A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
>>> "He [Lee Harvey Oswald] was part of an undercover plot and he thought he was helping to prevent an assassination." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Ah, yes. The ol' "He Was Trying To Save The President" dodge. A total
kook (Judyth Baker) invention, of course. Can the hilarity from the conspiracy
kooks reach any greater heights than this? I doubt it.
BTW, just exactly how was Oswald doing his part to try to "prevent"
the assassination by casually eating his lunch on the 2nd Floor of the
Depository when JFK was being murdered outside on Elm Street (as many,
many of you conspiracy quacks believe was the truth)?
Some "Assassination Prevention Plan" Oz had working for him there,
huh? (But, I guess eating his lunch had priority over saving the
President's life.)
>>> "He [Saint Oz] did not shoot J.D. Tippit." <<<
You kooks are amazing. (Not to mention hilarious.)
>>> "His gun had a bent firing pin." <<<
Not when LHO fired four bullets from that gun into the body of Officer
Tippit. If there was any "firing pin" damage to that gun, it occurred
after Tippit was killed with that gun. But the gun was positively in
good working order at approx. 1:15 PM on November 22, 1963. To believe
otherwise is to be a rabid kook (like you). And who'd want to do
something silly like that?
>>> "I'm not trying to prove he was a saint, just not guilty of the crimes the government claimed he committed." <<<
And you're failing miserably in that endeavor to clear your patsy,
too. But don't let the fact that you've got ZERO pieces of physical
evidence pointing to anyone on Earth except Oswald stop you from
continuing your daily quest of seeking that "Not Guilty" verdict on
behalf of your favorite patsy for all November 22 murders.
>>> "He may have been involved in some way, but he did not shoot anyone that day." <<<
You kooks are amazing. (Not to mention hilarious.)
>>> "How involved he was we will never know, since he was killed so quickly." <<<
More silliness from the fertile minds of "Kook Kwarters, Inc.", I see.
Fact is, we knew how deeply Oswald was "involved" in the JFK & JDT
murders many hours before he was plugged by Mr. Ruby on Sunday
morning.
A good deal of the evidence had been assessed by Sunday morning, and
the police had confirmed via many witnesses that Oswald was certainly
guilty of killing Officer Tippit (at least).
By Sunday, the police and FBI also knew that Oswald's rifle was
missing from the Paine garage where it had been kept since late
September of '63. And the police knew that the rifle found on the 6th
Floor of the Depository was bought and paid for by Lee Oswald (aka:
"Alek James Hidell", the same name that appeared on the Selective
Service ID card found in Oswald's wallet within minutes of his arrest
on Friday afternoon).
Hence, we have Captain Will Fritz making the bold claim to the world
via live TV on November 23:
"THIS CASE IS CINCHED."
Yes, there was still lots more information confirming Oswald's guilt
in both 11/22 murders AFTER he was shot and killed by Ruby on
Sunday....but there was ample proof of Oswald's guilt in those two
killings before he was killed too [as Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry
demonstrates HERE] -- and no evidence of ANY kind to lead the
authorities down any path except a "Lone Assassin" path either.
>>> "Put yourself in his place for just one second -- if you had the police coming after you and you didn't commit a crime, maybe you would snap too." <<<
LOL. I'm loving this reasoning here.
If I HADN'T done anything to warrant my being arrested (i.e., I'm
completely INNOCENT of killing a President and a policeman on November
22 in Dallas), I'm suddenly going to GIVE THE COPS A GOOD REASON TO
SUSPECT ME AND TO SHOOT ME DOWN by drawing a pistol and start waving
it around as if I'm going to shoot some people with it??
Not to mention Oswald's verbal comments that he made within the
theater (which reek of guilt) -- "This is it!" and/or "It's all over now!"
I'm lovin' the kook reasoning!!
>>> "The only thing we know is he had a defective gun." <<<
The gun was not "defective" 30 minutes before Oz's arrest, because WE
KNOW beyond ALL doubt that Oz murdered Officer Tippit with that gun.
No amount of assorted obfuscation from you kooks will make Oswald any
less guilty of killing Tippit than he is today, and was on 11/22. But
you'll keep trying, won't you?
>>> "Why did LBJ force him [Richard Russell] to be on the WC when he didn't want to?" <<<
Beats me. But LBJ and Russell were evidently very good friends (old
"southern boys" who got along, I suppose), and Johnson was determined
to make Senator Goofball Russell "My man on that Commission" (per
LBJ's own words).
I don't know why exactly either. But I'll tell you this -- if some CTers
want to now look back, in hindsight, and claim that Johnson was
stacking the deck with shills who would do LBJ's "Lone Assassin"
bidding for him right from the get-go, those CTers better re-think
that position. Because Russell was hardly a "Lone Nut" lapdog for
President Johnson (or for anybody else either).
For, if he had been, why in the world would he have been so vocal
about his displeasure with the Warren Commission's "Single-Bullet
Theory" or about the fact he thought there WAS a conspiracy
involved in the case?
Here's the famous arm-twisting phone call made by LBJ to Russell on
the very day that Johnson announced the formation of the Warren
Commission (November 29th, 1963):
>>> "All big ego VB [Vincent Bugliosi] is trying to do is show he could have convicted LHO, which he couldn't." <<<
He already did "convict" Oswald in a court of law....21 years before
"Reclaiming History" was published. Vince got a "guilty" verdict out of
12 sworn-in Dallas jurors in late July of 1986 in London, England (at
the TV Docu-Trial, "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD").
Sure, it was only a mock trial. I don't deny that. (Why would I?) But
it was treated the same as the Real McCoy, with 21 real witnesses
called to the stand and placed under OATH to tell the truth. A real
Texas Federal judge presided over the courtroom in London, and the
jury was picked the normal way, from the Dallas files.
And Oswald was declared "Guilty" by that Dallas jury. Like it or not.
>>> "[Bugliosi] didn't even address all the issues that have caused the debate for 44 years, that the WC did a horrible job." <<<
The WC did a magnificent job of arriving at the truth. A very good
example of this is the SBT and the WC's "bracketing" of the Zapruder Film
frames for when the Commission said that shot occurred. Very, very
good work, because they got it RIGHT, decades prior to today's more
sophisticated techniques of computer enhancements, etc., that can fine-
tune things so much more than they could in 1964.
But even without such advanced technology, the WC figured it out
anyway, thanks to their 5/24/64 detailed reconstruction of the event
in Dallas' Dealey Plaza, using surveyor's tools, a measuring stick,
the Z-Film as a general guide, and a whole lot of common sense as
well.
The Warren Commission's range of "SBT frames" (Z210-Z225) perfectly
meets with the later computer animations done by Dale Myers, who
places the SBT shot at Z223-Z224.
So, you can screw your "horrible job" claptrap when it comes to the
Warren Commission's investigation and re-enactment of JFK's
assassination. Because the WC went a lot further down the
"investigation" road in this case than they really had to go...and
it's probably about time more people start realizing what a very good
overall job the WC did during the relatively short 9+ months of their
existence in 1964.
And I, for one, am thrilled to see comments being made in print about
the effectiveness of the Warren Commission (like the ones shown below
that come from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History"):
"In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history." -- VB
~~~~~
"The very fact that the Warren Commission, by its noncategorical language ("very persuasive evidence"), did not unequivocally rule out the possibility that Kennedy and Connally were struck by separate bullets (in effect, not ruling out the possibility of a conspiracy) is itself extremely powerful evidence that not only didn't the Commission, or any portion thereof, set out to suppress the truth from the American people, but that its conclusion of no evidence of a conspiracy was not, as conspiracy theorists believe, a predetermined conclusion." -- VB
~~~~~
"The dreadful illogic and superficiality of the conspiracy theorists' modus operandi has inevitably resulted in the following situation: Though they have dedicated their existence to trying to poke holes in the Warren Commission's findings, they have failed abysmally to tell us (if the Warren Commission was wrong) what actually did happen.
"In other words, other than blithely tossing out names, they have failed to offer any credible evidence of who, if not Oswald, killed Kennedy. Nor have they offered any credible evidence at all of who the conspirators behind the assassination were.
"So after more than forty years, if we were to rely on these silly people, we'd have an assassination without an assassin (since, they assure us, Oswald didn't kill Kennedy), and a conspiracy without conspirators. Not a simple achievement." -- VB
~~~~~
"[Oliver Stone] wanted his movie, he wrote with towering arrogance in the January 1992 edition of "Premiere" [magazine], to "replace the Warren Commission Report." Can you imagine that? A Hollywood producer wants his movie to REPLACE the official and most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. .... Arrogance thought it already had a bad name. That was before it met Oliver Stone." -- VB
>>> "Like this loser is a mental giant, he [Bugliosi] convicted a whack job [Manson] and put innocent people away." <<<
Please list the names of the "innocent people" who were "put away" by
Vincent Bugliosi, Esq.
(You surely DO have a list of those names, right Mr. Mega-Kook?
Otherwise you'd have never been so stupid to open your yap about VB
putting away "innocent people", right?)
>>> "Nobody would even know who he [VB] is without this propaganda, and I think that is why he wrote this book along with the money -- to get press." <<<
And Vince sweats for 21 long years just to get some "press" when he's
73 years of age (which the Minnesota native, VB, now is).....right
Kookmeister?
It's not like he HADN'T received any "press" for his three #1 Best
Sellers ("Helter Skelter", "And The Sea Will Tell", and "Outrage"). He
got plenty of press and attention for those books.
But I guess he needed still more "press" in his senior years, huh, so
he took 21 years to write the ultimate JFK assassination book, which
is a book that (per you kooks) Vincent knows full well belongs in the
toilet, rather than on somebody's bookshelf....is that about right,
Mr. Kook?
Back to reality again -- Vincent Bugliosi is a good and decent and
honorable man who served the State of California as Deputy District
Attorney for eight years, and now the conspiracy clowns of the
Internet treat him like he was no more than a slimy worm under a rock.
You anti-Bugliosi kooks turn my stomach.
>>> "Ballistic experts have stated numerous times that a fragmentation bullet was used on JFK's head. That is the reason for the unbelievable damage." <<<
~sigh~
The skull damage isn't unbelievable at all. I guess you are totally
ignorant of the skull tests done for the Warren Commission by Dr.
Alfred Olivier of the Army, which were tests that positively proved
that a Carcano bullet can and WILL cause significant damage to a human
skull after entering that skull at full velocity from behind (just exactly
like what happened on Elm Street to JFK).
FROM DR. OLIVIER'S WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY:
ARLEN SPECTER -- "And at what distance were these tests performed?"
DR. ALFRED G. OLIVIER -- "These tests were performed at a distance of 90 yards."
MR. SPECTER -- "And what gun was used?"
DR. OLIVIER -- "It was a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano that was marked Commission Exhibit 139."
MR. SPECTER -- "What bullets were used?"
DR. OLIVIER -- "It was the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Western ammunition lot 6,000."
MR. SPECTER -- "What did that examination or test, rather, disclose?"
DR. OLIVIER -- "It disclosed that the type of head wounds that the President received could be done by this type of bullet. This surprised me very much, because this type of a stable bullet I didn't think would cause a massive head wound. I thought it would go through making a small entrance and exit, but the bones of the skull are enough to deform the end of this bullet causing it to expend a lot of energy and blowing out the side of the skull or blowing out fragments of the skull."
--------------
Dr. John Lattimer did similar skull tests in the 1970s, with his tests
corroborating Olivier's tests (i.e., the skull wounds via Lattimer's
experiments were remarkably similar to that of President Kennedy's
head wounds). You can have a look for yourself:
Did Olivier lie to the Warren Commission when he said those things
that I've reprinted above? And did Lattimer also lie when he said a
Carcano bullet like Oswald's did the severe damage to the test skull
we see in the photo above?
But, just ignore all of that stuff, Rob. After all, you have an "I CAN
IGNORE EVERYTHING THAT IS OFFICIAL" badge pinned to your chest.
So you're off the hook forever.
You, being a kook, never have to prove anything. All you have to do is
the same thing many other CTers like you do to try and skirt around
virtually all of the evidence in this case -- just claim that it's phony.
>>> "A normal military bullet would not have done that kind of damage. It would have left a hole a little bigger on exit but it would not have blown half the brains and half the skull away." <<<
See above.
You don't have the slightest effing idea what you're babbling about
from one sub-topic to the next. But it's fun to watch the self-implosion
anyway.
Re: the brain -- You are, as usual, dead wrong about "half the brain"
being blown away by Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano bullet.
Quoting Dr. Michael Baden (another person whom you no doubt would much
rather ignore than listen to):
"Basically, the president's whole brain was still there. The right hemisphere was severely damaged and torn, but less than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing from the cranial cavity." -- M. Baden
>>> "Who did the test? Probably not very reliable." <<<
The U.S. Army.
Aren't they "reliable" enough for you?
>>> "Remember, the Carcano is a low-velocity gun." <<<
But of high enough velocity (2,100+ fps muzzle velocity) to do what
Oswald's bullet obviously did to JFK's head in 1963.
You seem to think the Carcano was little more than a long bean-shooter
disguised as a WORLD WAR 2 MILITARY RIFLE.
>>> "But many tests have been done since this [1964] test. Many experts have weighed in in the last 15 years. You can't keep using the same tainted 1964 data." <<<
~chuckle~
The 1964 data done by the UNITED STATES ARMY experts is somehow
"tainted", but the newer tests are much more valid, is that it?
In other (kook) words --- If you don't like the results you get in '64,
wait around until some better "Anybody But Oswald" type of data
comes down the pike that can be used to discredit and supplant the
'64 stuff.
Only problem there is -- The 1964 Olivier/Army tests ALREADY PROVE
BEYOND ALL DOUBT that Oswald's gun and Oswald's bullets can and WILL
inflict wounds just like those sustained by President Kennedy in Dallas.
And also please remember that Olivier used Oswald's EXACT RIFLE
(CE139) for the Army's 1964 skull tests. It wasn't just a similar
"Mannlicher-Carcano". It was CE139 (#C2766) used by Olivier, and he
also used bullets from one of the exact same lot numbers used by
Oswald (Lot #6000).
Think up some more silly excuses. Because your arguments are
laughable when it comes to this subject of the skull wounds.
>>> "You ignore the more experienced [doctors] at Parkland that all say he [JFK] was hit in the forehead from the front." <<<
Name one single Parkland doctor who boldly claimed that JFK was hit
"in the forehead from the front". You can't name one, because no
Parkland physician made such a stupid claim in the first place.
Plus, the Parkland doctors were not "more experienced" with autopsies.
And it was AT THE AUTOPSY where the body was fully examined in detail
to determine the entry and exit wounds and the precise locations of
said injuries, etc.
To think that the Parkland people were studying and examining every
last inch of JFK's body to determine the exact locations of the
entrance and exit holes is just patently absurd in the first place.
Most of the Parkland personnel saw what they THOUGHT was a wound of
exit in the back of JFK's head, yes. I cannot deny that. But they were
proven wrong AT THE AUTOPSY, when no such "BOH" hole was discovered
or documented on paper or photographed or X-rayed.
Michael Baden said it well when he said this to Mr. Bugliosi (which
Vince puts in his JFK book on Pages 407 and 408):
"The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong. 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." -- M. Baden
>>> "The lower back [bullet?] hit him [JFK] a second or two prior to the head shot, thus he was moving forward for a second before impact of the head shot." <<<
Anybody who has not fallen to the floor in fits of laughter after reading
the above silliness regarding JFK's sharp and sudden head movement
FORWARD at exactly Z-Film frame 313 must either be graveyard dead
or has no sense of humor whatsoever.
David Von Pein
November 2007
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 1, 2007)
.gif){kind=link}