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)
