THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY -- A LONE-ASSASSIN VIEWPOINT
David Von Pein
LINKS TO VARIOUS D.V.P.-AUTHORED ESSAYS, REVIEWS, AND COMMENTS
PERTAINING TO THE 11/22/63 ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
AND THE MURDER OF DALLAS POLICE OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WARREN COMMISSION GOT IT RIGHT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4b8dae7b150da043
THE WARREN COMMISSION GOT IT RIGHT (PART 2):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e2a229774508e859
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S SOLE GUILT -- POINT-BY-POINT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a6b3390021d657c
VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S "FINAL VERDICT":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1fb1e67721e35822
"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (1986 DOCU-TRIAL TEXT EXCERPTS):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1e2929be83607513
A COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO THE "SINGLE-BULLET THEORY":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e06a29392572c072
WHERE'S THE LOGICAL CONSPIRACY-ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE TO THE SBT?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ee3ea6cfa4a58c9
MORE "SINGLE-BULLET THEORY" TALK (COMMON SENSE INCLUDED):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
YET ANOTHER "SINGLE-BULLET THEORY" ESSAY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c19abd308e0026e1
STILL MORE "SBT" CONVERSATION (FOR GOOD MEASURE):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/89564808000300bc
AND A LITTLE MORE SINGLE-BULLET LOGIC (TONGUE-IN-CHEEK STYLE):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/12f589407f8baf66
JOHN CONNALLY SAID THE "SBT" IS "POSSIBLE":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
THE ABSURDITIES OF THE "OSWALD-AS-PATSY" CONSPIRACY PLOT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/606503e4d63e74ad
THE "PATSY PLOT" SILLINESS (PART 2):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd321914097fcd2d
THESE TWO THINGS PROVE LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUILT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/909b5b194cab1cbe
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S MOTIVES FOR KILLING PRESIDENT KENNEDY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/66803e710380d800
EVERYTHING LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID ON 11/22/63 SAYS "I'M GUILTY!":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4dd73f8e676a5db8
JIM GARRISON WAS DEAD WRONG (PART 1):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2317ac73008b3c8a
JIM GARRISON WAS DEAD WRONG (PART 2):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9d4772fbe4df0bcd
HOWARD L. BRENNAN -- WITNESS TO A TRAGEDY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/23a82b5e83ce0ff6
THE "BOH" WITNESSES VS. THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS -- WHO'S RIGHT?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS CRAZY JFK THEORY?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7448f602cc9b26e3
JFK CONSPIRACY THEORIES GALORE (PART 1):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5ac4a7c8a086bb36
JFK CONSPIRACY THEORIES GALORE (PART 2):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/43e50295440e48b0
HOW TO FRAME A LONE PATSY FOR JFK'S MURDER (AND HOW NOT TO DO IT):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f4466b08f8be7c36
IF PRESIDENT KENNEDY WAS SHOT BY MULTIPLE GUNMEN, THEN WHY IS IT...?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9f9db2052413d59d
WAS LEE OSWALD "PLACED" IN THE BOOK DEPOSITORY BY PLOTTERS?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/64195df0086af9b4
SOLID VALIDATION THAT LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS IN THE SNIPER'S NEST:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/182cecc7c4e37bb2
THE WARREN REPORT -- IT MAKES PERFECT "LN" SENSE:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6577daadba0e46a4
MUSICAL CASKETS AND THE "BODY-ALTERATION" SILLINESS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0de08844600b8c7a
"WELL, THEY SAY IT JUST TAKES A SECOND TO DIE":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ff403dedacb5d4f
THE "BACKYARD PHOTOS" OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- REAL OR FAKE?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/abf2ea54c9dddca4
THE "CRYSTAL-BALL-GAZING" CONSPIRATORS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/747e6695f071ec3f
LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS A LIAR -- EXAMINING HIS MANY LIES:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea04b9e6141f0098
THE IMPORTANT AND OFTEN-OVERLOOKED WITNESS STATISTICS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7b06a89bd4042363
MOVIE REVIEW -- "FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.video/msg/5093634b419405d5
MOVIE/DVD REVIEW -- OLIVER STONE'S "JFK":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51b89da58d3e6489
BOOK REVIEW -- "THE JFK MYTHS" BY LARRY STURDIVAN:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d505fe064fccafb
BOOK REVIEW -- "WITH MALICE" BY DALE MYERS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1bdb7e56f0427853
BOOK REVIEW -- "A SIMPLE ACT OF MURDER" BY MARK FUHRMAN:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c7616a35ac60e22
BOOK REVIEW -- "THE DAY KENNEDY WAS SHOT" BY JIM BISHOP:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d5bfef3e64392e4d
BOOK REVIEW -- "NATIONAL NIGHTMARE" BY RICHARD TRASK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/48c19f6f3b9122d6
BOOK REVIEW -- "THAT DAY IN DALLAS" BY RICHARD TRASK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3184c6735973d209
BOOK REVIEW -- "THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT" BY ROBERT GRODEN:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d24cfcf0d0f8894b
DVD REVIEW -- "THE MURDER OF JFK: A REVISIONIST HISTORY":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/127162626b4861d0
REVIEW -- "THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION: BEYOND CONSPIRACY":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/869ebe2de53cbb58
REVIEW -- "JFK II: THE BUSH CONNECTION" --- COMPLETE RUBBISH!:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d5a5eeae1e135fd1
REVIEW -- "THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f0a3e91565c5c2cf
LIST OF JFK-RELATED VIDEOS, DVDs, BOOKS, AND CDs:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9c4caef920ae6a0d
Robert Harris
Tell me something David.
Why have you never posted a message that dealt with the overwhelming
consensus of the witnesses that they heard nothing that sounded like a
gunshot that day, until the very end when they heard a flurry of shots?
Or the the fact that not a single law enforcement professional supported
the WC/Posner theory that the first shots were closer than the final
ones?
Or the conclusion by Dr. Luis Alvarez that a loud noise startled Abraham
Zapruder at frame 285?
Or that the nonvictims in the limo reacted at exactly the same instant
that Zapruder did, and then each testified to hearing a gunshot at the
time we see them react?
David, if you want to support your theory honestly, you need to deal
with the question of whether it was physically possible for a single
assassin to have carried out the attack alone, using the alleged murder
weapon.
Why do you continue to run from the facts, David?
Robert Harris
In article <1161943997.7...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
--
There is no question an honest man will evade.
Robert Harris
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> Robert Harris:
>
> The ear-witnesses overwhelmingly reported three shots.
That is not quite accurate, Chuck.
They could only report what they were able to hear. But we know for an
absolute fact, that no-one heard the shot at 223, and that they probably
wouldn't have heard the first one either, if it hadn't hit the pavement.
> The timing or
> spacing of the shots as they remember them is of much less importance
> than the fact that they are incredibly consistent in noting just three
> shots-and the physical evidence connects all of this together very
> nicely.
Your attempt to rank these issues by "importance" doesn't make a lot of
sense, Chuck.
The spacing of the shots confirms that the attack was carried out by
multiple snipers and constituted by definition, a conspiracy.
What could be more important than that?
>
> You NEED to believe in silencer equipped weapons fired from storm
> drains or the the Daltex building, or the knoll.
We all NEED to understand that silencers were used for the first two
shots, Chuck.
Otherwise how do you explain the total lack of startle reactions to
sound levels that would have been 16 times louder than that used by
psychologists to startle their test subjects?
How do you explain that, Chuck?
And how do you explain the fact that we see exactly those kinds of
reactions following Z285 and Z312??
And how do you explain the fact that no-one reported more than a single
"noise", prior to the very end of the attack??
I guess the answer is, that you don't - you just continue to dodge the
facts and pretend that they don't exist.
>
> Face it, Bob. LHO did it. Stop defending a communist cop killer and a
> presidential murderer.
Chuck, is this the 8th or the 9th time I have told you that Oswald was
probably guilty?
I would love to attribute your "beliefs" to ignorance Chuck, but it is
phony tactics like this that make it very hard to believe that you are
an honest man.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Robert Harris:
>
>The ear-witnesses overwhelmingly reported three shots. The timing or
>spacing of the shots as they remember them is of much less importance
>than the fact that they are incredibly consistent in noting just three
>shots-and the physical evidence connects all of this together very
>nicely.
>
No, actually, the evidence leads one to such explanations... for LNT'ers have
*no* explanation for the eyewitness testimony on this topic.
>in silencer equipped weapons fired from storm
>drains or the the Daltex building, or the knoll.
>
David Von Pein
Robert, that fact (re. "physical possibility") has been established
multiple times, by multiple agencies, beginning with the WC staff and
counsel in 1964.
Oswald and his weapon were more than an effective enough "team" to do
what the evidence says it (this "team") did do -- i.e., fire three
shots with rifle C2766 in a space of approx. 6 to 8 seconds, and hit a
slow-moving target twice.
The SBT is a fact (and always has been), despite CTer protestations.
The simple fact that other bullets (that would lead to a non-SBT
conclusion) were not found anyplace in DP, the car, the hospital, or
the victims gives even further credence to the SBT's probability (plus
the wound "arrangement" on the two victims, of course).
For, I ask again, HOW could multiple shooters have peppered the victims
in such a "convenient" SBT-similar wound arrangement by using multiple
shots and guns (THREE total)? And THEN have these bullets vanish into a
puff on CT smoke? How? Pure luck?
Such a CT scenario is not even remotely possible in the real world.
More "Real World" JFK CS&L:
>>> "Why do you continue to run from the facts, David?" <<<
LOL.
The facts (i.e., the hard evidence) are all on the LN side in this
case. And always have been of course. (CTer protestations
notwithstanding.)
Why do YOU, Bob, keep running away from it (and the common sense I
assume God gave you as well)? Why?*
* = Probable answer --- "Pet Theory".
The following is fast becoming a favorite quote of mine from VB. I
think it applies here (and in almost all other CT vs. LN discussions
too):
"Based on the Himalayan mountain of evidence against him, anyone who
would believe he {Lee Oswald} was innocent would believe someone who
told them they had heard a cow speaking Spanish." -- Vince Bugliosi
(What languages do your cows speak, Bob?) ;)
David Von Pein
And CTers have no believable and reasonable explanation for this.....
Robert Harris
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "David, if you want to support your theory honestly, you need to deal
> >>> with the question of whether it was physically possible for a single
> >>> assassin to have carried out the attack alone, using the alleged murder
> >>> weapon." <<<
>
> Robert, that fact (re. "physical possibility") has been established
> multiple times, by multiple agencies, beginning with the WC staff and
> counsel in 1964.
That is called, an unsupported assertion, David.
You might as well claim the moon is made out of cheese.
David, you have to prove what you assert, if you want anyone to believe
it. You have to show evidence and you have to show legitimate analysis.
>
> Oswald and his weapon were more than an effective enough "team" to do
> what the evidence says it (this "team") did do
Yes, David, there is not a functional firearm on the planet, that is not
capable of being fired three times.
Is this your "proof" that no other snipers were involved???
>-- i.e., fire three
> shots with rifle C2766 in a space of approx. 6 to 8 seconds, and hit a
> slow-moving target twice.
Ok, that narrows the field down to only a few million rifles, but it
does eliminate most breech loaders that were used in the Revolutionary
War.
Now, when are you going to show us that no other snipers were involved
in the attack?
>
> The SBT is a fact (and always has been), despite CTer protestations.
No sir, it is not a "fact". Even the Warren Commission didn't make that
claim.
It is IMO, highly likely, but you cannot to save your life, prove it to
be a fact.
> The simple fact that other bullets (that would lead to a non-SBT
> conclusion) were not found anyplace in DP, the car, the hospital, or
> the victims gives even further credence to the SBT's probability (plus
> the wound "arrangement" on the two victims, of course).
A bullet that hit Kennedy could have bounced out of the car, David, or
gotten wedged someplace where it was never found. That's why honest
people - even on your side of the issue, don't exaggerate their
position.
But how does the SBT isolate Oswald as the only shooter, David?
Would you like me to prove to you David, that the trajectory from the
Daltex building was much better than the one from the alleged SN, at
Z223??
This is real, David, not a sales pitch.
I have posted many times, in support of the likelihood of one bullet
passing through both victims, and I went to a LOT of trouble back in
1995 and 96, to figure out where it came from. In fact, back in those
days, I took a lot more abuse from the conspiracy people than I ever
took from you guys.
What I did was, employ a marvelous piece of software called Claris Draw.
It permitted me to scale items down to 1/100th of an inch and to
calculate angles to a similar level.
I first loaded the HSCA surveyors diagram into the program, and then I
made a small rectangle to represent the limousine, which I sized to
scale and then inserted six oval heads at the appropriate positions,
taking care to place the Connally's inboard, exactly 6 inches further
than the Kennedy's.
I then placed my little limousine at it's precise location on Elm St,
taking care to match it exactly as it was in the Zapruder film, and to
turn John Connally about 35 degrees to his right, as he was in the film.
I then drew two straight lines passing backward from Connally's wounds
and then JFK's and back to the two suspected sniper locations.
The one pointing back to Oswald formed a 9-10 degree angle, relative to
the sides of the limo. The one pointing back to the Daltex formed a 3
degree angle.
You can compare them in this illustration:
http://jfkhistory.com/pix/sbt-dal.gif
You might argue that both are within margin for error I suppose, but
there is no doubt, that the Daltex trajectory is the more likely.
The bottom line here is, that the SBT does NOT prove that a single
assassin was solely responsible for the attack. It could have been fired
by assassin #12 for all we know, and the evidence suggests that the
third floor of the Daltex, where the only professional criminal in DP
that day, was arrested, is a considerably, more likely location.
>
> For, I ask again, HOW could multiple shooters have peppered the victims
> in such a "convenient" SBT-similar wound arrangement by using multiple
> shots and guns (THREE total)? And THEN have these bullets vanish into a
> puff on CT smoke? How? Pure luck?
Strawman argument, David. And the SBT does NOT in any way, shape or
form, contradict the existence of multiple snipers.
Besides, when you say "three" shots, you are only talking about those
that were audible. You are not accounting for silenced shots or those
that might have been simultaneous, or nearly so.
And you have no right to discount the existence of silenced shots, until
you can explain the lack of startle reactions to the first two shots,
and the fact that most witnesses never heard the second shot at all.
>
> Such a CT scenario is not even remotely possible in the real world.
David, the evidence is overwhelming, that the final shots were fired in
a closely bunched "flurry" and could not have all come from the alleged
murder weapon.
The best witnesses were the Secret Service agents and the other law
enforcement professionals, David and NOT ONE of them testified or
reported that first shots were closer than the final ones, as they have
to be, to support a LN theory.
And why do you continue to evade the fact that Dr. Alvarez identified a
loud noise at precisely, Zapruder frame 285, and reacted at Z290 -
EXACTLY when the limo passengers began to react???
Do you have any idea what the odds are against that being pure
coincidence, David??
I wrote a detailed analysis of the probablity of such a thing. It turned
out to be one in over 100 million, David. Would you like to see the
numbers so that you can check them out for yourself???
David, you can associate AT BEST, only ONE bullet to Oswald, and even
that is not with absolute certainty.
You are not being honest, when you continue to claim that only one
assassin was behind the attack, David. The facts disprove that theory in
a multitude of different ways.
Robert Harris
>
> More "Real World" JFK CS&L:
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp
> /002-0824397-5815226?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0875862462&store=yourstore&reviewID=RELLOCZ9
> H5AO&iid=0875862462&displayType=ReviewDetail
>
>
> >>> "Why do you continue to run from the facts, David?" <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> The facts (i.e., the hard evidence) are all on the LN side in this
> case. And always have been of course. (CTer protestations
> notwithstanding.)
>
> Why do YOU, Bob, keep running away from it (and the common sense I
> assume God gave you as well)? Why?*
>
> * = Probable answer --- "Pet Theory".
>
> The following is fast becoming a favorite quote of mine from VB. I
> think it applies here (and in almost all other CT vs. LN discussions
> too):
>
> "Based on the Himalayan mountain of evidence against him, anyone who
> would believe he {Lee Oswald} was innocent would believe someone who
> told them they had heard a cow speaking Spanish." -- Vince Bugliosi
>
> (What languages do your cows speak, Bob?) ;)
--