(PART 146)


>>> "You need to start showing some proof that I'm a kook..." <<<


I don't need to show any further proof of that particular fact, my
friend. Your idiotic "Anybody But Oswald" type of posts perform that
"He's A Kook" task all by themselves.

I merely add the "K" word constantly (for effect...and emphasis). But
it's obvious, even without my participation.

Oddly, though, Robert C. doesn't seem to realize this fact. Curious.

But, I guess it's kind of like being an alcoholic....they usually
don't realize what they are either. Maybe the same thing applies to
JFK Conspiracy-Loving Morons/Kooks.

>>> "Everything I write is supported by nearly 90% of the
population." <<<

LOL #1 for the day.

Robby actually thinks (or seems to think) that "90% of the population"
can "support" (his word, "support") his incredibly stupid "LHO Shot No
One" notions regarding the 1963 murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit.

LOL #2.

In the first place, of course, the "90%" figure continually cited by
Rob and his ilk is drastically over-inflated.

And in the second place, as we all know (except Rob evidently), the
percentage of "well-informed" people regarding the evidence in the JFK/JDT
murder cases (when it comes to ANY percentage of Americans who fall
into the "It Was A Conspiracy" category via the polls that have been
conducted on the subject) is extremely low.

Which means, as fellow LNer Bud has correctly pointed out to various
other people on this forum in the past, that anyone who likes to prop
up the high percentage of Americans who believe in some sort of plot
or conspiracy in the JFK case are propping up the stats of mostly ignorant
people when it comes to the details and the SUM TOTAL OF EVIDENCE
connected to this case.*

* = Before I get jumped on here by Rob (in case his mind moves in this
direction)....I will also state here that even the poll respondents
who believe in the "Lone Assassin" scenario also probably fall into
the "Not Well-Informed" category, the same as the higher percentage of
pro-conspiracy respondents in those polls.

But, even so, I have a gut feeling that the 19% of people who (as of
the Nov. 2003 Gallup Poll) believe the Warren Commission got it right
are probably a tad bit better informed on the facts of the case than
are the 75% who believe in a conspiracy (as of the same 2003 poll).

>>> "The speed [of the motorcade]...was key, as [Lee Harvey Oswald] chose a window with a HUGE tree in the way, so if the car was traveling at 44 mph as usual, it would have blown right by." <<<

LOL #3.

I'm not entirely sure if the "44 MPH" rule for the minimum speed of a
President's car was in effect as of 11/22/63. But even if it was, it's
a rule that cannot possibly be strictly maintained and followed during
every portion of a particular motorcade.

Can you just envision JFK's heavy stretch limo making the hairpin turn
at Elm & Houston (or ANY turn for that matter!) at 44 MPH or more?!
The car would have probably been on two wheels. (LOL #4.)

Along similar "44 MPH"/Security lines --- Can Rob (or anyone) provide
proof that a strict "MPH" speed restriction had been utilized and
FIRMLY ADHERED TO during ANY previous pre-11/22/63 motorcade drive
involving President Kennedy?

Via several films that exist of JFK's previous motorcades, it's quite
obvious that the car which contained the President was NEVER moving at
a speed which exceeded "44 MPH" in those filmed motorcade excerpts,
including JFK's Inaugural parade through the streets of Washington on
January 20, 1961.

The "44 MPH" rule is just not a realistic one for the Secret Service.
It's a nice rule/restriction "on paper", but is it a doable restriction all
of the time in EVERY motorcade involving an American President?
I kinda doubt it.

>>> "...Police protection being reduced to just four motorcycles and told to stay away from the sides of the limo so the crowd could see the President (wink-wink)." <<<

Stop flirting with me, kook. You're not my type.

As for the motorcycles and JFK's "protection", CTers love to talk
about how the security for JFK was lax on 11/22/63. Maybe those same
CTers ought to search through the many pictures taken of JFK during
the various motorcades that he drove in throughout his nearly 3 years
as President.

And while you will find some pictures of the Secret Service agents riding
the bumpers of JFK's limo, like these two examples here....

....Many photos can also be located which show JFK's car completely
clear of Secret Service agents (and without any motorcycles riding
right next to the President's car door). Random examples:

So, quite obviously, the security procedures on 11/22/63 were NOT

This type of "JFK SHOULD HAVE HAD MORE PROTECTION" argument reminds me
of two other similar type of arguments that are often propped up by
conspiracy theorists as proof that something shady or
conspiratorial was occurring with respect to JFK's murder:

1.) The fact that the Dallas Police Department did not transcribe or
record any of Lee Harvey Oswald's twelve hours of interrogations after
he was arrested.

It might seem a little odd for the words of accused double-murderer
Oswald to have not been officially transcribed in some manner. But
what I think CTers need to do to take this argument any further would
be to establish as FACT that the DPD (or the FBI or the USSS, for that
matter) had a policy in place of transcribing and/or tape recording
the statements made by a suspect while in police custody.

If no example can be found of the DPD (or FBI, etc.) ever having
recorded the words of a prisoner/suspect prior to 11/22/63, then why
would anybody expect the Dallas Police Department or FBI to change
their habit of NOT recording a suspect's statements
when November 22
rolled around?

"No, sir; I don't have a tape recorder. We need one, if we had one at this time we could have handled these conversations far better." -- DPD Captain J.W. Fritz


2.) Earlene Roberts' testimony about a police car stopping in front of
the roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff and honking
its horn while Lee Oswald was inside his room.

This supposed horn-honking incident is often used by CTers to try and
show that something shady and conspiratorial was going on involving
the horn-honking cop(s) and Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22nd.

But the CTers who like to use this argument almost always forget the
fact that it was not UNCOMMON at all for that EXACT same type of
activity (i.e., a police car stops in front of Roberts' roominghouse on
Beckley and honks its horn) to occur PRIOR TO THE DAY OF THE

Roberts testified that officers would occasionally stop in front of
the roominghouse and tap the horn lightly (just like what Roberts said
occurred on 11/22).

If 11/22 had been the ONLY instance reported by Earlene Roberts of the
horn-honking police car, then perhaps CTers might have a better
argument in the "Something Seems Shady Here" department.

But since that EXACT same occurrence had transpired prior to the date
of the assassination, in the very same way Roberts said it happened on
November 22, it seems to me to be pretty much a non-issue altogether.

"It [a Dallas police car] stopped directly in front of my house and it just 'tip-tip' and that's the way Officer Alexander and Charles Burnley would do when they stopped." -- Earlene Roberts

>>> ..."And the President being gracious enough to ride to his death exactly at lunch time for the workers of the TSBD, so no one would be
[on] the upper floors for the most part. Boy, that does make perfect sense." <<<

LOL #5.

Spoken by the kook as if President Kennedy HIMSELF decided on the
exact time he would drive by the Texas School Book Depository on
November 22.

LOL #6!

And seeing as how the President's main speech in Dallas on 11/22 was
scheduled to be a LUNCHtime speech, it seems likely that the President
would most likely drive through Dealey Plaza at approximately LUNCHtime.

But maybe we should utilize some of Robby's logic here. Perhaps the
Secret Service should have taken the extra precaution of driving JFK
to the Trade Mart luncheon at dawn on November 22nd, i.e., before
anybody showed up for work in the TSBD.

That would have made for a pretty sparse crowd along the motorcade
route, of course. But to be on the safe side, the SS should have taken
JFK to the Trade Mart when the rooster crowed...don't ya think Rob?

BTW, as an aside to this "lunchtime" issue (and extending to the
additional "luck" for Oswald of having JFK drive by the Depository on
a workday, instead of a weekend day), I've offered up some more of my
thoughts on those "luck" factors HERE and HERE.

>>> "Again, how incredibly luck[y] for a non-driving assassin to have the President come to him with hardly any protection and at very SLOW speeds, huh? Luckiest assassin in [the] history of mankind." <<<

Yes, Oswald was very lucky indeed on November 22. He was lucky when
the President came right by the building (very slowly). He was lucky
enough to be employed in the building. He was lucky enough to own a
rifle that was capable of killing the President. And he was lucky enough
to have had enough Marine training in firearms to be skilled enough to
be able to hit the President and kill him with one or more of the shots
he fired that day.

Yes, Oswald was one "lucky" SOB on November 22nd. I've always said
that, in fact (such as in this article from 2006).

But...so what?

How does his overall "luck" change the "OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY" evidence
in the case at all?

CTers think that all of this "luck" was pre-arranged by other people
who wanted the President dead, right Robby?

Good luck proving that ANY of the items on Oswald's "lucky" list were
manufactured by any non-Oswald individuals. You'll need a truckload of
luck yourself in proving anything like that, because there is no proof that
Oswald was anything than what he appeared to be -- i.e., one lucky
Presidential assassin who happened to find him all alone on the 6th Floor
with his own rifle in his hands at 12:30 when JFK rode past the TSBD.

>>> "...The police would determine in a few minutes the shots came from [Oswald's] workplace, and NOwhere else, in a plaza that was equivalent to a [sic] echo chamber. Sure, that makes a bunch of sense." <<<

It makes sense to a sensible person. Especially when considering how
the THREE SHOTS that the huge majority of witnesses said they heard
line up perfectly, numbers-wise, with the number of bullet shells
(THREE) found in that workplace of Oswald's.

>>> "Yeah, how lucky that the President came to him out of all the places in Dallas, huh? If only Connally and others in on the assassination would have left the luncheon at the Women's club instead." <<<

Time for LOL #7. So now the kook seems to be asserting (at least via
the "and others" verbiage utilized above) that John Connally was "in
on the assassination".

Other kooks have pointed an accusing finger of guilt at John B. Connally Jr.
too. And, of course, such an accusation is complete crap. For Connally, if
involved in any plot to kill JFK in Dallas, was a man who KNEW he'd be
pretty much directly in the line of fire as a result of sitting in front of the
intended target in the Presidential limousine. And, of course, as things turned
out, Mr. Connally WAS, indeed, very nearly killed himself in Dealey Plaza.

And yet I've heard several CTers offer up their opinions that John Connally
was a key "conspirator" in a plot to kill President Kennedy. Just ridiculous
beyond all belief.

LOL replay -- #8 of the day (just for those keeping a scorecard).


>>> "If only Connally and others in on the assassination would have left the luncheon at the Women's club instead." <<<

If the Women's Club had been selected as the luncheon site, it's very
likely that JFK would have lived to see the dawn of November 23, 1963.

Or, perhaps the "CONNALLY WAS PART OF THE PLOT TOO" kooks would prefer
to believe that if the luncheon site had been someplace other than the
Trade Mart, Governor Connally HIMSELF would have packed a rod during
the motorcade and would have rubbed out the President, in lieu of the
active participation of a Depository sniper or a Grassy Knoll gunman.

What about it, Robby? You can surely find some make-believe evidence
in your bag of unsupportable CT tricks in order to put a gun in
Connally's hands on November 22nd, right?

After all, a good Anybody-But-Oswald kook never lets the real evidence
(and the laughable nature of a particular theory) get in his way of throwing
such a theory on the CT table for consideration. Right? (Right.)

>>> "[Lee Harvey Oswald] wasn't suicidal? Since when? You have him leaving shells, poorly hiding the rifle (which wasn't his by the way) [yes, it was; but, being a kook, you're forced to think otherwise], leaving his wallet at the JDT scene [very unlikely], leaving more shells, getting on a bus that was heading back the way he just walked...and you say he wasn't suicidal?" <<<

If Lee Oswald had been suicidal on 11/22/63, the police would have found
him lying in a pool of his own blood in the Sniper's Nest.

And it's obvious that he had a desire to NOT GET CAUGHT when he shot
J.D. Tippit four times at nearly point-blank range on Tenth Street.

And it's also obvious that Lee wasn't in a mood to go to jail (or to bite
the dust) when he was confronted by Officer McDonald in the Texas Theater
either....seeing as how he pulled his gun on McDonald and attempted to
use it on the policemen that were surrounding him. (Or was Oswald merely
reaching for the revolver in his waistband in order to take it out for
"Show & Tell" purposes, with no intention of pulling the trigger of the gun?)

Oswald left a popcorn trail behind him, yes. But he also told us (in various ways) that he wanted to live to see another day too.

>>> "Every piece of evidence you put forth says [Oswald] didn't want to get away, but then when arrested he denies it all? Talk about making NO sense at all." <<<

Oswald's escape plan was crappy, yes. I admit that. And always have.
(Who could possibly say that LHO had a good escape plan?)

And Oswald leaving behind his literal popcorn trail of evidence wasn't
exactly well-thought-out or wise either. I cannot deny that either.
(Who could?)

But it's also obvious (from the sum total of evidence) that Oswald DID
KILL KENNEDY AND TIPPIT. And it's obvious to me that he was not
particularly anxious to join the world of dead people either.

Oswald's secretive manner possibly provides a hint as to the reason he
denied killing the President. He seemed to like to have secrets. And he
liked to be in control of things.

And he no doubt enjoyed playing with the DPD and the FBI (whom he
despised, because of the Feds always checking up on him after he
returned from Russia).

In short -- Oswald didn't NEED to confess to the crime. He knew the
evidence trail he left behind would tell the world who the real killer
of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit was -- Lee Harvey Oswald (aka:
A.J. Hidell / D.F. Drittal).

Another thought I've had recently regarding the "popcorn trail of evidence"
(as I like to call it) is this:

It's just possible that Oswald, in a pre-planned manner**, DELIBERATELY
and INTENTIONALLY left behind that trail of physical evidence that he HAD
to know would convict him ten times over for the murder of President John F. Kennedy.

** = At least as far as the JFK shooting was concerned; but not necessarily
in the Tippit killing, since he couldn't possibly have PRE-planned that
murder before November 22nd too.

In any event, Lee Harvey Oswald got the attention he desired for
killing the President of the United States. Even by NOT CONFESSING he
got that attention. And he's still getting it today.

>>> "After 44 years, you still can't put LHO in the SE 6th-floor window at 12:30 p.m. on 11/22/63 with a rifle in his hands." <<<

Sure I can. The evidence performs that task quite nicely. From Brennan's observations, to Fischer's, to Edwards', to Rifle C2766 being where it was
found (the 6th Floor) after the shooting, to the three shells from that same
gun being found in the same place where Brennan puts Oswald, to LHO's
own prints being all over various objects in that same Sniper's Nest (2 boxes
and the empty paper sack), to Oswald's own guilty-like actions after the
assassination, and then to Oswald's many provable lies that he told
after his arrest.

The above SUM TOTAL of evidence (plus other bits and pieces as well)
tell a reasonable person that Lee Oswald was firing rifle bullets out of a
sixth-floor Depository window on 11/22/63.

Care to join the ranks of "reasonable people", Rob?


Only 7% of the population (per a 2003 poll which asked the specific
question about Oswald being a "gunman") sides with you Anybody-But-
Oswald kooks on this topic. 83% of the 1,031 people asked think that
Oz was a gunman. Naturally, you, being a kook, will ignore that
interesting stat.

>>> "So LHO had to be the "workplace assassin", huh? He was ahead of the curve from future Postal workers I guess. EVERY other assassin in history used a knife or handgun up to this point, but LHO decided to
break the mold I guess and make it as hard as possible and hope to get lucky." <<<

Shame on Ozzie for not living up to a kook's expectations on how he
SHOULD have approached the task of assassinating a U.S. President.

Since other assassins used knives and handguns, Robby The Kook thinks
that that is how Oswald HAD to try and kill President Kennedy.

Wow, Rob. That's using your noodle alright, while at the same time
ignoring all of the evidence that says Oswald used his Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle to kill the President from his place of employment.

Good job. Your record is still intact. You're still batting .000, without
even a foul tip to your credit.

>>> "Naive was being nice, we all know what you really are, don't
we?" <<<

Yep. A non-kook who actually looks at the hard evidence in the JFK
case and reaches logical conclusions based on that evidence.

Go figure the logic of a non-kook like me, who isn't prone to jumping
on the "ALL THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FAKED" bandwagon. An astounding
mindset, huh?

>>> "JFK, MLK, and RFK to start with?" <<<

None of the killings above were conspiracies, of course. So, you're
still perfect -- not a single base hit in 2007-2008. Good man.

>>> "Lincoln, McKinley and Garfield come to mind in just American history. NO one man wants the President dead so bad he will take the risks necessary to do this; it is always a matter of groups wanting to take control of the process." <<<

Now Robert is really sinking deep into the Conspiracy Kook Pit with the
above hilarious hunk of tripe.

What about John Hinckley, Rob? Who was "behind" his act of shooting
Ronald Reagan in March 1981? (Was Jodie Foster the mastermind of that
one-gunman shooting? Was Hinckley working for the CIA? The Mafia? The
Teamsters? Or maybe angry members of the Screen Actors Guild, who
might have had some sort of beef with Reagan from years earlier?)

Also: Who was "behind" Squeaky Fromme's attempt on Gerald Ford's life
in 1975?

And who was "behind" Sara Jane Moore's attempt on Ford's life, also in

Did Charlie Manson, from his jail cell, tell Fromme to "rub out Ford"?

Please tell us, oh great kook, how the three Ford/Reagan assassination
attempts in 1975 and 1981 were the result of conspiracies?

And if you can't tell us how those three attempts add up to conspiracy,
then I get to reserve the right to come back into this thread and throw
the following verbatim quote of Robby's back into his kooky face (which
I'll do right now anyway, just for fun).

Yes, kids, Rob The Kook (who apparently always types before he thinks about
what he's typing, actually said the following words on February 22, 2008. An
automatic 45-minute laugh break will be permitted after re-reading this hunk
of idiocy authored by Mr. Caprio:

"NO one man wants the President dead so bad he will take the risks necessary to do this; it is always a matter of groups wanting to take control of the process." -- R. Caprio

Thank you, Rob, for affording me this additional opportunity of
pounding your wholly unsupportable and weak-sister conspiracy-flavored
garbage into the ground once more.

For some inexplicable reason, Rob doesn't seem to mind having himself
revealed again and again as the Mega-Kook he so obviously wants
everyone to think he is.

Whether this is merely an act on his part, I cannot say. (I never have
been able to figure out the inner workings of a kook. ~sigh~ Oh, well.)

David Von Pein
February 2008