(PART 2)



A whole bunch of conspiracy theorists believe that President John F. Kennedy was killed via a multiple-assassin ambush in Dallas, Texas, on November 22nd, 1963.

The main problem that these conspiracy theorists need to overcome, of course, is the fact that absolutely NONE of the physical evidence supports the idea that President Kennedy was hit by bullets from more than just a single rifle in Dealey Plaza.

But the fact that there are no guns, or bullets, or bullet shells other than Lee Harvey Oswald's doesn't seem to dissuade the hardline conspiracy promoters one bit. They're going to believe in that multi-shooter conspiracy despite all the evidence that says they are 100% wrong.

"It must have all been 'planted' to frame only Oswald" is the proverbial response by conspiracy theorists [CTers] when confronted with the total lack of physical evidence to support the idea of multiple assassins. A nice and convenient "blanket" cover-up that neatly explains everything for the theorists.

I just wonder, though, in what court of law such logic could be taken (and believed by a jury)? Conspiracy logic that is essentially saying: "Since All Of The Evidence Says Oswald Did It; It MUST Mean Just The Opposite; And Oswald, Therefore, Is Innocent". That's turning logic and common sense totally upside-down.

Many conspiracists think Oswald was "set up" as a dupe or a "Patsy" by evil forces prior to the assassination. But this "Patsy" business is always spoken of by the "Let's Free Oswald" CT Brigade in very vague terms, with little to no thought given to the actual mechanics of just exactly HOW Oswald was set up to take the fall for JFK's murder (and for the killing of policeman J.D. Tippit as well, per many theorists, which only elevates the "Patsy" plot to insanely-difficult-to-pull-off levels of complexity, in that the plotters would need to frame him for not just one murder on 11/22/63 -- but TWO).

But ask a CTer to actually look at the ridiculously reckless "Patsy Frame-Up" plot from a Pre-November 22nd point-of-view, and you're likely to get the brush-off. No conspiracy buff wants to talk about that aspect of the patsy plan (because the plot sounds so hopelessly harebrained and implausible from that point-of-view).

If the conspiracy theorists were to actually perform that little bit of time travel in their heads, they would have no choice but to realize that such a loony patsy plot was, is, and always shall be a totally unworkable and untenable assassination plan.

And even if (somehow) such a stupid multi-shooter, one-patsy plot was to miraculously succeed, it still would not make that silly scheme any more secure and non-reckless from a pre-assassination standpoint.

If it succeeded, it would only mean that the Lord Jesus Christ intervened for some reason and helped out these inane people who wanted to frame just one guy but used a plethora of guns all over Dealey Plaza to kill the one virtually stationary target.

Conspiracy theorists refuse to discuss any of the pre-planning aspects from the POV of: "Why on Earth would they have planned it THIS silly way?" Because to do that would mean for CTers to readily admit what has been obvious to me for many years. And that is -- You don't try to frame a lone patsy by shooting up the joint with two to five gunmen!

And, moreover, you don't attempt to frame a guy with his own gun and then NOT USE SAID GUN AT ALL IN THE MURDER ATTEMPT! That's yet another layer of stupidity exhibited by these so-called plotters (a layer of the supposed pre-planned patsy plot that is widely believed to be fact by many people; when, in reality, it's just plain dumb).

And furthermore, you don't NEED to frame a lone gunman by using multiple shooters. A professional hit man is just that -- a professional -- and he doesn't need back-ups all over the friggin' place. It's just flat-out stupid.

And in the type of frame-the-one-patsy plot believed in by most conspiracists, it's not just stupid, it's a suicidal plot, which is bound to collapse the moment JFK is wheeled into Parkland Hospital (or possibly even sooner).

CTers, in short, don't seem to want to realize that if a multi-gun patsy plot did occur on November 22nd, then some group of conspirators (who are never named by conspiracy buffs of course; their identities are as murky as "Badge Man") had to have sat themselves down prior to 11/22 and mapped out the best way to frame Lee Oswald. And, incredibly, CTers think that these pre-planners came up with this brainstorm of a plan.....

"Hey, guys....why don't we put three or maybe even FOUR riflemen in Dealey Plaza, in the front and the rear of JFK's vehicle, and then start popping away at the exact same time at the one target....all the while we'll just let our one patsy run around loose on the first or second floor of the Depository Building, even though he's supposed to be upstairs with a gun. Or maybe we'll even let him GO OUTSIDE THE BUILDING WHERE HE'S SURE TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED BY CAMERAMEN! Yeah, that's what we'll do on November 22 when JFK comes to Dallas! Anybody object to this plan?"

And evidently, per many CTers, there wasn't a single person in this group of morons who were plotting to kill President Kennedy who thought that such a patsy frame-up idea was NOT an excellent one.

Three simple questions for conspiracy believers:

1.) Where does ALL of the physical evidence lead in the JFK and Tippit murder cases (e.g., the guns, the bullets, the bullet shells, the fingerprints, the fibers, plus Oswald's own verifiable actions before and after the murders)?

2.) Is it even remotely possible (or doable) -- in the real world -- that every piece of ballistics evidence in both the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder investigations could have been faked or manufactured so that all of it became neatly (and immediately) stacked up into a perfect "It Was Oswald" pile?

3.) Who amongst the current CTer population of millions and millions of people worldwide would have actually attempted to set up and frame Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy by utilizing a MULTI-GUN frame-up plot on 11/22/63?

The only conceivable answers to the above inquiries are, of course:

1.) To Lee Harvey Oswald.
2.) No, it is not.
3.) Nobody.

I'd thoroughly enjoy seeing just one conspiracist answer the above three questions in a believable manner, while using common sense and reasoned thinking along the way.

However, I fear that being able to do that would be even more problematic than the task that was facing the after-the-shooting "Fake Everything In Sight" conspiracy crew in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.

David Von Pein
February 2006