ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>> "You cannot link even ONE bullet to Oswald's rifle. The closest you can come is CE399." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Great. Now CE567 and CE569 don't count as "Oswald bullets" either. Is
that it, Bob?
Those two front-seat fragments, which were linked beyond all doubt to
Oswald's rifle, are suddenly NOT to be considered ballistics evidence
from Rifle C2766?
And I guess the three empty cartridge cases on the sixth floor somehow
got there as a result of the three bullets that were once housed inside
those cartridges NOT being fired from that sniper's-nest window on
November 22, 1963.
Is that your position, Mr. Harris? If so, go back to the drawing board,
because your position needs to be erased due to built-in silliness.
>>> "This is pathetic, David." <<<
Yeah, I thought the first quote from you in this post was pretty
>>> "That's just a lie [re: all 7 bullet shells connected with the JFK and
J.D. Tippit murder cases being positively linked to Lee Harvey Oswald's weapons]." <<<
Great (again). Now I'm telling a "lie" when I conclude that all seven
of the bullet shells (3 in the TSBD and 4 littering 10th St. and Patton
Ave.) were positively ejected from the two guns owned by Lee Oswald.
Where do you get your evidence, Bob? From Jim Fetzer's bathroom wall?
And an even better question (as Vincent Bug. is wont to ask on
occasion) -- Where do you BUY guts like this?
>>> "David, you need to stand back, take a deep breath and look at what you are trying to pass off as evidence." <<<
LOL. Yeah, imagine a person actually having the GALL to rely on the
KNOWN, VERIFIED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the case (which all, of course,
leads to some guy named Lee Harvey)?
That's kinda like arriving at the conclusion that the sun is hot by way of
standing in the middle of the Mojave Desert on a cloudless August
afternoon. And what kind of idiot would arrive at a silly, knee-jerk reaction
like THAT about the sun based on that "Mojave" evidence?
If it was Robert Harris standing there in the Mojave, he'd want a
whole lot more evidence to arrive at the "hot" conclusion. He wouldn't
be able to rely on the best evidence. He'd want to investigate further
and obfuscate the situation and mangle the obvious until the logical
conclusion about the sun being hot is suddenly in serious doubt.
Maybe it only FEELS hot to us? I'd look into that situation if I were
you, Bob. Maybe make a trip to that big bright star at the center of
our solar system. (And as the joke goes -- just make sure you go at
night, so you won't be burned to a cinder. Then again, maybe it's
really very COLD there, so you won't need to take the tongue-in-cheek
"night" precaution.) ;)
>>> "Suppose there was a shooting in your neighborhood and you told the police when they arrived that you saw one of the shooters. Would you expect them to then jump to the conclusion that there were no others involved? Well, that's EXACTLY what you are doing, David, and with absolutely no justification to exclude the other snipers." <<<
LOL time once more.
I'm trying to figure out WHY in the world any policeman would be
compelled to root around in the Elm St. sewers searching for a gunman,
even though ZERO people in Dealey Plaza approached a police officer
and exclaimed the following: "Hey! You'd better look inside that storm
drain there! I heard a shot from there! And I think I saw a gun
BACK TO THE FACTS----
The two main potential sources of gunfire where witnesses initially
said they heard gunshots (the TSBD and the Grassy Knoll/Picket Fence
area) were fully searched immediately after the assassination.
And what did the police find when they searched the Knoll and
surrounding parking-lot area (which was searched immediately after the
Answer -- Nothing. No shooter. No signs of any shooter. Nothing.
Were the cops supposed to PRETEND that the civilian witnesses (or the
policemen THEMSELVES who were in Dealey Plaza and HEARD THE SHOTS
THEMSELVES!) claimed to have heard shots coming from the sewers, or
the Dal-Tex, or the Records Building, or the top of the Overpass?
Should the police have abandoned the two areas (TSBD & Grassy Knoll
area) that the witnesses did point to as possible sources of gunfire
and, instead, proceed on a "wild assassin chase" and start scouring
the storm drains, sewers, and all other buildings WHICH NO WITNESSES
SPECIFICALLY POINTED TO AS SOURCES FOR THE GUNSHOTS?
Well, Bob? Should the cops have performed the above searches given
these parameters that existed on November 22nd, 1963?
If you truly believe, after 45 years of CTers finding no hard or valid
or substantive evidence of "other snipers" in Dealey Plaza, that I
have "absolutely no justification" when I and others conclude that
Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone -- then you probably shouldn't even
be walking around (or typing your silliness into your computer).
The "justification" for arriving at a "1 Shooter Named Oswald"
conclusion isn't ONLY based on what witnesses told the authorities
after the shooting (although, of course, that's part of it). But
there's also the BODY of John Kennedy (and his wounds and where they
were located), plus the wounds to John Connally and their locations,
plus the ballistics evidence (which is totally separate from any
witness statements about what they saw or heard), and Oswald's own
actions (and many lies) before and after 12:30 PM on 11/22/63.
All of this stuff (i.e., the SUM TOTAL of everything on the table, not
just what witnesses said occurred) can lead to only one reasonable
conclusion -- and it's not a multi-gun conspiracy plot. It's one man
taking his own gun into his own workplace on the day when that one man
knew the President would be passing right in front of that workplace,
with that one man (Oswald) getting lucky enough to find himself all
alone on the sixth floor of his workplace and getting off three shots in
8.4 seconds....ending John F. Kennedy's life.
Any other scenario apart from the one described above resides in the
file drawer reserved for UNFOUNDED, UNPROVEN CONSPIRACY-TINGED
Unfortunately, that file drawer is jam-packed with junk....and it's
becoming more jam-packed all the time by conspiracy kooks. Here's just
one recent (hilarious) example.
>>> "You remember Ferrie, don't you David? He worked for Carlos Marcello..." <<<
Which MUST mean, of course, that Ferrie was involved in JFK's murder.
Maybe if you look hard enough, Bob, you can find some tangential type
of shady associations relating to Mr. Ferrie, so you can then blame
Ferrie for the Stock Market crash in '29, the Korean War, and the
death of Malcolm X too.
How about the 1906 San Francisco earthquake? You can surely stretch
things a bit and blame somebody for a natural disaster like that too,
right Bob? Ferrie wasn't born yet, but a crack investigator like you
can surely come up with at least a short list of probable "suspects".
An earthquake can be MADE to happen, you know. I'd check into that if
I were you, Bob.
>>> "You need to change your schtick, David." <<<
Why on Earth would I want to do something silly like that? My LN
version of events fits absolutely perfectly with all of the evidence
(always has; always will).
And my overall LN "schtick" was certainly good enough for the DPD, the
FBI, the USSS, the WC, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission,
Emmy Award-winner Dale Myers, and veteran lawyer Vincent Bugliosi (who
certainly recognizes an empty "conspiracy" vessel when he sees one--
and he definitely sees one when it comes to the JFK case).
So why would I have any desire to abandon the actual evidence in the
case? And it's evidence that, in its aggregate and SUM TOTAL, adds up
to one undeniable conclusion -- Lee Harvey Oswald fired the only
gunshots in Dealey Plaza that hit any victims and he very likely had
no co-conspirators aiding him while doing so on 11/22/63.
Denying the above reasonable inference (based on that pesky sum total
of evidence that Robert loves to avoid--or ignore or skew) is just silly.
But, then too, most conspiracy theorists fall into the "unreasonable"
and "silly" categories.
David Von Pein
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 14, 2008)