VB, GARY A., THE SBT, NAA, AND CS&L
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2e49bc952b950dad
=================================================
http://www.ctka.net/bug_aguilar.html
Gee, what a shocker! A CTer actually disagrees with Bugliosi and the
"LN" scenario!
Never would have imagined a thing like that occurring in a million
years.
Gary Aguilar, as expected, spends an inordinate amount of time trying
to prop up the idea that Guinn's NAA data is totally invalid. The
truth is, of course, that the NAA analysis is (and always has been)
merely corroborative in nature and is actually completely unneeded in
order to determine the very-likely origin of the small bullet
fragments associated with the JFK case.
For, I still want to know what the odds are of ZERO pieces of any non-
Oswald bullets (large enough to be tested via traditional ballistics
means, that is) showing up anywhere (car, hospital, victims) and yet
still have bullets from any non-Oswald guns striking any victims in
that limousine?
The ONLY bullets/fragments large enough to be tested ballistically are
linked irrevocably to Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano Rifle #C2766. This
is a FACT that cannot be denied...no matter how many CTers show up in
the future to try and dispute this irreversible fact.
And that irreversible fact about the bullets and fragments is an
absolutely incredible fact IF OTHER GUNS WERE INVOLVED IN HITTING THE
VICTIMS TOO. (Don't you think?)
Is there anyone out there who thinks it's actually LIKELY, given the
above-mentioned fact about the bullet evidence, for multiple non-C2766
guns to have been involved in the assassination? If anyone thinks such
a scenario IS "likely", they must be living in a different galaxy.
Common sense alone solves the bullet "mystery" (which isn't a mystery
at all, of course, if you're a reasonable person).
And I'm guessing that the chances were mighty, mighty low indeed for
Dr. Guinn to have arrived at a "2 Bullets From C2766" conclusion in
1977-78, even based on 1970s standards, IF MULTIPLE OTHER TYPES OF
BULLETS/GUNS had really been in the bullet mix that Guinn examined for
the HSCA.
That's yet another "absolutely incredible" one-gun-favoring conclusion
if THREE different guns had actually fired bullets that struck JFK &
JBC on 11/22/63 (as almost all anti-SBT advocates MUST believe, due to
several factors).
So, per those anti-SBTers, bullets from THREE different guns (at
least!) entered the victims and yet the only pieces of bullet large
enough to be tested ballistically (in order to exclude or include
Oswald's C2766) just happened to be a whole bullet and two fragments
from that exact gun--C2766.
(Is this truly higher math....or brain surgery? To me, it's obvious.
But to many CTers, it's completely up in the air. Go figure.)
Regarding CE399.......
I thinks it's quite humorous that many CTers have "switched" to a "The
Bullet Was Switched Instead Of Planted" mindset with respect to CE399
(as Dr. Aguilar mentions having occurred over the last several
years).
Maybe it's akin to David Lifton's conspiratorial mindset -- i.e., if
one theory falls flat, just move on to the next wholly-unsupportable
one.
Mr. Lifton has seemingly utilized that motto on various occasions
since his mind-numbing piece of tripe called "Best Evidence" was
released and gobbled up with glee by a lot of CT-Kooks in 1980 and
1981.
But the idea of a "switched" bullet is every bit as silly as a
"planted" 399....if for no other reason, it just about totally
demolishes ANOTHER long-held belief of the anti-SBT CTers -- that
being: the belief by theorists that NO BULLET (399 or otherwise) could
have ended up in the near-perfect condition that 399 was in after
being discovered on Governor Connally's stretcher by Darrell
Tomlinson.
But the "switched" theory includes a WHOLE, INTACT, and (per most
CTers I've encountered who love this "switched" theory) POINTY-NOSED
bullet being found by Tomlinson instead of CE399.
So, per that "switched" scenario, I guess a bullet remained pretty
much INTACT and (just exactly like CE399) suffered no damage at all to
the "business end of the bullet--the tip" (to use the verbatim words
of Dr. Gary Aguilar from the above-linked article), because that
"pointy" bullet was still "pointy-nosed" when discovered by Tomlinson
(per many conspiracists).
It makes me wonder HOW those same CTers can possibly accept the idea
of a pointy-nosed bullet remaining "pointy-nosed" after having done
THE VERY SAME DAMAGE TO GOVERNOR CONNALLY that CE399 is said to have
done per the Warren Commission and the HSCA?
Or do those "switched"-favoring CTers think that the "pointy" bullet
wasn't really the bullet that was inside John Connally either? Was
THAT bullet "planted", and then "switched" for Oswald's 399?
Seems to me it's a "six of one, half-dozen of the other" type of
argument here. Either a pointy bullet remained intact and without a
crushed nose after going through Connally's body and ended up on that
stretcher inside Parkland Hospital....or CE399 did. And the best
evidence is that JBC was hit by just a SINGLE bullet, not two or three
missiles.
Either way that argument is sliced and theorized, it would appear that
a decent-sized number of CTers are going to have to jettison a theory
they've held so dear for a long, long time -- that being the theory
that a bullet could not possibly end up in a whole, unfragmented, non-
mutilated condition after breaking the bones it must have broken in
John Connally's body.
In the final (and logical) analysis, Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming
History" will probably remain the JFK Bible for many decades to come,
despite the CTers who have a desire to pick apart every evidence-based
sentence within it.
David Von Pein
December 3, 2007
==================================================
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bceb46435b39817f
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/149b6520e8455c72
>>> "Oh, so then you're saying that Sturdivan is wrong; that the NAA is NOT the "Rosetta Stone" proof that Oswald did it, to use Sturdivan's own description." <<<
Oh, I definitely disagree (strongly) with that type of "Rosetta Stone"
assessment, to be sure!
If Mr. Sturdivan said that very thing you attribute him as having said
about NAA (I'm not 100% sure, but I'll take your word for it, Gary),
then, yes, I positively think Larry is wrong regarding such a strong
statement.
NAA isn't the "Rosetta Stone", in my opinion. Far from it. Because
common sense ALONE comes very, very close to verifying (for reasonable
people looking at the sum total of the bullet evidence) that no other
bullets struck the two limo victims on Elm Street on November 22. NAA
is merely the icing on an already adequately-iced "All Oswald's
Bullets" cake.
IMO, the "Rosetta Stones" (if I'm allowed to have more than just one
single "Stone") that prove Oswald's guilt (and his almost certain lone
guilt) are the following things:
1.) Rifle C2766 being found on the 6th Floor.
2.) The paper bag (with LHO's prints on it).
More.....
THESE TWO THINGS PROVE LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUILT:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/909b5b194cab1cbe
3.) Oswald's immediate departure (on foot) from the murder scene.
4.) The Tippit murder.
5.) Oswald's many lies that he told to the police after his arrest
(including the critical lie about the "curtain rods", i.e., LHO
telling police that he had never said a word to Buell Wesley Frazier
about "curtain rods").
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a6b3390021d657c
>>> "Say, who's [sic] side are you on, anyway?!" <<<
The one marked "CS&L" (Common Sense & Logic). ;)
Which side are you on, Gary? The "Complicate The Uncomplicated" side
perhaps?
>>> "And history has always proven that the FBI lab can be trusted implicitly, hasn't it?" <<<
Which, of course, MUST mean that Hoover and his evil boys (including
the FBI "lab" boys and girls) would fake everything in sight (or pert-
near, per many CTers) when it comes to the assassination of their own
Chief Executive. Right, Gary?
Where's the proof that the FBI "faked" anything in this case? Or that
they hid anything from view in this case (with the one exception of
the Hosty note, which I'll readily admit was flushed down the toilet
in Dallas)?
But why on Earth would Hosty EVER admit to doing such a thing if the
FBI was really "behind" the assassination or the kind of massive
"cover-up" that many conspiracists suspect?
The "Hosty Note" topic reminds me of Dr. James Humes and his example
of truth-telling that backfired on him too. Humes ADMITTED flat-out
(on paper and in front of the WC) that he burned his autopsy notes and
the first rough draft of the autopsy report....and he's then raked
over the hot coals by CTers for telling that hunk of TRUTH.
But why in heck would Humes had ever admitted to burning those items
in his home fireplace (when he really didn't have to admit to any such
burning at all) if he was part of some kind of covert plot or cover-
up?
It's just....silly.
>>> "J. Edgar Hoover was a man of absolute reasonableness, wasn't he?" <<<
No. By all accounts of the man, he was a kook and pretty much a
nutcase. But, so what?
He never liked to make left turns while being driven around (after
being involved in a fender-bender while making a left turn one day),
so he instructed his drivers to never make any left turns ever again
while he was in the car. Must've been fun planning J. Edgar's
excursions after that. ;)
Hoover was a kook in many ways, yes. But does that mean he plotted to
cover up the truth about the murder of his own President?
Plus, as I've said several times in the past, it's fervently my belief
that J. Edgar Hoover would have been anxious and foaming at the mouth
to REVEAL the existence of a conspiracy in the JFK murder, in order to
possibly exonerate Lee Oswald (which would have certainly relieved the
pressure that his Bureau was under after the assassination for having
not kept betting tabs on this freak of nature named Oswald, who was
right under James Hosty's nose for several weeks prior to November
22nd).
Hoover certainly wouldn't have been trying to FALSELY CONVICT (as some
CTers seem to actually believe) the one man whom his Bureau should
have been watching more closely leading up to the assassination, for
Pete sake.
That theory is, again, just silly, IMO.
>>> "It must pain you to have to argue that men with better credentials than Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan have concluded that Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan can't be taken to the bank, eh?" <<<
You can have the NAA stuff all to yourself if you want it. As
mentioned earlier, it's merely a coating of redundant icing on the
LHO-
Did-It cake anyway.
Now, I'm not saying that it's not nice to have Guinn's NAA analysis in
the official record connected to the JFK case (as added "icing", that
is). Because it is nice to have that there. But it's certainly not
essential in determining the truth of the assassination.
And I'd still like to know just how big a crook/liar/schemer Dr.
Vincent P. Guinn was in 1977 and 1978 (per many CTers, that is).
By that I mean....What are the odds that Dr. Guinn would be able to
reasonably conclude (even via his 1970s standards and NAA methodology)
that only TWO bullets and no more were in the "mix" of bullet lead,
among the 5 specimens he examined for the HSCA -- and both bullets, of
course, coming from Oswald's gun (since CE399 and CE567 were 2 of
those 5 bullet samples) -- IF THERE HAD REALLY BEEN TWO OR MORE GUNS
being pointed at JFK in Dealey Plaza?
Was Guinn just a rotten chemist? Or was he deliberately skewing his
results to meet a predestined WC-backing "two bullets and no more"
conclusion when he said what he said about those five bullet specimens
in 1977-78?
Food for thought (IMO).
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e68af2a823062f43
And allow me to once again quote the man who wrote the Bible
("Reclaiming History"), Vince Bugliosi, with respect to the NAA debate
(all emphasis is Bugliosi's here):
"Even if the new findings {not the 2007 study however} were to
render NAA, and hence {Dr. Vincent} Guinn's conclusions, invalid, we
DO know that the stretcher bullet was fired from Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of ALL other weapons.
"Since THAT is definite, what is the likelihood that a bullet
found on CONNALLY'S stretcher, which we know was fired from Oswald's
gun, is not the same bullet that deposited its missing fragments in
Connally's wrist? Next to nothing. In other words, when all is said
and done, what difference does it make if it turns out that the NAA
tests are completely invalid?
"But there is a more important point to be made. Let's not
forget that the NAA conclusions by Guinn...are COMPLETELY CONSISTENT
with all the other evidence showing that Oswald was at the sniper's
nest window and it was his Carcano rifle that fired the only bullets
that hit Kennedy.
"This other, independent evidence necessarily increases the
likelihood that Guinn's separate NAA conclusions are accurate." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 436-437 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes
CD)(c.2007)
>>> "And the evidence that the pointy tipped bullet hit Kennedy and Connally is, exactly, what?" <<<
LOL. You tell me, Gary. It's certainly not MY silly theory.
But many CTers I've conversed with DO seem to like that "pointy
bullet" theory. Which, if true, means that either THAT bullet, too,
was "planted", or it must mean that a pointy bullet hit Connally, did
a substantial amount of bony damage inside the Governor, and emerged
in a condition that, I would think, rivals the near-pristine state of
the bullet all CTers love to hate and scorn -- Commission Exhibit
Number Three-Niner-Niner.
It's a silly theory no matter which way CTers wish to go with it.
>>> "And the evidence that the pointy tipped bullet hit Kennedy and Connally is, exactly, what?" <<<
Goodie, a reprise.....
LOL. You tell me, Gary. It's certainly not MY silly theory.
(Wanna go for a Hat Trick here?)
>>> "And the evidence Connally actually lay on that stretcher, rather than, say, Ronnie Fuller, is, exactly, what?" <<<
Was Ronnie hit by a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet (or ANY bullet) on
November 22, 1963, Gary?
The "Fuller" argument goes nowhere, of course. It's quite obvious that
Darrell Tomlinson was not paying strict attention to the stretchers
when he retrieved Bullet CE399 from Connally's stretcher (i.e., the
only stretcher, among the two available, that ANY bullet could have
possibly come off of).
But some CTers would rather rely on hazy human memories, instead of
turning to Occam's, whose Razor is razor-sharp in almost all aspects
of this murder case. (The constant obfuscation exhibited by CTers
notwithstanding, of course.)
Conspiracy-hungry individuals love to complicate things, even when
complicating things isn't necessary (or reasonable) in order to figure
out what probably happened in a given situation.
LNers, though, enjoy Occam's [aka Ockham's] company.
>>> "Has evidence proved that the bullet found on Ronnie Fuller's stretcher had passed through Connally?" <<<
Was Ronnie hit by any bullet on 11/22/63?
If not, where does the argument really go regarding any bullet being
plucked off of Ronnie Fuller's stretcher?
Were the plotters so stupid they couldn't even plant a bullet on the
correct stretcher?
There's nothing I hate worse than an overpaid, ignorant, bullet-
planting "Patsy Framer"! Don't you agree?
>>> "It's quite amusing to me that you've not touched on any of the examples I cited of VB's omissions and distortions of evidence." <<<
All chaff. That's what CTers love--the chaff. Even when the wheat
field is slapping them in the face daily. Go figure.
That's possibly what Mr. Bugliosi thinks too, when it comes to your
so-
called cites of VB's "omissions and distortions of evidence".
For CTers, even when a logical, reasonable, Occam's-like answer is
readily available (and such answers exist for virtually every
discrepancy and "oddity" in this case), the conspiracy theorists, who
are bent on promoting their make-believe "plots" or "cover-ups", will
opt for a more complicated, always-unsupportable cloak-and-dagger
explanation to explain away the discrepancy.
The CE399 debate is a perfect example of this. For, is it truly likely
for a bullet from Oswald's gun (which is a gun that we KNOW beyond all
doubt was, indeed, involved in the shooting of President Kennedy in
Dealey Plaza; CE567 and CE569 in the limo prove that fact without
question) to have really been "planted" or "switched" or
"substituted" (or whatever) shortly after the assassination?....
....Or is it really MORE likely for CE399 to be just what it seems to
be -- i.e., a bullet from Lee Harvey Oswald's very own rifle that was
found on 11/22/63 in the hospital where both shooting victims were
taken right after having been shot by rifle bullets on that very same
day and right after those two victims had been shot at by someone who
was using THE VERY SAME RIFLE THAT FIRED BULLET CE399?
Let me call up William of Occam and get his opinion. (I think I know
what he'll say.)
David Von Pein
December 4, 2007
aeffects
<nothing of course....>
stick around son, you'll learn all about it!
Phil Ossofee
know.Aguilar would mop the floor with him. I'd love to see him in a big
hall when he starts pulling all his underhanded tricks. He's a coward,
he never will.
Ben Holmes
Of course not! LNT'ers can't stand in front of a knowledgeable CT'er - the
evidence simply doesn't support their stance, and they have no-where to turn.
LNT'ers duck and run away from a written forum - to think that they could get in
front of an audience or camera - and FACE TO FACE with someone who can quote and
cite, is beyond a CTer's fondest hope.
aeffects
> "In the final (and logical) analysis, Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming
> History" will probably remain the JFK Bible for many decades to come,
> despite the CTers who have a desire to pick apart every evidence- based
> sentence within it."
>
> will be picked apart by CTers. It doesn't bother him in the least. Unlike
> the ever-changing and alternative theories CTers have to come with time
> and again to keep their own interest and try to dupe the public and get
> lots of book sales, VB's book and the facts stated within are the truth,
> and set in stone.
>
> I just finished it myself a week ago, and I must say, I am completely
> amazed at the research and detail he put into it. It's truly a
> masterpiece. The end notes alone could be several books by themselves! I
> think I will read it again.
>
> I also like how it makes the CTers squirm!
squirm? ROTFLMFAO! What makes me squirm is embarrassment for David Von
Pein (aka Dave Reitzes)
David Von Pein
>>> "Shaw admitted that he changed his mind." <<<
Too bad. He had it right the first time.
BTW, adding an extra bullet only makes ANY anti-SBT theory more absurd
and complicated and impossible than any such anti-SBT theory already
is (which is pretty darned impossible even via a 3-bullet substitute,
instead of the 4-bullet replacement that's required if 2 bullets went
into Connally).
Somehow, per many CTers, FOUR separate bullets magically lined
themselves up so that this alignment was such that the WC could think
that just ONE missile did all of that damage. (Plus, all of those
bullets disappeared too--naturally--as with every unwanted bullet born
within the CT ranks.)
"The Magic Bullet Theory (Times Four)" is what that is, my friend.