(PART 120)


>>> "The case for conspiracy was proven long ago." <<<


When was that, Bob? I must've been out of town or away from my
computer on the day that "conspiracy was proven" in the JFK murder

Please point me to this "proof". And then get ready to face the press
every day and rake in the millions when you write that bombshell of a
book that cracks the case wide open.

>>> "That's why when you take away the undecideds, most major polls show that you guys' position is only slightly more accepted than the Flat Earth Society's." <<<

Standard type of silly reply by a conspiracy theorist, of course.

Please put those numbers in context, Bob. After all, you love to
dissect things to the Nth degree....such as your detailed and
impossible-to-prove theory about the angle of the bullet trajectory
from JFK to JBC's back wound being only "2 degrees", instead of 10 or
so; and your wholly-subjective "Z285" ejaculations....so please
provide the details of all those people from those polls and tell us
what percentage of those CTers have done any substantial research or
reading or in-depth probes into the case.

Maybe after taking 14 years to track down those necessary numbers, you
won't be laughed at so much when you say things like "Most major polls
show that you guys' position is only slightly more accepted than the Flat
Earth Society's."

>>> "David, you...constantly [make] sweeping generalizations that you couldn't prove to save your life." <<<

I don't have to prove them, idiot. The "LHO Was Guilty" facts have
been proven multiple times and by multiple entities since Nov. 22nd,
1963. I and other LNers merely assess those facts, and repeat them,
endorse them, and bask in the truth of them.

Actually, it's rather hilarious that you, Robert, think that I (or
other LNers) are under the obligation to "prove" anything about this
triple-murder case (JFK/JDT/LHO) with respect to the ALREADY-PROVEN
"Oswald Did It" conclusion that has been reached by every single
official investigative organization that has tackled the case and its
associated evidence.

It's also quite hilarious to see Robert Harris throwing up that word
-- "prove" -- into the face of an LNer. As if Bob can "prove" a damn
thing he asserts regarding the assassination. Can you, Bob? (Except in
your own mind.)

>>> "If [the theories of Garrison, Lifton, et al] are "unsupportable", then you should have no trouble debunking them. So, why is it that you have to constantly run from our debates?" <<<

~LOL time~

What "debates" are those? Do you mean debates about the theories
espoused by the kook authors I mentioned in my comment you're
specifically responding to here (not counting Robert Harris) -- i.e.,
Brian David Andersen, Dan Robertson, Jim Garrison, and David Lifton?

You must be kidding. A six-year-old kid who has only read the first
half of the Warren Report and nothing else could debunk the above
crop of crackpot CT spin artists.

And that age requirement is reduced to a five-year-old when Bob
Harris' theories are included exclusively.

>>> "And why do you have to pretend that you can't see things that even your fellow nutters acknowledge??" <<<


>>> "If you were really RIGHT, then you would NEVER have to tell a lie, or misrepresent anyone or anything, David. You could deal straight off the top of the deck, and emerge on top every time." <<<

Which I think I accomplish....every time. That you don't think this is
accomplished by lone-assassin advocates is another reason you are
what you are -- i.e., a rabid "Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be"
conspiracy promoter.

>>> "If, tomorrow, somebody invents a hundred goofy theories, that doesn't change the reality of what happened, and it certainly doesn't prove that your particular theory is correct. There is ONE and only one set of facts associated with this crime." <<<

And it's a "set of facts" that indicates one thing definitively (despite
the weak-sister protestations of many a CTer) -- Lee Harvey Oswald
fired three shots at President Kennedy from the Book Depository, with
shot #3 killing JFK.

But to a CTer like Bob (and many others like him), this "set of facts
associated with this crime" -- facts that lead exclusively and
inexorably to LHO's guilt without a shred of REASONABLE doubt -- are
facts that aren't really "facts" at all. They are things to be twisted,
skewed, mangled, and distorted beyond all possible recognition.

Do you deny that Bob?

Of course you'll deny it. Because a CTer has the "true set of facts",
right? A CTer always knows better than the WC....or the HSCA....or the
autopsists who had their hands on the body of JFK.

And anybody who says otherwise is either a "Warren Commission
apologist" or a "disinformation" specialist of some kind or is a
person who just simply hasn't researched the case enough (i.e., a
person who hasn't logged enough assassination mileage to realize, as
CTers do, that it's utterly foolhardy to believe in things like Lee
Oswald's sole guilt or the Single-Bullet Theory).

So, you're right Bob....the "reality of what happened" in Dallas
doesn't change. It never did and never will. The things that change
(from day to day) are the unsupportable theories propped up by CTers
with nothing to do (it seems) but prop up unsupportable theories
relating to the events in Dallas on November 22nd.

But based on the reasonable reality of what happened on Elm Street,
Oswald shot and killed JFK. That's a certainty. And he almost
certainly did it alone.

As Bud said so very nicely and succinctly exactly one year ago (on
January 19, 2007) -- "[It was] either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone."

The first option in Bud's quote makes sense of course....the latter
option reeks with absurdity and is an option that is merely the
wishful-thinking of conspiracy theorists worldwide, many of whom have
become charter members of the "Anybody But Oswald" Club.

I repeated that very same Bud quote, in fact, just a few hours ago in
a comment I posted at Amazon.com, in response to another conspiracy-
hungry individual who said (in a typical kook-like rant):

"'Oswald's Ghost' is a blatant propaganda piece that makes no use of information gleaned in more than 20 years. .... [Director Robert Stone] does a great disservice to the American people by continuing the govt-media blackout on any and all evidence that counters the Warren Report's rigged findings."

Oh, well. Conspiracy kooks come in all shapes and sizes. (And they can
be found on virtually all websites.)

>>> "What's wrong with throwing out the junior high school debate tactics and making an honest effort to figure this out?" <<<

Another hunk of hilarity courtesy of Mr. Harris. He throws up to me
the earlier belly-laugh of a statement, "You are constantly making
sweeping generalizations that you couldn't prove to save your
.... and now I'm treated to, "Honest effort to figure this out."

As if a hardline, entrenched CTer knows what the words "honest effort"
even mean.

But, well, Bob, since I apparently haven't yet graduated from the 8th
grade, perhaps I don't have what it takes to evaluate the necessary
ingredients in the JFK Assassination Pot; and therefore I can't make
"an honest effort" when it comes to trying to figure out who murdered
John Kennedy (and J.D. Tippit) in 1963.

I, of course, think otherwise. I can see the ingredients in that JFK Pot,
and the parts marked "conspiracy" have been ADDED to that stew by
people like Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Oliver Stone, and many other
"assassination sensationalists" (to quote the Warren Commission's David
Belin) who just simply aren't satisfied with the ordinary and evidence-based
November 22 stew ingredients, so they have to spice it up with their own
unique seasonings.

Suddenly I'm hungry for some Dinty Moore Beef Stew.

Somebody pass the salt.

David Von Pein
January 2008