(PART 2)


>>> "In order to support the LN side of the debate, you need to believe the following: That J. Edgar Hoover was a man of impeccable character." <<<


Why would he have to be of "impeccable" character? Wouldn't merely
believing he was not trying to "FRAME A LONE PATSY" suffice for the LN
side of the debate?

And I still want to know why HOOVER (of ALL people) would have had ANY
desire to want to start fiddling with evidence in order to frame
(falsely!) the man named Oswald whom Hoover's FBI should have had a
better eye on in Nov. '63?

That one's a head-scratcher from where I'm sitting.

>>> "That ALL law enforcement officers are honest and don't lie...." <<<

Another severe overstatement by The Jesus-man.

>>> "The House Select Committee on Assassinations never existed." <<<

And another silly overstatement. Sure, the LN side needs to discount
the silly acoustical "evidence" provided at the last minute by the
HSCA. But, then too, that evidence SHOULD be discounted. Why? Because
it's crap. Next?....

>>> "All of the witnesses in Dealey PLaza who saw the back of the President's head blow off were wrong." <<<

Name all of the witnesses IN DEALEY PLAZA who said they definitely saw
the "back" of JFK's head "blow off". Offhand, I can think of this many
who said that in 1963-1964 --- Zero.

>>> "All of the witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll were wrong." <<<

And CTers should then wonder WHY many, many MORE people didn't see
this supposedly-conspiracy-proving "smoke".

And CTers can also ask: How could a passenger riding at the REAR of
the motorcade (in a press bus) still see that same "gunsmoke" when the
busses passed through DP?

That was some thick and long-lasting gunsmoke those shooters used,

>>> "All of the witnesses who saw the President hit in the temple were wrong." <<<

Name all of the witnesses who (in '63) said they thought the ENTRY
wound in JFK's head was "in the temple"? Offhand, I can think of one
-- Bill Newman (per his WFAA-TV interview on 11/22). Bill, of course,
was merely talking about where he saw the massive amounts of blood &
brain on the head of JFK. He couldn't POSSIBLY have known, from his
position on Elm, exactly WHERE the small entry hole was located on
Kennedy's head.

>>> "All of the medical witnesses who saw an entry wound in the throat were wrong." <<<

This shit again, huh?

They were wrong. Without question.

"Common sense tells us that seeing only the wound to the front of the
president's neck [and not seeing the corresponding entry wound in
Kennedy's back at any time], the Parkland doctors would instinctively
have been more inclined to think of it as an entrance wound. Almost
anyone would be so predisposed." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 414 of
"RH" (c.2007)

>>> "All of the medical witnesses who saw the large exit wound in the right rear of the skull were wrong." <<<

Incredible as it seems....yes, they were wrong. .....

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I [VB] believe to be the answer, one whose
logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the
parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
wrong," [Baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's
head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to
have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they
saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have
been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and
gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many
of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the
head" [End Baden quote]." -- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 407-408 of "RH"

>>> "All of the witnesses who saw a hole in the windshield were wrong." <<<

This shit again, huh?

Yes, they were wrong. ......

ROBERT A. FRAZIER - The windshield is composed of two layers with a
very thin layer of plastic in between which bonds them together in the
form of safety glass. The inside layer of the glass was not broken,
but the outside layer immediately on the outside of the lead residue
had a very small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute
particle of glass missing from the outside surface. ....

ARLEN SPECTER - What do those characteristics indicate as to which
side of the windshield was struck?

FRAZIER - It indicates that it could only have been struck on the
inside surface. It could not have been struck on the outside surface
because of the manner in which the glass broke and further because of
the lead residue on the inside surface.

>>> "All of the witnesses who saw a rifle other than a Mannlicher-Carcano in the TSBD were wrong." <<<

This shit again, too, huh? Why, of course...a new day has
dawned....therefore the "Mauser" is back in the Depository again,
right Mr. Kook? You kooks are pathetic. ......

SEYMOUR WEITZMAN -- "Mr. Boone was climbing on top and I was down on
my knees looking. And I moved a box and he moved a carton, and there
it was. And he, in turn, hollered we had found the rifle."

EDDIE BARKER (CBS NEWS) -- "What kind of gun did you think it was?"

WEITZMAN -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser,
which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a
glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out
as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type
gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw,
was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement
was a mistake; but it was an honest mistake."

>>> "All of the witnesses who saw .38 auto shells at the Tippit murder scene were wrong." <<<

Nobody saw automatic shells at the Tippit scene, you kook. You can't
cite one person who SAW .38 auto shells at the scene, because ONLY
Oswald's shells were found at the scene and placed into evidence.

The discrepancy about the "automatic" has been thoroughly explained
via Gerald Hill's testimony and from the testimony of Ted Callaway.

>>> "All of the witnesses who described a man in the window who was not Oswald were wrong." <<<

Nobody saw a man in the 6th-Floor SN window who was not consistent
with Lee Oswald. (In case you want to prop up Amos Euins here....Euins
said in his written statement that the man in the window was "white",
not black. And he told the WC that he couldn't tell whether the
assassin was white or black.)......

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Could you tell whether he was a Negro gentleman or a
white man?"

AMOS L. EUINS -- "No, sir."

>>> "All of the witnesses who saw Oswald enter the building that morning but didn't see a package were wrong." <<<

Gil's arguments are getting thinner than thin now. Because (at last
count) there are just TWO total people who qualify under that "Saw LHO
Enter" banner -- Buell Frazier and Jack Dougherty.

So, it's a perfectly-even 50-50 stalemate in this regard. Frazier
definitely stated that Oswald "still had the package" as he entered
the building on Nov. 22. Whereas Dougherty (who had no reason under
the moon to remember such an innocuous event at all) said he didn't
recall seeing anything in Oswald's hands as he came in.

>>> "All of the witnesses who heard more than three shots were wrong." <<<

Yes, they most certainly were. But this is another very weak argument
for Gil's pro-CT side, because the total number of "More Than Three
Shots" witnesses is incredibly small....less than 9% of all Dealey
Plaza witnesses. Not a very healthy percentile to base your multi-
shooter conspiracy on......

>>> "All of the witnesses whose source of the shots was a location that was not the TSBD were wrong." <<<

Yes. They were wrong too. And the sum total of evidence indicates that
fact. (But the words "Sum Total" aren't in a CT-Kook's vocabulary,

A mere 4.8% of the witnesses heard shots from more than a single
location. Again, not exactly a winning percentage for you kooks......

>>> "All of the witnesses who saw Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital were wrong." <<<

Who else besides Seth Kantor claims to have seen Ruby there? You
surely aren't putting a lot of stock in Wilma "RUBY WAS AT PARKLAND TO

Anyway, this issue is a moot one. I think Ruby could have been at
Parkland on Friday. It fits Ruby's profile perfectly of wanting to go
where the action was.

>>> "All of the witnesses who said that Oswald and Ruby knew each other were wrong." <<<

I can think of zero credible witnesses in this category. Naturally,
with the day being new, this crap must find its way back to the top of
the list of CT Myths once more.

>>> "All of the witnesses who saw Oswald in Banister's office were wrong." <<<

And that's why the HSCA said they culd find ZERO people who could
place Oswald anywhere near Banister's office. Right, kook? The HSCA is
right about the acoustics....but boobs re. this Banister/Oswald
connection, right?

>>> "All of the witnesses who saw Oswald and Banister together were wrong." <<<

See above.

>>> "All of the witnesses who said Oswald and Ferrie knew each other were wrong." <<<

The CAP photo exists, true. So maybe Oz and Mr. Eyebrows knew each
other via a "CAP" connection in 1955 (when Oswald was 15 or 16 years
old!). If that makes you want to think they "worked" together to rub
out JFK eight years later....knock yourself out. (Hopefully you will
knock yourself cold; then we won't have to endure these half-baked,
already-debunked-a-million-times lists you like to compile weekly.)

>>> "All of the witnesses who said that they saw autopsy photos that showed a small hole in the front of the skull and a large hole in the rear of the skull were wrong." <<<

Nobody saw any such photographs....because no such photographs exist,
or ever did exist.

>>> "The first question is how many witnesses were wrong?" <<<

And let me ask you a question for a change, Mr. Kook ---- How many
Dealey witnesses do YOU think got everything just exactly RIGHT (i.e.,
number of shots and timing and ALL locations you think shots came

If you can name just ONE witness who meets all of those "CT"
requirements to your kook satisfaction, I'd love to know who that
amazing witness was.

>>> "The second is, how many witnesses described the shooting in the exact way that the Warren Commission did?" <<<

The majority of witnesses favor the Warren Commission's scenario more
than they do any conspiracy-flavored variation, that's for darn sure.
(Especially the CT scenarios endorsed by people like Jim Garrison, Bob Groden,
and Oliver Stone.)



In order for the conspiracy kooks to believe Lee Harvey Oswald was
innocent, you kooks have to believe that EVERY official investigation
that examined (in detail) the JFK & Tippit murder cases were 100%
wrong when they ALL said this:


IOW -- To be a conspiracy-loving nut who believes (as many do) that
LHO was just a totally-innocent patsy, you've got to believe in
massive amounts of stupid, unreasonable bullshit of the first order.

David Von Pein
September 2007