Amazon.com/Forum/November 23, 2007
Amazon.com/Forum/November 23, 2007
CONSPIRACY THEORIST RICHARD VAN NOORD SAID:
>>> "They [the non-Oswald bullets] didn't [vanish off the planet],
David." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Okay. Show me those bullets. Where did they go (PROVABLY so)? Or would
you like to merely "opine" about where they went, instead of using the
evidence on the table?
>>> "But let's use the correct science when trying to establish the day's events, shall we?" <<<
While we abandon all semblance of common sense at the same time, you
mean?
No thanks.
>>> "David "I'm going to prove my opinion by opining" Von Pein still
needs to get over that little fact the back wound was below the neck wound." <<<
No it wasn't.
No way.
No how.
Even Dr. Humes said that the back wound was higher:
"The angle which we observed in measuring...is one that the
point of exit is below the point of entrance compared with
the vertical." -- James J. Humes; 1964
>>> "I was in Dealey Plaza the other day, David." <<<
Which means you must have run into Bob Groden peddling his overpriced
wares, huh?
Speaking of Robert "10 SHOTS AND NONE LIKELY FROM THE SNIPER'S NEST"
Groden.....
After attending a screening of the new movie "Oswald's Ghost" the
other day, Groden was interviewed; and when the topic of Vince
Bugliosi's book came up, Groden said:
"[Bugliosi] mentions me about 80 times and 79 references are inaccurate."
I got a big kick out of that comment by RJG. So, Mr. Bugliosi (always
a very fastidious and meticulous perfectionist when it comes to the
material that appears in any of his true-crime books) apparently only
got one out of eighty things right when referring to Mr. Groden in
VB's book "Reclaiming History".
(No wonder Mr. Groden is considered an outcast even among many of the
wackier conspiracy-loving kooks of the world.) ;)
>>> "Do you still contend that [the first] shot hit the tree?" <<<
Yep. I sure do contend that. But I also acknowledge the possibility
that I'm wrong in that belief.
I think Mr. Bugliosi's hypothesis regarding the first (missed) shot
fired by Lee Harvey Oswald could conceivably have some merit too, but
I find his scenario much, much less likely than Gerald Posner's
"Bullet Hit The Tree And Deflected" theory.
>>> "Or are you going to back Max Holland's latest story, where a shot was fired at JFK as he was proceeding down Houston Street, and the bullet struck a traffic sign or overhang?" <<<
No way. Mr. Holland's "11 Seconds In Dallas" theory regarding the first shot
is not possible, IMO. More on that HERE.
>>> "Either way, it takes a vivid imagination for either account." <<<
Not really. And that's because, via the "Oak Tree" scenario that I
believe is probably true, the bullet that came out of Lee Oswald's
rifle at approx. Zapruder frame #160 and struck the tree could very
well have (and almost certainly did) change direction slightly after
striking the tree and partially fragmenting (see Commission Exhibit
No. 875 below).
But what DOES require the substantial use of one's "vivid imagination"
is believing in the kind of multi-gun shooting scenario that many,
many conspiracy theorists have placed their unwavering faith in for lo
these last four decades -- i.e., a scenario that features (literally)
NO BULLETS from any of the "other" guns used in the assassination.
And that CT scenario also features (per most theorists) THREE
vanishing bullets that must replace CE399 and the SBT. A remarkable
"Three Shots Look Like Just One" feat accomplished by those THREE
amazing riflemen. (And the CTers need THREE shooters too, make no
mistake about that. Because just two gunmen aren't enough to advance
that theory, based on the timing of the victims' reactions as seen in
the Zapruder Film.)
And yet I'm the one who has the "vivid imagination", eh?
Classic irony.
David Von Pein
November 23, 2007
