PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY'S
SPEECH FROM NEW YORK'S
MADISON SQUARE GARDEN
(MAY 20, 1962)


United States President John F. Kennedy travelled to New York City and gave this impressive and heartfelt speech from Madison Square Garden on Sunday, May 20, 1962, to help boost his medical care program.

This is a tremendous speech. It shows what a truly great orator John Kennedy was. And it also vividly illustrates how deeply Mr. Kennedy cared about the things he was talking about.

When I watch this Madison Square Garden speech, it almost seems as though JFK is ad-libbing the whole thing. It doesn't have a scripted or rehearsed feel to it at all. Truly remarkable.

I think I'll go out and vote for John F. Kennedy for President right now. (It's just too bad I can't.)

VIDEO SOURCE:
http://TVDays.com




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


RELATED DOCUMENTS
(INCLUDING JFK'S HANDWRITTEN NOTES CONCERNING HIS 5/20/62 SPEECH):



JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 59)


CONSPIRACIST CHARLES KENNEDY SAID:

>>> "Oswald wasn't "planted" as much as he was set up." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'll make it blunt (and truthful) -- Bullshit.

There's not a sliver of proof to show that Lee Harvey Oswald was "set
up" for the murder of President Kennedy.

All you've got is raw, naked (and, frankly, silly) speculation. [And
the "silly" part rears its hilarious head as we proceed through the
ridiculous web of fantasies being spun by Charles below.]


>>> "Essentially, they manufactured his [Saint Oswald's] movements. They "forced" testimony that would "set up" Oswald and leave the trail of the real assassins unexposed." <<<

LOL Break #1.

The proverbial "they" somehow (some incredible way!) knew, beyond ALL
doubt, that "they" would be able to "LEAVE THE TRAIL OF THE REAL
ASSASSINS UNEXPOSED", even though "they" were going to use MULTIPLE
SHOOTERS in Dealey Plaza, firing from BOTH behind JFK and from the
right-front of the President's car. Right?

So what you're really saying here is that the amazing "THEY BOYS" had
no qualms whatsoever when "they" went forward with a multi-gunmen
assassination plot within the context of needing just a SINGLE "patsy"
blamed for the shooting. Right?

And this is because "they" somehow KNEW that the "trail of the real
assassins" would remain "unexposed" for all time....even though these
silly conspirators HAD to know that John Kennedy's body would SURELY
be whisked away to the nearest hospital, even though he was
essentially dead in Dealey Plaza. Right?

Therefore, the "They Boys" would need to have EVERY PERSON AT PARKLAND
HOSPITAL in "their" hip pocket. From Dr. Carrico, to Dr. Perry, to Dr.
McClelland, to Dr. Jones, to Dr. Peters, to Nurse Bowron, and so on.

But "they" obviously didn't have ANYBODY at Parkland in their hip
pocket, because virtually every Parkland witness later talked about
how the President had a gaping hole in the BACK of his head. Plus,
there's Perry's early account of how the President's throat wound was
a wound of presumed "entrance".

Of course, right on cue, conspiracy theorists almost always point to
the Parkland witnesses as ironclad "proof" of a conspiracy and proof
of multiple shooters.

In reality, though, the Parkland people are all trumped by MUCH BETTER
evidence, such as the photograph below (and other evidence, like the
autopsy report, which confirms beyond all doubt that JFK was hit just
ONE time in the head, and that bullet entered from "BEHIND"):



But my main point from earlier is a potentially critical one for the
unseen "they boys", which is this point --- Since the brain-dead
plotters decided to go ahead and shoot up Dealey Plaza by utilizing
multiple guns (from both FRONT and REAR locations) within their pre-
arranged "1 Patsy Named Oswald" scheme....then how could the plotters
have possibly known, on November 21st, that the conspiracy wouldn't be
blown to bits the very moment that JFK was wheeled into Trauma Room
No. 1 at Parkland Memorial Hospital?

Answer --- "They" couldn't possibly have CONTROLLED all the things
that potentially COULD have happened within the framework of such an
impossible-to-control and impossible-to-pull-off ONE-Patsy plot that
involves MULTIPLE gunmen popping away at John Kennedy's body from
various angles on Elm Street. (LOL Break #2.)

That type of PRE-PLANNED assassination scheme is (to put it mildly) --
just...plain...dumb. Period. And only a group of total morons would
even BEGIN to consider "setting up" their lone "patsy" in such a
needlessly-reckless and purely-idiotic fashion.

But, at least Oliver Stone and millions of other Americans seem to
believe it. So, Charles, you're not alone in believing such tripe, at
any rate.


>>> "They forced the motorcade around Oswald. The planners needed to have someone who had knowledge of the PLAN to be the fall guy." <<<

LOL Break #3.

So, Oswald (per Chuck Kennedy) did, indeed, have "knowledge of the
plan" that swirled all around him on 11/22/63 -- which is a "plan"
that was being arranged by people in pretty high places (I would
think; right?) and by people with a lot of pull and power -- but LHO
just went right ahead and fell into the trap by agreeing to carry his
OWN TRACEABLE RIFLE into his workplace on Assassination Day, even
though he should have been asking himself the following logical
question:

'Gee, I wonder why these bigshot plotters couldn't have supplied the
real killers (or me) with a better rifle, instead of having me haul my
own mail-order 1940 Italian carbine into work to do part of the job on
Kennedy?'

Well, I guess we'll just assume that Oswald was brainwashed by his
handlers, huh? Or we could believe that he was the dumbest "patsy"
ever to join forces with a covert assassination team.

Either way, this whole line of "pro-conspiracy" thought regarding
Oswald's rifle is just foolish beyond belief. For, the ONLY way it
makes any sense at all is if Lee Harvey Oswald was a LONE ASSASSIN on
November 22nd and was not part of some grand plot being orchestrated
by other people.

Hence, he was USING THE ONLY WEAPON THAT WAS READILY AVAILABLE
FOR HIM TO USE, i.e., his own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle which he already
knew how to use with ease and was undoubtedly quite familiar with prior
to 11/22/63.

We know he used it for at least one other murder attempt before
November rolled around....that being the attempt on Edwin Walker's
life in April 1963, just days after Lee acquired the gun in the mail.

Plus: If Oswald had actually had advanced knowledge of some plot, he
certainly would have been shouting out some of the facts about the
"plot" to the live TV audience when many chances were afforded him to
do so on November 22 and 23 after he was arrested.

Instead, he clams up completely about the "plot" that had just
exploded in his face. Even his "I'm just a patsy" mantra wasn't being
aimed at the people whom Charles here seems to think were responsible
for Oswald's "patsy" status.

Oswald was actually aiming his "patsy" comment at the DPD (for having
been "taken in", according to Oswald himself, due to the fact that he
had previously lived in the Soviet Union).

If you listen to the WHOLE "patsy" comment [available below] and place
it in the proper context, it's clear as day that LHO was aiming his "I'm
just a patsy" remark at the Dallas Police Department, and not at any
unknown, unidentified "Mystery Plotters" on the outside who had set
him up for taking a lone fall.



So, in reality, even Oswald's "patsy" remark doesn't add up for the CT-
Kooks who wish to place the "HE WAS NOTHING BUT A PATSY" label on Lee
Harvey Oswald.


>>> " 'What ifs' don't amount to a "bucket of warm spit" regarding the public execution of John F Kennedy." <<<

You finally got something right. They don't.

But that fact apparently doesn't deter CT kooks like you from
regurgitating as many "What If" scenarios revolving around JFK's
murder as humanly possible. Does it now?

Or is there a new "Kook Rule" in the book that says that the
unprovable "What ifs" supplied in massive quantities by conspiracy
theorists worldwide are NOT to be considered "What ifs" at all -- but
"Facts" instead?

That's probably Kook Rule #5B. That rulebook that CTers adhere to has
some very curious guidelines in it. It's a howl.


>>> "Oswald worked on Friday and Kennedy was executed on Friday." <<<

Hey! You got something else right. Nice job. (Although "executed"
should be "assassinated". But I'll at least give you credit for your
"Friday" accuracy.)

That actually brings up another thing that I mentioned on the Internet
several months ago -- i.e., What if Kennedy had visited Dallas on a
SATURDAY or a SUNDAY?

That would have certainly thrown a monkey wrench into that massive
plot being put together by the "They Boys", huh?

Because if Kennedy comes to town on a Saturday or a Sunday, then
everybody's favorite "Patsy For All November 1963 Murders" -- Lee H.
Oswald -- wouldn't even have been inside the Book Depository, and
therefore could never have been used as the patsy from the 6th Floor
of that building (as many CTers firmly advocate).

Or maybe "they" would have arranged for Oswald to break into the TSBD
on a Sunday, if necessary, and go up to the sixth floor anyway....even
though the warehouse crew didn't report to work on Sundays.

That's what must be so great about being a conspiracy kook with a
fertile imagination (like Mr. Charles Kennedy here)....you can just
start making shit up out of nothing but thin air and warm spit, and
pretty soon--Voila!--you've got yourself a perfect patsy named Oswald.

And if you're one of these kooks like Charles, there's no need to rely
on something called "official evidence" or "common sense". Because, to
a rabid conspiracy theorist, those things are just simply not
important at all.

The "official evidence" you say?? Meh! If you're living in a kook's
world, you can just pretend (without a grain of proof to support it)
that ALL of the "official evidence" is "fake"/"planted"/worthless.
Simple.

Right, Chuck?


>>> "A well-known fact is that the CIA worked closely with the Quakers and other religious organizations for "missionary" work." <<<

LOL Break #4. (This is gonna go into double-digits on these laugh
breaks...easy.)

So, we must be inching toward a theory involving that most evil of all
conspirators -- Ruth "I WANT THE PRESIDENT DEAD FOR NO APPARENT REASON
WHATSOEVER" Paine. And her hubby, Michael "SINCE I WORKED FOR BELL
HELICOPTER, IT MUST MEAN I'M A CONSPIRATOR" Paine.

Right?

Right.


>>> "The Plotters needed only to have Oswald along the route." <<<

Which must mean that BOTH John Connally and JFK personal aide and very
good friend Kenneth O'Donnell were "plotters" too, huh? Because each
of those men was deeply involved in determining (in essence) what
route the motorcade would follow on November 22nd.

Connally, who was initially against a motorcade altogether, was
pushing hard to have the 11/22 luncheon at the new Trade Mart
building, which meant the motorcade, if proper city traffic laws were
followed, would need to make its zig-zag turns through Dealey Plaza.

And O'Donnell is the person who officially put the stamp of approval
on the Trade Mart as the luncheon site (which he didn't do, btw, until
November 13th or 14th). .....

http://history-matters.com

http://groups.google.com

Many CT-Kooks actually DO think that Connally himself, in some way,
was involved in the assassination....which is just another of the many
times when CTers give their common sense a vacation. For, would
Connally have wanted to be in the same car with JFK when the bullets
started flying? (Bullets that Connally KNEW were going to be flying
before he ever stepped into that limo at Love Field?)

That's nuts.


>>> "Kennedy needed to pass the TSBD, because the ambush came from behind him. Oswald was "placed" to the rear and alongside the motorcade. James Jarrmon [sic] (TSBD employee) testified that he heard three shots, and by the second shot, he knew the shots came from below and to the left of his position on the 5th floor of the TSBD. He had 8 years military service." <<<

Jarman was a bit confused by the source of all the gunshots, which is
perfectly understandable. But Harold Norman, up there on the 5th Floor
with Jarman, said he heard three bullet "hulls" falling to the floor
directly above his head. And that number of "hulls" perfectly
corresponds to the number of hulls/shells that were, indeed, found
directly above Norman's head in the Book Depository.

Was Norman merely a "WC Shill"? Many CTers think so. They HAVE to
think that. Because if Harold Norman was right, then three rifle shots
positively came from the "Oswald window" on the sixth floor....and
many CTers desperately don't want to believe that such a "3 Shots From
The Sniper's Nest" event occurred at all on November 22nd.

Here is some of the 1986 testimony given by Harold Norman at the
television Docu-Trial ("ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD"):

VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "So you heard a total of three shots?"

HAROLD NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did it sound to you like a rifle was being fired
directly above you?"

MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any OTHER reason, in addition to the sound
of the rifle, any other reason why you believed the shots were coming
from directly above you?"

MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And what is that?"

MR. NORMAN -- "Because I could hear the empty hulls--that's what I
call them--hit the floor; and I could hear the bolt action of the
rifle being pushed back and forward."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "You're familiar with a bolt-action rifle?"

MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And by 'hulls', you mean cartridge casings?"

MR. NORMAN -- "Cartridges."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "How many did you hear falling to the floor?"

MR. NORMAN -- "Three."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Is the sound of that bolt action, and the ejection of
the cartridge casings, and their falling to the floor something that
you're going to remember for the rest of your life?"

MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "One more question....at any time on the morning of
the assassination did you see any stranger or strangers in the Book
Depository Building?"

MR. NORMAN -- "No sir."


MORE ABOUT HAROLD NORMAN


>>> "The shots came from directly behind Kennedy, as well as from the right front." <<<

So, are you saying that NO SHOTS at all came from the "Oswald window"
in the TSBD? If you believe that, you should look up Robert Groden,
because he'll probably be your new best friend. Robert, per his 1993
book, says that 8 to 10 shots were fired; and he thinks that it's very
likely that NONE of those shots came from the Sniper's-Nest window on
the sixth floor of the TSBD.

Anyway, these words of yours -- "the shots came from directly behind
Kennedy, as well as from the right front" -- confirm that your make-
believe "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy" plot was being pre-planned by a group
of comedians. (Or by a group of morons with a combined I.Q. of 6.)


>>> "Linnie Mae Randle tells a neighbor, who tells Ruth Paine, who calls Roy Truly, and sets up the interview for Oswald. Wesley Buell Frazier [actually Buell Wesley Frazier, but why quibble?] is Linnie Mae's brother. He and Oswald rode into work together. Wesley describes Oswald as "not much of a talker". Amazing that the person who drove him around, states he didn't speak much." <<<

Another LOL Break, ya think? (Yeah, I think so too.)

Plus: A "WTF??" is certainly in order here as well. (I guess the fact
that Oswald was quiet during his drives with Frazier indicates
something "fishy" to certain rabid "I Need A Conspiracy At All Costs"
researchers. Are most "patsies" also chatterboxes?)

And you've SURELY got to include Linnie Randle in your group of make-
believe "conspirators", right? Surely!

No way that it's any coincidence that Oswald's wife just happened to
be living temporarily with a QUAKER WOMAN MARRIED TO A GUY WHO WORKED
FOR BELL HELICOPTER, who lived just half-a-block down the street from
a 19-year-old stock boy who, himself, just started working at the Book
Depository two months earlier. Right?

Coincidence? All of that intricate stuff involving a bunch of regular,
ordinary people in Irving, Texas? Come now! It's GOT to be an
intricate plot, involving housewives, and "Bell" employees, and 19-
year-old kids and their sisters! It's obvious!

You can find my "Ruth Paine Imitation" HERE. (That hussy!)


>>> "What I found interesting was the part about Oswald "going behind the Picket Fence" on the day of the assassination. This juicy morsel came up during Wesley's testimony at the Clay Shaw Trial: [quoting Frazier:] "He [LHO] got out of the car, got the package, and walked behind the picket fence there and stayed there, like he was waiting on me"." <<<

This requires the biggest "LOL break" to date!

Charles wants us to believe that Wes Frazier was talking there about
the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll (which would be the famous "Badge
Man" picket fence which is very near the TSBD Building itself).

But Frazier, in that Shaw Trial snippet above, was obviously not
talking about Oswald going behind the "Grassy Knoll" picket fence.
Wesley had to be referring to some other fence located near the
railroad tracks and nearer the location where Frazier parked his car
(which was, btw, a location approx. four blocks away from the
Depository's back entrance; see this photo).

When comparing Wesley Frazier's Clay Shaw Trial testimony with his
Warren Commission testimony, we can easily determine that the "fence"
that Frazier was talking about was RIGHT THERE NEXT TO THE PARKED CAR
in the distant TSBD parking lot.

Here's the pertinent excerpt from Frazier's 1964 WC session (with the
words "cyclone fence" being used instead of "picket fence"):

"He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has
the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know,
that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he
walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the
cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car. And so quick as I
cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door, just as
I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started
walking off and so I followed him in." -- Buell Wesley Frazier

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm


>>> "When you look at Oswald's employment, you realize the FBI was making sure Oswald did not keep employment at one place." <<<

The "Let's Make Shit Up As We Go Along" rule is still in full force, I
see. Continue....


>>> "The FBI had a personal vendetta against Oswald for some reason." <<<

A CT-Kook's imagination is a thing to behold, isn't it? Just amazing.


>>> "The FBI's Counter Intelligence Group, as a specific department, decided to set up Oswald for Kennedy's assassination." <<<

Did the evil FBI force poor, defenseless Mr. Oswald to take shots at
both Edwin Walker and J.D. Tippit too?

Or was Oz "set up" for those two shootings as well?


>>> "Oswald was undercover for an intelligence agency, or investigative committee. He had spy equipment in his possessions at the Paine house, for filming locations and documents." <<<

As with everything ever said by a rabid "Anybody But Oswald"
conspiracy theorist, there's not a shred of hard proof to verify the
above assertion.

But, why let that stop you Charles. Just say that Oswald was an
"undercover" agent....and it magically becomes a fact.

(BTW, I wonder how Chuck gets those three bullets to act like just one
bullet when it comes to the SBT debate? That's one of those
"Copperfield moments" that no CTer has ever explained satisfactorily.)


>>> "Oswald was not inclined to shoot anyone." <<<

Yeah....except for Edwin Walker, John F. Kennedy, and J.D. Tippit.
Other than those three times, Oswald never shot at anybody in 1963.


>>> "Truth is, Oswald was not a killer, but imagined himself as a master spy. The plotters needed to show him as a "lone nut" and capable of killing." <<<

Yeah, accept every possible explanation except the Occam's-like answer
that's likely to be the correct one.

Typical Kook Talk.

44 years and counting, and you can't prove a damn thing with respect
to that massive "Patsy" plot that you kooks imagine took place in
1963.

But, pretending that it happened the kook's way is more than enough to
keep the rabid CTers of the Earth happy and satisfied.


>>> "Oswald was not who and what the "press" showed him to be." <<<

Well, Oswald was a double-murderer. That's a rock-solid fact. The
popcorn trail of evidence that leads to nobody but LHO easily proves
his "Guilty" status. And no amount of silly Wishful-Thinking theories
being thrown up against the wall by CTers can change that basic fact
about Oz being a double-killer.

But you'll still try to manipulate the evidence, won't you? You
wouldn't be worth your "CT Kook" salt if you didn't, of course.

Here's a novel idea! -- Maybe ALL of the evidence against Oswald has
been "planted" or "manufactured" in some manner. Ya think?


>>> "If Oswald took the rifle into the TSBD, he did not do it on the 22nd." <<<

Yeah, mabe you're right. Maybe Oswald had some invisible, never-found
"curtain rods" with him on the 22nd.

Or, maybe Lee packed a hearty lunch that Friday. Maybe his 40-course
noontime meal was lurking inside that bulky paper package (even though
Wesley Frazier specifically heard Oswald say, on 11/22/63, that he
[LHO] was going to "buy his lunch" at the Depository that day). .....

JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that
looked like a lunch package that morning?"

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "You know like I told you earlier, I say, he
didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car,
I asked him where was his lunch, and he said he was going to buy his
lunch that day."

MR. BALL -- "He told you that that day, did he?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to
buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the
boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their
lunch there."


~~~~~

Many CTers like to intentionally ignore these key words spoken by
Wesley Frazier --- "When I got in the car, I asked him where was his
lunch, and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day."


>>> "If, as Wesley Buell Frazier [sic] testified, Oswald was near the picket fence, then there is a connection that there was a possibility that the original package he carried to Frazier's car was exchanged, by pre-arrangement, and that is why Frazier came up with why he stayed in the car as Oswald walked ahead of him." <<<

Another LOL.

I've already thoroughly trashed your silly analysis regarding the
"picket fence" as it relates to Oswald walking away from Frazier's car
on the morning of the assassination.

Frazier was talking about a fence that was RIGHT NEXT to the car in
the employee parking area, for Pete's sake! He wasn't talking about
the picket fence on the Knoll, which was BLOCKS away from where
Frazier parked his car every morning.


>>> "One can ascribe a motive to Oswald, but it is pure speculation." <<<

LOL time once more. (What number "LOL" is this? I've lost track, due
to their frequency.)

An "LN" motive for Lee Oswald's actions on 11/22/63 is considered by
Chuck to be "pure speculation", but the following hunks of brilliant
clairvoyance spoken by CTer Charlie are evidently NOT to be considered
"speculation" at all. These things are to be considered solid FACTS
(despite a total lack of proof being attached to ANY of them by the
CTer who postulated them). Remarkable. And hilarious, to boot. .....

"The FBI's Counter Intelligence Group decided to set up Oswald for
Kennedy's assassination."

"Oswald was undercover for an intelligence agency."

"Oswald was not a killer."

"The FBI had a personal vendetta against Oswald."

"Oswald...was set up."

"The FBI was making sure Oswald did not keep employment at one place."

"They forced the motorcade around Oswald."

"The shots came from directly behind Kennedy, as well as from the
right front."

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

[End CT-Kook Quotes.]

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

The sheer gall (and gonad size) of a conspiracy-loving kook is simply
astounding. Wouldn't you agree?

David Von Pein
November 20-21, 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 21, 2007)




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 58)


http://openlettersmonthly.com/issue/he-died

CONSPIRACY THEORIST RALPH AUSENHUS SAID:

>>> "Oswald wasn't guilty. Oswald was set up. There was an element of the CIA (Black Ops) which coordinated the Kennedy assassination. Ruby was tied into the mob. Ruby has always had mob associations. The mob owned Ruby. Bugliosi hasn't done his research or homework on Ruby. What about the umbrella man, Mr. Bugliosi, located in front of the Stemmons Freeway Sign on the side of the grassy knoll? What about the bullet hole in the front windshield, Mr. Bugliosi? What about the fact that [on] Monday morning, the Presidential limousine was in the Ford Rougue [??] plant building getting fitted for a new front windshield on 11/25/1963? You need to do more homework, Mr. Bugliosi, when addressing the Kennedy assassination. I am sorry, but no attention should be placed on Bugliosi's comments or remarks on the Kennedy assassination." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ralph needs to do HIS "homework", I fear.

Mr. Bugliosi's mega-book is a masterpiece, and will be for all time to
come.

There's no proof that Oswald was "set up" as the proverbial "patsy".
That's wild speculation, and nothing more (despite the big-screen
efforts of Oliver Stone and others).

And there was no "hole" in the windshield. And the limo was not sent
to Michigan on November 25th for emergency conspiracy-removing covert
repairs, as many CT-Kooks think. It just flat-out did not happen.

From VB's book:

"The limousine was not, as the buffs allege without any supporting authority, immediately rebuilt. The rebuilding of the car did not commence until over a year later in Detroit." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 1276 of "Reclaiming History"

And the windshield was examined by Robert Frazier of the FBI and was
found to have no "hole" in it. Only a "crack", with a smear of lead on
the INSIDE of the glass. That's the official version, and you'll just
have to live with it.

Per the conspiracy-happy theorists, I guess Frazier must have told one
lie after another during his entire Warren Commission session in '64,
because he said all kinds of things the CTers just hate to hear
regarding the evidence that makes Lee Oswald a double-murderer,
including the stuff about the windshield, and Oswald's bullets, and
Oswald's bullet shells, and Oswald's guns that he used in the two
November 22 murders LHO committed, and on and on.

The JFK conspiracy kooks of the world must really hate the FBI's
Robert A. Frazier with a passion. Because his testimony single-
handedly hangs Lee Harvey Oswald. And there's nothing the CTers can do
about it. And there's no possible way they can prove that he was lying
about any of this testimony that he gave in 1964 (though, Lord knows,
the CTers have tried, and will continue to call Bob a rotten, dirty
liar until the proverbial cows reach the ol' homestead, no doubt):

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr3.htm

Also....

Vincent Bugliosi did lots of "Ruby homework" too. To believe that
Vince worked for 20+ years on his massive JFK book WITHOUT having
studied (in depth) one of the KEY figures in the November 22nd saga
(i.e., Mr. Ruby) is just....mind-bogglingly silly.

Vincent worked hard on probing INSIDE JACK RUBY, and that effort shows
(greatly) in VB's 74-page chapter in "Reclaiming History" devoted
solely to Ruby (entitled "Ruby And The Mob"). That chapter is a
fascinating odyssey into the life, and mindset, of Jacob L.
Rubenstein. And that guy named Ruby was no "Mob hit man".

Vince discovered that Ruby was about the last goof in Dallas that the
"mob" would entrust with such an important "hit" as the Oswald "hit"
that so many CTers think was pulled off by the mafia.

For one thing, Ruby was getting up early every morning for weeks
shortly prior to the assassination and going to local Dallas
department stores in order to try and sell his "Twistboard" exerciser
gadget to local merchants.

Do Mob hit men usually have to supplement their salaries in such an
odd fashion?

Or do conspiracy theorists think that that was merely a clever "cover"
being used by Ruby so that nobody would catch on to the massive "plot"
that brewed all around him in late 1963?

Maybe it was similar to the "I'll Take My Dog Downtown To A Killing
And Leave The Pooch In The Car While I Go In The Basement And Shoot
The Patsy" type of ruse, huh?

Try reading Chapter 22 ("Ruby And The Mob") of Bugliosi's JFK book.
It's one of the best chapters in the massive tome -- which surprised
me greatly, in fact, because I was planning on being bored to tears
when reading through that particular chapter of VB's book. But I
wasn't at all. It's a fabulous (and thorough) account of Jack Ruby's
life.

BTW, an inexpensive paperback edition of Bugliosi's JFK book (titled
"FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER") is coming out in May 2008 for just $17.95
(before the normal take-home discounts).

David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 19, 2007)

"THE DAY THE PRESIDENT WAS SHOT"
(1963 ABC-RADIO DOCUMENTARY)


"The Day The President Was Shot" is a 44-minute documentary special that was aired by the ABC Radio Network in late November of 1963, a few days after President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Narrated by Fred Foy.





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






KENNEDY PHOTO ALBUM










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



MANY MORE PHOTOS:








"JFK: IN HIS OWN WORDS"
(1988 DOCUMENTARY)






COMPLETE PROGRAM:


JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 57)


CONSPIRACY THEORIST ROB CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "Of course, I can't state with 100% certainty that no evidence was handled properly, now can I?" <<<


LONE-ASSASSIN ADVOCATE DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But, being a rabid "ABO" [Anybody But Oswald] kook, you have no
problem at all with calling a bunch of people liars and evidence-planters
and strong-armers without a single shred of proof to support your
accusations. Right, kook?

And the extra helpings of "Good riddance" from your pathetic e-lips
when referring to David Belin, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford were a
very nice Kook Touch.

Does Jackie go into your disgusting "Good riddance" pile too? How
about Robert Kennedy? Earl Warren? (I'm sure Earl is worthy of a
"Good riddance" from a miserable kook like you, huh?)

Pathetic.


>>> "Along with witness testimony that shows they remember or heard or saw things very differently than what is presented." <<<

Like Jean Hill maybe? On November 22, she said she hadn't seen anybody
firing any weapons. But years later, her memory suddenly improves
greatly, to the point where she actually sees with her own eyes a
gunman firing shots from the Knoll, which is something that she
specifically denied having seen on the day of the assassination.

I'd be willing to bet, though, that you kind of like Jean Hill's later
account of the shooting better than her November 22 account.

Any takers?


>>> "Why is Fritz moving the shells around before the photo is taken?" <<<

There's no proof he did any such thing. Show me the Alyea Film which
shows Fritz moving the shells before they were photographed.

You, of course, can't show me that film, can you?


>>> "There is ample proof there [were] very poor crime-scene procedures in the TSBD that day." <<<

Actually, the DPD did very well. They collected the majority of the
evidence that proves beyond any and all doubt that every kook's
favorite "patsy" was really a double-murderer after all.

Not a bad day's work, if you ask me.

However, I wish the DPD hadn't decided to remove that police car from
the basement garage at the exact time it was moved on Sunday morning,
November 24th (which resulted in a DPD officer stepping into [or very near]
the street to block traffic, which gave Jack Ruby a perfect opening to slip
into the basement unnoticed).

Other than that (unintentional) goof, and the stupid way that Fritz
and Curry and Wade were blabbing all kinds of details about Oswald's
guilt being "cinched", etc., to the live TV audience before Oswald was
killed, I'd say that the DPD did a good job in November 1963.


>>> "Also, there is a nice photo of a cop with a bucket cleaning the limo out during its time at Parkland! What is this?" <<<

I've already discussed this with you, 60% of the way through
this October 2007 post.


>>> "The car was rushed to Detroit to be fixed, why?" <<<


It wasn't "rushed". That's Conspiracy Myth #409. .....

"The [Presidential] limousine was not, as the buffs allege without any supporting authority, immediately rebuilt. The rebuilding of the car did not commence until over a year later in Detroit." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 1276 of "Reclaiming History"


>>> "John Connally's clothes were laundered, why?" <<<

Blood stains maybe? Lint? Or maybe some fuzzballs building up on them?

And you're going to have to call Nellie Connally a prime conspirator if
you want to go down this stupid path any further.


>>> "X-rays and photos of the body are different from the ones the people taking them remember, why?" <<<


Simple. Memories of human beings are not perfect. Never were. Never
will be.

And you're going to have to go down the "Autopsy Pictures And X-rays
Are Fakes" road if you go much further here.

Is that a road you really want to travel down?

Silly question. OF COURSE Robby wants to go down that avenue. Because
he can't trust ANYTHING uttered by anyone in Officialdom, like these
words spoken by the HSCA's photo panel:

"The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy personnel and providing additional support for the conclusions of the medical consultants." -- HSCA Volume VII


>>> "The palm print on the gun is a joke and even Liebeler said as much." <<<

Quote Wesley Liebeler saying the Oswald palmprint match is a "joke".
Can you do that?

Anyway, regardless of what Mr. Liebeler may or may not have said in
this regard, that print is positively a palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald
that was lifted off the barrel of Rifle #C2766 by Lt. J.C. Day of the
DPD on 11/22/63, without a sliver of a doubt. .....

LT. J.C. DAY -- "On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun."

DAVID W. BELIN -- "Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?"

Mr. DAY -- "This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood."

Mr. BELIN -- "Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?"

Mr. DAY -- "It has the name "J. C. Day" and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing [plus] "off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766"."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm


>>> "I could go on forever, but why bother? You stopped reading in the first sentence probably." <<<

Your record's still intact. You haven't gotten a thing right yet. But,
then again, a .000 batting average is very easy to achieve when you're
a charter member of the "Anybody But Oswald" and "All Evidence Is
Fake" clubs.

You're not likely to get a base hit all season. And that's even below
the dreaded Mendoza Line.


>>> "[Those non-Poe bullet shells found by Virginia Davis and Barbara Davis] were from an automatic gun, not LHO's." <<<

You're a fucking evidence-skewing idiot. Those are the two "DAVIS"
shells, and I've never heard a single CTer (not even a Mega-Kook) ever
complain about those two shells having a broken chain of custody.

They went from the Davis girls straight to the DPD and were
appropriately marked. And those two spent cartridge cases were
positively ejected from the Smith & Wesson revolver that was taken off
of Lee Oswald in the Texas Theater.

There's not a speck of wiggle room for the conspiracy nuts of the world
with respect to those two bullet shells.

But, being the freaking moron you are, you'll just pretend that those
two shells found by the Davis girls in their own yard were "from an
automatic gun".

I wonder what proof Robby has to back up that bold assertion?

Answer -- None.


>>> "[The three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest were] From a Carcano, but never proven they were from the C2766." <<<

100% wrong, as per usual. (Is it POSSIBLE to be wrong so often about
very important matters surrounding this case? Well, I guess it is.
Because Rob Caprio is alive and kicking, and spewing kookshit by the ton.)

All three rifle shells found beneath the sixth-floor sniper's window were
traced directly and undeniably to Oswald's MC rifle "to the exclusion".

Check out the testimony of Robert Frazier, Cortlandt Cunningham, and/
or Joseph Nicol for verification of this obvious and easy-to-confirm
fact.

The next thing I expect to hear from Robert is that Marguerite Oswald
was an "Imposter LHO Mother". Robby seems to love John Armstrong's
"Double Oswald" nonsense to a great degree, so I wouldn't be surprised
if something like that did come out of his mouth soon.


>>> "[Rifle C2766] was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt to even belong to LHO. .... You have no real, hard evidence LHO ordered it or ever owned it." <<<

Only if I want to completely ignore the paper trail of evidence that
shows that LHO ordered and paid for Rifle C2766. Not to mention the
multiple LHO prints found on the gun....the palmprint and the two
fingerprints on the trigger guard.

But, quite naturally, all CT-Kooks like Rob MUST ignore all of that
evidence. It's part of the incurable disease they are saddled with.


>>> "[Oswald's] revolver was a special and it caused the casings to bulge in the middle when fired and none of the casings supposedly tying this gun to LHO had this bulge." <<<

~sigh~

Conspiracy Myth #968 is still being adhered to religiously by Robby boy.
Typical.

It doesn't matter to Rob that Oswald's .38 was conclusively and
irrevocably tied to the four bullet shells found by witnesses on Tenth
Street.

Therefore -- REGARDLESS OF LATER TESTS SHOWING ANY "BULGES" ON THE
CASINGS, Lee Oswald's .38 revolver was positively the revolver that
ejected those four spent bullet shells on Tenth Street on November
22nd, 1963.


>>> "The bullets and fragments from J.D. Tippit do not match this gun either." <<<

Means nothing. The bullets were badly mangled, prohibiting a positive
ballistics match to ANY gun. Except, of course, for Joe Nicol's
positive match that he made on one of the four Tippit bullets.

Naturally, conspiracy-happy kooks would rather ignore that testimony
provided by Nicol. It's just too "official" I guess, even though it
comes from the ONLY NON-GOVERNMENT/INDEPENDENT firearms expert
who examined the bullets for the Warren Commission.

But the kooks probably think Nicol was given a bagful of money to tell
a bunch of lies to the Commission.


>>> "It [LHO's revolver] was said to have a bent firing pin." <<<

Who cares? The gun was certainly in working order when four bullets
came out of it while being aimed at Officer J.D. Tippit.

But you probably ought to stick to the "bent firing pin" crappola.
It'll serve your "Anybody But Oswald" needs much better if you do.


>>> "The man who helped "trace" it to LHO died rather quickly in short order after the assassination." <<<

Goodie, goodie!! A "mystery death" added to Robby's post! A kook's
post wouldn't be complete without one of those!


>>> "They [the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine] are from a 6.5mm round and there are millions of them out there. Can't be linked to C2766." <<<

Via the above idiocy, your status has just been bumped up to "Super-
Duper Mega-Moron"
.

You actually have the audacity to pass yourself off as a pretty fair
expert on the evidence surrounding the JFK assassination, and yet you
gush forth such obviously inaccurate statements like this (when
referring to CE567 and CE569, the two bullet fragments discovered in
the limousine) -- "CAN'T BE LINKED TO C2766".

Only one word is truly appropriate here in response -- Bullshit!

CE567/569 were positively linked to Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle "to
the exclusion" of every other rifle on Planet Earth. You should cower
with embarrassment at suggesting otherwise. (But you won't, will
you?) .....

JOHN J. McCLOY -- "As a result of all these comparisons, you would say that the evidence is indisputable that the three shells that were identified by you were fired from that rifle?"

ROBERT FRAZIER (FBI) -- "Yes, sir."

Mr. McCLOY -- "And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit 399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?"

Mr. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

Mr. McCLOY -- "And the fragment 567---"

Mr. FRAZIER -- "567, the one we have just finished."

Mr. McCLOY -- "Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?"

Mr. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

Mr. McCLOY -- "You have no doubt about any of those?"

Mr. FRAZIER -- "None whatsoever."

~~~~~

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3 admitted as Commission 569? .... Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?"

Mr. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

Mr. EISENBERG -- "What was your conclusion?"

Mr. FRAZIER -- "This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139."

Mr. EISENBERG -- "Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?"

Mr. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0141b.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0142a.htm


>>> "You have no fingerprints [of Oswald's on Rifle C2766], and even if there were some, it doesn't prove he fired it that day, just at some time." <<<

Apart from the obvious lie (or just plain ignorance, it's sometimes
hard to tell which applies when speaking to this idiot named Rob)
regarding "no fingerprints" of Oswald's on the Carcano rifle (which is
dead wrong, of course), there's also a more elementary and garden-
variety type of question that probably should be asked whenever this
topic of Oswald and his rifle comes up.

And that garden-variety question is:

At ANY given point in time after Lee Oswald acquired his Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle via mail-order in March 1963, WHO IS MORE LIKELY to have
used it -- on ANY day, including November 22, 1963 -- than its owner,
LEE HARVEY OSWALD?

While it's certainly true that the above question doesn't really
"prove" anything, I still think it's a reasonable question that needs
to be asked of CTers once in a while, just in a basic "What Are The
Odds?" manner.

For, if rifle-owner OSWALD didn't use OSWALD'S own rifle on November
22nd, then WHO DID use OSWALD'S VERY OWN RIFLE to fire bullets from it
at John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza?

On the basis of OWNERSHIP ALONE, Lee Harvey Oswald is very, very
likely to have been the man squeezing the trigger of Rifle C2766 on
November 22 (or any other day of the year).

If conspiracy theorists think it's MORE likely for Malcolm Wallace (or
anyone else) to have been up on that sixth floor using Oswald's gun
on 11/22/63, they've got a huge hurdle to overcome. And that hurdle
is -- NOBODY OWNED THAT RIFLE EXCEPT FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD.


>>> "His [Dr. Vincent P. Guinn's] work has been shown to be very faulty. It is not all his fault, as members of the panel were only given "evidence" in segmented format, meaning they weren't getting the whole picture. This was done by the HSCA to manipulate the results they wanted." <<<



The mega-kook named Rob actually seems to think (via the above
parameters he spelled out) that the HSCA DIDN'T want to find a
"conspiracy".

That's a howl, because the HSCA was desperate to find a
conspiracy....and ANY conspiracy theory would do, it seems. And that's
why the silly and since-destroyed "4th Shot Heard On The Dictabelt
Recording" conclusion was arrived at by the House Select Committee at
the 11th hour in late 1978.

But AT THE SAME TIME, we're still left with the other (logical and
accurate) parts of the HSCA's conclusions, which were:

LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED THE ONLY BULLETS THAT STRUCK THE TWO VICTIMS
ON 11/22/63 IN DEALEY PLAZA. AND THOSE BULLETS WERE FIRED FROM
MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE #C2766.


>>> "When you are talking about ballistics, there is no such thing as "similar" or "very likely"; it either matches or it doesn't." <<<

Bullshit.

Many times, the general characteristics or composition of bullet lead
can be said to be "similar" or "consistent with" a comparison bullet,
even if the fragment being examined has been badly damaged.

Robert Frazier of the FBI provided just exactly that kind of non-
exacting testimony for the Warren Commission. He testified in such a
manner on multiple occasions, in fact.

With respect to CE842 (a small bullet fragment taken out of Governor
Connally's wrist), we find this testimony given by the FBI's Bob
Frazier:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842, will you describe that fragment for us, please?"

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

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

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

=========

And we also have Frazier testifying in the following fashion with respect
to the small amount of lead residue that was scraped off of the limousine's
windshield:

Mr. SPECTER -- "Was a comparison made of the lead residues on the inside of the windshield with any of the bullet fragments recovered about which you have heretofore testified?"

Mr. FRAZIER -- "Yes. They were compared with the bullet fragment found on the front seat, which in turn was compared with Commission 399. The lead was found to be similar in composition."

=========

By the way.....

As an addendum to the first Frazier WC excerpt above (regarding CE842,
the Connally wrist fragment), it's worth highlighting this part of Frazier's
testimony once more:

"This is a small fragment of metal which weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory."

The key words there being "one-half a grain", which means that almost
TWO FULL ADDITIONAL GRAINS could have been recovered from the bodies
of both John Connally and John Kennedy and still not have TOO MUCH
BULLET LEAD found in the victims to eliminate CE399 as a candidate for
having caused the injuries to both Connally and Kennedy.

Before it was fired through Oswald's Carcano, Bullet CE399 weighed
approximately 161 grains (which was said by ballistics experts,
including Robert Frazier [see testimony below], to be the average
weight of an unfired MC bullet from two of the four lots of MC bullets
manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company that were used by Lee
Oswald in his own rifle in 1963):

MEL EISENBERG -- "Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the exhibit-that is, 399?"

Mr. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains."

Mr. EISENBERG -- "How much weight loss does that show from the original bullet weight?"

Mr. FRAZIER -- "We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161 grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed 160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains."

=========

In addition, Dr. John Lattimer, during his extensive assassination
experiments and tests in the 1970s, weighed 100 unfired MC/WCC bullets
from all four sub-lots used by Oswald (Lot Nos. 6000 through 6003).

Lattimer's data was almost identical with the FBI's from 1963-1964,
with Lattimer's 100 WCC test bullets ranging in weight from 159.80 to
161.50 grains, for a "median" weight of 160.80 grains. [Source: Dr.
Lattimer's 1980 book "Kennedy And Lincoln"; Pg. 287.]

The above testimony from Frazier, when coupled with his other
testimony about the Connally wrist fragment weighing only "one-half a
grain", indicates that close to 2 more full grains of metal could have
been discovered in the victims and still not exceed the approx. weight
of Bullet CE399 prior to its being fired from Rifle C2766. (As Frazier
mentioned in his above testimony, CE399 weighed exactly 158.6 grains
after it was found on a Parkland stretcher on November 22.)

And as far as I know, CE842 represents the LARGEST fragment among the
"2 or 3" (per Dr. Charles Gregory [6 H 98]) metallic fragments that were
removed from Connally's right wrist. The ONE single tiny fragment left
inside Governor Connally's left thigh wound was microscopic in size. And
there were zero pieces of metal of any type discovered in Connally's
torso/trunk.

And we also know that zero pieces of metal were discovered inside John
Kennedy's neck or upper-back regions at his autopsy. But even if there
HAD been some very small traces of bullet material discovered inside
JFK (and some people have suggested that a fragment could have existed
in Kennedy's neck), it would still not mean that CE399 would be eliminated
as a source for any such metal fragments, because there's still nearly two
more grains that could have been deposited in the victims and still be
within the average total weights of WCC bullets supplied by the FBI and,
later, by Dr. Lattimer.

There's also the following WC testimony from Bob Frazier of the FBI
that is relevant to this sub-topic about "Average Bullet Weights":

Mr. EISENBERG -- "In your opinion, was there any weight loss?"

Mr. FRAZIER -- "There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains."


>>> "The bullets [removed from J.D. Tippit's body] were not consistent with LHO's gun in the least bit, according to 99.9% of the people I have read (hundreds)." <<<

That's because you prefer conspiracy writers instead of the actual
truth.

But the truth is: the four bullets that came out of Tippit's body were
consistent with having been fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's .38
revolver, with "nothing evident that would exclude the weapon", per
the WC testimony of firearms identification expert Joseph D. Nicol:

Mr. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Nicol, finally I hand you a group of four bullets marked Commission Exhibits 602, 603, 604, and 605, which I state for the record were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit, and a group of two bullets marked Commission Exhibit 606, which I state for the record were fired by the FBI through the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143. .... Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?"

JOSEPH NICOL -- "Yes; I did."

Mr. EISENBERG -- "What was your conclusion?"

Mr. NICOL -- "Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be positive. However, on specimen 603...I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606."

Mr. EISENBERG -- "That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?"

Mr. NICOL -- "Yes, sir."

Mr. EISENBERG -- "By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to the exclusion of all other weapons?"

Mr. NICOL -- "Correct."

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


>>> "The [autopsy] photos have been tampered with." <<<

You just said that to prove my earlier point about conspiracy-hungry
kooks needing to believe in fake photos....right?

Well, at least you're not in bed with David Lifton. I guess that earns
you one-half of a dog biscuit anyway. Enjoy.


>>> "Don't doctors usually sign the autopsy report?" <<<

Autopsy reports of the "known to be totally incorrect" nature, you
mean? Which is what you kooks believe; i.e., Drs. Humes, Finck, and
Boswell EACH signed off on an autopsy report that CTers think is
nothing but a pack of lies, distortions, and/or half-truths.

Do most pathologists in the world sign autopsy reports like that,
Mr. Conspiracy?


>>> "How about the cause of death?" <<<

Let me think a minute....
It'll come to me soon....

I got it! ---

He was "nibbled to death by ducks"???

Did I get it right?

Per many kooks, maybe that guess is not too far afield from reality.


>>> "The WC tried to get Randle and Frazier to change their testimony regarding the package's length, but surprisingly, and to their credit, they didn't do it." <<<


And yet some CTers think Buell Wesley Frazier was one of the
conspirators who was "setting up" poor innocent Oswald. Some kooks, in
an indirect kind of kooky way, accuse Randle of the same type of thing
too.

And yet, even though the brother-and-sister team (per some CTers) was
framing LHO for the President's murder, they EACH decided to remain
steadfast and firm when it came to their "27 inch" or "about 2 feet
long" measurements regarding the brown paper bag that THEIR OWN PATSY
was carrying on November 22nd.

Doesn't add up for those kooks' requirements, of course.

But what does add up is this.....

Oswald positively took a bulky paper bag into work with him on
11/22/63.

-- plus: --

Oswald lied to Wes Frazier about the contents of that paper bag.

-- plus: --

Both Frazier & Randle observed Oswald carrying a long, "bulky" brown
paper bag on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination.

-- plus: --

After the assassination, Oswald's rifle turns up missing from its
KNOWN storage location of Ruth Paine's garage.

-- plus: --

An EMPTY 38-inch-long paper bag (similar in color and style to the bag
seen by Frazier & Randle) turns up in the TSBD's Sniper's Nest, from
where an Oswald-like individual was seen firing a RIFLE at JFK's car.
And the empty bag has--Voila!--Oswald's prints on it. With one of the
prints--the right-hand palmprint--perfectly matching the way Wes
Frazier said that Oswald carried the bag. And fibers matching the
blanket in Paine's garage are found inside the empty bag as well.

-- plus: --

At 1:22 PM CST on November 22nd, Oswald's RIFLE (Serial Number C2766),
with Oswald's own prints on it, was found on the same floor of the
TSBD where the empty paper bag was found.

-- plus: --

Oswald, from the weight of all the evidence, carried NO PACKAGE at all
out of the Depository when he left the building at approx. 12:33 PM on
11/22/63.

-- equals: --

Lee Harvey Oswald carried his Carcano rifle into the Depository on
November 22, concealed inside a homemade paper bag (the length of
which was incorrectly estimated by witnesses Frazier and Randle),
with Oswald then leaving the empty paper bag (with his prints on it)
underneath the window from where he fired the shots that killed
President Kennedy.

Any other alternative scenario that differs greatly from the above
version of events cannot hold up to any kind of scrutiny (or common
sense) at all.


>>> "So what [if LHO's prints are on the boxes in the Sniper's Nest]? He worked there." <<<

The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof
of Oswald's guilt, true.

But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of
where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all
of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door,
those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those
prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was
found in the Sniper's Nest.

It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO
prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the
assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of
"He worked there".

The "he worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy
theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the
boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-
floor window on November 22nd.


>>> "[The fibers found wedged into the rifle] Could have been planted, like the palm print." <<<

Oh goodie! More excruciatingly complicated and needless "planting"
being performed by the very same band of moron plotters who decided
to green-light that ever-popular MULTI-GUN, ONE-PATSY assassination
scheme prior to November 22. Lovely.

Or maybe this needless piece of fiber planting was being performed
by a rogue "planter", who was working outside the realm of the pre-
arranged "Let's Get Oz" plot.

I'm sure it doesn't matter to a CT-Kook though....just as long as the
kook can cry "it was planted", he's happy and contented.


>>> "[It's] Not LHO's [jacket], based on the laundry tags (a place he never went to) and the color. Marina said he had two coats and two coats only, and this was neither." <<<

Dead wrong (as per the CT-Kook norm).

I always laugh at the idea that the laundry tag in the jacket HAS to mean
the jacket wasn't Oswald's. When, in fact, the cheap-ass skinflint named
Lee Oswald might very well have bought the jacket second-hand with the
tag already in it.

Regarding Marina denying all knowledge of CE162 (which is the gray
zipper jacket found under a car at the Texaco station on Jefferson
Blvd.), we have this WC testimony from Marina Oswald:

J. LEE RANKIN -- "Do you recall any of these clothes that your husband was wearing when he came home Thursday night, November 21, 1963?"

MARINA OSWALD -- "On Thursday, I think he wore this shirt."

Mr. RANKIN -- "Is that Exhibit 150?"

Mrs. OSWALD -- "Yes."

Mr. RANKIN -- "Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that time?"

Mrs. OSWALD -- "It seems he had that jacket, also."

Mr. RANKIN -- "Exhibit 162?"

Mrs. OSWALD -- "Yes."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0272b.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm


>>> "The purchase order that supposedly paid for the gun was purchased at a time LHO was at work. He did not miss a single day from the time he started until the assassination, so where did he get all the time to do all the things the WC claim?" <<<

Yeah, it must have been one of those 24 "Imposter Oswalds" who bought
the money order for the rifle, huh?

The money order couldn't possibly have been purchased by the REAL Oswald
BEFORE his "at work" hours, could it?

ALSO SEE:

BTW, Rob, Oswald wasn't working at the Book Depository when he sent
off that money order to Chicago in mid-March '63. His TSBD job was
still many months away at the time he acquired the Carcano.

Perhaps I misunderstood you above, but you seemed to be implying that
LHO was working at the Depository at the time he bought the rifle (via
the words "from the time he started"). But "started" where? Which job?
Oswald had several jobs in 1963. I think you probably were implying
that he was already working at the TSBD at the time of the rifle
purchase. But, of course, he wasn't.


>>> "...And the writing on the money order and envelope could have been faked." <<<

Yeah, that's always a good all-encompassing excuse for you kooks to
use when you're stuck for something better -- like PROOF of the
massive plot you love so much.

Just say something "could have been faked" and the CT nuts are off the
hook. Nice tactic.

I wonder how a jury would respond to the never-ending "This could have
been faked but, of course, I can never prove it to you"
tactic that is
constantly being employed by retarded JFK conspiracy theorists?

Well, I guess you can always hope that all jury boxes are filled to
the brim with "O.J." jurors. That's about the only ray of hope you'd
have.


>>> "Also, there were many sightings of LHO when we know he was at work, so what was this all about?" <<<

I guess it shows how completely stupid and moronic your "patsy-
framers" were, doesn't it?

Because if those plotters, who were bent on framing Oswald for murder,
had done a good and thorough job when parading their imposter Oswalds
all over Dallas, would they have deliberately allowed some of their
imposters to be seen in public, by various people, at times when these
ace patsy-framers should have known that the real Lee Oswald was at
work in another part of the city?

Or didn't the conspirators who were in the detailed process of framing
Oswald for two future murders give a damn about trivial stuff like
that?

But those same conspirators (per some CT-Kooks) apparently DID care
enough about silly little trivial patsy-framing details to want to have
a fake Oswald be seen at a rifle range or at a car lot weeks before
November 22, even though those two sightings do absolutely nothing
to further the notion that Oswald was guilty of the two murders the
patsy-framers were attempting to frame LHO for.

Go figure those idiot patsy-framers. (And then try to figure out the
kooks who actually believe in such nonsense.)

Allow me to repeat something I have said previously (and it applies
even more today, after reading Robby's latest post filled with mangled
evidence and kook-invented supposition):

"Rob [Caprio] is a cartoon character. He's an overblown CT joke." -- DVP; Nov. 2007

David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 18, 2007)