GARY AGUILAR SAID:
Oh, so then you're saying that [Larry] Sturdivan is wrong; that the NAA [Neutron Activation Analysis] is NOT the "Rosetta Stone" proof that Oswald did it, to use Sturdivan's own description.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh, I definitely disagree (strongly) with that type of "Rosetta Stone"
assessment, to be sure!
If Mr. Sturdivan said that very thing you attribute him as having said
about NAA (I'm not 100% sure, but I'll take your word for it, Gary),
then, yes, I positively think Larry is wrong regarding such a strong
statement.
NAA isn't the "Rosetta Stone", in my opinion. Far from it. Because
common sense ALONE comes very, very close to verifying (for reasonable
people looking at the sum total of the bullet evidence) that no other
bullets [other than Oswald's Carcano bullets] struck the two limo victims
on Elm Street on November 22. NAA is merely the icing on an already
adequately-iced "All Oswald's Bullets" cake.
IMO, the "Rosetta Stones" (if I'm allowed to have more than just one
single "Stone") that prove Oswald's guilt (and his almost certain lone
guilt) are the following things:
1.) Rifle C2766 being found on the 6th Floor.
2.) The paper bag (with LHO's prints on it).
[More on those items HERE.]
3.) Oswald's immediate departure (on foot) from the murder scene.
4.) The murder of Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
5.) Oswald's many lies that he told to the police after his arrest
(including the critical lie about the "curtain rods", i.e., LHO
telling police that he had never said a word to Buell Wesley Frazier
about "curtain rods").
GARY AGUILAR SAID:
Say, who's [sic] side are you on, anyway?!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The one marked "CS&L" (Common Sense & Logic). ;)
Which side are you on, Gary? The "Complicate The Uncomplicated" side
perhaps?
GARY AGUILAR SAID:
And history has always proven that the FBI lab can be trusted implicitly, hasn't it?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Which, of course, MUST mean that Hoover and his evil boys (including
the FBI "lab" boys and girls) would fake everything in sight (or pert-
near, per many CTers) when it comes to the assassination of their own
Chief Executive. Right, Gary?
Where's the proof that the FBI "faked" anything in this case? Or that
they hid anything from view in this case (with the one exception of
the Hosty note, which I'll readily admit was flushed down the toilet
in Dallas)?
But why on Earth would Hosty EVER admit to doing such a thing if the
FBI was really "behind" the assassination or the kind of massive
"cover-up" that many conspiracists suspect?
The "Hosty Note" topic reminds me of Dr. James Humes and his example
of truth-telling that backfired on him too. Humes ADMITTED flat-out
(on paper and in front of the WC) that he burned his autopsy notes and
the first rough draft of the autopsy report....and he's then raked
over the hot coals by CTers for telling that hunk of TRUTH.
But why in heck would Humes have ever admitted to burning those items
in his home fireplace (when he really didn't have to admit to any such
burning at all) if he was part of some kind of covert plot or cover-up?
It's just silly.
GARY AGUILAR SAID:
J. Edgar Hoover was a man of absolute reasonableness,
wasn't he?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No. By all accounts of the man, he was a kook and pretty much a
nutcase. But, so what?
He never liked to make left turns while being driven around (after
being involved in a fender-bender while making a left turn one day),
so he instructed his drivers to never make any left turns ever again
while he was in the car. Must've been fun planning J. Edgar's
excursions after that. ;)
Hoover was a kook in many ways, yes. But does that mean he plotted to
cover up the truth about the murder of his own President?
Plus, as I've said several times in the past, it's fervently my belief
that J. Edgar Hoover would have been anxious and foaming at the mouth
to REVEAL the existence of a conspiracy in the JFK murder, in order to
possibly exonerate Lee Oswald (which would have certainly relieved the
pressure that his Bureau was under after the assassination for having
not kept better tabs on this freak of nature named Oswald, who was
right under James Hosty's nose for several weeks prior to November
22nd).
Hoover certainly wouldn't have been trying to FALSELY CONVICT (as some
CTers seem to actually believe) the one man whom his Bureau should
have been watching more closely leading up to the assassination, for
Pete sake.
That theory is, again, just silly, IMO.
GARY AGUILAR SAID:
It must pain you to have to argue that men with better credentials than [Vincent] Guinn, [Ken] Rahn and [Larry] Sturdivan have concluded that Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan can't be taken to the bank, eh?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You can have the NAA stuff all to yourself if you want it. As mentioned
earlier, it's merely a coating of redundant icing on the LHO-Did-It cake
anyway.
Now, I'm not saying that it's not nice to have Guinn's NAA analysis in
the official record connected to the JFK case (as added "icing", that
is). Because it is nice to have that there. But it's certainly not
essential in determining the truth of the assassination.
And I'd still like to know just how big a crook/liar/schemer Dr.
Vincent P. Guinn was in 1977 and 1978 (per many CTers, that is).
By that I mean....What are the odds that Dr. Guinn would be able to
reasonably conclude (even via his 1970s standards and NAA methodology)
that only TWO bullets and no more were in the "mix" of bullet lead,
among the 5 specimens he examined for the HSCA -- and both bullets, of
course, coming from Oswald's gun (since CE399 and CE567 were 2 of
those 5 bullet samples) -- IF THERE HAD REALLY BEEN TWO OR MORE GUNS
being pointed at JFK in Dealey Plaza?
Was Guinn just a rotten chemist? Or was he deliberately skewing his
results to meet a predestined WC-backing "two bullets and no more"
conclusion when he said what he said about those five bullet specimens
in 1977-78?
Food for thought (IMO).
And allow me to once again quote the man who wrote the JFK Bible
("Reclaiming History"), Vince Bugliosi, with respect to the NAA debate
(all emphasis is Bugliosi's here):
"Even if the new findings [not the 2007 study however] were to render NAA, and hence [Dr. Vincent] 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 T. Bugliosi; Pages 436-437 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)
GARY AGUILAR SAID:
And the evidence that the pointy tipped bullet hit Kennedy and Connally is, exactly, what?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You tell me, Gary. It's certainly not MY silly theory.
But many conspiracy believers I've conversed with DO seem to like that
"pointy bullet" theory. Which, if true, means that either THAT bullet, too, was "planted", or it must mean that a pointy bullet hit Connally, did a substantial
amount of bony damage inside the Governor, and emerged in a condition that,
I would think, rivals the near-pristine state of the bullet all CTers love to hate and scorn -- Commission Exhibit Number Three-Niner-Niner.
It's a silly theory no matter which way CTers wish to go with it.
GARY AGUILAR SAID:
And the evidence Connally actually lay on that stretcher, rather than, say, Ronnie Fuller, is, exactly, what?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Was Ronnie hit by a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet (or ANY bullet) on
November 22, 1963, Gary?
The "Fuller" argument goes nowhere, of course. It's quite obvious that
Darrell Tomlinson was not paying strict attention to the stretchers
when he retrieved Bullet CE399 from Connally's stretcher (i.e., the
only stretcher, among the two available, that ANY bullet could have
possibly come off of).
But some CTers would rather rely on hazy human memories, instead of
turning to Occam's, whose Razor is razor-sharp in almost all aspects
of this murder case. (The constant obfuscation exhibited by conspiracists
notwithstanding, of course.)
Conspiracy-hungry individuals love to complicate things, even when
complicating things isn't necessary (or reasonable) in order to figure
out what probably happened in a given situation.
LNers, though, enjoy Occam's [aka Ockham's] company.
GARY AGUILAR SAID:
Has evidence proved that the bullet found on Ronnie Fuller's stretcher had passed through Connally?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Was Ronnie hit by any bullet on 11/22/63?
If not, where does the argument really go regarding any bullet being
plucked off of Ronnie Fuller's stretcher?
Were the plotters so stupid they couldn't even plant a bullet on the
correct stretcher?
There's nothing I hate worse than an overpaid, ignorant, bullet-planting
"Patsy Framer"! Don't you agree?
GARY AGUILAR SAID:
It's quite amusing to me that you've not touched on any of the examples I cited of VB's omissions and distortions of evidence.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
All chaff. That's what CTers love--the chaff. Even when the wheat field
is slapping them in the face daily. Go figure.
That's possibly what Mr. Bugliosi thinks too, when it comes to your so-
called cites of VB's "omissions and distortions of evidence".
For CTers, even when a logical, reasonable, Occam's-like answer is readily
available (and such answers exist for virtually every discrepancy and "oddity"
in this case), the conspiracy theorists, who are bent on promoting their
make-believe "plots" or "cover-ups", will opt for a more complicated,
always unsupportable cloak-and-dagger explanation to explain away the
discrepancy.
The CE399 debate is a perfect example of this. For, is it truly likely
for a bullet from Oswald's gun (which is a gun that we KNOW beyond all
doubt was, indeed, involved in the shooting of President Kennedy in
Dealey Plaza--CE567 and CE569 in the limo prove that fact without
question) to have really been "planted" or "switched" or "substituted"
(or whatever) shortly after the assassination?....
....Or is it really MORE likely for CE399 to be just what it seems to
be -- i.e., a bullet from Lee Harvey Oswald's very own rifle that was
found on 11/22/63 in the hospital where both shooting victims were
taken right after having been shot by rifle bullets on that very same
day and right after those two victims had been shot at by someone who
was using THE VERY SAME RIFLE THAT FIRED BULLET CE399?
Let me call up William of Occam and get his opinion. (I think I know
what he'll say.)
David Von Pein
December 2007
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 4, 2007)
