifically, sir, it is
impossible for it {the fatal bullet which struck JFK in the head} to
have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other
than behind".

DVP -- I've seen that quote from Dr. Humes before. It's not a bolt
from heaven.

However, Humes' OTHER comments made during his multiple Government
testimonies obviously indicate that his WC "exited from behind" remark
was either a slip of the tongue or (more likely) was simply a
misunderstood remark which came on the heels of speaking about WHERE
THE GUNMAN WAS LOCATED (i.e., "from behind" the President).

Both of Humes' "from behind" remarks were almost certainly meant to
convey strictly THE LOCATION OF THE ASSASSIN. Why? Because of the
exact words he used: "From Other Than Behind", which he says verbatim
TWICE. He's obviously ONLY talking about the LOCATION of the gunman in
both of his consecutive "from other than behind" remarks.

But some CTers want to jump on this statement by Humes as something
odd or "conspiratorial" I guess. But, then, that's why we employ kooks
here in the first place. What else are they good for, except to bring
up all the inconsistencies in EVERY last piece of testimony and
evidence that surrounds the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders?

It's what rabid conspiracy buffs do best -- i.e., muddy the waters, in
order to try to free guilty Presidential assassins.

The more I ponder Dr. Humes' Double-"FROM OTHER THAN BEHIND" verbiage,
it's obvious that BOTH comments dovetail into one another and that he
was referring solely to the location of the gunman at the time JFK was
hit in the back of the head "From Behind".

Conspiracists can continue to paint Humes as a liar if they please.
But read that WHOLE statement again and see the verbatim "From Behind"
comments via something other than a skewed CT-only context for
once. .....

"Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from
other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."

He obviously CANNOT mean that a bullet has ENTERED the back of JFK's
head AND EXITED from the same place.

With this basic knowledge in place, his statement makes more sense
(although it could have been worded better)....but Humes is talking
here ONLY about the location of JFK's killer ("from behind" JFK's
car).

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm

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

More Re. Dr. James J. Humes WC Testimony.....

CTer -- {Dr. Humes} said that the bullet could not have exited from
OTHER than behind.

DVP -- So, was Dr. Humes lying, or was he merely mistaken? Or was he
just being flat-out stupid when he claimed in the same breath that the
bullet that ENTERED Kennedy's head could not possibly have been fired
from a location other than from BEHIND the President, and then a
second later claimed that the same bullet had to have exited "from
behind" as well?*

* = Which is an "Other Than Behind" statement that some CTers
evidently take to mean "exited the back of JFK's skull" -- which, of
course, Humes did NOT mean there, quite obviously, based on the first
portion of his "other than behind" testimony.

Dr. Humes was talking only about the direction from which the bullet
had to have come in order to have achieved the exit wound that was
observed on JFK's head -- i.e., the bullet that caused the exit wound
in JFK's skull had to have come "FROM BEHIND" the President.

So, which is it? Was Humes an honest man, trying to tell the truth to
the Warren Commission in 1964? Or was he a lying S.O.B. who was "in"
on a cover-up operation from Day 1?

You seem to want Humes to be BOTH of the above things. On one hand,
per CTers, Humes is a lying asswipe, who told numerous lies to the
Warren Commission (et al) and who deliberately faked the autopsy
report.

But on the other hand, certain conspiracy theorists treat Humes as a
"teller of the truth" when it comes to the rather ambiguous-sounding
"from behind"/"from behind" double statement made by Humes. CTers seem
to think that Humes is telling the TRUTH in this one rare instance
(when it suits their pro-conspiracy needs, of course...and only then).

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

CTer -- Do you recall the HSCA determined the {SBT} bullet path in a
slightly UPWARD direction?

DVP -- Yes...and they were wrong. And all a person needs to do is try
a simple test on themselves or another person...and measure 5.5 inches
from their "Mastoids", and then compare it with the area of the neck
below the Adam's Apple to determine the slightly DOWNWARD trajectory
(back to front) between these two points.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/jfk_zeroang.jpg

Obviously, that kind of self-test is not going to be perfect, since
the autopsy measurements were based on JFK's body and not yours or
mine or John Doe's. But such a "Mastoid Test" gives a good general
idea of the downward path the SBT bullet took through John Kennedy's
body.

Why more people don't try this easy-to-do "test" for themselves is
still a mystery to me. I guess it's better for CTers to stay ignorant
in this "angle" regard than try that simple test....a test that
requires absolutely no expertise in...anything (except a knowledge of
where the wounds were on JFK, and the ability to read a ruler).

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800

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

CTer -- Based on nothing but your wild specualtion?

DVP -- Oh, sure...it's my "wild speculation" that JFK and Connally are
reacting at an identical time to external stimulus here. Really "wild"
indeed. I just made it up from thin air and tissue paper.

Just how many billionths of a second between reactions do you see
here?.....

http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif

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

CTer -- I couldn't care less about an animation, David. An animation
is an animation is an animation.

DVP -- And naturally you'll just ignore the painstaking effort and
research that Mr. Dale K. Myers put into his 10-years-in-the-making
animation project...a project which features exacting blueprint
measurements, limo body drafts, and precise-as-possible Zapruder Film
overlays (which this picture is based on almost entirely, btw)......

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg

But all that precision is to be flushed down the toilet I
guess....just because it's in "animated" form.

Good call. (If you're a conspiracy kook, that is.)

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/intro.htm

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

CTer -- The "coat bunch" is a non-issue. It is impossible for the coat
to rise up enough to make the SBT work.

DVP -- For ANYONE to use the clothing of the victim as a definitive
indication of where the bullet entered the victim is just crazy.

Quite obviously, regardless of WHERE the bullet hole resides in JFK's
jacket, since there was just ONE hole in the jacket JFK was wearing
when he was shot...and since there's just ONE single bullet hole in
his back --- this has to mean that the ONE bullet had to have gone
through that one hole in that jacket...no matter WHERE it was on the
clothing.

To believe anything else is to believe in something utterly nutty,
crazy, and just plain...kooky.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

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

CTer -- The CT theory explains ALL the eyewitness testimony...such as
those who testified that LHO was wearing different clothes.

DVP -- Aside from the fact that most people don't possess perfect
"recall" with respect to what certain other people were wearing at a
given point in time, there's also the fact that a decent-sized
percentage of human beings (especially men) are color blind. (I am one
of them.) That could affect some of the witnesses' observations as
well.

Obviously, that point doesn't apply to the "jacket vs. a shirt"
discrepancies that have cropped up with some witnesses when they
talked about Oswald's 11/22/63 clothing (with William Whaley and
Marrion Baker both stating that Lee Oswald was wearing a "jacket",
when it's almost a certainty that Oswald had no jacket on when seen by
those witnesses).

Similar to the clothing thing, the witnesses in Dealey Plaza really
had no reason to synchronize their watches and make a note of the
exact time they noticed a man in the window of the Book Depository.
So, CTers who think they can utilize the "timeline" of multiple
witnesses to piece together a conspiracy, I believe are sadly
mistaken.

The same goes with the Tippit witnesses. Did all of those witnesses
"synchronize" their watches just before the Tippit murder? Obviously
not.

I'd wager to say that if you placed 5 people with watches on their
wrists in a room, and asked each of them what the exact time
was....you're probably going to get at least 3 different answers
(probably 4 different ones).

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 1:11:48 AM9/11/07
to

www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/10/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=235&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxY2PLHLTCPYD1#MxY2PLHLTCPYD1


>>> "Bugliosi's credibility is weak at best. Why don't you ask your hero why he has not tackled Doug Weldon's evidence or even mentioned Dr. E. Forrest Chapman? Bugliosi can mention Elvis in his book, but not the experts on the shell evidence and the limo. ... You see, these gentlemen {Weldon, Chapman} have solid evidence..." <<<

Chapman and Weldon don't have "evidence". They have OPINIONS. Opinions
that they think lead to conspiracy.

But many, many other "experts" have counter-opinions re. the limo and
bullet shells. But conspiracy theorists will ignore the counter-
opinions that refute them.

And, thusly, we never escape the merry-go-round (until Weldon or
Chapman can come up with a non-C2766 bullet smeared with JFK's blood,
that is).

And I still would love to know just exactly WHERE a frontal gunman was
located that caused that supposed "hole" in the limo's windshield? On
the overpass with Holland, Dodd, Simmons, and TWO COPS perhaps?

Because most people I've talked to favor the idea that that so-called
"hole" (which, of course, never existed at all, and Bob Frazier's WC
testimony verifies that) was the result of a FRONTAL gunshot.

And if it wasn't a shot from the FRONT, then where does this argument
really go anyway? Is it absolutely impossible that one of Oswald's
bullets or fragments could have caused such a hole from behind?

Yes, if the hole were to be confirmed (which it can't be), then CTers
would be able to claim that Frazier and the WC and the FBI had lied or
covered something up. But ask yourself WHY they would desire to cover
up something like that? It makes no sense.

A hole in the windshield could have come from BEHIND too. Or is some
CTer now going to step up and tell me that there's a way to positively
tell which direction a bullet was travelling when it went CLEAN
THROUGH a windshield?

In any event, I can see absolutely no good enough reason for anyone to
even want to lie about a hole in that windshield. It's just stupid. If
there was a hole there, Frazier would have reported it to the Warren
Commission and to others.

As I've said many times before --- CTers love chaff; LNers prefer the
wheat.

What I want to see is a non-C2766 bullet legitimately connected to
this case. Sans that, it's literally impossible to take the "multi-
gun" conspiracy theories seriously (esp. Stone's 6-shot, 3-gun theory
and even more so Groden's [gulp] 10-shot theory).

So, what we're left to accept at face value (per almost all CTers, who
fervently believe Kennedy was hit in the head via a shot from the
Grassy Knoll) is a multi-gun conspiracy with no bullets left behind
but Oswald's.

Those conspirators WERE good, weren't they?

Crazy, man.

www.davidvonpein.blogspot.com

www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858


David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 9:10:40 AM9/11/07
to

WINDSHIELD TALK...........

www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/10/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=249&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx3PR2IIQWCZLU9#Mx3PR2IIQWCZLU9


>>> "The fact the federal government has kept sealed many LHO records in the name of "national security" also makes no sense, David. Makes you think they may have had a reason to cover it up. Why would those records be sealed?" <<<

What records? Everything has been seen except a small percentage of 1%
of all pertinent assassination documents. Vince Bugliosi discloses
that data in his book. (He doesn't know what he's talking about,
right?)

And VB even says that even that small pct. of less than 1% of redacted
documents HAS been seen (unredacted) by the ARRB....with no "smoking
gun" anywhere to be found. And those "redacted" items will be released
in 2017, per VB's publication.

So, why do you think a bunch of "LHO records" are still sealed? They
aren't.


>>> "Yes, David, you can tell by the pattern of cracks and damage around the hole." <<<

Okay. I stand corrected on that particular point (which I mentioned in
a previous post as well). The "bevelling" of the glass can indicate
the direction the missile was travelling. My previous error. Sorry.


>>> "Stavis Ellis, a DPD officer, said he stuck his pencil through the hole." <<<

If he said that, he's a liar. Sorry to be that blunt. I don't enjoy
calling people out-&-out liars. But it just might fit here. Because
there was no hole in the windshield. Only a crack; no penetration.

Plus: I'm wondering WHY Mr. Ellis would even have a desire to stick a
pencil through a hole in the windshield? Just....why? What for? For
what possible purpose?

>>> "And, to answer your question as to where it {the "windshield" gunshot} came from: I believe it came from the parking lot located on the south side of the overpass. From that location the shot is clean, the limo is facing directly toward the south side as it turns onto Elm." <<<

Good Lord.

I've never heard anybody in all my years of battling CTers suggest
that a gunman was firing from the "parking lot located on the south
side of the overpass".

It must have been a "silenced" shot, huh Richard? Because not a single
solitary earwitness heard a shot coming from ANYWHERE NEAR that
location.

That location, btw, for those who want a visual exhibit, is located at
the upper lefthand part of the top photo linked below. You can see the
parking lot and a few cars parked on that lot in this picture, which
is a photo that was taken from Oswald's Sniper's Nest as part of a
Secret Service "Album" of photos documenting the scene of the crime.
It's part of a fascinating WC exhibit (CE875):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0458b.htm


BTW, the notion that the limo was whisked away to Dearborn, Michigan,
to switch out the windshields on November 25th (as you claimed) is
just simply fantasy. There's no other way I can term it. It just
couldn't have happened, period.

Robert Frazier examined that windshield prior to that date (early
morning on November 23 at the White House garage) and saw no hole in
that windshield. That's as official as it gets, folks. Call Frazier a
liar if you so desire, but here's his very detailed testimony in this
regard:

Mr. SPECTER - Did you have an opportunity to examine the car shortly
after the assassination?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I did, on the early morning of November 23,
1963. ....

Mr. SPECTER - Did you have occasion then to examine the windshield of
the Presidential limousine?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I did.

Mr. SPECTER - What did that examination disclose?

Mr. FRAZIER - On the inside surface of the windshield there was a
deposit of lead. This deposit was located when you look at the inside
surface of the windshield, 13 1/2 inches down from the top, 23 inches
from the left-hand side or driver's side of the windshield, and was
immediately in front of a small pattern of star-shaped cracks which
appeared in the outer layer of the laminated windshield.

Mr. DULLES - What do you mean by the "outer layer of the laminated
windshield"?

Mr. FRAZIER - The windshield is composed of two layers with a very
thin layer of plastic in between which bonds them together in the form
of safety glass. The inside layer of the glass was not broken, but the
outside layer immediately on the outside of the lead residue had a
very small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute particle of
glass missing from the outside surface.

Mr. DULLES - And the outside surface was the surface away from where
the occupants were sitting?

Mr. FRAZIER - That is correct; yes.

Mr. DULLES - And the inside surface was the surface nearest the
occupants?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - What do those characteristics indicate as to which side
of the windshield was struck?

Mr. FRAZIER - It indicates that it could only have been struck on the
inside surface. It could not have been struck on the outside surface
because of the manner in which the glass broke and further because of
the lead residue on the inside surface. The cracks appear in the outer
layer of the glass because the glass is bent outward at the time of
impact which stretches the outer layer of the glass to the point where
these small radial or wagon spoke-wagon wheel spoke-type cracks appear
on the outer surface.

Mr. DULLES - So the pressure must have come from the inside and not
from the outside against the glass?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. DULLES - As far as the car is concerned from the back to the
front?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 10:10:15 AM9/11/07
to

www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/11/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=254&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx21ULJ0HJI5UVK#Mx21ULJ0HJI5UVK

>>> It certainly could have been {a silenced south-side shot}, David. And even if the shot was not silenced, there was no person viewing the motorcade from that side of the street." <<<

LOL. That means that the SOUND from a high-powered rifle blast would
be totally SILENT to the many witnesses lining Elm Street, huh?

Think up another one. Because this argument of yours is laughable.


And back to the windshield.........


>>> "Are you calling all nine witnesses liars and putting all your faith in Mr. Frazier?" <<<

Did ANY of those nine (so-called) witnesses perform as detailed an
examination of the windshield as did Mr. Frazier? Answer: No.

Frazier examined the windshield in detail on November 23rd. No hole
was there. He documented (in ultra-detail) the "wagon-wheel spoke
type" cracks in the windshield. But no hole. None.

And that windshield was PHOTOGRAPHED at the White House on Nov. 23rd.
(Is the picture of the limo a fake?)

And if the car's windshield had been examined and photographed on Nov.
23rd, why in the world would there even be a need to whisk the car to
Michigan for a windshield switch-out two days later?

You must think the picture was taken on Nov. 25th and Frazier
pretended it was taken (by Frazier himself, per his WC testimony) on
Nov. 23, is that it?

Otherwise, what is the whole purpose of switching the windshields AT
ALL? For what reason? If Frazier's gonna lie through his teeth anyway,
WHY THE NEED TO SWITCH THE WINDSHIELDS AND INVOLVE MORE PEOPLE IN THE
COVER-UP?

The SS and FBI knew the car would be totally rebuilt and repaired
shortly following the assassination....so I cannot understand the
mindset of these "windshield" plotters at all? It's just dumb....and
ultra-reckless, even from a CT POV.

The windshield switch-out NEVER HAPPENED. No way. No how.

Only a truly-rabid conspiracy theorist believes in that kind of
underhanded (and completely NEEDLESS) hocus-pocus. For, WHO is going
to even see that car except THE PLOTTERS (per most CTers) before the
whole car was rebuilt and dismantled anyway?

This much is clear (except to CTers who wish to call the man who
examined and photographed the limo on Nov. 23--Robert A. Frazier--a
liar as he gave his under-oath testimony to the WC) --- Whatever car
the people at Dearborn saw with a hole in the windshield on 11/25 was
certainly NOT SS-100-X.

As for Officer Ellis -- I haven't a clue as to his motive for saying
what he said. But there was no hole in that windshield. Because even
if there HAD been, there would have been no good enough reason for
anyone in the FBI to lie about such a trivial point (because they
could STILL HAVE LIED LIKE A DOG AND SAID THE HOLE WAS THE RESULT OF A
REAR SHOT FROM OSWALD'S LOCATION).

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 1:00:26 PM9/11/07
to

www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/13/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=323&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2YO3A1M7XDZ0V#Mx2YO3A1M7XDZ0V


>>> "{Wes}Frazier addressed that in his WC testimony. He said the package could have protruded widthwise, not lengthwise. Frazier: "I told them that a far as the length there, I told them it was entirely too long"." <<<


And how many times did Wes Frazier tell them he DIDN'T PAY VERY MUCH
ATTENTION TO THE WAY OZ CARRIED THE PACKAGE?

CTers love to twist the "package" evidence to suit their "Oswald
Couldn't Have Done It" needs. They are experts at doing this, while at
the same time ignoring all common sense re. this topic.

A nutshell outline (with a nut [LHO] at the center of things):

1.) Oswald positively took a brown paper package (fairly "bulky" and
"heavy"-looking, per Randle) with him to work at the TSBD on 11/22.

2.) An EMPTY paper bag (brown), very similar to the type described by
Randle/Frazier, is found after the shooting in the SN on the 6th Floor
where other LHO-incriminating evidence is discovered.

3.) LHO's own prints are on the bag found in the TSBD. (And even
without a photo of the bag IN PLACE in the Nest, there's noplace for
CTers to go here....because Montgomery carried a similar-looking bag
out of the TSBD at a time when the DPD could not possibly have known
the full details of Oswald carrying any such bag into the building
that morning; were they psychic, those cops??)

4.) Oswald's rifle is missing from its last known storage location in
the Paine garage on 11/22.

5.) Oswald's rifle is found on the 6th Floor after the shooting.

6.) Fibers generally matching the blanket that Oz's rifle was known to
be previously stored in were found inside the paper bag.

Now, what would a reasonable person (examining the above 6 facts)
conclude here?

Should they conclude that Oswald brought his rifle to work inside a
paper bag, as all this stuff indicates?

Or: Should we suspend belief and common sense and think that Oswald
brought some "curtain rods" (or maybe an ironing board or some other
bulky object; certainly not his lunch) to work on November 22nd, and
then (miraculously) after the assassination a similar bag is found
(empty) near the SN window, with Oz's prints on the damn thing (how
did the scheming cops manage that nifty hunk of "planting" btw?), but
that bag did NOT contain Oswald's rifle...but the rifle IS found on
the VERY SAME FLOOR AS THE BAG?

And where did the real contents of the bag go (if it wasn't the
rifle)? And why is the empty "curtain rod" bag in the very place where
an Oswald-like person shot the President from?

And why does Oswald lie to the police about the "rods" story after the
shooting....if he REALLY had rods in the bag? Was he THAT embarrassed
about having to hang some rods over on Beckley, he was willing to lie
about their TRUE existence?

Every single thing (other than a slight "length of bag" discrepancy)
indicates one thing for sure -- Lee Oswald took his own rifle to work
on 11/22/63.

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 1:21:44 PM9/11/07
to

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 1:56:07 PM9/11/07
to

www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/14/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=334&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx20M6L6SS8TQXT#Mx20M6L6SS8TQXT


>>> "I'm not the one who has to believe bullets can stop in mid air, then continue." <<<

Nor am I. But please keep thinking I am. You seem to like that theory.

Deeper into dementia Richard V.N. travels....


>>> "David, even an ardent WC defender, Dr. John Lattimer, said JFK was hit at Z220." <<<

Ooooh, boy. Four whole frames difference there. I guess I'd better
sever all ties with ALL of Lattimer's excellent work now, huh?

Several people have proposed different SBT frames. Vince B. thinks it
happened between Z210 and Z222. (Of course, he DOES say, in other
parts of "RH", that it could have also happened when I think it
did...Z224. So, there is some inconsistency there.)

But, the MAIN thing (by far) is: Lattimer, Bugliosi, Posner, et al,
KNOW THAT THE SBT IS CORRECT (regardless of exact Z-Film). And so do
I.

Any other theory pales by comparison.

The WC and HSCA both supported the SBT. Different timelines, yes. But
the main principle is in place...i.e., one bullet hit both men, and
that bullet was CE399.

Are BOTH Govt. bodies to be totally dismissed in this regard, Richard?
Do YOU know more than all of those Commissioners and HSCA
investigators? Why on Earth should I believe YOU over BOTH Official
U.S. investigative bodies? (You must really think you're good, huh?)

BTW, where did those bullets go, Richard?

Will you answer this simple question? Or would you prefer to remain
wishy-washy, like all other CTers on this topic?

>>> "The SBT is a farce. It is junk on its face." <<<

But, of course, I'm MUCH, MUCH more likely to accept (on its face)
YOUR stupid anti-SBT theory, right? I.E., a theory that includes THREE
disappearing missiles, disappearing WOUNDS in Kennedy's body, and an
assortment of SBT-like similarities that SHOULD make even YOU blush
beet-red for even suggesting such impossible, wholly-unsupportable,
anti-SBT, 3-shot nonsense.


>>> "And you choose to ignore the fact that Connally himself said he was hit by a separate bullet." <<<

It's totally meaningless what JBC himself thought in this SBT
regard...and you have to know why. HE NEVER SAW JFK HIT. So how can he
POSSIBLY be relied on as a good "Anti-SBT" EYEwitness.

You're sinking...ever deeper.

Try digging up Jean Hill again. Or maybe Jimbo Garrison. They're
always good as a diversion when you're stuck with NO BULLETS TO
SUPPORT YOUR NONSENSE.

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 6:31:02 PM9/11/07
to

www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/16/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=385&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1GPOYGLHIBOZB#Mx1GPOYGLHIBOZB


>>> "David: Let me get this straight. CE 399 causes all the wounds except for JFKs head, and comes out pristine, yet the head shot, as soon as it strikes the skull bone, evaporates. Am I getting this right?" <<<

No. You never get anything "right", as far as I've seen.

CE399 was not "pristine". Look:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/ce399.gif

Flattened on the side, damaged at the base, 2+ grains missing from its
mass.

And the head-shot bullet certainly did not "evaporate". It fragmented
pretty badly, yes. But so what? That's to be expected given what it
hit at 2000fps.

The WC said CE399 was inside Connally. The HSCA said that CE399 was
inside Connally. What makes Richard Van Noord any more of an expert
than the WC & HSCA? Please let us know why we should follow ye to the
Holy Land of CT-ville?

If CE399 had been plucked from John Connally's thigh by Dr. Charles
Gregory, would you still insist it was "planted"?

I wonder.

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 8:57:28 PM9/11/07
to
http://www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/16/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=390&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1PVB2Q6W91PPC#Mx1PVB2Q6W91PPC


>>> "I beseech those thinking they've scored points on this forum to join the Ed Forum or the Lancer Forum, and see how fast many of their arguments go down in flames." <<<

Oh, you mean fighting with the likes of Todd Teachout, Gil Jesus, Dave
Healy, Bill Miller, and Anthony Frank (to name just a handful)?
There's a team of real winners there. ~smirk~

I've battled all of them...and won on EVERY common-sense level without
question (mainly because they have very little to fight with on that
front).

Let me just give lurkers an idea of what I mean (and these are random
examples of the kind of pro-CT silliness you will find at EVERY
Kennedy forum across the Internet):

Among the pack of CTers just mentioned, Gil Jesus (regular poster at
McAdams, Lancer, & Edu.) recently stated the possibility that John
Connally fired the fatal head shot into JFK's brain by pulling a gun
out of an ankle holster that Connally was known to carry on him.

How's that for a starter?

Mr. Healy is no doubt known to many here at Amazon even. He's the Mega-
Kook who thinks it's quite likely that not only is the Zapruder Film
"faked", but he thinks it's also quite possible that Mr. Zapruder and
Miss Sitzman were NEVER UP ON THAT PEDESTAL IN DEALEY PLAZA AT ALL on
11/22/63. Abe never even filmed the motorcade at all!

Nice top-flight "CT" competition so far, huh?

Mr. Miller isn't quite as bad as those already mentioned, and Bill has
provided a goodly number of outstanding film gif clips, etc., to
researchers, which I have benefitted from, and still use regularly,
and I thank him for that.....but some of his theories on the case are
extreme and, as always, completely unconnected with any hard evidence
to support them (except grainy pictures and a vivid imagination while
interpreting the Z-Film).

For example (and I assume he still buys this junk): Bill thinks there
were two Knoll shooters ("Hat Man" & "Badge Man"); and I think he has
Hat Man, further west than BM, firing the fatal head shot at JFK. I
think he purports BM's shot missed the President. I could have that
reversed; it's been a while since I waded through his Grassy Knoll
nonsense, so forgive me if I have it slightly wrong. But he couldn't
be more wrong himself, of course.

And then there's Teachout & Frank, both of whom take thick pills by
the basket load. Teachout, like many CTers, thinks Oswald is totally
innocent of the Tippit crime and of JFK's murder (my battles with him
about the Tippit murder have resulted in huge belly-laughs--coming
from me, that is; the stuff he has said re. that murder is not to be
believed, even by Stephen King).

And Mr. Frank has his 1-star review of VB's book posted near this
forum, and you can check out his nutsville comments re. the case (and
VB) yourself, and my comments on his review at the top of the Comments
area. He's a first-class Mega-Kook if there ever was one. (Sorry, but
that's just the truth of the matter. And no amount of logical
thinking...not even from the master of CS&L--VB--will dissuade these
people from their loony pro-conspiracy paths, as they continue to fill
the Internet forums with wholly-unsupportable theories.)

So, if you (Patrick) think any of the very knowledgable and articulate
LNers that I've seen post here in this forum would be shot down "in
flames" by any of the above-mentioned individuals -- or by Mr. Simkin
and his ilk at Edu. either for that matter -- you're sadly misguided
in that belief. (Simkin kicked me off of his forum after four days of
posting many common-sense-filled LN threads. I was the token LNer at
the time, and simply had to go. Pathetic.)

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 9:16:45 PM9/11/07
to
On Sep 11, 8:57 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum...

David, the little group of idiots you mention above are just that.
I've also had my day with Bill Miller, Anthony Frank and Todd
Teachout. I think we all have at one time or another. Anthony Frank
reminds me of Jesus...puts his little trademark at the bottom of all
his posts. The man is a total bag of hot air. Todd Teachout and Healy
should be brothers, neither have half a brain and together they can't
come up with an IQ higher then 10. As for Miller, you're so right
about his imagination. I fought with him for weeks on his gifs where
he sees things no one else can see. I'm pretty sure that Teachout saw
it too, case closed LOL.
I guess birds of a feather flock together.

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 9:24:44 PM9/11/07
to
You haven't won anything david except being Mr. Pompous..Lone Nutters
are a combination of unparalleled arrogance, ultra conformists,monumetal
dissemblers...and in plain english TIRESOME, but you all must have some
good qualities right?

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 12, 2007, 9:16:51 AM9/12/07
to
>>> "...But you all must have some good qualities, right?" <<<

Sure....we love to bash conspiracy-loving kooks (like you). That's an
admirable quality to be endlessly admired unto itself.

(There's that and the little fact that LNers are 100% right about the
November 1963 events in Dallas.)

0 new messages