Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 31)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From February 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- Mark Lane had recorded a conversation
between himself and Mrs. Markham. On that tape, Mrs. Markham describes
Tippit's killer as "short and a little on the heavy side".
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- LOL. The tape reveals more about Mark Lane's
eagerness to get Mrs. Markham to say exactly what Lane wants
desperately to hear than it does anything else. Lane is trying to
hammer the words "heavy" and "bushy-haired" down Helen's throat so
hard, it's pitiful.
Just look at the disgraceful exhibition Lane put on (via the link
below). And then come back in here and bitch and moan some more about
how Helen Markham never saw sweet and tender Lee Harvey Oswald murder
J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street. .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- {Helen Markham} gave his height as 5'8" and his weight at
about 150 pounds and "having somewhat bushy hair".
DVP -- LOL. And THAT description (5'8"; 150 lbs.) is supposed to MATCH
the "short/heavy" description she also supposedly gave??
You conspiracy kooks are amazing. You'll go to any lengths to avoid
the obviousness of Saint O's guilt. "5-feet-8/150 pounds" is almost
spot-on perfect for Oswald, for Pete sake. And you think such a
description somehow exonerates him?
Un-be-liev-able!
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The Warren Commission listened to that tape and concluded that
she {Markham} didn't mean "BUSHY".
DVP -- Probably because the WC was smart enough to see what Mark Lane
was trying to do to Helen. It's obvious. Markham says right on the
tape that Lane was dead-wrong about the "bushy-haired" business. She
smacks him down verbally almost every step of the way.
I'm surprised Lane didn't burn that silly tape....for it surely does
his CT case absolutely no good whatsoever. It accomplishes exactly the
opposite of what he intended...i.e., it shows Lane to be a
manipulative asswipe who wanted Markham desperately to say something
to get Oswald off the hook. But she did nothing of the kind on that
tape. Let's have a gander at an excerpt:
LANE -- "I read that you told some of the reporters that he was short,
stocky, and had bushy hair."
MARKHAM -- "No, no. I did not say this."
LANE -- "You did not say that?"
MARKHAM -- "No, sir."
LANE -- "Well, would you say that he was stocky?"
MARKHAM -- "Uh, he was short."
LANE -- "And was he a little bit on the heavy side?"
MARKHAM -- "Uh, not too heavy."
~~~~~~~~
Great case for conspiracy there, huh?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- At the time of Tippit's murder, Oswald's hair was probably not
messed up because he had been in his room at 1:02/1:03 where he
changed his clothes and ran a comb through his hair.
DVP -- Beautiful! Now Mr. Conspiracy has full knowledge (somehow) of
Oswald's grooming/hair-combing habits on 11/22/63. This is
just....classic! You must have been in that room with Oswald and saw
him run "a comb through his hair", huh? LOL.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Helen Markham DESCRIBED Tippit's killer as...a 30-year-old
white man...
DVP -- Which is in perfect sync with how other people (Howard Brennan;
Marrion Baker) described Oswald's age as well.
Continue...
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- ...about 5'8" tall...
DVP -- Which Oswald was (i.e., "about 5-8"). Markham's off by a
whopping one inch. Got anything better coming up that helps to get
your patsy off the hook, kook? Let's see...
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- ...weighing about 150 pounds...
DVP -- Which is the EXACT estimated weight that shows up on Oswald's
autopsy report. (This is getting spooky now. This CTer thinks an
almost-EXACT description of Lee Harvey Oswald's physical dimensions
somehow indicates it COULDN'T POSSIBLY have been Lee Harvey Oswald
that Helen Markham saw. Talk about kooky.)
Next...
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- ...with black hair...
DVP -- Oswald had dark hair. So you're still in deep shit, Mr.
Conspiracy. Nothing yet gets Oz off the murdering hook.
Next...
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- ...{hair} that was "a little bit bushy"...
DVP -- After having that word shoved down her throat by the wonderful
and ultra-fair Mark Lane.
Boy, you've got a GREAT case here for Oz being innocent.
<smirk>
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- ...was wearing a white jacket...
DVP -- Oswald had on a gray windbreaker jacket. Could have looked
"white" to some people. Geesh.
Next...
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- ...white shirt and dark slacks.
DVP -- Both items fit Oswald's manner of dress on November 22, 1963.
He WAS wearing a white shirt (his T-shirt)...and he WAS wearing dark
slacks that day.
You've just made a very good case for Lee Oswald being the man Helen
Markham saw kill Officer J.D. Tippit.
Nice job.
Wanna work on Howard Brennan now? Maybe you'll have better luck with
his testimony and observations of the killer. You couldn't possibly do
much worse than you just did with Mrs. Markham.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Check your {WC} bible, maggot. The facts are right there.
DVP -- Yep. They sure are. And, as I just said, you've made a strong
case for Oswald being Tippit's murderer....as did the Warren
Commission.
On pages 167 and 168 of the Warren Report, the WC forthrightly and
logically assesses the Markham/Lane "bushy hair" situation (although
the WR never mentions Lane by name as the person who had the phone
conversation with Markham).
And as anyone can easily see (who really wants to see), Markham's
statements in that Lane interview do NOT, in any fashion, exonerate
Lee Oswald for Tippit's killing. Not even close.
Lee Harvey Oswald killed J.D. Tippit...and there's nothing that any of
the stubborn conspiracy-loving fruitcakes who reside in Kookville can
do to change that most basic (and provable) of all facts.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- {The} Weaver pic proves conspiracy. {The} only corner window
in the upper right-hand corner of the Depository in which the Brennan/
Fischer/Walther/Edwards suspect could be, in the Weaver Polaroid, is
on the 5th floor.
DVP -- Bullshit. The CTer who wrote the above nonsense wants to use
the Jack Weaver still photograph as some type of PROOF that nobody was
in the Sniper's Nest window on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository
MANY SECONDS AFTER THAT PICTURE WAS SNAPPED.
Great logic there.
Plus there's the fact that the Weaver photo is pretty crappy to begin
with, making "picking out people" on any floor of the Depository a
difficult task (at best). ....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/8068.jpg
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/8067.jpg
But back here in reality (with Oswald up on the 6th Floor with a
rifle, which was the very same floor where all of the ballistics
traces were found) -- Lee Harvey Oswald knew from the outset of
constructing his Nest and his rifle-rest boxes that he wouldn't need
to be hanging out of the SN window watching for his prey to appear on
Houston Street. That would have been silly--and dangerous--for him to
do. Which is probably part of the reason why he set up his rifle-rest
boxes in a "RIFLE WILL ALWAYS BE POINTING TOWARD THE UNDERPASS"
arrangement.*
* = Yes, I know that Howard Brennan described the assassin as coming
back and forth from the window "a couple of times" prior to the
assassination (and Fischer/Edwards saw the man in the window approx.
30 seconds before the motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza) -- but
there's just simply no way to perfectly LINE UP all of those witness
accounts of seeing the assassin in the window. And there's certainly
no way to align them to the precise moment when Weaver was snapping
his still photograph. No way that such exacting precision can be
obtained.
In addition, let me add this re. Oswald and the SN boxes.....
We KNOW that one of the top rifle-rest boxes is situated in such a
manner where any rifle resting on it would be pointing toward the
SOUTHWEST (toward the general direction of the Triple Underpass) just
SECONDS after the shooting occurred...via the Dillard photograph,
which shows the corner of that top rifle-rest box (or the box placed
just in front of it on the windowsill itself; it's kind of hard to
tell which of those two boxes is shown in the Dillard picture) in just
the position where the police photographed it later that day on
November 22nd. .....
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce482.jpg
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0255a.htm
Therefore, given Oswald's obvious plan of arranging those boxes in an
"I'LL SHOOT JFK AFTER HE TURNS ONTO ELM STREET" fashion, why would we
necessarily have to catch any glimpse of Oswald in the 6th-Floor SN
window in the Weaver photo (which was taken about 30 seconds before
Oswald started shooting)?
Obviously, we wouldn't have to be seeing Oswald in the window in the
Weaver picture at that given point in time.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Any photo which shows the box sitting on the windowsill is a
fake.
DVP -- And somehow that CTer KNOWS with 100% certainty what the
original box configuration was. Amazing. Almost as amazing as that
same CT-Kook knowing that Oz "ran a comb through his hair" at
1:02-1:03 PM on 11/22/63. That's just fabulous stuff there. That CT
crystal ball is working wonders indeed.
But no CTer can claim that the cops re-arranged any boxes by the time
Tom Dillard snapped the picture linked below (which was taken just
seconds after the shots were fired at President Kennedy).
And at what ANGLE is the box we see in the Dillard pic? (Answer--It's
a box that is angled in such a way so that any rifle resting on it
would be pointing toward the SOUTHWEST.)
Fast cops, indeed, to fake that box's position.....
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce482.jpg
eca...@tx.rr.com
format! And as per always,
you present *substance* and
apply common sense to your
point(s) extremely well. I
must confess I have to run
for a moment but I will
finish your post when I
return.. I just wanted to
say it's yet another superb
post and a fresh new
presentation.
MR ;~D
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0...
aeffects
> David this is a great
> format! And as per always,
> you present *substance* and
> apply common sense to your
> point(s) extremely well. I
> must confess I have to run
> for a moment but I will
> finish your post when I
> return.. I just wanted to
> say it's yet another superb
> post and a fresh new
> presentation.
bah.... Davie is warming up for his upcoming defense of daBugliosi's
forth coming issue. We know what he's up to. You on the otherhand,
will change the subject, or support any topic that avoids the 35 JFK
assassination-evidence related questions. Your game is obvious... YOU
have NO answers!
> ...
>
> read more »
Davie is warming up his defense of daBugliosi forthcoming issue.... as
for you, you'd hide behind Satan if Satan would divert attention from
you answering the 35 questions
YoHarvey
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What aeffects quite simply forgets is this: The LN community has ALL
the answers! The Official verdict on this case is not complex. Check
your history books. The burden of proof to change the official
verdict rests with the CT community. Guess what? They've had 43
years.....and another 43 years won't help them!
Ben Holmes
eca...@tx.rr.com says...
>
>David this is a great
>format!
Yep... first you *start* with a lie for a title - then it merely gets worse...
>And as per always,
>you present *substance*
No... LNT'ers rarely do. They can't afford to... since the evidence doesn't
support their theory.
>and
>apply common sense
*WE* prefer to apply the evidence... LNT'ers apply "common sense & logic".
Guess which works in the legal system?
David Von Pein
How's John Welsh Hodges coming on that Bugliosi-bashing book of his?
Can I find it at Waldenbooks soon? .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2f244861f6c564f7
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/17a9fad41d79ebe1