NOVEMBER 22, 1963 --- "LN" FACTS AND COMMON SENSE, INSTEAD OF "CT" FICTION AND NONSENSE

24 views
Skip to first unread message

David VP

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 4:50:12 AM4/19/06
to
FROM AN LNer's POINT-OF-VIEW..............

VARIOUS D.V.P.-AUTHORED ESSAYS AND COMMENTS REVOLVING AROUND THE 1963
JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION 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


LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S SOLE GUILT -- POINT-BY-POINT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a6b3390021d657c


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


THE ABSURDITIES OF THE "OSWALD-AS-PATSY" CONSPIRACY PLOT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/606503e4d63e74ad


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


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" LOGIC (TONGUE-IN-CHEEK STYLE):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/12f589407f8baf66


JOHN CONNALLY IN 1967 SAID THE "SBT" IS POSSIBLE:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe


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


WAS LEE OSWALD "PLACED" IN THE BOOK DEPOSITORY BY PLOTTERS?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/64195df0086af9b4


SOLID VALIDATION THAT 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


"FINAL VERDICT" BY VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1fb1e67721e35822


BOOK REVIEW -- "THE JFK MYTHS" BY LARRY M. STURDIVAN:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d505fe064fccafb


BOOK REVIEW -- "WITH MALICE" BY DALE K. MYERS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1bdb7e56f0427853


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


MOVIE/DVD REVIEW -- OLIVER STONE'S "JFK" (99% LIES):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51b89da58d3e6489


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

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 10:04:12 AM4/19/06
to
In article <1145436612....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>FROM AN LNer's POINT-OF-VIEW..............
>
>VARIOUS D.V.P.-AUTHORED ESSAYS AND COMMENTS REVOLVING AROUND THE 1963
>JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION AND THE MURDER OF DALLAS POLICE OFFICER
>J.D. TIPPIT:


What you won't find, of course, is Davey-boy answering any refutations of his
omissions, misrepresentations, and lies.

An opinion that relies on omissions, misrepresentations, and lies, and can't be
defended... isn't much of an opinion


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

aeffects

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 2:08:07 PM4/19/06
to
appears Dave is auditioning for a writing gig someplace, ANYPLACE!

The Good Reverend Roger

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 4:10:31 PM4/19/06
to
Heh. ONE of the Oswalds acted alone, anyway.

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 5:04:50 PM4/19/06
to
It's alt.conspiracy not alt. lone nut David- and hey BTW- compulsive
mass postings doesn't make the SBT any more feasible, nor the
Neuromuscularjeteffectwhatchmacallit any more plausible- and when LHO
is in contact with some dozen intell assets it doesn't make him a lone
nut.

The Good Reverend Roger

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 5:16:56 PM4/19/06
to

If there was more than one Oswald, then he wasn't a lone nut, was he?

David VP

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 5:52:07 PM4/19/06
to
Why couldn't you CT kooks have just let this thread drop to the bottom
of the stack....unread....and unresponded to? That was my fervent
desire. But, naturally, the kookatics have to invade every common-sense
post/thread with meaningless drivel.

Thanks.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 6:20:13 PM4/19/06
to
In article <1145483527....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>Why couldn't you CT kooks have just let this thread drop to the bottom
>of the stack....unread....and unresponded to? That was my fervent
>desire.

Of *course* it is. I'm quite sure that you'd prefer to live in the dream world
where your theories are acknowledged, and never disputed - particularly when you
have *no answer* to the refutations.

But no-one ever said life is fair (to you)...

If you omit, misrepresent, and lie - you'll just have to figure that someone is
going to speak up.


>But, naturally, the kookatics have to invade every common-sense
>post/thread with meaningless drivel.

So "meaningless", that you are forced to snip and run...

>Thanks.

My pleasure...

David VP

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 7:17:40 PM4/19/06
to
>> "So "meaningless", that you are forced to snip and run..."

Mainly, the CT drivel is meaningless because it's being spouted by the
resident drivel-spouter -- aka: Ben "Drivel Spouter" Holmes.

Be proud of your badge of honor as a Drivel-Spouter. Pretty soon you'll
be in Jim Garrison's league. (Granted, that'll take a few years...but
hang in there...you'll make it.)

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 9:26:11 PM4/19/06
to
In article <1145488659....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>> So "meaningless", that you are forced to snip and run...
>
>Mainly, the CT drivel is meaningless because it's being spouted by the
>resident drivel-spouter -- aka: Ben "Drivel Spouter" Holmes.

And you can't respond to it.

>Be proud of your badge of honor as a Drivel-Spouter. Pretty soon you'll
>be in Jim Garrison's league.

Yep... he was getting so close that the CIA and other government agencies
actively conspired against him.

>(Granted, that'll take a few years...but
>hang in there...you'll make it.)

Oh, I post things frequently that you can't respond to. Gutless coward, aren't
you?

The Good Reverend Roger

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 11:59:14 PM4/19/06
to

Wow. I'm kinda on the fence about the whole conspiracy thing, but
you're a prize ass.

Just saying.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David VP

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 12:45:11 AM4/20/06
to
>> "You're a prize ass."

Well.....nobody's perfect.

David VP

unread,
May 18, 2006, 12:30:36 AM5/18/06
to
Addendum to top post...........


BOOK REVIEW -- "A SIMPLE ACT OF MURDER" BY MARK FUHRMAN:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c7616a35ac60e22

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 18, 2006, 10:12:44 AM5/18/06
to
In article <1147926636.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>Addendum to top post...........
>
>
>BOOK REVIEW -- "A SIMPLE ACT OF MURDER" BY MARK FUHRMAN:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c7616a35ac60e22


Of course, if Davey-boy is given the opportunity to defend these "facts" against
CT'ers evidence, testimony, and citation - he can't do it. He's demonstrated
this over and over again.

David VP

unread,
May 18, 2006, 8:50:34 PM5/18/06
to
And Ben-boy has demonstrated (over & over again repeatedly) that if he
can latch onto ANY "conspiracy" angle in the JFK & Tippit cases -- he
will do so, without so much as batting an eye and asking himself "Does
this CT make any sense at all?".

Even if theories CONFLICT and CONTRADICT each other, Ben and other
CTers will still embrace them as Gospel.

Ever wonder why that is? I think I know.

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 20, 2006, 1:55:55 PM5/20/06
to
In article <1147999834....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>And Ben-boy has demonstrated (over & over again repeatedly) that if he
>can latch onto ANY "conspiracy" angle in the JFK & Tippit cases -- he
>will do so, without so much as batting an eye and asking himself "Does
>this CT make any sense at all?".


Silly, and not supportable by the facts. There are any number of CT theories
that I regard as unsupportable, and not worth discussion.

But facts have never been a primary concern of Davey-boy, have they?


>Even if theories CONFLICT and CONTRADICT each other, Ben and other
>CTers will still embrace them as Gospel.
>
>Ever wonder why that is? I think I know.


When you start with false premises, you reach false conclusions.


It *IS* a fact, however, that you're incapable of responding to evidence,
testimony, and citation without snipping.

David VP

unread,
May 20, 2006, 3:17:36 PM5/20/06
to
>> "There are any number of CT theories that I regard as unsupportable, and not worth discussion."

Would one of those be the "LET'S TRY TO FRAME A SINGLE PATSY BY PELTING
JFK WITH TONS OF BULLETS FROM MANY SHOOTERS" theory?

Because if that biggie ain't on your "unsupportable" list, perhaps you
ought to think about adding it.

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 21, 2006, 2:28:58 PM5/21/06
to

Davey-boy again shows his cowardice by snipping everything...


In article <1148152656.8...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

Unfortunately for you, Davey-boy; the eyewitness testimony *does* support
multiple shooters from different locations. The original Z-film also provided
support for what was certainly the case.

When you can't refute such testimony and evidence, it merely shows what a poor
side you've chosen to defend.

But, it's clear that you can't even support your own words... you were forced to
snip them - lest it become clear that I've proven them false.

David VP

unread,
May 21, 2006, 4:08:17 PM5/21/06
to
>> "The eyewitness testimony *does* support multiple shooters from different locations."

No....it actually does not.
You just think it does.

And Vince B. will have quite a bit to say about that CTer misconception
in "Final Verdict". I'd advise turning those pages when made available.
You'll then be free of the albatross. (Won't that be swell, Benji? I'd
certainly think so.)

Message has been deleted

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 21, 2006, 11:04:23 PM5/21/06
to
In article <1148242097.9...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>> The eyewitness testimony *does* support multiple shooters from different
>> locations."
>
>No....it actually does not.
>You just think it does.


Only by calling them mistaken, liars, or worse.

For the simple historical fact is that many of the eyewitnesses placed shooters
where *YOU* don't think they existed.

That's simply historical fact.


>And Vince B. will have quite a bit to say about that CTer misconception
>in "Final Verdict". I'd advise turning those pages when made available.
>You'll then be free of the albatross. (Won't that be swell, Benji? I'd
>certainly think so.)

As I've previously stated, it will be fun if and when his book comes out - it
will once again drive home the point that the WC's theory cannot be supported
without misrepresentations, omissions, and outright lies.

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 21, 2006, 11:06:02 PM5/21/06
to
In article <1148245603.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>The following post is from Steve Barber ...

Then Stephanie can ask me himself...

David VP

unread,
May 21, 2006, 11:54:42 PM5/21/06
to
>> "Then {Steve} can ask me himself..."

I doubt if he'll want to dive that deep into your shit-pit.

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 22, 2006, 9:59:26 AM5/22/06
to

Snip snip... snip snip... Coward, aren't you?


In article <1148270082....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> Then he can ask me himself..."

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
May 22, 2006, 11:27:08 AM5/22/06
to

Therein lies your problem. You somehow already have attached yourself
to a public figure ala groupie style. Vincent, the proud
sensationalist, thinks that since he stuck to the Manson case and was
able to unravel the mindset of a sicko, is somehow Sherlock Holmes
personified. Unfortunately, the Manson case was virtually a no-brainer
with the clues the left and the lifestyles they led. Basically anybody
could have solved the case that had any energy to profile the commune
inhabitors from Spahn Ranch.

Unfortunately too, since you have such a fanatical magnetism toward
Vincie, you are unable to come up with any evidence when you are
confronted time and again. When it gets too hot, David runs, runs, and
runs, for sometimes weeks on end. Pity.

CJ

David VP

unread,
May 22, 2006, 2:10:53 PM5/22/06
to
CJ ---

A question: Do you think the SBT is a crock of crap?

If the answer is "Yes, I do" -- then would you be good enough to fill
my meager brain with the scenario of WHAT REPLACES THE SBT?

Sure would be nice to read a bullet-by-bullet anti-SBT scenario that at
least isn't liable to make a person bust out laughing. Can you manage
that? Or is that question "too hot", making you feel like running?
Pity.

And this quote from CJ is simply mind-boggling in its stupidity ---

"You are unable to come up with any evidence when you are confronted
time and again." -- CJ; 05/22/06

--- The above quote is an especially silly one in light of the reams of
stuff ("evidence" included) I've posted here re. the whole JFK case:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9aa66b7b2919be8d

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
May 22, 2006, 3:31:25 PM5/22/06
to
David VP wrote:
> CJ ---
>
> A question: Do you think the SBT is a crock of crap?
>
Yes. For starters, how many cases do you have a bullet going through
two people? Obviously it 'was a piece of crap' until they decided
'crap' had to do, hence Specter's new theory had to do.


> If the answer is "Yes, I do" -- then would you be good enough to fill
> my meager brain with the scenario of WHAT REPLACES THE SBT?
>

All the holes and bones being accounted for as well as lead in the
body. It's like asking if there are more than one theories, say
conspiracy theories, then the LNT must be true.

> Sure would be nice to read a bullet-by-bullet anti-SBT scenario that at
> least isn't liable to make a person bust out laughing. Can you manage
> that? Or is that question "too hot", making you feel like running?

First get the witnesses, get the holes right, and the too many
projectiles, then you can start with any theory you like. The only
problem is the SBT scenario won't do.

> Pity.
>
> And this quote from CJ is simply mind-boggling in its stupidity ---
>
> "You are unable to come up with any evidence when you are confronted
> time and again." -- CJ; 05/22/06
>

Hey, I like it. It seems to be well uh, absolutely true when I have
spent much time typing away in some of these threads, and your name
doesn't seem to come around to respond. If you do a 'profile' you will
be able to pull it up, or any lurker for that matter.

> --- The above quote is an especially silly one in light of the reams of
> stuff ("evidence" included) I've posted here re. the whole JFK case:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9aa66b7b2919be8d

I think most readers here will dispute 'the evidence' part.

CJ

David VP

unread,
May 22, 2006, 3:54:36 PM5/22/06
to
>> "I think most readers here will dispute 'the evidence' part."

Naturally, CTers will disagree and dispute it....because
they're...well...duh...CTers (some kooks; some semi-kooks, and some
soon-to-be kooks).

But, I've offered up gobs of "evidence" within my LN posts, regardless
of what anyone thinks or "disputes".

And --- Where's that bullet-by-bullet SBT replacement? I must have
missed that in your last say-nothing response.

Naturally (as usual), a CTer offers up NO alternate explanation to the
SBT....at all. Just saying "It's Impossible" seems to be good enough to
debunk it in most CTers' eyes. A very curious stance from a "research"
and "get-to-the-truth" POV.

But, it's all we're ever likely to see. A pity.

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
May 22, 2006, 4:18:37 PM5/22/06
to

David VP wrote:
> >> "I think most readers here will dispute 'the evidence' part."
>
> Naturally, CTers will disagree and dispute it....because
> they're...well...duh...CTers (some kooks; some semi-kooks, and some
> soon-to-be kooks).
>
Another labeler. There have been numerous conspiracy events of
magnitude in history, so whatever you attempt to label must only be
concerning this case. The fact is one or ten people could have been
shooting at JFK with the amount of buildings and surroundings.

> But, I've offered up gobs of "evidence" within my LN posts, regardless
> of what anyone thinks or "disputes".
>

Well you keep coming back with more. After several have taken you
apart post by post, topic by topic, it's no wonder that after time we
call just stay away.

> And --- Where's that bullet-by-bullet SBT replacement? I must have
> missed that in your last say-nothing response.
>

Well you got a hole in the back that would never match up with the
sixth floor and anything above the waste. You have no proof that the
hole went to the other side as told by numerous probers. Of course all
avoid the bullet that fell out from the backside at Bethesda when
unloading JFK from the coffin to the gurney. You have a wound of entry
circa Connally's armpit. You probably have two bullets for Connally
with all the damage that 'they' did. The amount of lead left in the
body doesn't do well for the pristine bullet. You have about 12
witnesses that say they heard and saw gunsmoke from the grass knoll.
You have a doctor who specified a 'snowstorm' of fragments in JFK's
brain which would be a frangibile bullet, unlike another bullet that
could have been fired from an MC. You have unison from Parkland
doctors of a frontal throat wound. You have two doctors there say it
was lodged in the chest or lung. You have a host of people that have a
huge hole sighting in the back, lower portion of JFK's head which would
not do well for a shot from the rear to have that hole made. The list
is endless, and it's stuff you have failed to say anything more than
your hackneyed opinions on.


> Naturally (as usual), a CTer offers up NO alternate explanation to the
> SBT....at all. Just saying "It's Impossible" seems to be good enough to
> debunk it in most CTers' eyes. A very curious stance from a "research"
> and "get-to-the-truth" POV.
>
> But, it's all we're ever likely to see. A pity.

We don't have to be united in all medical aspects. When the SBT is
patently false, it's just one step to knowing that there is a greater
possibility of multiple shooters.

CJ

David VP

unread,
May 22, 2006, 5:07:56 PM5/22/06
to
>> "There have been numerous conspiracy events of magnitude in history, so whatever you attempt to label must only be concerning this case."

And what exactly makes you think that I am referring to any "CTers"
OUTSIDE this particular case? Quite obviously, I'm JUST referring to
THIS CASE. Why wouldn't I be?


>> "The fact is one or ten people could have been shooting at JFK with the amount of buildings and surroundings."

Sure. But where's the evidence (the bullets, the guns, the witness who
can claim "There's the killer!"; anything!) that shows there WERE
multiple shooters firing from the other "buildings and surroundings"?
Answer -- The evidence does not exist...and never did.


>> "Well you got a hole in the back that would never match up with the sixth floor and anything above the waste [sic]."

WTF??
HUH??
Another "WTF?".

Why in the world you're spouting this garbage is anyone's guess.


>> "You have no proof that the hole went to the other side..."

Only basic common sense....plus the LACK of bullets in JFK....plus the
LACK of any damage that would have STOPPED said bullet from passing
through the neck. That's all. Plus the Autopsy Report, which states
that the bullet positively passed through the body.

Naturally, we should just ignore the autopsy doctors and their Final
Report. Right? And we should ignore common sense too. Right? And common
sense tells anyone with a brain that one bullet transited JFK's neck.


>> "Of course all avoid the bullet that fell out from the backside at Bethesda when unloading JFK from the coffin to the gurney."

Proof please.
You have none (as per usual).


>> "You probably have two bullets for Connally with all the damage that 'they' did."

Proof please.
You have none (as per usual).

In fact, there's ample evidence suggesting Connally was struck by just
one bullet. Connally said so...Dr. Shaw said so on Live TV on
11/22...and the LACK of finding any bullets inside or near Connally
also supports the idea that 399 only was inside him.

Via a 2-bullets-hit-JBC theory, you now have upped the absurdity of ANY
anti-SBT theory to monstrously-silly heights. You do realize that,
right?

You'll need to explain away FOUR total disappearing bullets (instead of
just three). Four bullets just vanish, never entering the record in the
case. Logical? Even slightly so? Hardly.

With each misstep, you and other CTers make yourselves look more
foolish in an "anti-SBT" manner.

You're actually saying that FOUR magically-vanishing bullets is a
more-reasonable conclusion than the SBT (which has all of its bullets
{1} accounted for right in the hospital where the victims were taken).
Amazing.


>> "The amount of lead left in {Connally's} body doesn't do well for the pristine bullet."

Bullshit. The amount of lead left in JBC's body wouldn't amount to a
half-a-grain probably. You're spouting another misleading CT piece of
junk theory that has no merit at all. But I'm sure you know that. But
you'll keep saying it for years on end anyway (until Vince arrives
anyhow).


>> "You have about 12 witnesses that say they heard and saw gunsmoke from the grassy knoll."

And what did the policeman (and the "Knoll-storming" witnesses) see
when they got to the top of the Knoll? Answer -- No killer. No guns. No
shells. No sign of anything. That was one mighty swift assassin there.


>> "You have a doctor who specified a 'snowstorm' of fragments in JFK's brain which would be a frangibile bullet, unlike another bullet that could have been fired from an MC."

And the autopsy report said what now?
Any mention of MORE than just a single bullet hit JFK in the head from
the rear? (With a fragment in JFK's head being linked to Oswald's
gun....plus the two large fragments in the car linked to LHO's
gun....with no other guns linked to this crime via fragments.)

Let's just ignore all the Oswald-Did-It-All evidence and go with some
"snowstorm" guesswork...shall we? OK. Great. Let's do that. You seem to
like that half-baked approach.


>> "You have unison from Parkland doctors of a frontal throat wound. You have two doctors there say it was lodged in the chest or lung."

So what? Who cares? Means zilch.

Because .... DID a bullet "lodge in the chest or lung"?

Answer -- No, of course it did not. The entire body of JFK was X-rayed
and what was discovered in his body??

Answer -- No bullets whatsoever (head to toe).

But...let's just ignore that hunk of Officialdom. It's better for your
CT purposes.


>> "You have a host of people that have a huge hole sighting in the back, lower portion of JFK's head which would not do well for a shot from the rear to have that hole made."

And just exactly WHERE would the killer have been located within DP to
have caused that BOH hole in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head?

Answer -- Certainly NOT the Grassy Knoll/Picket Fence area....that is
for sure.

So....WHERE was this unseen assassin who created that FAR-RIGHT-REAR
hole in JFK's head? Where? And if you answer "Grassy Knoll"...a lot of
'splainin' is gonna be needed to justify that weird trajectory, which
has a bullet hitting JFK in the right temple (right?)...and exiting in
the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of his head (right?).

Good luck explaining that zig-zagging magic missile.


>> "When the SBT is patently false, it's just one step to knowing that there is a greater possibility of multiple shooters."

Bullshit. The SBT is a bona fide fact. And every re-creation or
animated "test" that has been performed since '63 has had the SBT
passing the "It Was Doable" test with flying colors, and everybody
knows it.

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 22, 2006, 7:12:04 PM5/22/06
to
In article <1148327676.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>>> "I think most readers here will dispute 'the evidence' part."
>
>Naturally, CTers will disagree and dispute it....because
>they're...well...duh...CTers (some kooks; some semi-kooks, and some
>soon-to-be kooks).
>
>But, I've offered up gobs of "evidence" within my LN posts, regardless
>of what anyone thinks or "disputes".


And when it's rebutted, you run away. Davey-boy, don't imagine for one moment
that people haven't figured this out.

>And --- Where's that bullet-by-bullet SBT replacement? I must have
>missed that in your last say-nothing response.


A number of reasonable scenarios have been offered, beginning back with SSID.
Rebut it if you can.


>Naturally (as usual), a CTer offers up NO alternate explanation to the
>SBT....at all.

Untrue, as I've pointed out before. Why lie about it?

aeffects

unread,
May 22, 2006, 8:30:19 PM5/22/06
to

David VP wrote:
> >> "I think most readers here will dispute 'the evidence' part."
>
> Naturally, CTers will disagree and dispute it....because
> they're...well...duh...CTers (some kooks; some semi-kooks, and some
> soon-to-be kooks).
>
> But, I've offered up gobs of "evidence" within my LN posts, regardless
> of what anyone thinks or "disputes".

you have gobs of WHAT? Best I've seen from you is; snip & run, quote
the WCR, snip & run....by-the-pound --- roflmao!

David VP

unread,
May 22, 2006, 10:06:40 PM5/22/06
to
>> "And when it's rebutted, you run away."

You've "rebutted" nothing I've presented. Nothing.
You think too much of your "rebutting" skills, BH. Way too much.

Just because you've said an LN point has been "rebutted" or "debunked"
-- it isn't automatically so. Esp. regarding the Tippit crime, which
any fool can see was committed by LHO (even most CT-Kooks).

All rabid CTers who want to take the noose from around Oswald's neck
re. the Tippit slaying are truly repulsive IMO...and only make
themselves look totally foolish with respect to the REST of their
pro-CT JFK arguments as well.

David VP

unread,
May 22, 2006, 10:14:25 PM5/22/06
to
>> "Best I've seen from you is ... quote the WCR..."

And, naturally, the WCR is to be treated as Charmin by everybody
researching the JFK murder...correct?? There's not a word of truth in
the WCR, is there? Only pure crap on all 888 pages.

Why of COURSE that's correct. What else could we expect from a
Rabid-Kook?

And as for Mr. AEffects -- anybody yet seen a substantive post from
this guy in 2006? Or 2005? If there's been one, I must have been
looking the other way at the time.

And, per the norm, AE's last post is true to form -- i.e., it says
nothing...as per usual.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
May 22, 2006, 10:44:34 PM5/22/06
to
David VP wrote:
>>> "There have been numerous conspiracy events of magnitude in history, so whatever you attempt to label must only be concerning this case."
>
> And what exactly makes you think that I am referring to any "CTers"
> OUTSIDE this particular case? Quite obviously, I'm JUST referring to
> THIS CASE. Why wouldn't I be?
>
>
>>> "The fact is one or ten people could have been shooting at JFK with the amount of buildings and surroundings."
>
> Sure. But where's the evidence (the bullets, the guns, the witness who
> can claim "There's the killer!"; anything!) that shows there WERE
> multiple shooters firing from the other "buildings and surroundings"?
> Answer -- The evidence does not exist...and never did.
>
>

Show me the third bullet. You accept the WC fiction that one bullet
missed. Show me that bullet.

>>> "Well you got a hole in the back that would never match up with the sixth floor and anything above the waste [sic]."
>
> WTF??
> HUH??
> Another "WTF?".
>
> Why in the world you're spouting this garbage is anyone's guess.
>
>
>>> "You have no proof that the hole went to the other side..."
>
> Only basic common sense....plus the LACK of bullets in JFK....plus the
> LACK of any damage that would have STOPPED said bullet from passing
> through the neck. That's all. Plus the Autopsy Report, which states
> that the bullet positively passed through the body.
>

Don't rely on the autopsy report. They didn't even document a bullet
passing through the body. They merely guessed.

> Naturally, we should just ignore the autopsy doctors and their Final
> Report. Right? And we should ignore common sense too. Right? And common
> sense tells anyone with a brain that one bullet transited JFK's neck.
>
>
>>> "Of course all avoid the bullet that fell out from the backside at Bethesda when unloading JFK from the coffin to the gurney."
>
> Proof please.
> You have none (as per usual).
>

As much as Humes's guess that the intact bullet fell out of the
President's back during heart massage.

>
>>> "You probably have two bullets for Connally with all the damage that 'they' did."
>
> Proof please.
> You have none (as per usual).
>
> In fact, there's ample evidence suggesting Connally was struck by just
> one bullet. Connally said so...Dr. Shaw said so on Live TV on
> 11/22...and the LACK of finding any bullets inside or near Connally
> also supports the idea that 399 only was inside him.
>

Funny, isn't it then, that Humes thought that Connally was hit by two
bullets? You know, the Humes YOU cite as an authority.

> Via a 2-bullets-hit-JBC theory, you now have upped the absurdity of ANY
> anti-SBT theory to monstrously-silly heights. You do realize that,
> right?
>

Almost everyone in the conference thought that.

> You'll need to explain away FOUR total disappearing bullets (instead of
> just three). Four bullets just vanish, never entering the record in the
> case. Logical? Even slightly so? Hardly.

You can't even explain away ONE totally disappearing bullet which the WC
said missed.

>
> With each misstep, you and other CTers make yourselves look more
> foolish in an "anti-SBT" manner.
>

With each message, you and other WC apologists reveal that you are not
familiar with the evidence.

> You're actually saying that FOUR magically-vanishing bullets is a
> more-reasonable conclusion than the SBT (which has all of its bullets
> {1} accounted for right in the hospital where the victims were taken).
> Amazing.
>
>
>>> "The amount of lead left in {Connally's} body doesn't do well for the pristine bullet."
>
> Bullshit. The amount of lead left in JBC's body wouldn't amount to a
> half-a-grain probably. You're spouting another misleading CT piece of

Probably? You have no basis for making such a claim.

> junk theory that has no merit at all. But I'm sure you know that. But
> you'll keep saying it for years on end anyway (until Vince arrives
> anyhow).
>
>
>>> "You have about 12 witnesses that say they heard and saw gunsmoke from the grassy knoll."
>
> And what did the policeman (and the "Knoll-storming" witnesses) see
> when they got to the top of the Knoll? Answer -- No killer. No guns. No
> shells. No sign of anything. That was one mighty swift assassin there.
>

Just one SS agent who could not have been there.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
May 22, 2006, 10:49:53 PM5/22/06
to
curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> David VP wrote:
>> CJ ---
>>
>> A question: Do you think the SBT is a crock of crap?
>>
> Yes. For starters, how many cases do you have a bullet going through
> two people? Obviously it 'was a piece of crap' until they decided
> 'crap' had to do, hence Specter's new theory had to do.
>

There have been a very few cases of one bullet going through two people.
So what?

David VP

unread,
May 22, 2006, 11:37:54 PM5/22/06
to
>> "Don't rely on the autopsy report. They didn't even document a bullet passing through the body. They merely guessed."

Sure they "guessed". They had no choice BUT to "guess" re. the bullet
path (given the fact they didn't even know about the throat wound until
11/23). So what?

But it was an EDUCATED guess (to conclude that the bullet transited the
neck, which it so obviously did). The alternative is so ridiculous it
should make CTers blush with embarrassment at even suggesting such
"multiple-bullets-that-hit-nothing-but-stop-dead-anyway" nonsense.

But -- Why believe the obvious, when you could be a "CT Nuthatch"?
Right?


>> "You accept the WC fiction that one bullet missed. Show me that bullet."

LOL. It's classic, isn't it?

Quite obviously a MISSED bullet is very likely not going to be
RECOVERABLE. Only a ding-a-ling would have posted what you've posted
above.


>> "You can't even explain away ONE totally disappearing bullet which the WC said missed."

And tell me again how my not being able to produce the one "missed
shot" bullet is supposed to make a CTer's theory re. their supposed
"missing bullets" any more believable and viable by their not being
able to produce up to FOUR TIMES that number of AWOL missiles??!!

I must have missed the logic of that brilliant analogy, which is CTer
logic that seems to imply the following ---

"BECAUSE YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH THE *ONE* MISSING BULLET THAT YOU SAY
MISSED THE WHOLE CAR, WHY SHOULD WE CONSPIRACISTS BE EXPECTED TO COME
UP WITH UP TO FOUR TIMES THAT NUMBER OF MISSING PROJECTILES ASSOCIATED
WITH THIS CASE....*NONE* OF WHICH "MISSED" AT ALL (PER KOOK-STER C.T.
ACCOUNTS OF THE EVENT) -- BUT, INSTEAD, ALL OF THESE MISSING C.T.
BULLETS (WHICH MUST REPLACE THE CE399 S.B.T. BULLET) ACTUALLY *HIT*
VICTIMS IN THE CAR AND THEN DISAPPEARED AFTER CAUSING BODILY INJURIES
TO TWO DIFFERENT MEN!"

Better re-think that one, Tony. Because I wouldn't want to face a jury
with that kind of oddball CTer logic in court.

David VP

unread,
May 22, 2006, 11:46:08 PM5/22/06
to
>> "Funny, isn't it then, that Humes thought that Connally was hit by two bullets? You know, the Humes YOU cite as an authority."

~Huge LOL~

Sure, Humes is an "authority" on JFK's autopsy. But does that make him
an expert or an "authority" on John Connally (a person he never once
examined) and his injuries?

Puh-lease!

aeffects

unread,
May 22, 2006, 11:46:10 PM5/22/06
to

David VP wrote:
> >> "Best I've seen from you is ... quote the WCR..."
>
> And, naturally, the WCR is to be treated as Charmin by everybody
> researching the JFK murder...correct?? There's not a word of truth in
> the WCR, is there? Only pure crap on all 888 pages.

we feel your pain, defending the WCR and what all


> Why of COURSE that's correct. What else could we expect from a
> Rabid-Kook?
>
> And as for Mr. AEffects -- anybody yet seen a substantive post from
> this guy in 2006? Or 2005? If there's been one, I must have been
> looking the other way at the time.

i suspect you've missed nothing I've posted on JFK forums

> And, per the norm, AE's last post is true to form -- i.e., it says
> nothing...as per usual.

yet you continue to respond, must be in the hopes the thrashing you've
taken from certain quarters here, goes unnoticed. we know your game...

David VP

unread,
May 22, 2006, 11:51:19 PM5/22/06
to
AE's still batting 1.000, with say-nothing Post #679 in a row. Guinness
awaits.

>> "I suspect you've missed nothing I've posted on JFK forums."

What's to "miss"?
Every post you make is as empty as a baseball stadium in December.

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 22, 2006, 11:53:38 PM5/22/06
to

My crystal ball is telling me that Davey-boy will be too cowardly to answer this
post without snipping.

*********************************************************************

In article <1148332076.6...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...


>
>>>"There have been numerous conspiracy events of magnitude in history, so whatever
>>>you attempt to label must only be concerning this case."
>
>And what exactly makes you think that I am referring to any "CTers"
>OUTSIDE this particular case? Quite obviously, I'm JUST referring to
>THIS CASE. Why wouldn't I be?
>
>
>>>"The fact is one or ten people could have been shooting at JFK with the amount
>>>of buildings and surroundings."
>
>Sure. But where's the evidence

It's been given many times. As merely one example, the photo showing a bullet
being dug out of the grass.

The many eyewitnesses who reported things you can't believe, for another.

>(the bullets, the guns, the witness who
>can claim "There's the killer!"; anything!) that shows there WERE
>multiple shooters firing from the other "buildings and surroundings"?
>Answer -- The evidence does not exist...and never did.

And yet, each time the evidence is listed and cited, you snip and run away...
wonder why?


>>>"Well you got a hole in the back that would never match up with the sixth floor
>>>and anything above the waste [sic]."
>
>WTF??
>HUH??
>Another "WTF?".
>
>Why in the world you're spouting this garbage is anyone's guess.


Why you can't answer it is another. A bullet going in the back around T3 or T4
isn't going to come out of the throat - no matter *how* much you think JFK was
leaning.

It's going to come out of his *chest*. If, of course, there *was* a transit.
But the best medical evidence is that there *WAS NO TRANSIT*, isn't it?


>>> "You have no proof that the hole went to the other side..."
>
>Only basic common sense....


And, yet, no proof at all. And *certainly* no medical evidence... which all
indicates that there was *NO* transit.

Your "common sense" is another word for sheer speculation, isn't it?


>plus the LACK of bullets in JFK....


Actually, there still *IS* one... although it's quite likely to be merely a
shotgun pellet. On the other hand, perhaps it isn't...


>plus the
>LACK of any damage that would have STOPPED said bullet from passing
>through the neck.

It wouldn't have gone through the neck in any case. It entered far too low in
the back to have exited the neck. And, in any case, the first and best medical
evidence is for the neck wound to be an entry, wasn't it?


>That's all. Plus the Autopsy Report, which states


That the head wound extended to the back of the head, which is, of course,
*IMPOSSIBLE* to reconcile to the BOH photo.


>that the bullet positively passed through the body.


No, this was speculation created *after* the body had already left the autopsy,
as you well know.


>Naturally, we should just ignore the autopsy doctors and their Final
>Report. Right?

*YOU* have to. You can't admit that the head wound contradicts the BOH photo.


>And we should ignore common sense too. Right?


Speculation? Absolutely... we *should* ignore it. Try basing your arguments on
the evidence instead.


>And common
>sense tells anyone with a brain that one bullet transited JFK's neck.


And the medical evidence tells everyone exactly the opposite.

>>>"Of course all avoid the bullet that fell out from the backside at Bethesda when
>>>unloading JFK from the coffin to the gurney."
>
>Proof please.
>You have none (as per usual).


This is, of course, what the *first* autopsy concluded.

And the evidence for this can't be disputed by you.


>>>"You probably have two bullets for Connally with all the damage that 'they'
>>>did."
>
>Proof please.


Try Dr. Shaw's testimony:

Dr. SHAW - This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will be
giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be caused by the
same bullet, and we felt that it could but we had not seen the bullets until
today, and we still do not know which bullet actually inflicted the wound on
Governor Connally.
Mr. DULLES - Or whether it was one or two wounds?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - Or two bullets?
Dr. SHAW - Yes; or three.
Mr. DULLES - Why do you say three?
Dr. SHAW - He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest, a wound of
the wrist, a wound of the thigh.
Mr. DULLES - Oh, yes; we haven't. come to the wound of the thigh yet, have we?
Mr. McCLOY - You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were caused by
one bullet?
Dr. SHAW - I have no firm opinion.


>You have none (as per usual).

Untrue... you are pretty stupid to suggest that a CT'er has no evidence. It's
usually quite the opposite... CT'ers with citations, and LNT'ers with
speculations disguised as "common sense".

>In fact, there's ample evidence suggesting Connally was struck by just
>one bullet. Connally said so...Dr. Shaw said so on Live TV on
>11/22...

Okay... I'll accept that. As long as you willingly admit that Shaw was also
quoted on 11/27/63 in the New York Herald-Tribune as stating that a bullet had
entered the front of JFK's throat and "coursed downward into his lung [and] was
removed in the Bethesda Naval Hospital here the autopsy was performed."

Or that you'll admit that Shaw was quoted on 11/29/63 in the "Houston Post" that
"The assassin was behind him, yet the bullet entered at the front of his neck.
Mr. Kennedy must have turned to his left to talk to Mrs. Kennedy or to wave to
someone."


But, of course, you won't.


So kindly explain why we should accept a statement that Shaw has contradicted
with far more explanation, and under oath?


>and the LACK of finding any bullets inside or near Connally
>also supports the idea that 399 only was inside him.


No, it doesn't support your theory at all.


>Via a 2-bullets-hit-JBC theory, you now have upped the absurdity of ANY
>anti-SBT theory to monstrously-silly heights. You do realize that,
>right?

Actually, according to Dr. Shaw, who was the medical doctor who was one of those
treating Connally - he could have been struck by as many as *3* shots... and Dr.
Shaw didn't find it "monstrously-silly" to so consider.


>You'll need to explain away FOUR total disappearing bullets (instead of
>just three). Four bullets just vanish, never entering the record in the
>case. Logical? Even slightly so? Hardly.


Quite logical. The FBI made quite a bit of stuff simply disappear. When you're
the one in charge of an "investigation", you can make the "investigation" find
any conclusions you care to.


>With each misstep, you and other CTers make yourselves look more
>foolish in an "anti-SBT" manner.


With each failure to respond to an entire post without snipping it to pieces,
you illustrate your inability to deal with historical fact.


>You're actually saying that FOUR magically-vanishing bullets is a
>more-reasonable conclusion than the SBT (which has all of its bullets
>{1} accounted for right in the hospital where the victims were taken).
>Amazing.


Not amazing at all. Hoover had the "solution", his agents made sure that they
kept their jobs.


>>>"The amount of lead left in {Connally's} body doesn't do well for the pristine
>>>bullet."
>
>Bullshit. The amount of lead left in JBC's body wouldn't amount to a
>half-a-grain probably. You're spouting another misleading CT piece of
>junk theory that has no merit at all. But I'm sure you know that. But
>you'll keep saying it for years on end anyway (until Vince arrives
>anyhow).


Even Bugliosi isn't going to be able to get around the eyewitness testimony.
He'll be forced to spout the same nonsense about eyewitness testimony as all
LNT'ers do.


>>>"You have about 12 witnesses that say they heard and saw gunsmoke from the
>>>grassy knoll."
>
>And what did the policeman (and the "Knoll-storming" witnesses) see
>when they got to the top of the Knoll? Answer -- No killer. No guns. No
>shells. No sign of anything. That was one mighty swift assassin there.

Didn't take long to toss the rifle in to a car trunk, did it?

And, of course, they *did* run into people there. At least one of whom promptly
produced an ID that couldn't have been there...


>>>"You have a doctor who specified a 'snowstorm' of fragments in JFK's brain which
>>>would be a frangibile bullet, unlike another bullet that could have been fired
>>>from an MC."
>
>And the autopsy report said what now?


We don't know. It was burned in a fireplace... remember?


>Any mention of MORE than just a single bullet hit JFK in the head from
>the rear?

Evidently - as the prosectors put one in the EOP, and the Clark Panel and HSCA
putting a bullet four inches higher.

>(With a fragment in JFK's head being linked to Oswald's
>gun....

Oh?

>plus the two large fragments in the car linked to LHO's
>gun....with no other guns linked to this crime via fragments.)


With no other guns being eliminated as being part of the crime via other
fragments.


>Let's just ignore all the Oswald-Did-It-All evidence and go with some
>"snowstorm" guesswork...shall we? OK. Great. Let's do that. You seem to
>like that half-baked approach.


It is, of course, still on a physical piece of evidence, the X-ray.

>>>"You have unison from Parkland doctors of a frontal throat wound. You have two
>>>doctors there say it was lodged in the chest or lung."
>
>So what? Who cares? Means zilch.


Yep... to LNT'ers, an observation made by medically trained doctors on a topic
that is their specialty means nothing if it doesn't support their "theory".


>Because .... DID a bullet "lodge in the chest or lung"?


Quite probably. Of course, Davey-boy is free to explain why Parkland felt the
need to insert chest tubes if no damage ever occured in the chest.


>Answer -- No, of course it did not. The entire body of JFK was X-rayed
>and what was discovered in his body??
>
>Answer -- No bullets whatsoever (head to toe).


Untrue, of course.


>But...let's just ignore that hunk of Officialdom. It's better for your
>CT purposes.
>
>
>>>"You have a host of people that have a huge hole sighting in the back, lower
>>>portion of JFK's head which would not do well for a shot from the rear to have
>>>that hole made."
>
>And just exactly WHERE would the killer have been located within DP to
>have caused that BOH hole in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head?
>
>Answer -- Certainly NOT the Grassy Knoll/Picket Fence area....that is
>for sure.


Actually, this isn't based on medical opinion. Dr. Kemp, for example, stated at
the 11/22 press conference that the head wound could have been a tangential
wound. According to a newspaper article dated 11/27, he was still stating this.

So your "answer" is factually wrong, isn't it?


>So....WHERE was this unseen assassin who created that FAR-RIGHT-REAR
>hole in JFK's head? Where? And if you answer "Grassy Knoll"...a lot of
>'splainin' is gonna be needed to justify that weird trajectory, which
>has a bullet hitting JFK in the right temple (right?)...and exiting in
>the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of his head (right?).
>
>Good luck explaining that zig-zagging magic missile.


Don't need any "luck". You simply line it up with the hole in the windshield,
and follow the line.


>>>"When the SBT is patently false, it's just one step to knowing that there is a
>>>greater possibility of multiple shooters."
>
>Bullshit. The SBT is a bona fide fact.

Hint: "SBT" means "Single Bullet THEORY". It's never been anything better than
a theory - and one that has both ballistics experts, and medical doctors who
disagree with it.

>And every re-creation or
>animated "test" that has been performed since '63 has had the SBT
>passing the "It Was Doable" test with flying colors, and everybody
>knows it.

When you have to lie to make a point, all you've shown is that you're willing to
lie. Every "test" has failed... beginning with the bullets fired into a
cadaver's wrist by the WC, and moving up to the recent test done in Australia.

David VP

unread,
May 23, 2006, 12:10:21 AM5/23/06
to
DVP: "The amount of lead left in JBC's body wouldn't amount to a
half-a-grain probably."
TONY M.: "Probably? You have no basis for making such a claim."

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

Only the documented, under-oath WC testimony of the doctor who cared
for Governor Connally's wrist and thigh injuries (Dr. Charles Gregory).
.... (Keys words here being: "Flakes of metal", "Micrograms", and "Less
than the weight of a postage stamp".) ......


MR. SPECTER -- "Will you describe as specifically as you can what those
metallic fragments are by way of size and shape, sir?"

DR. GREGORY -- "I would identify these fragments as varying from
five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately 2 millimeters
in diameter., and each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in
thickness. They would represent in lay terms flakes, flakes of metal."

MR. SPECTER -- "What would your estimate be as to their weight in
total?"

DR. GREGORY -- "I would estimate that they would be weighed in
micrograms which is very small amount of weight. I don't know how to
reduce it to ordinary equivalents for you. It is the kind of weighing
that requires a microadjustable scale, which means that it is something
less than the weight of a postage stamp."

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

You're right about one misstatement I made in my earlier post re. this
matter, Tony. My guess about the wrist fragments weighing not even
"half-a-grain" was probably incorrect. The fragments probably weighed
even considerable LESS than that. Sorry.

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 22, 2006, 11:58:42 PM5/22/06
to
In article <1148350465.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>>> "Best I've seen from you is ... quote the WCR..."
>
>And, naturally, the WCR is to be treated as Charmin by everybody
>researching the JFK murder...correct?? There's not a word of truth in
>the WCR, is there? Only pure crap on all 888 pages.


Nope... but there *are* provable lies among those pages.

Why are lies needed to support the truth, Davey-boy?

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 22, 2006, 11:57:17 PM5/22/06
to
In article <1148350000....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>>> "And when it's rebutted, you run away."
>
>You've "rebutted" nothing I've presented. Nothing.

Who can say? You keep snipping everything. An honest person would not need to
snip everything.


>You think too much of your "rebutting" skills, BH. Way too much.


Nah... it's *YOU* that think too highly of my rebutting ability. This is why
you refuse to respond to them.


>Just because you've said an LN point has been "rebutted" or "debunked"
>-- it isn't automatically so. Esp. regarding the Tippit crime, which
>any fool can see was committed by LHO (even most CT-Kooks).


Any "fool" who's willing to skip the evidence...


>All rabid CTers who want to take the noose from around Oswald's neck
>re. the Tippit slaying are truly repulsive IMO...and only make
>themselves look totally foolish with respect to the REST of their
>pro-CT JFK arguments as well.

Any person unwilling to support their own words shouldn't refer to others as
"truly repulsive".

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 23, 2006, 12:05:57 AM5/23/06
to
In article <1148355967.9...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...


That means you'll accept Dr. Shaw's assertions? He *DID* work on Connally.


Dr. SHAW - This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will be
giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be caused by the
same bullet, and we felt that it could but we had not seen the bullets until
today, and we still do not know which bullet actually inflicted the wound on
Governor Connally.
Mr. DULLES - Or whether it was one or two wounds?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - Or two bullets?
Dr. SHAW - Yes; or three.
Mr. DULLES - Why do you say three?
Dr. SHAW - He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest, a wound of
the wrist, a wound of the thigh.
Mr. DULLES - Oh, yes; we haven't. come to the wound of the thigh yet, have we?
Mr. McCLOY - You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were caused by
one bullet?
Dr. SHAW - I have no firm opinion.


But, of course, we already know your answer... "eyewitness testimony is the
least reliable form of evidence".

LOL!!

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 23, 2006, 12:12:04 AM5/23/06
to
In article <1148355474....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>>>"Don't rely on the autopsy report. They didn't even document a bullet passing
>>>through the body. They merely guessed."
>
>Sure they "guessed". They had no choice BUT to "guess" re. the bullet
>path (given the fact they didn't even know about the throat wound until
>11/23). So what?

Oh, they knew about the neck wound. They certainly tried to hide this
knowledge, since if they *DID* know about it, they had no excuse for a failure
to show a transit.

But they *DID* fail to show any transit. The eyewitness testimony, in
particular, is quite revealing.


>But it was an EDUCATED guess

No, it was speculation that was not based on a primary examination of the
wounds.

It could therefore *equally* be proposed by the drunkard over on 9th avenue.


>(to conclude that the bullet transited the
>neck, which it so obviously did).

The medical evidence is against such a theory. You'll have to face it someday.


>The alternative is so ridiculous it
>should make CTers blush with embarrassment at even suggesting such
>"multiple-bullets-that-hit-nothing-but-stop-dead-anyway" nonsense.


To believe the medical doctors who were there? Why would *that* make anyone
blush?


>But -- Why believe the obvious, when you could be a "CT Nuthatch"?
>Right?
>
>
>>> "You accept the WC fiction that one bullet missed. Show me that bullet."
>
>LOL. It's classic, isn't it?
>
>Quite obviously a MISSED bullet is very likely not going to be
>RECOVERABLE. Only a ding-a-ling would have posted what you've posted
>above.


And only an idiot would assert that *all* the evidence proves that only one
rifle was involved. When clearly you don't even *have* all the evidence.

>>>"You can't even explain away ONE totally disappearing bullet which the WC said
>>>missed."
>
>And tell me again how my not being able to produce the one "missed
>shot" bullet is supposed to make a CTer's theory re. their supposed
>"missing bullets" any more believable and viable by their not being
>able to produce up to FOUR TIMES that number of AWOL missiles??!!


Oh, we can produce them. You'll find 'em in an FBI locker.


>I must have missed the logic of that brilliant analogy, which is CTer
>logic that seems to imply the following ---
>
>"BECAUSE YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH THE *ONE* MISSING BULLET THAT YOU SAY
>MISSED THE WHOLE CAR, WHY SHOULD WE CONSPIRACISTS BE EXPECTED TO COME
>UP WITH UP TO FOUR TIMES THAT NUMBER OF MISSING PROJECTILES ASSOCIATED
>WITH THIS CASE....*NONE* OF WHICH "MISSED" AT ALL (PER KOOK-STER C.T.
>ACCOUNTS OF THE EVENT) -- BUT, INSTEAD, ALL OF THESE MISSING C.T.
>BULLETS (WHICH MUST REPLACE THE CE399 S.B.T. BULLET) ACTUALLY *HIT*
>VICTIMS IN THE CAR AND THEN DISAPPEARED AFTER CAUSING BODILY INJURIES
>TO TWO DIFFERENT MEN!"
>
>Better re-think that one, Tony. Because I wouldn't want to face a jury
>with that kind of oddball CTer logic in court.

Nutcases, both of you.

David VP

unread,
May 23, 2006, 1:39:26 AM5/23/06
to
>> "The photo showing a bullet being dug out of the grass."

There was no bullet. That's your CT myth taking ahold.

If there was a bullet -- produce the Goddamn thing! If you can't (or if
you can't cite somebody who said they saw such a missile)...then shut
up about it.


>> "But the best medical evidence is that there WAS NO TRANSIT, isn't it?"

Certainly not. The "best medical evidence" (coupled with just a small
dose of common sense) is -- A T&T transiting bullet went through JFK's
neck. The alternatives to this defy all belief, logic, and common
sense. (And everybody should know why.)


>> "Your "common sense" is another word for sheer speculation, isn't it?"

Speculation based on "common sense" isn't an evil,
you're-gonna-rot-in-hell syndrome to be ashamed of in many instances
re. this case. Not EVERY single thing CAN be answered with ONLY
"evidence". Why in the world WOULDN'T you apply some CS&L to the
proceedings at hand? You seem to think it's illegal to do so. Odd. And
silly. (See "The Crazy Multi-Shooter, One-Patsy Theory" for examples of
how CTers fail to use "common sense"; it's blatantly obvious there.)


>> "Actually, there still *IS* one... although it's quite likely to be merely a
shotgun pellet. On the other hand, perhaps it isn't..."

Are you "speculating" here? That's a no-no, ya know.
Shotgun pellet?? LOL.
Some great pro hit men you've got there. Using "shotgun pellets" on
their Presidential hit. Hilarious.


>> "And, in any case, the first and best medical evidence is for the neck wound to be an entry, wasn't it?"

The FIRST "speculation" re. that wound was that of "entry", yes. So
what? Dr. Perry said it could be "either" an exit or entry wound. He's
a liar, right? Or a Govt. shill. Right? Right.


>> "That the head wound extended to the back of the head, which is, of course, IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile to the BOH photo."

Today's dictionary lesson for Ben-boy....

http://webster.com/dictionary/somewhat


>> "No, this {transiting wound} was speculation created *after* the body had already left the autopsy, as you well know."

Sure. So what? How does that make a T&T wound impossible or even
improbable?


>> "Shaw was also quoted on 11/27/63 in the New York Herald-Tribune as stating that a bullet had entered the front of JFK's throat and "coursed downward into his lung [and] was removed in the Bethesda Naval Hospital where the autopsy was performed."

So? Who cares what Shaw said on an AUTOPSY matter. WAS a bullet found
in JFK's lung?

Answer: No. End of story. Shaw's comments are meaningless. Besides, was
Shaw one of KENNEDY'S Parkland doctors??

Answer: No.


>> "Or that you'll admit that Shaw was quoted on 11/29/63 in the "Houston Post" that "The assassin was behind him, yet the bullet entered at the front of his neck. Mr. Kennedy must have turned to his left to talk to Mrs. Kennedy or to wave to someone"."

Ridiculous comments by Shaw (assuming you've got those silly quotes
correct). He didn't have any more knowledge of JFK's wounds than I did
at the time.

And your quoting CONNALLY'S doctor with respect to JFK's wounds and
JFK'S AUTOPSY (which Shaw did not attend of course) is silly too.

But, being a CTer who likes to jump on every stupid thing imaginable --
let's just totally disregard the testimony of THOSE WHO WERE AT THE
AUTOPSY and believe, instead, the word of a third party who was
thousands of miles to the southwest at the time of Kennedy's
post-mortem exam.

Yeah...let's do that, OK? It'll look good in court, too, to drag Dr.
Shaw into court as an "expert" on JFK's wounds and JFK's autopsy (which
he knew NOTHING about first-hand). Great Johnnie Cochran-esque tactic
there. Keep it up. You're doing fine.


>> "So kindly explain why we should accept a statement that Shaw has contradicted with far more explanation, and under oath?"

Are you high on Groden-Gas or something???!!!

Are you sure you're quoting the right doctor here? Shaw??? Who NEVER
treated or even saw JFK at Parkland Hospital on 11/22? .....

Mr. SPECTER - Were you called upon to render any aid to President
Kennedy on November 22?
Dr. SHAW - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you called upon to render medical aid to Gov. John
B. Connally on that day?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.


>> "Actually, according to Dr. Shaw, who was the medical doctor who was one of those treating Connally - he could have been struck by as many as 3 shots... and Dr. Shaw didn't find it "monstrously-silly" to so consider."

Nor did he find it silly to state on Live TV on 11/22 that ALL of
Connally's wounds were likely caused by "one bullet".

If shot THREE times...where are the freakin' bullets? Naturally, they
"vanished" into CT Smoke, right? Yeah, right.


>> "The FBI made quite a bit of stuff simply disappear."

Speculating again, Ben? You know better, right?
IOW -- Prove it.


>> "Didn't take long to toss the rifle in to a car trunk, did it?"

Did the gunman/gunmen crawl into that trunk too? Must have I guess.
Nobody saw him/them.


>> "It was burned in a fireplace... remember?"

And please explain the logic of Humes ADMITTING to burning ANY
documents if he were on a "Mission To Make DVP's Life A Living Hell & A
Mission To Make Ben-Boy (Not Sherlock) Holmes Look Like A Grandiose
Sleuth 40+ Years Later"??

IOW -- WHY would he say ANYTHING re. "burning" evidence up in his home
fireplace when he had no reason to do so in a strictly "cover-up"
mindset?

Humes is being boiled in hot CT oil for merely TELLING THE TRUTH re.
the "fireplace burning", and for actually using some COMMON SENSE when
attempting to figure out how JFK was killed.

And Dr. Humes is also strung up by CT morons for merely placing into
the official record THE ONLY CORRECT AND VALID AUTOPSY REPORT
(post-Perry conversation).

Proving that: Many CTers who do this berating of Humes are
first-rate....kooks. :)


>> "With no other guns being eliminated as being part of the crime via other
fragments.

Nor was Oswald's C2766 weapon "eliminated" as the source of such
smaller fragments. But you know that of course.


>> "Yep...to LNT'ers, an observation made by medically-trained doctors on a topic that is their specialty means nothing if it doesn't support their "theory"."

Would the above comment also apply to Humes/Finck/Boswell with respect
to the "Only Two Bullets Struck President Kennedy" conclusion of their
Official Pathological Examination on JFK?

And -- Would that argument also apply to Dr. Gregory with respect to
the "micrograms" of bullet fragments left inside JBC's wrist?

Or is that argument only valid when a CT kook espouses it in feeble
attempts to avoid the obviousness of Lee Oswald's lone guilt?
(Thanks...thought so.)


>> "Quite probably {re. the kook-ster's unsupportable belief that a bullet/bullets lodged in JFK's chest and/or lungs}."

Oh, you must mean here that you are "speculating". Right? (Something
I'm not allowed to do it seems, ever. But you can do it when it suits
your needs (and whims). Nice double-standard. Thanks. I get it now.)


>> "Of course, Davey-boy is free to explain why Parkland felt the need to insert chest tubes if no damage ever occurred in the chest."

Nothing mysterious there.....

"I asked someone to put in a chest tube to allow sealed drainage of any
blood or air which might be accumulated in the right hemothorax." --
Dr. Perry (to WC)

But at autopsy, it was concluded there was no significant damage to the
chest or lungs (except for a slight bruising of the pleura cavity,
which was NOT punctured or violated by any missile).

Wanna try another silly tack re. this matter?


>> "Untrue {re. "bullets left in body}, of course."

OK. I'll bite. Produce those bullets you say were in his body.


>> "Dr. Kemp [sic; LOL added here] stated at the 11/22 press conference that the head wound could have been a tangential wound. According to a newspaper article dated 11/27, he was still stating this."

So? What does that prove?
Answer -- Nada.
(Think Dr. Clark might have been "speculating" there?)

BTW -- The doctor's name was "William Kemp Clark", not "Clark Kemp".
ROFL.

(But, then again, maybe "Clark Kent" was aiding "Clark Kemp" at
Parkland on 11/22. LOL. Could be. Kent and Superman MUST certainly have
been there....because nothing short of "Super Hero" status could have
resulted in all those disappearing bullets and all the rest of that
cloak-&-dagger stuff following the shooting.)


>> "You simply line it up with the hole in the windshield, and follow the line."

And suppose you tell the rest of the world just exactly WHERE this
"frontal" shooter could have been situated (with rifle in tow) within
DP in order to achieve that "BOH" (far-right-rear) wound on JFK's head
that most/many CTers believe existed in 1963.

Where was this killer? On the Overpass (amongst Holland, Dodd, Simmons,
and TWO DPD cops)? On the south side of Elm someplace? Perhaps James
Tague was really the killer. Hey, there's a CT I've never heard spouted
before. You could write a new book!


>> "Hint: "SBT" means "Single Bullet THEORY". It's never been anything better than a theory - and one that has both ballistics experts, and medical doctors who disagree with it."

And (hint) it's also a "theory" that has MANY, MANY ballistics experts,
doctors, animators, and investigators agreeing with its conclusions.

Shy of a reasonable, believable, based-on-the-evidence-in-the-case
alternate CT theory to replace it....the SBT is still (by far) the best
explanation of the double-man wounding that took place on Elm St. in
Dallas. And everybody SHOULD know it...and know why this is.


>> "When you have to lie to make a point, all you've shown is that you're willing to lie."

The usual Ben-boy "Willing To Lie" mantra. I love it. Every time I see
it, I love it more. No matter how stupid it sounds. Thanks.


>> "Every {SBT} "test" has failed....beginning with the bullets fired into a cadaver's wrist by the WC, and moving up to the recent test done in Australia."

All together now! -----

Bull----Shit!

If you think the Australian 2004 re-creation test "failed" to show the
viability (at the the "possibility") of the SBT....you're as goofy as
The Comic Book Guy.

That re-creation verified virtually every aspect of the SBT's potential
"doability"; and anybody outside of CT Kooksville USA could easily see
that was so.

And Dale Myers' SBT work only further cements the Single-Bullet Theory
as closer to "factual" than "theory"....and anybody with one eye who
isn't buried a mile deep in books written by
Marrs/Groden/Garrison/Mellen/Livingstone/and Fetzer could easily see
that fact as well.

Apparently, Ben-boy's stack of Fetzer & Marrs' tomes is too tall to see
around. A pity.

See ya.

David Von Pein
May 23rd, 2006

David VP

unread,
May 23, 2006, 1:48:07 AM5/23/06
to
>> "That means you'll accept Dr. Shaw's assertions? He *DID* work on Connally."

Well...er...uh...Ben...perhaps you'd have been better off if you would
have omitted this comment made by Dr. Shaw (it doesn't help your
"3-Bullet" cause...at all....does it now?)....

Mr. McCLOY - You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were
caused by
one bullet?
Dr. SHAW - I have no firm opinion.

I guess, though, the words, "No Firm Opinion" and "Could Be Caused By
The Same Bullet" (which Shaw also stated) equate -- in Ben-boy's CT
lingo -- to this ....

"Yes, Mr. McCloy, I am definitely of the opinion that three separate
bullets pierced the Governor's body....despite my remarks just one
second ago that I have "no firm opinion" on the matter. I was just
kiddin' you Warren boys with that "no firm opinion" remark. You don't
mind having your collective legs pulled like that, do ya?! ~wink~"

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 23, 2006, 9:48:39 AM5/23/06
to

I wonder if you'd have the honesty to report *all* the evidence on this issue?


In article <1148357421.6...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 23, 2006, 11:00:46 AM5/23/06
to
In article <1148363287.7...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>> That means you'll accept Dr. Shaw's assertions? He *DID* work on Connally.
>
>Well...er...uh...Ben...perhaps you'd have been better off if you would
>have omitted this comment made by Dr. Shaw (it doesn't help your
>"3-Bullet" cause...at all....does it now?)....

Of course it does. Dr. Shaw states that Connally's wounds *COULD* have been
caused by as many as three bullets.


>Mr. McCLOY - You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were
>caused by one bullet?
>Dr. SHAW - I have no firm opinion.
>
>I guess, though, the words, "No Firm Opinion" and "Could Be Caused By
>The Same Bullet" (which Shaw also stated) equate -- in Ben-boy's CT
>lingo -- to this ....
>
>"Yes, Mr. McCloy, I am definitely of the opinion that three separate
>bullets pierced the Governor's body....despite my remarks just one
>second ago that I have "no firm opinion" on the matter. I was just
>kiddin' you Warren boys with that "no firm opinion" remark. You don't
>mind having your collective legs pulled like that, do ya?! ~wink~"

Nah... such a silly speculation isn't needed. That's why I quoted Dr. Shaw's
exact words. Bugs you, doesn't it?

How could Dr. Shaw have been so stupid as to not immediately recognize the SBT,
right?

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
May 23, 2006, 1:23:04 PM5/23/06
to

Why don't you take Shaw's opinion on the amount of fragmentation left
in Connally as opposed to what was gone from the Magic Bullet? I think
ROTF was his answer.

CJ

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
May 23, 2006, 2:19:40 PM5/23/06
to

David VP wrote:
> >> "There have been numerous conspiracy events of magnitude in history, so whatever you attempt to label must only be concerning this case."
>
> And what exactly makes you think that I am referring to any "CTers"
> OUTSIDE this particular case? Quite obviously, I'm JUST referring to
> THIS CASE. Why wouldn't I be?
>
Because you always ad hominem when you have no evidence. Why would a
conspiracy be so out of the ordinary for this case? Why would a LG
make any more sense?

>
> >> "The fact is one or ten people could have been shooting at JFK with the amount of buildings and surroundings."
>
> Sure. But where's the evidence (the bullets, the guns, the witness who
> can claim "There's the killer!"; anything!) that shows there WERE
> multiple shooters firing from the other "buildings and surroundings"?
> Answer -- The evidence does not exist...and never did.
>

You say it does not exist. Was there any investigation of the other
buildings? Was there any investigation of unaccounted for folks who
displayed SS badges when noone was on duty? Did anyone see LHO shoot a
rifle? Did anyone see anyone shoot a rifle?

>
> >> "Well you got a hole in the back that would never match up with the sixth floor and anything above the waste [sic]."
>
> WTF??
> HUH??
> Another "WTF?".
>

To get you up to speed, the FBI agent at the autopsy said the
abbreviated depth of the back wound was between 45 and 60 degrees. If
you like having the sixth floor of the TSBD as a shooting point, then
that angle for the wound would never match up to a neck wound. Kapish?

> Why in the world you're spouting this garbage is anyone's guess.
>

It's garbage for you because you can't understand the statement.

>
> >> "You have no proof that the hole went to the other side..."
>
> Only basic common sense....plus the LACK of bullets in JFK....plus the
> LACK of any damage that would have STOPPED said bullet from passing
> through the neck. That's all. Plus the Autopsy Report, which states
> that the bullet positively passed through the body.
>
> Naturally, we should just ignore the autopsy doctors and their Final
> Report. Right? And we should ignore common sense too. Right? And common
> sense tells anyone with a brain that one bullet transited JFK's neck.
>

Passed through? They only had to make that up the next day because
they were getting phone calls. You must be calling all the doctors at
Parkland brainless. You like the word 'transited' when it pleases you.
I guess if the Magic bullet transited then it would have never fell
out in a stretcher would it?

>
> >> "Of course all avoid the bullet that fell out from the backside at Bethesda when unloading JFK from the coffin to the gurney."
>
> Proof please.
> You have none (as per usual).
>

Why should I have a rookie have his evidence spoon fed? Why don't you
find an author who has interviewed everyone that was involved medically
in the case? If you do, you will find 3 or 4 of Bethesda's personnel
that will help you.

>
> >> "You probably have two bullets for Connally with all the damage that 'they' did."
>
> Proof please.
> You have none (as per usual).
>

Like you have proof that one did the damage? How many wounds? How
many broken bones? How come all the fragmentation left in the body and
how come a bullet without much of any grainage lost just happen to plop
out onto a stretcher? Make it work.

> In fact, there's ample evidence suggesting Connally was struck by just
> one bullet. Connally said so...Dr. Shaw said so on Live TV on
> 11/22...and the LACK of finding any bullets inside or near Connally
> also supports the idea that 399 only was inside him.
>

When did Connally lose consciousness? Would he have been a good
witness for a potential other bullet?

> Via a 2-bullets-hit-JBC theory, you now have upped the absurdity of ANY
> anti-SBT theory to monstrously-silly heights. You do realize that,
> right?
>

Well the SBT theory is already at your altitude. There are many other
aspects than just Connally that would disprove the SBT theory. I would
say your theory would be better if the Magic Bullet would not be
admissable.

> You'll need to explain away FOUR total disappearing bullets (instead of
> just three). Four bullets just vanish, never entering the record in the
> case. Logical? Even slightly so? Hardly.
>

Bullets are not recovered in lots of shootings. You must take the
evidence of witnesses who saw bullets and assume they did not see any
of them. You must assume that no hollow point bullets were used that
would fragment. You must assume that all the evidence gatherers were
either under no stress, or had any job to lose if they reported what
they saw. You must assume that there could have been only one bullet
found and not have multiple gunmen.

> With each misstep, you and other CTers make yourselves look more
> foolish in an "anti-SBT" manner.
>
> You're actually saying that FOUR magically-vanishing bullets is a
> more-reasonable conclusion than the SBT (which has all of its bullets
> {1} accounted for right in the hospital where the victims were taken).
> Amazing.
>

At least one or maybe two of those bullets were not found at the
hospital where the victims were taken to. And were not even counting
the missed curb shot or the other shot that hit Tague.

>
> >> "The amount of lead left in {Connally's} body doesn't do well for the pristine bullet."
>
> Bullshit. The amount of lead left in JBC's body wouldn't amount to a
> half-a-grain probably. You're spouting another misleading CT piece of
> junk theory that has no merit at all. But I'm sure you know that. But
> you'll keep saying it for years on end anyway (until Vince arrives
> anyhow).
>

And why didn't they operate and take it out of Connally? Your Vinnie
will be like Mighty Mouse for you and "come and save the day."


>
> >> "You have about 12 witnesses that say they heard and saw gunsmoke from the grassy knoll."
>
> And what did the policeman (and the "Knoll-storming" witnesses) see
> when they got to the top of the Knoll? Answer -- No killer. No guns. No
> shells. No sign of anything. That was one mighty swift assassin there.
>

No one reached the top of the knoll until 70 seconds were gone. I
guess the Railroad
workers saw Old Faithful instead of gunsmoke? I guess the 12 year old
witness who happens to give talks on the GK knoll didn't see any? I
guess the interview of the couple who ducked between the cars while the
shooting went on didn't count? I guess Abraham Zapruder who came from
his work and talked to the people on the knoll who came and said the
shot came from his right didn't count? I guess Mr. Newman who came to
talk to the common folk who said shots came from behind him didn't
count? I guess the SS agent didn't count when confronted by the
policeman who had greasy hands? I guess the "dazed winos" who went
back to the railroad car didn't count?


>
> >> "You have a doctor who specified a 'snowstorm' of fragments in JFK's brain which would be a frangibile bullet, unlike another bullet that could have been fired from an MC."
>
> And the autopsy report said what now?
> Any mention of MORE than just a single bullet hit JFK in the head from
> the rear? (With a fragment in JFK's head being linked to Oswald's
> gun....plus the two large fragments in the car linked to LHO's
> gun....with no other guns linked to this crime via fragments.)
>

And how do you know it's his gun? And what type of ammunition that gun
was capable of? Of course you don't want to deal with frangible
bullets that fragmented into tiny pieces in JFK's brain? What kind of
bullet do you think was in JBC when they couldn't operate?

> Let's just ignore all the Oswald-Did-It-All evidence and go with some
> "snowstorm" guesswork...shall we? OK. Great. Let's do that. You seem to
> like that half-baked approach.
>

All you have is a rifle that was of poor quality, and a 'SN' that would
be extremely hard to shoot from with the window only a little open.
You have his fellow marines telling how poor a shot he was, and have a
tree in the way. You have a sight that is way off. You have a
so-called can't miss shot being passed up when JFK came up Houston for
this crack shot that no person has been able to duplicate having great
marksman credentials. You have Oswald being in the TSBD and coming
down to the sixth floor when it would be impossible to get there, and
not have run into people that were using the stairway that he could
have only used.

>
> >> "You have unison from Parkland doctors of a frontal throat wound. You have two doctors there say it was lodged in the chest or lung."
>
> So what? Who cares? Means zilch.
>

Why not? Did you know that they cut along JFK's chest during his stay
at Parkland?

> Because .... DID a bullet "lodge in the chest or lung"?
>

According to one doc, it traversed downward. According to one doc, it
was in the lung.

> Answer -- No, of course it did not. The entire body of JFK was X-rayed
> and what was discovered in his body??
>

If you knew the X-rays that were taken and when you might think
differently. Did you know that some X-rays were taken after the organs
were removed?

> Answer -- No bullets whatsoever (head to toe).
>

Wrong again.

> But...let's just ignore that hunk of Officialdom. It's better for your
> CT purposes.
>

I have no CT purpose other than finding the real killers or why the act
was done. LHO could have been a CT and not shot any shots.

>
> >> "You have a host of people that have a huge hole sighting in the back, lower portion of JFK's head which would not do well for a shot from the rear to have that hole made."
>
> And just exactly WHERE would the killer have been located within DP to
> have caused that BOH hole in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head?
>
> Answer -- Certainly NOT the Grassy Knoll/Picket Fence area....that is
> for sure.
>

Why not? It was a 45 degree shot or maybe more. How does one get a
shot from the 'SN' and that be on the right side of JFK and have a hole
go in the bottom of JFK's head and exit out the top of his head?

> So....WHERE was this unseen assassin who created that FAR-RIGHT-REAR
> hole in JFK's head? Where? And if you answer "Grassy Knoll"...a lot of
> 'splainin' is gonna be needed to justify that weird trajectory, which
> has a bullet hitting JFK in the right temple (right?)...and exiting in
> the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of his head (right?).
>

Aren't you assuming that the perpetrators have to get caught?

> Good luck explaining that zig-zagging magic missile.
>

Better luck at explaining an obvious exit wound than an entry wound.

>
> >> "When the SBT is patently false, it's just one step to knowing that there is a greater possibility of multiple shooters."
>
> Bullshit. The SBT is a bona fide fact. And every re-creation or
> animated "test" that has been performed since '63 has had the SBT
> passing the "It Was Doable" test with flying colors, and everybody
> knows it.

Everybody but the American Public. All the crackpots that made it
'doable' only ignored the evidence and got the trajectory angle screwed
up from the sixth floor to somehow make it palatable for good ol' Dave.

CJ

tomnln

unread,
May 23, 2006, 3:47:14 PM5/23/06
to
Those were thr Fragments LEFT in JBC.
Does NOT account for the 4 good sized fragments taken by the Nurse.
(size of a match head)

"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1148357421.6...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

RicBi...@aol.com

unread,
May 23, 2006, 6:44:31 PM5/23/06
to
Hi David,

> MR. SPECTER -- "Will you describe as specifically as you can what those
> metallic fragments are by way of size and shape, sir?"
>
> DR. GREGORY -- "I would identify these fragments as varying from
> five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately 2 millimeters
> in diameter., and each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in
> thickness. They would represent in lay terms flakes, flakes of metal."

Take out a ruler how long 2 millimeters are. Now show us on CE399
where a 2 millimeter chunk is missing.

Thanks in advance,

- /< /\ /> -

Anthony Marsh

unread,
May 23, 2006, 11:13:48 PM5/23/06