JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 133)

61 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 11, 2010, 9:01:15 AM4/11/10
to
ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 133):

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

BENAVIDES/BENAVIDEZ:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/a03a28370fcaeeca
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2a3ed3831499d51d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2a1968f8d9b87e1a
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c84efc80281d48b
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ae6564f750c3df6b


THE "ZAPRUDER FILM ALTERATION" SILLINESS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/dab8a7c22753b7e3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2e055ae3504e7cd3


LIEUTENANT J.C. DAY AND COMMISSION EXHIBIT 637:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ee0f8ad1153d5b0
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/28581c006ce7741c


RECLAIMING HISTORY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/77844aa3e297c349


O.J. AND OSWALD:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e0c6443e5588bd7e
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9a1ab8aec9fa22a7


MARK LANE:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/58a3869a1e48f899


S.B.T.:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/91ae58063fa4edee


"THE JIM DiEUGENIO HOUR" (SORT OF):
http://www.blackopforum.info/index.php/topic,465.0.html


MORE MISC. POSTS:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2112.msg35100.html#msg35100
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2fda9b740c8709bb
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b772352ab4fcff80
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a17e70347201b220
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3e749a5be9910e77


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


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 12, 2010, 8:12:19 AM4/12/10
to

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2211.msg37539.html#msg37539


http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2211.msg37554.html#msg37554


TONY FRATINI SAID:

>>> "I note with interest to where you placed the back wound entrance -- it is nowhere near where [Gerald] Ford "moved" it, nor where [Arlen] Specter placed the metal rod on the JFK stand-in in the famous "recreation" photos." <<<


DVP SAID:

Tony,

What are you talking about? I didn't "place" the back wound ANYWHERE.
It IS where it IS -- via the authenticated-as-unaltered autopsy photo.

And why you think the autopsy picture and CE903 are way off in terms
of the back-wound location is a real mystery. They are, in fact,
perfectly compatible with one another. Perfectly.

But by far the most important thing that CE903 proves (beyond any and
all possible doubt) is this:

The Warren Commission did not require JFK's upper-back wound to be
placed in the NECK of the President in order to make the SBT viable
and doable.

And it's a total mystery as to why conspiracy theorists are still
enamored by the silly idea that the Warren Commission absolutely had
to have JFK's back wound moved up into his NECK to support the SBT,
especially in light of what those conspiracy theorists can SEE FOR
THEMSELVES in CE903, which is a picture taken in Dallas on 5/24/64
which has the wound on the back side of JFK's body being in a location
that is EXACTLY where the autopsy photo shows that wound to be -- in
the UPPER BACK, and not in the "NECK". Period.


BTW, I edited my last post (with my asterisk) before I ever saw Tony's
post above. Whether anyone will believe that or not, ~shrug~.

Repeating an earlier "BTW" -- the line drawn on the autopsy picture is
not mine. I have no idea who drew that in there. I downloaded the
photo years ago from the JFK-Lancer forum archives.

MIKE WILLIAMS SAID:

>>> "I need to look into it [the SBT] further. The hype from the LN's is every bit as heavy as the hype from the CT's." <<<


DVP SAID:

When looking at the sum total of the evidence connected with the JFK
assassination, the Single-Bullet Theory is unquestionably one of the
easiest things in the whole case to figure out. Common sense alone
makes the SBT true.

The bigger mystery to me is this: Why are so many people (even a few
lone-assassin advocates) allergic to accepting the obvious truth that
rests within the letters "SBT"?

After all, the conspiracy theorists can still pretend that an
invisible Grassy Knoll gunman was firing away at JFK that day....even
WITH the SBT firmly in place.

I guess it must be the continuing myth about the bullet being
"pristine", plus all of the other misinformation that the CTers still
enjoy propping up, that makes most people deny the reality of the SBT.

Another example being: Darrell Tomlinson. To hear conspiracists tell
it, Tomlinson was absolutely positive that he did not find Bullet
CE399 on John Connally's stretcher at Parkland Hospital. But is that
what he told the Warren Commission back in 1964? No, it wasn't:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What did you tell the Secret Service man about which
stretcher you took off of the elevator?"

DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "I told him that I was not sure, and I am not--
I'm not sure of it, but as I said, I would be going against the oath
which I took a while ago, because I am definitely not sure."

MR. SPECTER -- "Do you remember if you told the Secret Service man
which stretcher you thought you took off of the elevator?"

MR. TOMLINSON -- "Well, we talked about taking a stretcher off of the
elevator, but then when it comes down on an oath, I wouldn't say for
sure, I really don't remember." ....

MR. SPECTER -- "You say you can't really take an oath today to be sure
whether it was stretcher A or stretcher B that you took off the
elevator?"

MR. TOMLINSON -- "Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of
it, whether it was A or B that I took off."

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

Other anti-SBT "myths" that CTers still endorse as the truth include:

1.) Governor Connally was seated directly in front of Kennedy (instead
of where JBC was really sitting--to Kennedy's LEFT-FRONT and LOWER
than the President).

2.) JFK's throat wound was an entrance wound. Which would have to mean
that the CTers have TWO "magic" bullets themselves -- i.e., the TWO
separate bullets that entered JFK's back and throat and failed to
exit, but both disappeared right after the shooting. Talk about silly.
This one might take home first prize for silliness.

3.) JFK's throat wound was anatomically HIGHER than his upper-back
wound. Yes, this was actually endorsed by the HSCA's Forensic
Pathology Panel, that's certainly true enough. But it's a
determination that is easily debunked by taking just one look at
Kennedy's autopsy photos.

4.) The Warren Commission (and particularly Gerald Ford) desperately
needed JFK's upper-back wound moved up into his neck in order to
support the single-bullet scenario. But just one quick glance at CE903
totally destroys this myth for all time.

5.) The number and weight of the bullet fragments that were located in
Governor Connally's right wrist and left thigh made it impossible for
those fragments to have come from Bullet CE399. This is total
nonsense, of course. But it's a myth that never wants to die the death
it deserves.

Based on the testimony supplied by one of Connally's surgeons (Dr.
Charles Gregory), I can make a very good case for there having been
only TWO very small metal fragments being left inside Governor
Connally's body following his surgery on 11/22/63 (one fragment in his
thigh and one in his wrist).

And of the three bullet fragments that were removed from Connally's
body (all coming from his wrist), one of those fragments (CE842)
weighed only ONE-HALF OF A GRAIN [5 H 72; WC Testimony of Robert A.
Frazier]:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9
for FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842
[a metal fragment removed from the wrist of Governor Connally], will
you describe that fragment for us, please?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal
which weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the
laboratory. It is a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a
bullet or a core of a bullet. However, it lacks any physical
characteristics which would permit stating whether or not it actually
originated from a bullet."

MR. SPECTER -- "Are its physical characteristics consistent with
having come from Commission Exhibit 399?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; it could have."

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

The other two fragments that were removed by Dr. Gregory from
Connally's wrist wound (which were examined via NAA tests in 1977 by
Dr. Vincent Guinn) were not individually weighed, as far as I am
aware.

But Guinn's conclusions, even apart from his specific NAA analysis
that all CTers totally disregard nowadays, certainly support the
general theory that the THREE bullet fragments he examined as part of
his work for the HSCA most certainly did not weigh MORE than the
missing weight of CE399.

That's just ordinary common sense. Otherwise, Dr. Guinn, on the basis
of just the size of the metal fragments ALONE, would not have been
able to say that those three fragments had very likely come from
CE399.


MIKE WILLIAMS SAID:

>>> "I think this for me adds weight to the SBT." <<<


DVP SAID:

Huh???

You mean to say that Mike Williams is now going to start endorsing the
Single-Bullet Theory (after his hundreds of anti-SBT posts at this
forum)?

~big shrug of bewilderment here~


MIKE WILLIAMS SAID:


>>> "In regard to the SBT, I think there is as much crap out there promoting it, as there is denying it. I chose to disregard both, and make up my own mind. .... [I'm] still looking into it, but certainly no longer ruling it out." <<<

DVP SAID:


Interesting. Perhaps the number of "suckers" just got a little higher:

"I would submit Sir the only act of SBT ignorance is on the part
of those who buy this moronic lot of crap. As WC Fields said[:] there
is a sucker in every crowd." -- Mike Williams; March 25, 2010

MIKE WILLIAMS SAID:

>>> "Touche! Does not change what I find. And I can and have been wrong before, but I report my thoughts honestly and accurately to the best of my ability. IS this an issue for you?" <<<


DVP SAID:


No. Not really.

I admire the fact you are willing to change your mind, instead of
remaining rooted in anti-SBT myth and lore.

Then too, you were never a "conspiracy kook" (at least as far as my
conversations with you here in 2010), so that's a great-big factor in
your favor to begin with.

:)


http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 12, 2010, 10:52:35 AM4/12/10
to

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2211.0.html


It doesn't matter how many PhDs or other degrees a person has. It's
been my observation that common sense ALWAYS takes a back seat among
JFK conspiracy theorists. Always. All the time. It never fails.

There are at least a dozen examples of this in this thread right here.
The Tomlinson/Stretcher issue for one. A reasonable person with common
sense regarding that topic can come to only one logical, reasonable
conclusion--i.e., Tomlinson found a bullet on Connally's stretcher.

But CTers look at things through a prism that has no "common sense"
filter on it at all. None. And this happens over and over again when
I'm talking with JFK conspiracists.

And it only gets worse over a period of time. Take conspiracy theorist
James DiEugenio for instance. He's now apparently convinced himself
that Lee Oswald carried NO LARGE-ISH BAG TO WORK AT ALL on November
22. No bag AT ALL!

Unbelievable silliness, isn't it? Of course it is. But Jim, a very
intelligent man, has somehow convinced himself that BOTH Buell Wesley
Frazier AND Linnie Mae Randle cooked up that "large bag" tale for some
reason. (To help frame Oswald I guess. Or they were "coerced" into
making up that fantastic false story by the Dallas police, which I
think is what DiEugenio actually said he believes.)

But does ordinary COMMON SENSE back up Mr. DiEugenio's "NO BAG AT ALL"
fantasy? Of course not. Common sense (plus the actual evidence of a
large bag WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT) tells us something quite
different.

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 13, 2010, 5:22:58 AM4/13/10
to

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1745.msg37532.html#msg37532

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1745.msg37963.html#msg37963

JERRY CRAIG (NEPHEW OF FORMER DALLAS COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF ROGER D.
CRAIG) SAID:


>>> "ANYBODY THAT SAYS MY UNCLE ROGER WAS LYING IS A FOOL. THERE ARE PICTURES OF HIM AT THE DOOR OF WILL FRITZ' OFFICE IDENTIFYING OSWALD AND HIM IN THE TSBD WITH THE MAUSER BEING FOUND!!!!!" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:


Roger D. Craig was one of the few people connected with the JFK murder
case who I am very confident referring to as a "liar". Without any
doubt whatsoever. (Another one being Jean Hill.)

It can proven that Roger Craig was a liar by typing out just the
following words:

STAMPED ON THE RIFLE WAS '7.65 MAUSER'.

Craig made the above claim about Oswald's rifle. That claim makes him
a liar. And there's NOTHING that any conspiracist can do to UNDO
Deputy Craig's blatant and obvious LIE with respect to the rifle found
on the TSBD's sixth floor.

And Craig also later told another whopper of a lie when he said that
the three shell casings found in the Sniper's Nest were all situated
in a neat little row, facing the same direction, and were no more than
"an inch apart" from one another when they were first discovered by
the police. (This is hilarious silliness on the part of the plotters
who supposedly planted this evidence, isn't it? I guess they WANTED
people like Craig to immediately think the shells were planted, so
they arranged them in a nice, neat little row.)

So, who (or what) should a reasonable person believe? CE510 below? Or
Roger "Big Fat Liar" Craig?

Not a tough choice really. But guess who many conspiracy theorists are
going to believe? That's not tough to figure out either.

CE510:
http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/074a.+THREE+BULLET+SHELLS+FOUND+IN+TSBD+SNIPER%27S+NEST?gda=b24xc2kAAADki0TPEquQQ1CO_fZqbtsgdMpy6EsXja6okav4WLX6yOb4nxXGSepDGQKscLxMDR5-SFN4DNGB16sScKia7Zks-hEblyNrtl_F7CWyFgZ_lI5mdpvIvJW3QPcvTrj7Q2aECKgQbmraGdxlZulaYnsh


JERRY CRAIG SAID:


>>> "All of you have to understan[d] that Bill Decker had control of every aspect of the investigation..." <<<


DVP SAID:

Huh? WTF?

Decker was the SHERIFF. The Sheriff's office had NO CONTROL over the
evidence in the case on Nov. 22 or Nov. 23. None. The DPD (Fritz,
Curry) had the case and had the evidence. Not the Sheriff's office.

Why are you making up this crap, Jerry?

JERRY CRAIG SAID [JERRY'S HORRID SPELLING AND GRAMMAR HAS BEEN
CORRECTED BY DVP]:


>>> "I'm not making up anything, but you wouldn't know anything about [Sheriff] Decker and the corruption in the DSO [Dallas Sheriff's] office in '63." <<<


DVP SAID:

Yeah, sure, Jerry. Whatever you say.

(Somebody get Jerry a dictionary and a new SHIFT key. He needs those
things desperately.)


JERRY CRAIG SAID:


>>> "...and you all will find out soon..." <<<

DVP SAID:

Yeah, why would 46-and-a-half years be enough time for "the truth" to
leak out?

Will it be another 46.5 years before this famous "truth" is finally
unveiled?

Is Jimmy Files' milkman going to write a tell-all book that will
FINALLY reveal "the truth" about how JFK died?


JERRY CRAIG SAID:

>>> "I don't care what you say." <<<


DVP SAID:

Then why join a public forum at all?


JERRY CRAIG SAID:

>>> "You've got to realize, I'm 46.5 years old. My family has been in this since the beginning. I might have been born on Nov. 23, 1963, but I asked questions and listened to my uncle." <<<


DVP SAID:

So?


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages