JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 26)


CONSPIRACY MONGER:

>>> "There were many better opportunities for a single assassin to attack. One is when JFK is on the truck platform at Ft. Worth giving a morning speech and the crowd is not far off; and secondly would have been at Love Field as JFK came right up to the crowd. Why do you suppose LHO would choose the hardest option, with the worst rifle known to modern man, when he could have gotten real close and shot him with a revolver? Makes no sense to sane people, only nutjobs like you." <<<


DAVID V.P.:

[--- huge laugh commences, as per usual after reading anything written by
a kook named Rob Caprio. ---]

LHO's one-man Book Depository assassination plan made perfect sense,
from every "LHO POV". You're just a kook who doesn't want Saint Oz to
be involved....so naturally you have to act like a total moron and
pretend that LHO should have performed the deed in a different manner.

But, Lee Oswald didn't travel to Love Field or Fort Worth to shoot the
President UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL with his Smith & Wesson .38-caliber
revolver because:

1.) Lee Oswald couldn't drive.

2.) He had no car even if he could drive.

3.) It's doubtful that he'd be willing to ask Wes Frazier for a ride
to the airport or for a ride to Fort Worth so that he could shoot the
President. I doubt if Lee wanted to ask Frazier for the following
favor:

"Hey, Wesley, can I get a lift to Love Field this morning? I know we'll already be at work by the time JFK arrives at the airport at around 11:40 AM, and we'll already be at work by the time JFK gives his pre-Chamber of Commerce parking-lot speech in Fort Worth at about 8:30 AM too....but why don't we skip work and go see the President so I can get a better shot at him? You don't mind, do you Wes? And if you wouldn't mind, can I also get a ride away from the murder scene too, after I kill the President (either at the airport or in Fort Worth)? Come on, Wes, be a good sport and help me out so I won't have to use a bus as a getaway vehicle."

4.) Oswald knew he would have a BUILT-IN INITIAL ALIBI after shooting
the President from the Book Depository, because he WORKED THERE and
could be cleared as just another of the building's many regular workers
(which he was, by Roy Truly at about 12:32 PM, just two minutes after
Oswald shot Kennedy).

Therefore, why would LHO go looking for alternate shooting
opportunities and locations when President Kennedy was going to be
COMING TO OSWALD at noontime on November 22nd?

And the biggie:

5.) Oswald wasn't suicidal. He was a murderer with a lousy getaway
plan, yes. But he wasn't suicidal. He proved that multiple times after
12:30 PM on November 22.

Therefore, shooting JFK while secreted (to a large degree) in his
Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository
(a place where nobody would be suspicious of him in the slightest way
prior to the assassination attempt at 12:30...and nobody WAS
suspicious in any way whatsoever) was the perfect choice for the
24-year-old ex-Marine sharpshooter who happened to have at his
disposal (thanks to that unusual Thursday-night visit to the Paine
house in Irving) a rifle that was more than capable enough to fire a
lethal bullet into the body of a person who was less than 100 yards
away from the muzzle of that rifle.

But travelling to Fort Worth or the airport to kill Kennedy (two places
where Oswald WASN'T EMPLOYED and therefore couldn't use the
perfect "I Work Here" initial alibi) would have been much riskier, and
probably would have been a suicide mission had he chosen either of
those locations to shoot JFK out in the open (and with a handgun!).*

* = Or, alternately, was Oz supposed to manage to hide himself inside
the Texas Hotel someplace after he carried his Carcano rifle inside
the hotel, which was crawling with Secret Service men and police
officers that morning? Or was he supposed to go into another nearby
building in Fort Worth (or at Love Field) to pull off his murderous
deed?

Ask yourself: WHY would he take such chances when he already had at
his fingertips the PERFECT BUILT-IN SNIPER'S LOCATION IN DEALEY PLAZA
(the very building he worked in every day since mid-October -- the TSBD)?


>>> "I don't think professional assassins worry about that part [framing the "patsy"] much. They do their job and make a getaway. .... They left the framing of LHO and cover-up to the people who hired them. Boy Davy, you are naive." <<<


And when given the choice of "Conspiracy Kook" vs. "naive", I'll choose
"naive" every time, thanks.

BTW, can you tell me how many "Multi-Shooter" assassination plots have
EVER been pinned on "Solo Patsies" in the past? Just how many times
has that neat little trick been pulled off (and provably so)? Just curious.

Surely you can name at least ONE other occasion when a batch of brain-
dead plotters shot up a victim with many different guns and then tried
to pin the whole nine yards on some schnook who never even fired a
shot. Can't you? (That probably happens every day of the week, right
Mr. Kook?)


>>> "Close to 90% of Americans don't believe he [Saint Oswaldovich] was involved or did it alone." <<<

The percentage isn't nearly that high. You've probably been reading
too much of Ben Holmes' kookshit regarding the "conspiracy" percentiles.

The latest polls that I've seen (from November 2003) indicate that 83%
of those polled believe that Oswald WAS INVOLVED AS A SHOOTER IN
DEALEY PLAZA.

Only 7% (via the ABC poll in question, linked below, which included a
total of 1,031 respondents) think Oswald was "Not Involved" at all.
Only 70%, not 90%, think there was a conspiracy surrounding John F.
Kennedy's death (per that ABC poll from 2003).

And another separate question within that same ABC poll (a question
specifically about who was firing the gun/guns at JFK on 11/22/63)
reveals that only 58% of those with an opinion on the matter believe
that there was a gunman in Dealey Plaza besides Lee Harvey Oswald:

http://PollingReport.com/Kennedy Assassination


>>> "Only you delusional 10% nutjobs believe the official garbage." <<<

Actually, the correct figure (as of this writing) is approximately 19%.
That is to say, about 19% of Americans believe that the Warren
Commission got it right:

NATIONWIDE GALLUP POLL (NOVEMBER 2003):

One Man -- 19%
Others Involved -- 75%
No Opinion -- 6%


>>> "LHO didn't hit anyone....all data regarding the "hits" comes from the government." <<<

And the evil "Government" should always be looked at sideways and
should always be considered the enemy, right? For, there's no possible
way they would ever tell the truth about a murdered Chief Executive,
correct?

Of course, the BULLETS in evidence and the LACK of non-Oswald bullets
in evidence are also telling a reasonable person a good deal about the
shooting too. Plus, there are the WOUNDS on the two victims and the
wound locations, which generally line up to produce an amazing "SBT"-
like pattern.

And if those wounds had been caused by more than one bullet, it's a
truly incredible coincidence, a coincidence that CTers embrace to
their bosoms without batting an eye....even though OTHER
"coincidences" are totally impossible to believe (per some members of
the CT-Kook Brigade).

E.G.:

Oswald getting hired in a building along the motorcade route;
and a guy named Lovelady coincidentally also working in the same
building with Mr. Oswald in November of 1963.

In truth, the "Government" went where the evidence led them....and
that was to Lee Oswald and Lee Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

There's not a shred of ballistics evidence that undermines the
immutable fact that ONLY Oswald's rifle was involved in the
assassination. Kooks attempt to undermine the "LHO Did It Alone"
conclusion. But since when do the unsupportable opinions of rabid
conspiracy nuts really matter very much when weighed against the
actual ballistics evidence in the case?


>>> "The other bullet no LNer ever wants to address is the windshield frame one. Which one hit the windshield frame below the rearview mirror if all the other 3 are accounted for?" <<<

How can you possibly not know the answer to this question?

A separate shot/bullet isn't required to account for the windshield/
chrome damage at all. One of the two front-seat fragments from
Oswald's gun (via the fatal shot to JFK's head) almost certainly
caused the chrome damage; while the other front-seat fragment almost
certainly caused the windshield crack and lead smear on the inside of
the windshield.

Everything aligns perfectly from the LN/LHO/Windshield perspective
too....i.e., TWO damaged areas to the front portion of the limousine
(the chrome dent and the windshield crack with lead residue deposited
on the inside of the glass), which perfectly match the number of
bullet fragments (two) from Oswald's rifle that were found in the
front seat of the limo.

Via Robert Frazier's Warren Commission testimony:

ALLEN DULLES -- "I wonder if I could go back just a moment to the
indentation in the chrome around the windshield at the top of the
windshield, but on the inside, could that have been caused by a
fragment of a bullet?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it very easily could have. It would not
have been caused, for instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its
full velocity from a rifle, but merely from a fragment traveling at
fairly high velocity which struck the inside surface of the chrome."

MR. DULLES -- "Could that have been caused by any of the fragments
that you have identified as having been found on the front seat or
near the front seat of the car?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes. I believe it could have by either, in fact, of
the two fragments of rifle bullets found in the front seat."

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

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0485b.jpg

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0486a.jpg

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0485a.jpg


>>> "You're using faulty data." <<<

I'm using the data that is agreed upon by every official agency
which has investigated JFK's murder.

Naturally, you kooks think it's incumbent upon you to merely ignore
everything "official". After all, you've got shadows to chase and
extra killers to give guns to. And there's nothing "faulty" about
shadow-chasing, right?


>>> "JFK was hit 3 times..." <<<

Which must be why 17 different pathologists who have examined either
the actual body of President Kennedy or the photos, X-rays, and
associated evidence connected with the President's murder said that
JFK was hit by just TWO bullets (with both of those bullets coming
from above and behind the President when he was shot).

But, being a kook who likes to make up his own evidence (while
ignoring 17 respected pathologists as you sprint toward the Kook Goal
Line), you want to think that JFK was hit "3 times". Go figure.


>>> "Connally [was hit] 2 times..." <<<

You can't get anything right, can you? Not even this easy one.

Governor Connally was positively hit by just one single bullet...and
that bullet was positively CE399. No other conclusion is even
remotely possible, given the evidence that's on the table. (Naturally,
you, being a kook, MUST think this evidence is "fake". Go figure.)

Of course, by saying JFK was hit three times and JBC twice, you really
only manage to increase the absurdity of any anti-SBT scenario to
laughable levels of improbability and impossibility.

Because you'll now need FOUR SEPARATE BULLETS to do what CE399 is said
to have done....with ALL of these bullets either totally disappearing
from view immediately after the shooting, or having at least one of
them (399) moved from JFK's stretcher to Connally's (while the other
THREE completely vanish into a puff of smoke).

Yeah, that's WAY more believable than my fairy-tale belief in the SBT,
isn't it?

And yet I'M supposed to be the "naive" one, folks. Ain't that a hoot?!


>>> "1 [bullet] hit the windshield frame..." <<<

That was a fragment from the head shot (of course), as any non-idiot
could easily figure out. There's no way that a bullet travelling at
full velocity hit that chrome strip (molding)....or the non-bulletproof
windshield glass either.

Bob Frazier testified that a bullet moving at full speed would have
most likely gone clean through the chrome and would definitely have
gone through the windshield easily at such a velocity. Obviously,
therefore, the fragments that hit those things in the car were
severely slowed down before hitting them.


>>> "1 [bullet] hit the curb near Tague..." <<<

You finally got one right. Good going.


>>> "And one or two more [bullets] hit the street and curbs." <<<

I thought you said these gunmen were "professionals" all the way. LOL.
Some great "pros" these blind-as-a-bat assassins were, huh? They
totally miss the huge Presidential stretch limo up to THREE times!
Lovely.

Care to change your mind about the killers being in the "professional"
ranks? Or do you think they were all blindfolded on November 22, just
to make the assassination a little more challenging?

In any event, your extra one or two missed shots are nothing but pure
CT wishful-thinking, of course. There was only one "missed" shot (the
Tague shot; which was shot #1 from Oswald's MC rifle). There certainly
weren't an additional TWO missed shots, plus the Tague bullet.


>>> "That is 8 or 9 shots in my book." <<<

Gee, get with the program, Rob-Kook! Even Bob Groden's got TEN shots
being fired. Surely you can go one or two better than him, can't you?

(And you call yourself a decent CTer. Meh.)


>>> "Try reading some up-to-date research that isn't based on
1964 data." <<<


Oh, you mean I should place my trust and faith in people like John
Armstrong (the "Double Oswald" crackpot) and Joan Mellen (who decided,
in 2005, it was time to resurrect the already-moribund silliness
spouted by Jim Garrison) and maybe Robert Groden (who believes that
it's likely that ZERO gunshots came from Oswald's SN window)?

Or did you have some other CT-Kook authors in mind besides the trio
listed above?

Anyway, I'm sure you find comfort in reading pretty much anything that
attempts to bash the still-erect WC, correct?

In other words, CTer guesswork is always much better than the hard
evidence dealt with by the DPD, FBI, and WC. Right?

Well, no thanks. I'll stay in 1964. And you can have the conspiracy
authors and all of the unsupportable nonsense that goes with them.


>>> "Do you know anything about Lovelady?" <<<

I know he died more than 21 years ago. And I know he worked in the
TSBD with double-murderer Lee Oswald for about five weeks in late
1963. And I know he resembled LHO. And I know I have no reason under
the sun to suspect Billy Nolan Lovelady of being involved in some kind
of plot to kill JFK.

Now....what do you know about Mr. Lovelady?


>>> "The CTers are the ones that have had to spend their own money and time to investigate on their own." <<<

And how many killers and non-Oswald bullets have been uncovered as a
result of all that "investigating" that's been performed by those many
conspiracy theorists over the last 40+ years?

You'd think that some CTer would have found proof by now of at least
ONE non-C2766 bullet being involved in this supposedly-MULTI-GUN
assassination.

And you'd think that after all that time SOME theorist (somewhere on
Earth) would have come up with just ONE non-Oswald killer being
provably involved in the assassination too.

But every "confession" by a so-called JFK assassin turns into a
situation comedy. Like the "Three Tramps". Or Jimmy Files. .....

"Perhaps the most famous of the "other" assassins are the "three tramps". The fact that there never was any evidence at all of their guilt is irrelevant to the conspiracy theorists. To the buffs, there was one big piece of incriminating evidence against the tramps: THEY WEREN'T LEE HARVEY OSWALD! And in the balmy and unhinged conspiracy universe, no evidence of guilt is stronger against someone than that he isn't Lee Harvey Oswald." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 929 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

~~~~~~~~~~

"Another alleged assassin is James E. Files, the Rodney Dangerfield of Kennedy assassins. .... Files has fallen on such hard times that few buffs will even talk to him. However, a few promoters and publicity seekers have tried to exploit Files's pathetic story." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 917 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)






>>> "I don't think LHO ever said he was in the door. He may have not thought of it or maybe he wasn't." <<<


He may have "NOT THOUGHT OF IT"??

Via the viewpoint of Oswald possibly actually BEING "Mr. Doorway Man"
(which you seem to have implied in your previous posts), that's a very
strange thing to say. That is: Oswald wouldn't have THOUGHT to give the
cops his provable, ironclad alibi for the time when JFK was being shot?

Oswald was quick enough, however, to make up a lie re his "alibi" (his
lie about having lunch with "Junior")....but he wouldn't actually say where
he REALLY WAS at 12:30??? How nutty is that??

Back here in reality, however -- If Lee Harvey Oswald had been in that
Depository doorway at 12:30, he would certainly have SAID SO after his
arrest. But he said NOT A WORD to the police about being outside on
the TSBD steps when JFK was in the process of being murdered on Elm
Street.

Nor did Oswald say a word about being in the Book Depository
entranceway to the LIVE TELEVISION AUDIENCE EITHER, which he had ample
opportunities to do, what with the cameras and microphones being
shoved in his face several times as LHO was being paraded through the
DPD corridors on both November 22 and November 23.

In point of fact, Oswald actually admitted to the reporters (and thusly
to the live TV audience) that he was INSIDE THE BUILDING at the time
Kennedy was being shot.

A reporter asked him:

"Were you in the building?"

Oswald answered (somewhat sarcastically, after having just told the
same reporters, "I work in that building"):

"Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."





>>> "Can't we use facial recognition software to determine this [the identity of "Doorway Man"]?" <<<

Mr. Lovelady's admission that it was him in the doorway isn't NEARLY
good enough for a skeptic like you....is it, Robert?

And what about the testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier and William
Shelley (both of whom said they saw Lovelady outside the building,
near the front entrance, at the time of the shooting)?

Lovelady, Frazier, and Shelley are ALL to be disbelieved, is that
correct?

It's going to take "facial recognition" computer software to convince
Robert C. of the truth about Doorway Man, right?




>>> "I stick to all the facts of this case and that includes all the new ones found since 1964, that is the year you are stuck in." <<<


Yeah, you stick to such "facts" as: 4 assassins/spotters on the sixth
floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on November 22. (A "fact" with ZERO pieces
of credible/provable evidence to support it.)

And "facts" like "LHO shot no one" (not even Officer Tippit, a murder
which has a DOZEN witnesses fingering Oswald as the killer or the ONE
AND ONLY man who ran from the scene with a gun in his hands).

It's crazy "facts" like yours that make me so glad to be residing on
the side of (LN) truth in this case. Because you and your "CT Facts"
are merely imaginary (and pathetic) ones.

As my very able LN cohort, Bud, has said so many times in the past
(and now is a good time to repeat it) -- You conspiracy-loving kooks
are the very LAST people on the face of this globe who should be
looking into the assassination of the 35th U.S. President.

David Von Pein
October 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (OCTOBER 31, 2007)