JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 15)


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Some SBT is possible, but so far no one has created one which works." <<<



DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You, Tony Marsh, wouldn't believe the Single-Bullet Theory were true even if Bullet CE399 could be physically seen in mid-air on Zapruder's film going through each victim.

And can you provide the odds of a separate bullet going into John B. Connally's back in a NOT HEAD-ON manner and hitting JBC in just about the spot where he would have been by the SBT missile?

DNA numbers here, I would surmise (in favor of: Virtually Impossible) -- esp. when considering WHERE JOHN CONNALLY WAS SITTING, i.e., right in front of the OTHER man who was hit in the back with a bullet that Friday in November.

Common sense ALONE almost proves the SBT. And the OTHER stuff on top of the common sense cinches the SBT deal.

I wonder why more people can't (or refuse to) see that?


>>> "CBS did its best to NOT investigate the case. Only to rubberstamp the Warren Commission." <<<

Talk is cheap.

Prove it.

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

QUOTING WALTER CRONKITE IN 1967:

"If all three shots hit, then one of them would have had to pass through the President's neck, emerge at 1,800 feet per second, headed on a downward path toward the midst of the Presidential car and the six people in it, and vanish in mid-air, hitting nothing, and leaving no mark. Well, this was more than the [Warren] Commission could stomach. Despite its own words, the Single-Bullet Theory IS essential to its findings. ....

"Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult to believe the Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe the other theories is even MORE difficult. If the Governor's wounds were caused by a separate bullet, then we must believe that a bullet passed through the President's neck, emerged at high velocity on a course that was taking it directly into the middle of the automobile, and then vanished without a trace.

"Or, we can complicate matters even further--as some do--by adding a second assassin, who fires almost simultaneously with Oswald and whose bullet travels miraculously a trajectory identical with Oswald's and that second assassin, too, vanishes without a trace.

"Difficult to believe as the Single-Bullet Theory may be, it seems to be the LEAST difficult of all those that are available.

"In the end, like the Commission, we are persuaded that a single bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally."



CRONKITE SUMS UP:

"Did Oswald own a rifle? .... He did.

"Did Oswald take a rifle to the Book Depository Building? .... He did.

"Where was Oswald when the shots were fired? .... In the building, on the sixth floor.

"Was Oswald's rifle fired from the building? .... It was.

"How many shots were fired? .... Three.

"How fast could Oswald's rifle be fired? .... Fast enough.

"What was the time span of the shots? .... Seven or eight seconds.

"Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot President Kennedy? .... CBS News concludes that he did."


MORE TEXT HIGHLIGHTS FROM CBS-TV's 1967 SPECIAL

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

David Von Pein
October 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (OCTOBER 24, 2007)




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 14)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Where was the gunman who fired that shot then? Sitting on the
floorboards of the limousine?


ROB CAPRIO SAID:

Geez, I would guess in front of the Limo! This was seen by many
witnesses on the triple underpass and Henry Bowers.


DVP NOW SAYS:

Oh, so now Rob seems to be saying that "many witnesses on the triple
underpass" physically SAW an assassin firing a gun at JFK's car from
the front.

I guess the "smoke" that was said to have been seen by S.M. Holland
and a few other witnesses is the same thing as proving an assassin was
behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll firing a rifle at President
Kennedy. Is that it?

Well, think again. Because it doesn't prove any such thing.....

"If an ephemeral wisp of smoke--even if it existed--can overcome
several mountains of solid evidence to the contrary, then the
investigation into the truth in the assassination is more of an
existential exercise fit for black coffee-sipping Left Bank
philosophers who have always been more interested in asking questions
than in getting answers to those questions."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page
896 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

By the way,

Was "Henry Bowers" related to Lee Bowers (the guy in the railroad
tower)? ;)

Oh, well....I'll just chalk up that "Henry" error as an innocent
mistake. Mistakes can certainly happen. I'll admit that. After all, I
once thought you were a sane person.

"Lee Harold Oswald has been shot!" -- Bob Huffaker (KRLD-TV);
11/24/63

A Bowers Addendum --- For more about how CTers have misrepresented Lee
Bowers' 11/22 observations, go HERE.


ROB SPEWS ANOTHER HUNK OF SPECTACULAR UNSUPPORTABLE KOOKSHIT (with three misspellings corrected by DVP):

These were separate wounds. One went into the front of JFK's neck and
came out the back of the neck. The second wound [bullet] struck him in
the back area (below the shoulders), but did not fully penetrate out
of the front.


DVP NOW SAYS:

Ahhhh! The life of a CT-Kook. Making up more stuff that's not in the
record anywhere and can never in a billion years be supported by
anybody.

But, the kooks who spout such nonsense (like the above insanity
authored by Robert) couldn't care less about what the real evidence
shows.

For example: they don't CARE that the official autopsy report says the
following:

"Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the
deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted
by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
level of the deceased. The observations and available information do
not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
wounds.

"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of
the external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile
traversed the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see
lateral skull roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its
path. A portion of the projectile made its exit through the parietal
bone on the right carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and
scalp. The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the
missile produced extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of
the superior saggital sinus, and of the right cerebral hemisphere.

"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax
above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular
and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the
neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal
pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung.
The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
structures in its path through the body."
-- VIA JFK's AUTOPSY REPORT

The above words from President Kennedy's official autopsy report are
evidently TOTALLY MEANINGLESS to a kook like Robert. That report
(signed by all three autopsists) doesn't mean a damn thing, right Mr.
Kook?

And the kooks also don't care about the fact that not one doctor ever
saw a SECOND bullet hole in John F. Kennedy's back (or the back of his
"neck") on November 22, 1963.

Apparently the only thing an "Anybody But Oswald" JFK conspiracy kook
cares about is getting a double-murderer exonerated in the mind of the
public.

Nice hobby. If you're a loon.


ROB SAID:

I didn't make these up, Dave. Check out numerous sources, including
the autopsy photos. You'll see a small entry wound in JFK's right back
area.


DVP NOW SAYS:

Sure, there's ONE bullet entry hole here, but not two:



Do you think that the little spot of dried blood (just below the one
and only verified bullet hole in the above picture) is another "bullet
hole"?

Funny, though, that all of the doctors at Bethesda missed seeing this
other "hole", huh?

Plus: That photograph shows at least two additional small "spots" on
JFK's back that look generally like the spot you seem to think is a
second bullet hole. Why don't you think those spots of blood are
"bullet holes" too?

Or maybe the white spot near the bottom of JFK's hairline in this
autopsy picture is yet another "bullet hole"?:



You might as well go whole hog with your fairy tale, Rob. You could
have four or five different holes in JFK's back and neck regions,
based on the various "spots" seen in the above autopsy photos!
Go for it!

But when we return to the world of reality, your theory is defeated
from another viewpoint too -- JFK's coat and shirt. Where's the SECOND
bullet hole in JFK's shirt and the SECOND bullet hole in his coat
jacket?

Or doesn't the clothing matter at all in your theory? Just like the
autopsy report doesn't matter to you, and the doctors' testimony
doesn't matter, and the Warren Commission and HSCA conclusions
regarding the ONE back wound don't matter either. Right, kook?

(You make this so very easy, Rob. You DO realize that, right?)


ROB SAID:

The fools are the ones who believe a fantasy scenario set up by the
WCR [Warren Commission Report], which has been proven to be false
many times over the years. You just refuse to read/believe these reports.


DVP NOW SAYS:

The above words were spoken by a person who just a minute ago said
the following (without a hint of embarrassment attached):

"These were separate wounds. One [bullet] went into the front of JFK's
neck and came out the back of the neck. The second [bullet] struck him
in the back area (below the shoulders), but did not fully penetrate
out of the front."
-- Rob Caprio

Now, I ask -- Who is the one believing in "fantasies" here? DVP or Robert C.?


ROB SAID:

Later that evening, according to the two FBI agents, Dr. Humes
reiterated this "non-transit" finding as an official autopsy conclusion:
"Dr. Humes stated that the pattern was clear that one bullet had entered
the President's back and worked its way out of the body during external
cardiac massage and that a second...bullet had entered the rear of the
skull..."
This would seem to make it clear Dr. Humes did not believe the
rear wound was the entry for a bullet which traveled through the body--at
least not the night he did the autopsy.


DVP NOW SAYS:

So?

Sure, Humes thought (on the night of the autopsy) the back bullet
might not have transited the body. But he soon got the full story of
the bullet wound in the throat from Dr. Perry at Parkland the next
morning (November 23).

But the autopsy report is correct concerning this matter. After talking
with Perry and confirming the existence of a bullet hole in JFK's throat,
the LACK of bullets and DAMAGE in Kennedy's body made perfect sense
to Dr. Humes -- ergo, ONE bullet went clean through the President's body.

Why is this rocket science to the conspiracy kooks of the world?


ROB SAID:

For full story see David Lifton's "Best Evidence", pp. 101-09.


DVP NOW SAYS:

If you still believe anything theorized by David "THE BODY WAS
ALTERED" Lifton, then you're deeper in the conspiracy quicksand than
even I thought (and that's pretty deep).

If you want to read a made-up fictional tale that even Stephen King
probably wouldn't touch, then yes, by all means prop up "Best Evidence"
in bed tonight.


DVP SAID:

You CT-Kooks think THREE bullets went into the two victims (not
counting the head shot to JFK), and then all of these bullets just
vanished. And yet you think my question is a "trick" question of some
kind? Are you senile? It's a perfectly logical question that needs to
be answered in a coherent manner by the CTers who think the official
"SBT" version of events is incorrect.


ROB SAID:

They didn't all vanish Dave. We have the one [bullet] found at
Parkland...


DVP NOW SAYS:

Which is CE399 (which came out of Lee Oswald's rifle "to the
exclusion").

Is it fake? Think it through logically from this point-of-view.


ROB SAID:


...Fragments in Kennedy's brains (left over from an explosive bullet)...


DVP NOW SAYS:

This is more kook-spun conjecture (the part about the "explosive bullet",
that is).

A fragment taken from Kennedy's head was matched to CE567 (one of
the front-seat fragments) via NAA. Naturally, you (being a kook) will
have to totally reject Dr. Vincent Guinn's NAA findings re the 5 bullet
specimens he analyzed in 1978.

But, even if you do reject the NAA study done by Guinn (and you do
reject it, of course), think about the bullet evidence this way for a
change:

"Even if the new findings [from 2002 to 2004, not the 2007 study]
were to render NAA, and hence Guinn's conclusions, invalid, we DO know
that the stretcher bullet was fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of
ALL other weapons.

"Since THAT is definite, what is the likelihood that a bullet found on
CONNALLY'S stretcher, which we know was fired from Oswald's gun, is
not the same bullet that deposited its missing fragments in Connally's
wrist? Next to nothing.

"In other words, when all is said and done, what difference does it make
if it turns out that the NAA tests are completely invalid? But there is a
more important point to be made. Let's not forget that the NAA conclusions
by Guinn...are COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with all the other evidence
showing that Oswald was at the sniper's nest window and it was his
Carcano rifle that fired the only bullets that hit Kennedy.

"This other, independent evidence necessarily increases the likelihood
that Guinn's separate NAA conclusions are accurate."
-- Vincent Bugliosi;
Pages 436-437 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)


ROB SAID:

...A bullet down near where Tague was...


DVP NOW SAYS:

And you've SEEN that bullet, eh?

This sub-topic was about bullets that I said that CTers think had all
"vanished" and were not recovered, with your response being "They
didn't all vanish Dave"
. But now you're including the Tague bullet as
a bullet that did NOT vanish? This can only prompt me to say -- Huh?!

Obviously, even from my "Lone Assassin" viewpoint, the Tague bullet
(which was probably Oswald's first/missed shot) wasn't a bullet that
was recovered, nor was it recoverable. Hence, it's the one single
missing bullet in the LN/LHO/SBT scenario.

But the other two bullets (the ones that actually struck the victims in
the limousine) are present and accounted for, via CE399 and the two
large fragments from the head-shot bullet (CE567/569).

But CTers need multiple bullets that they claim went INTO VICTIMS
performing a vanishing act on 11/22/63.


ROB SAID:

...One [bullet] that was in the limo below the rearview mirror...


DVP NOW SAYS:

The chrome damage (which I assume is what you're referring to above)
was almost certainly caused by a fragment from the head-shot bullet
(either CE567 or CE569, both of which were fired from Oswald's gun).

You now seem to want the chrome/windshield damage to be caused by a
SEPARATE bullet (which, as per the CTer norm, was not recovered)?

I ask -- is it more likely for the TWO damaged areas of the limousine
(chrome dent + windshield crack) to have been caused by TWO slowed-
down fragments (from LHO's rifle) that came out of JFK's head, with
those two fragments ending up near that chrome and windshield damage
in the front seat of the car?

Or:

Is it more likely for the chrome and/or windshield damage to have been
caused by one or more non-Oswald bullets that were never recovered
(nor were any non-C2766 bullet fragments recovered in the front-seat
area of the car)?

Not a difficult choice by any means....is it?


ROB SAID:

...And one [bullet] found in the grass across from the knoll.


DVP NOW SAYS:

No bullet was "found in the grass" in Dealey Plaza. That's merely
conspiracy-flavored myth #409 and everybody knows it.

There's not a single police report (or any report) in existence that
proves that any "bullet" was picked up off of the grass in the Plaza
on 11/22/63.

There might have been an area of disturbed turf on Elm where some
policemen THOUGHT a bullet might have struck...hence, we have this
photo:



But one thing's a certainty -- no BULLET (or bullet fragment or bullet
cartridge casing) was ever found or was ever SAID TO BE FOUND in the
grass on Elm Street.


DVP SAID:

The only non-head damage to his [JFK's] body was some very slight
trachea damage (caused by Bullet CE399 and/or by Dr. Perry's trach
incision at Parkland) and a small amount of bruising to Kennedy's
right lung (caused, per the autopsy doctors, by the mere PASSAGE of
the high-speed bullet as it went over the top of JFK's right lung,
prior to exiting out the lower part of his throat).


ROB SAID:

Wrong. You keep covering the same ground. I guess you think if you
say it enough times it will become true.


DVP NOW SAYS:

Okay, Rob....the spotlight's on you now. Tell us what major damage was
documented inside John F. Kennedy's upper back and neck that could
have possibly caused a bullet moving through soft tissue to suddenly
stop inside his body?

(This oughta be good.)


DVP SAID:

My main job here is merely to help make you conspiracy-loving kooks
look like total idiots (which is a job I do very well most of the
time).


ROB SAID:

In your own mind. Dreamer.


DVP NOW SAYS:

I don't need to dream about it. You make debunking your make-believe
nonsense so easy that even my neighbor's sick dog could do it with
ease.

("Henry Bowers", btw, was the extra special treat from this kook-bashing
session. A special "Thanks" for that one, Rob.)

David Von Pein
October 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (OCTOBER 25, 2007)




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 13)


http://Amazon.com


CONSPIRACY THEORIST RICHARD VAN NOORD SAID:

>>> "With all due respect, please don't post your own blog as "proof" [Mark] Lane is incompetent, kooky, whatever." <<<



DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

With all due respect, Richard, I'll post whatever I want to. At any
time. So keep your CT ruler in the drawer and quit attempting to slap
my wrists with it.


>>> "He [Mark Lane] claimed attorney-client privilege, which is done all the time. He was hired by Marguerite Oswald to represent LHO before the Warren Commission." <<<

Which, of course, is THE major reason he wanted to bend over backwards
so much to clear a double-murderer named Lee Harvey. (I would have
thought that much would be quite obvious to everyone...even a
conspiracy-loving individual.)

Plus: My previously linked article really had very little to do with Lane's
lame attempt to try and keep the WC from hearing his appalling phone
call to Helen Markham. The essay was written to focus on the arm-
twisting tactics Lane utilized with Mrs. Markham in 1964.

But it's nice to see where you fully stand on Mr. Lane. You'll defend
him even though you surely must know about his underhanded tactics
regarding Mrs. Markham.

You'd be better advised to stick with Jim Marrs or Oliver Stone. At
least they're not on tape attempting to shove some "Bushy" words down
a scared witness' throat.


>>> "And the WC report is exactly why I am a CTer. It is an indictment against LHO, a prosecutor's brief, plain and simple." <<<

And it's 100% accurate in its bottom-line "LHO Did It Alone"
conclusion too. So, what's really your point here? In essence, you
have no point. Because the Warren Commission got it right. Plain
and simple.

And I'd advise you to read (or re-read) David Belin's excellent 1973
book "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury". Either Mr. Belin was an
top-notch liar, or he WANTED TO FIND A CONSPIRACY in the Kennedy
murder case when he entered into it.

Was he talking through his hat throughout that 500-plus-page book,
Richard, when he said he desperately WANTED to uncover some type of
conspiracy but came up with just Oswald?


>>> "LHO was tried and convicted without representation." <<<

Gerry Spence got around to "representing" him in 1986 in London. And
Vince Bugliosi tore Spence's flimsy and poorly presented "case" to
shreds.

Spence's heart wasn't in that mock trial at all, I'll grant you that
much; because even Spence told the TV audience following the trial,
"There was no conspiracy". So Spence knew from the get-go that he was
defending a guilty killer.

Would Mark Lane have done any better? Answer -- Not a chance. Because
all Vince Bugliosi (or any prosecutor) would have needed to do was to
present to the jury details of Mr. Lane's unscrupulous actions regarding
Markham and the Warren Commission, just like I laid out in my mock
questioning of Markham here.

Once the jury heard any of that stuff regarding Lane, his reputation in
the jury's eyes would be completely shot. And rightly so.


>>> "Mark Lane has debunked numerous pieces of "evidence" produced by the Warren Commission." <<<

Maybe he thinks he has "debunked" things. But he hasn't. That's a
common tactic employed by CTers, too -- i.e., let's pretend we've
"debunked" some piece of evidence and present it to the masses as
"debunked" or worthless or suspicious or what-have-you -- even though,
in reality, no such discrediting of the evidence has really been
accomplished at all.

CE399 being a prime example of this tactic. CTers love to claim that
that bullet couldn't have done this and couldn't have done that....but
nothing about that missile has been "debunked" by the conspiracy
community. Nothing. It's still THE ONLY WHOLE BULLET in the official
record of the JFK murder case and always will be. And it's positively
a bullet that was fired from the rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Conspiracists think they've destroyed the authenticity of CE399 and
the logicality of the Single-Bullet Theory. But they haven't come close.
Not even close. Common sense ALONE tells a reasonable person that
the SBT is the correct solution. And when all the OTHER evidence and
parameters are added to that common sense...it's Katie, bar the door.
The SBT is fact.

(Sorry, my mind wandered to the SBT.)


>>> "And I will pose this question to you again: why do you believe those who do not believe the WC report HAVE to prove something?" <<<

Perhaps it's because the WC is (still as we speak) the OFFICIAL
CONCLUSION of how John F. Kennedy was killed in Dallas. And unless
conspiracy theorists can come up with something better than what
the Warren Commission has placed on the table, then the WC's
conclusions are still the best and most reasonable scenario concerning
the JFK murder case.

A CTer's mileage will, of course, vary wildly when it comes to that
last paragraph. But, what's new about that?

The WC wasn't a court proceeding, that's quite true enough. It was a
fact-finding committee, to try and determine who killed the President
and (if possible) why that person or persons did so. And, IMO, the WC
did those things quite well, and in a fairly-short period of time (all
things considered; they had to investigate a lot of things, multiplied
by THREE separate murders, too).

You hate the Warren Commission. Okay, fine. I, however, do not. And
neither does Vincent T. Bugliosi.....

"In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be
considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history.
Even leading Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg acknowledges
that the Commission "checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew"."

-- Vince Bugliosi; Via his 2007 book "Reclaiming History"


>>> "What I am looking for is the release of all the evidence, all the sealed files." <<<

And you expect to find the proverbial "smoldering gun" within the
approx. 0.05% of the still-classified and unreleased documents
connected to the JFK case, is that it?

Virtually all documents HAVE been released. And, as Bugliosi points
out in his book, even the small % of stuff not available to the public
HAS BEEN EXAMINED by the ARRB in the 1990s. And, guess what? No
smoking gun. Nothing even close to it.


>>> "But we still don't know LHO's motive, and the only one posited by the wacky Bugliosi is LHO had dilusions [sic] of grandeur and LHO was a wacko of limited intelligence." <<<

Sounds like you're misrepresenting Vince's assessment of Oswald's
intellect. VB says in his book that he definitely thinks that Lee
Oswald was "intellectually inclined" (i.e., not the dope that some
people make him out to be).

In any event, Bugliosi doesn't really need to show motive. Nobody
does. Oswald signed his name to 2 murders in Dallas in 1963. All of
the evidence says that's true....regardless of the "Why Did He Do It?"
question having an ironclad answer.

Potential lack of a motive can't trump bullets, prints, guns, and
OSWALD'S OWN INCRIMINATING ACTIONS following the assassination.


>>> "What about the 7.65 shell found in the plaza that was marked into evidence, then destroyed?" <<<

"Marked into evidence, then destroyed", you say??? That's quite a
charge there. Care to substantiate any of that?

Of course, you cannot substantiate that bullet-shell allegation,
because no such 7.65mm. shell ever existed that was in any way
connected to the murder of JFK.

Also: Within the type of Oliver Stone-like "Patsy" plot that many,
many CTers believe in....why on Earth would anyone be firing "7.65
mm." ammunition at JFK that day, when the "patsy" owned a 6.5mm.
weapon? It's just so silly as to be utterly cartoonish in nature (via
such a "patsy" plot mindset).


>>> "What about the new NAA done that shows different bullets?" <<<

The "new" NAA stuff isn't really new at all and everybody knows it. The
NAA analysis was never 100% certain, and even Vincent Guinn wasn't
ready to say it was in front of the HSCA in 1978.

And these new NAA tests most certainly do NOT, in any fashion, debunk
the notion that ONLY Oswald's bullets from rifle C2766 did all the
damage to President Kennedy and Governor Connally on 11/22/63.

In no way do the newer test results indicate that "different
bullets" (other than Oswald's Carcano bullets) were positively
involved in the shooting. These newer tests only indicate that the
previous NAA tests might not be as reliable at separating the various
batches of bullet lead as Dr. Guinn (et al) had originally thought.

But even after all of these newer NAA tests, Oswald's bullets are
definitely STILL IN THE BULLET MIX. There's no question about that
fact.

And a whole lot of other evidence proves Oswald's guilt and proves his
gun shot JFK and JBC, apart from NAA. NAA is merely corroborative. And
it always was.


>>> "I, along with two others, have shown that Marrion Baker was in the doorway of the TSBD 22 seconds after the head shot. Is that conclusive proof? No. However, it supports his 75-second recreation, not his 90. And if 75 is substantiated, then LHO is innocent." <<<

Oh, for Pete sake. Get a grip. What you just said is total nonsense.

All of the reconstructed times for the Baker and Oswald run-throughs
were ESTIMATES/APPROXIMATIONS. That's all.

I happen to think the Warren Commission's re-creations were pretty
close to what actually happened, and here's why (in detail).

But to claim that a 75-second timeline by Officer Marrion L. Baker
positively means "LHO is innocent" is just utter nonsense of the
first order.

Firstly, we don't have the slightest idea how fast or slow Oswald was
moving down those stairs (or across that sixth floor of the TSBD) just
after he shot JFK.

If he was moving substantially faster than John Howlett of the Secret
Service was moving during Howlett's re-creations of the event months
later, then THERE'S your answer right there....i.e., Oswald could easily
have made it to the 2nd-Floor lunchroom prior to Officer Marrion Baker.

Secondly, by Baker's own admission, the WC re-creations he performed
did not include every last thing that Baker did on 11/22/63. The
reconstructions didn't take into account his having to wade through
the crowd in front of the Depository before he entered; and it also
wasn't known during the re-creations exactly how long Baker and Roy
Truly were standing on the first floor waiting for one of the two freight
elevators to come down to them prior to the pair rushing up the back
staircase.

Baker specifically stated:

"We simulated the shots and by the time we got there, we did
everything that I did that day, and this would be the minimum, because
I am sure that I, you know, it took me a little longer."
-- Marrion Baker

In other words, it probably took Baker LONGER on November 22nd to do
what he did during his March 1964 re-creations of the events.


>>> "LHO told Fritz he was on the first floor having lunch and went to the second floor and purchased a Coke, which Baker corroborated THEN CHANGED MONTHS LATER, only when they found that if LHO had the Coke in his hands, it really threw off their timing." <<<

Baker changed nothing, and you can't prove he did. You, of course, are referring to this document -- CE3076 -- dated September 23, 1964, which is a document that was NOT written by Marrion L. Baker. It was quite obviously (via the handwriting seen in the document) written by someone other than Baker, probably FBI Agent Richard Burnett.

Baker merely CORRECTED and initialed Burnett's errors within that
written document. That's obvious from just one look at the document in
question.

Also: BOTH Marrion Baker and Roy Truly told the WC that they each
thought Oswald had "nothing" in either one of his hands during the
brief lunchroom encounter. Are they both rotten liars in this regard?
Or were Baker and Truly both "coerced" by the evil Warren Commission
and its shady lawyers? Which is it?

OSWALD, BAKER, TRULY, AND THE COKE



>>> "Even Dale Myers knows there is a problem here. Read his article written with Todd Vaughan. They posit that LHO wandered down the hall, then turned around and went into the lunchroom." <<<


Yes, I saw that Myers' article. And it's a good theory too. And it makes
sense. Oswald could have possibly turned toward the office area, saw
someone in there (probably Mrs. Reid), and then did an about-face and
went back into the lunchroom.

Nobody can prove that scenario to be correct, that's true. But it's a
reasonable interpretation of Oswald's movements given THE SUM TOTAL OF
ALL OTHER EVIDENCE THAT TELLS A REASONABLE PERSON THAT LEE HARVEY
OSWALD SHOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY.


>>> "And, to answer your question about CE 3131, I believe this answers your question -- If this print is unidentified, then CE 3131 is in error." <<<

And if one or more of the prints that are in the National Archives (which
were initially labeled "unidentified") have, in fact, since been identified
as belonging to officials of the Dallas Police Department (as CE3131 fully
indicates), then you are in error.

David Von Pein
August 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (AUGUST 24, 2007)




JFK ASSASSINATION RADIO DEBATES FEATURING JOHN McADAMS


Prominent JFK assassination researcher John McAdams has made several radio appearances to debate the facts surrounding the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

In the debates that can be heard via the streaming audio files presented below, Professor McAdams does a very admirable job of voicing his opinions concerning JFK's assassination, as he effectively defends and supports the conclusions reached by the Warren Commission back in 1964 -- i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, murdered President Kennedy in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.

The first radio debate below is a confrontation between Mr. McAdams and conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio. The nearly four-hour debate, which was hosted and moderated by Len Osanic of Black Op Radio, took place over the course of two nights in late September and early October of 2009. Part 1 runs for 1 hour and 54 minutes, while Part 2 lasts 1 hour, 55 minutes.

Next up is a 43-minute radio debate hosted by Mitch Henck on November 21, 2014, featuring John McAdams going head-to-head against conspiracy theorist and author Roger Stone.

The next debate found on this webpage occurred on April 5, 2009, pitting McAdams against conspiracy theorist Tom Rossley. That debate was hosted by Anton Batey of WHPR-Radio in Highland Park, Michigan. The running time is 3 hours and 23 minutes.

The last program below consists of a second JFK assassination radio debate between McAdams and Rossley, on March 13, 2010. The length of that program is 1 hour, 29 minutes.

Some of my own personal thoughts about these Kennedy assassination debates can be found HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.


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


JOHN McADAMS VS. JIM DiEUGENIO
PART 1
SEPTEMBER 24, 2009:





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


JOHN McADAMS VS. JIM DiEUGENIO
PART 2
OCTOBER 8, 2009:





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


JOHN McADAMS VS. ROGER STONE
NOVEMBER 21, 2014:





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


JOHN McADAMS VS. TOM ROSSLEY
APRIL 5, 2009:





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


JOHN McADAMS VS. TOM ROSSLEY
MARCH 13, 2010:





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

RELATED LINKS:



































JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 12)


A CONSPIRACY NUT UTTERED:

>>> "The neck wound entered the front and made a clean exit wound out the back." <<<



DVP THEN UTTERED BACK:

Huh?? (And LOL.)

Where was the gunman who fired that shot then? Sitting on the
floorboards of the limousine?

Better think up another crackpot theory, because this one won't make
it past the first-base coaching box.


>>> "The back wound did not penetrate fully and dropped out. Probably a bad round." <<<

Huh?? You just a second ago said that the throat-wound bullet "made a
clean exit wound out the back". (Remember that? The shot from the
midget firing from the limo's floorboards?)

Now you're saying there was a bullet that entered JFK's back and
"dropped out"??

Which is it? Or do you want to create your own unique theory that has
the back-wound bullet miraculously entering the very same hole that
was created by the throat-wound bullet, which is a bullet that you
said "made a clean exit wound out the back"?

It's great being a conspiracy theorist, isn't it Rob [Caprio]? You get
to make up your own theories, day and night....and you never once
have to worry about the ACTUAL evidence in the case at all.

All that any conspiracist has to do is to utter these 5 magical words
and every CT-Kook is forever off the hook with respect to the real
evidence in the JFK case -- "ALL THE EVIDENCE IS TAINTED".

Nice policy, huh? (If you're a fool, that is.)

BTW, there's no possible way that any bullet simply "dropped out" of
John F. Kennedy's back in the emergency room at Parkland (as many
CTers seem to believe).

For, if that HAD occurred, that bullet would certainly have been
recovered right there in the ER. (At the very least, it would have
been noticed by somebody who was in charge of cleaning up the blood
and gore in ER #1 after JFK's body had left the hospital. To believe
otherwise is kinda silly.)

And to think that any such bullet that would have "dropped out" of
JFK's back could have POSSIBLY been Bullet CE399 is also a wild CT
fairy tale of the first order.

Why?

Because Kennedy's body was never in the area of Parkland Hospital
where Darrell Tomlinson found that bullet (nor was JFK's stretcher).

Naturally, via that scenario believed by many CTers whom I have
conversed with over the years, those CTers think the bullet was
magically moved or "planted" on or near Governor Connally's stretcher
down the hall.

But that would have been rather stupid, wouldn't it? Why on Earth
would any plotters have had any desire to want to MOVE an actual piece
of Oswald-incriminating evidence from Kennedy's stretcher to
Connally's stretcher down the hall?

It's just dumb. But many conspiracy theorists actually believe such a
bullet "move" happened.

Go figure kooks.


>>> "What is this, a trick question [when I asked in THIS 10/21/07 POST: "Where Did The Bullets Go And Why Didn't They Tear Up John Kennedy's Neck & Back At All?"]? You're acting like you found a smoking gun." <<<

Oswald was the only one who held a smoking gun on 11/22/63. And no,
it wasn't a "trick" question. It's a very valid question, and is a question
that no conspiracy theorist has ever been able to answer in a believable
and logical manner. You certainly failed to do so, that's for sure.

You conspiracy kooks think THREE bullets went into the two victims (not
counting the head shot to JFK), and then all of these bullets just vanished.
And yet you think my question is a "trick" question of some kind? Are you
senile? It's a perfectly logical question that needs to be answered in a
coherent manner by the CTers who think the official "Single-Bullet Theory"
version of events is incorrect.

Moreover, the second part of my question is just as important to reconcile
as the "Where Did The Bullets Go?" portion of the inquiry. That second part
being: "WHERE'S THE PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO KENNEDY'S INNARDS THAT
WOULD ACCOUNT FOR TWO BULLETS STOPPING INSIDE HIS BACK AND
NECK?"

No such damage was discovered inside JFK's body at all on November
22nd. None. The only non-head damage to his body was some very slight
trachea damage (caused by Bullet CE399 and/or by Dr. Perry's trach
incision at Parkland) and a small amount of bruising to Kennedy's
right lung (caused, per the autopsy doctors, by the mere PASSAGE of
the high-speed bullet as it went over the top of JFK's right lung,
prior to exiting out the lower part of his throat).

But the key here is: NO BONES OR HARD SUBSTANCES WERE HIT OR
BROKEN INSIDE THE NECK AND UPPER-BACK REGIONS OF JOHN KENNEDY'S
BODY.

Quoting JFK's lead autopsist, James J. Humes (via his 1964 Warren
Commission testimony):

"In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest cavity and both of his lungs. We found that there was, in fact, no defect in the pleural lining of the President's chest. It was completely intact.

"However....in the apex of the right pleural cavity, there was a bruise or contusion or eccmymosis of the parietal pleura, as well as a bruise of the upper portion, the most apical portion, of the right lung.

"It, therefore, was our opinion that the missile--while not penetrating physically the pleural cavity--as it passed that point....bruised both the parietal and the visceral pleura. ....

"This missile, to the best of our ability to ascertain, struck no bone protuberances, no bony prominences, no bones as it traversed the President's body. ....

"[The X-rays] showed no evidence of a missile in the President's body at any point."


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm

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

[END HUMES' QUOTES.]

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

So...what caused TWO bullets to come to a dead stop inside President
Kennedy's body on November 22nd? Was it an invisible "CT Force Field"
or something?

(And CTers call LNers crazy for believing in the Single-Bullet Theory.
Holy H. Mackerel, if that isn't a "pot/kettle" laugh!)


>>> "Also, it [the SBT bullet] would not have come out intact." <<<

Then I guess the bullet pictured below (which took a very similar CE399-
like path through two mock bodies) must be a fake too, huh?.....



Beyond The Magic Bullet


>>> "What you get out of believing this fairy tale is what I'd like to know. I guess your job is tied to supporting this phoney crap." <<<

No, my main job here is merely to help make you conspiracy-loving
kooks look like total idiots -- which is a job I do very well most of
the time.

David Von Pein
October 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (OCTOBER 23, 2007)