(PART 51)


>>> "Truth hurts, doesn't it?" <<<


It doesn't hurt me. But it makes you conspiracy clowns turn all
colors. (Mostly yellow.)

>>> "I personally think the photos were faked." <<<

Despite the HSCA's detailed examination of the autopsy photos, the
autopsy X-rays, and the "backyard" photos, which has the HSCA giving
ALL of that stuff a clean bill of "UNALTERED" health. Right, kook?

That must mean a SECOND Government body (the HSCA) was full of nothing
but liars and WC shills too. Right, kook? .....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
they had not been altered in any manner."
-- HSCA; Volume VII

"The backyard photographs [CE 133-A and B] are authentic. ....
The rifle in the backyard photographs is probably the rifle found in
the Texas School Book Depository."
-- HSCA; Volume VI



>>> "There is a core to this case..." <<<

You bet there is. And that "core" is this:

Lee Harvey Oswald (a non-patsy) shot and killed two men, all by
himself and with his own weapons, in November 1963. .....

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the most complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history. Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split
the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and
-- Vincent Bugliosi

>>> "...And then there are outside issues as well." <<<

Sure, in a kook's mind, there are "outside" issues. But that's where
those "outside" issues begin and that's, of course, where they end.
They certainly don't belong in the box marked "reality".

>>> "If he [Saint Oswald] was guilty in the shootings, I would point a finger..." <<<

No you wouldn't. Because you love the "He Was An Innocent Patsy" idea
too much.

And it's obvious you won't ever point a finger at a guilty Oswald, because
that's exactly what we've had (a guilty Oswald) for 44 years now.

>>> "...But he [LHO The Great] didn't shoot anyone, and you have no real proof he did." <<<

I've got so much proof that Oswald killed two human beings on 11/22/63,
it would (as I've said previously) make a prosecutor's mouth water.

There's so much stuff on the table against LHO, the prosecutor at that
trial (had there been one) could have PHONED IN his case against your
beloved patsy and still gotten a conviction. The defense would have
been embarrassed to show up at the courthouse (unless the lead
attorney was the late Johnnie Cochran).

A lawyer like Cochran, of course, would probably have been telling the
jury, without a granule of proof mind you, that four or five different
Mausers had been found in the Book Depository and that Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano had merely been "planted" there by evil, unnamed

And, just like most conspiracy nuts tend to do, the Cochran-like
attorney would have, as Vince Bugliosi has said, "[leaped] from the
most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions".

David Von Pein
November 2007