C. CHOW SAID:
>>> "The LN arguments made here fail for the same reason Bugliosi's book fails. They are not arguments or theories; they are gospel not to be questioned or confirmed. Read and obey." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I doubt you even read the bulk of my many LN "Sum Total" comments.
But, in any event, the LN arguments presented by knowledgeable lone-
assassin believers are not just mere "theories". To say they are just
"theories" is just plain wrong (and, frankly, dumb). The lone-assassin
scenario is based on the HARD EVIDENCE in the John F. Kennedy and
J.D. Tippit murders.
And, like it or not, that hard evidence is telling a reasonable person
that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered those two men mentioned above in
Dallas, Texas, in November of 1963.
And CTers do not like that hard evidence, that's for sure, based on
the number of conspiracists who love to promote their own
unsupportable "theories" (correct word this time) year after year,
without a lick of hard evidence to back up their made-up theories.
(Hard evidence like: bullets, guns, shells, prints, or witnesses who
saw any gunman on Elm St. or 10th St. other than Lee H. Oswald.)
So, when given a choice between hard (LN) evidence and never-supported
(CT) speculation, which should we choose?
Not too difficult a decision really.
>>> "LNs make patently false statements and avoid addressing the real issues. .... A perfect example is how Bugliosi summarizes Wesley Buel [sic] Fraizer's [sic; it's actually Buell Wesley Frazier] testimony. He quotes Fraizer [sic] as seeing Oswald with a long package. Anyone whom [sic] has read Fraizer's [sic] testimony knows that the key issue is the size of the package. 22 inches "give or take" would make it far too small to hold a rifle. Bugliosi doesn't address the key issue and thus convinces only those whom [sic] have not read the Warren Report." <<<
The above is total bullshit, of course. For starters, Buell Frazier never said
the package he saw Oswald carrying was "22 inches". (Where did you get
this figure from anyway?)
Frazier's exact words to the Warren Commission in 1964 were these: "It was a package just roughly about two feet long."
Plus: Vince Bugliosi, in his JFK book, goes into a good deal of depth with
respect to the "package length" issue and Buell Frazier's observations.
It's just that Vince does a little something called "EVALUATING THE
SUM TOTAL OF THE EVIDENCE" when it comes to assessing each sub-topic
associated with the JFK case. This is something that the conspiracy
kooks of the world refuse to do. .....
1.) An EMPTY 38-inch paper bag is found underneath the 6th-Floor
window in the Book Depository from where gunshots obviously were fired
at JFK's vehicle.
2.) There's testimony from two witnesses (Frazier and his sister,
Linnie Mae Randle) who positively saw Lee Harvey Oswald with a similar-
looking bag on the morning of November 22. (And the bag had something
"bulky" or "heavy" in it when it was seen by Frazier and Randle that
3.) Lee Oswald's RIGHT PALMPRINT is found on the bottom (closed end)
of the empty bag on the TSBD's sixth floor. This is very incriminating
and Frazier-CORROBORATING evidence against Oswald, in that it
perfectly aligns with how Frazier said that Oswald carried the bag --
i.e., "cupped" in his RIGHT hand.
4.) Oswald's very own Carcano rifle is found on the sixth floor of the
Depository (the same floor where the empty bag is also found).
5.) Oswald's rifle turns up missing from its known storage location
(Ruth Paine's garage in Irving, Texas) on 11/22/63.
Adding up #1 thru #5 = Oswald took his dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle to work with him wrapped up in the brown paper bag seen by
Frazier and Randle on November 22, 1963.
Any other explanation fails to satisfy the above sum total of evidence
with respect to the brown paper bag.
Which means: Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle were wrong about their
estimates of the bag's length. It's the only explanation that makes
any "common" sense.
To believe otherwise is to believe that a DIFFERENT bag from the one
that Frazier and Randle observed just happened to turn up in the
Sniper's Nest -- empty and with Oswald's own prints on it, and a RIGHT
palmprint, to boot! -- on the very same day that Oswald took a shorter,
similarly-fashioned homemade-style paper sack into the same building
(as observed by Buell Frazier).
Is the latter explanation truly a reasonable alternative? I think not.
In fact, it's just plain silly (regardless of what Frazier and Randle
said about the dimensions of the bag).
Back to Bugliosi's thoughts on this matter:
"[Wesley] Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald's armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable from his Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his part based on his limited view.
"Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down" along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....
"Since he could only see this small portion of the package under Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your armpit."
"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....
"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front of his body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial [in 1986] I asked Frazier, "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it?" and he responded, "That's true."
"The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather [of CBS News in June 1967], who rhetorically told his audience, "You can decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"." -- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)
And about those "curtain rods" that Oswald said he took to work on the 22nd:
>>> "This strategy is typical of LNs. David Belin's 'November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury' is a defense of his WC investigations into the TSBD and Tippit murder." <<<
And a darn good book, too (despite your CT-skewed opinion of it):
>>> "Calling WC critics "nuts" will not only fail to convince those "nuts", but it will also turn away those listening to you." <<<
But it's so much fun to call a spade a spade when it's 100% appropriate.
Don't you agree? (And "kooks" is much better than "nuts", IMHO. The "K"
word has a much nicer ring to it.)
>>> "Vincent Bugliosi is very helpful to the JFK truth cause. He came off as a raving lunatic. This was the conclusion of the TV and radio talk show hosts who rushed him off air after he insulted them." <<<
Huh? What "shows" (plural?) were those, C. Chow? First I've heard of
it. It certainly wasn't any of these many programs featuring VB:
>>> "If the Parkland doctors were too "traumatized" to accurately describe the wounds they observed, then they would have been vague and contradictory. Instead, they are all consistent and coincide with both the Dealey Plaza witnesses and photographic evidence." <<<
The above statement certainly isn't accurate at all. Besides Clint Hill, name one "Dealey" witness who described the location of JFK's head wound in a specific manner that coincides with the Parkland "BOH" wound witnesses. Offhand, I can't think of any.
[Clint Hill, btw, is also on record as saying that JFK's large head wound was located "above the right ear", which perfectly corresponds to what we see in the Zapruder Film and in the autopsy photographs and X-rays.]
I can, however, produce a Dealey Plaza witness who described the head wound in just the OPPOSITE way from the Parkland personnel -- Abraham Zapruder:
And there's also Gayle Newman:
And as far as the "photographic" evidence backing up the Parkland witnesses, you must truly be crazy if you believe that. Because the autopsy pictures and X-rays are in direct contradiction to the Parkland people.
>>> "The Parkland doctors have been extremely consistent over the years. In documentary after documentary, they have stood by their conclusions and, being shown the Abraham Zapruder (or as the LN documentary 'Beyond Conspiracy' calls him, "Leon Zapruder") film, agree that the frontal head shot seen in the film is consistent with the wound they observed." <<<
That's good to know. Because if that's true, then JFK certainly didn't have a large hole in the back of his head, because Zapruder's film shows no such wound whatsoever, and only a fool (or a blind person) could believe otherwise.
"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large exit wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly provide better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively, and beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 and frame 328 clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the RIGHT FRONT of the president's head. THE BACK OF HIS HEAD SHOWS NO SUCH LARGE WOUND AND CLEARLY IS COMPLETELY INTACT." [Bugliosi's emphasis.] -- VB; Page 410 of "Reclaiming History"
BTW, Abe Zapruder wasn't referred to as "Leon" anywhere within the Peter Jennings ABC-TV documentary in 2003. He was called "Leon" only on the back cover of the DVD [see picture below], which was distributed in April 2004 by a company called "Koch Vision". So go blame "Koch" for that error, not Peter Jennings and his excellent "Beyond Conspiracy" program.
David Von Pein
December 12, 2007
November 19, 2011