(PART 162)

Subject: "Elm Street: Oswald Killed Kennedy!" (New Book)
Date: 3/6/2008 5:42:26 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Francois Carlier
To: Dave Von Pein (and others)


Hello everybody,

This is a message from François Carlier.

As you know, I have been a French Kennedy-assassination researcher for

After having read all that was available, I am a defender of the
official version. I follow (and admire) people such as Jim Moore,
Gerald Posner, Kenneth A. Rahn, Vincent Bugliosi, John McAdams,
Vincent [actually "David"] Von Pein, etc.

Well, I have written a book (it took me years). It is completed. It
has been published. It is available.

The title is : "Elm Street. Oswald a tué Kennedy !". It is easy to
translate : "Elm Street. Oswald killed Kennedy !".

The title says it all. My book is much like Bugliosi's. Well, it is
ten times smaller, and not half as well written, and I am nowhere near
as good and competent as he is, but nonetheless, it will serve the
purpose of spreading the truth to the French !

Too much damage was done over here by French conspiracy author William
Reymond (you may remember him : he is the guy who claims the Zapruder
film was a fake and he had seen "the real one").

I had to let the French know that they had been bamboozled by that
conspiracy writer. ....

Best regards to all of you from France.

François Carlier


Subject: Re: Elm Street
Date: 3/6/2008 1:43:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: James H. Fetzer
To: Francois Carlier (and others)



Not to puncture your bubble, but since the "magic bullet" theory is
not only false, and provably false, but not even anatomically
possible--as I have explained in the attachment, which was presented
during an international conference held at Cambridge University--how
can you persist in defending the indefensible? Has science forsaken
France? This is very bad and sets an extremely poor example for
scholarship around the world.



Subject: Re: The Single-Bullet Fact
Date: 3/6/2008 5:40:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Dave Von Pein
To: James H. Fetzer (and others)


Not to puncture Mr. Fetzer's anti-SBT bubble, but even he should
realize that the SBT is the ONLY reasonable, logical scenario to
explain the double-man wounding of JFK and JBC on Elm Street on

To believe in ANY anti-SBT scenario is to put a great deal of faith in
a whole lot of incredible "SBT-like" coincidences and occurrences that
couldn't have happened in a million years (here on Earth anyway).

But maybe on Mr. Fetzer's "Planet Conspiracy", such incredible multi-
gun shooting feats that could easily be labelled: "3 Bullets Did All
Of This Damage To 2 Victims, But It Looks Like This Damage Could Have
Also Been Caused By Just 1 Bullet"
are merely par for the
assassination course in Mr. Fetzer's strange world.

But back here in the world of reality, common sense ALONE almost
proves the SBT to be true. And when we couple common sense with the
physical evidence in the case, then it becomes glaringly obvious that
the SBT is pretty much the ONLY possible way those two victims could
have been wounded in a simultaneous fashion on November 22, 1963.

In short:

The Single-Bullet Theory FITS.
The Single-Bullet Theory WORKS.
The Single-Bullet Theory is a FACT.

David Von Pein


Subject: Re: The Single-Bullet Fact
Date: 3/6/2008 5:49:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: James H. Fetzer
To: Dave Von Pein (and others)


Not that I am surprised anyone who supports the "magic bullet" theory
is going to disregard the evidence, but did you read the study I
attached? I think it is difficult to argue with evidence. Why not take
a look?


Subject: Re: The Single-Bullet Fact
Date: 3/6/2008 6:55:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Dave Von Pein
To: James H. Fetzer (and others)


Yes, Jim. I looked at it. It's the same old, tired, worn-out anti-SBT
tripe that's been spouted by conspiracy-loving kooks like you for
decades now.

Every item you mention in your anti-SBT article, of course, has already
been thoroughly explained in pro-SBT (i.e., non-conspiratorial) ways
many times over the years. But you just don't like the Occam's-like
explanations...so you'll stick with extraordinary explanations instead.

Good case in point being: The holes in President Kennedy's shirt and

When utilizing Occam's handy Razor (and when utilizing just regular
ol' garden-variety common sense as well), the controversy surrounding
the location of Kennedy's clothing holes is a complete non-issue


Because we know that JFK was struck in the upper back by just ONE
SINGLE BULLET....which HAS to mean that that ONE single bullet had no
choice but to have passed through the ONE single hole in JFK's jacket
and the ONE single hole that was located in JFK's shirt....regardless
of exactly WHERE on the clothing those holes are located.

Conspiracy theorists, however, like to argue about the precise
location of the holes in the jacket and the shirt. But WHERE, in the
long run, does that argument really take a CTer?

Does it take them down the path of: "More Than One Bullet Hit JFK In
The Back"

I doubt that even any rabid CTer believes that.

Or does it take them down the path of: "The Autopsy Pictures Are Fakes"?

For people like Mr. Fetzer, apparently they want to go down that
latter path, despite these words that appear in Volume #7 of the
HSCA's Report:

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
they had not been altered in any manner."

Go figure.

Many CTers also enjoy skewing and misrepresenting the majority of
evidence in the case, and they enjoy propping up the "neck" vs. "back"
controversy too, of course. But that's merely a matter of semantics,
and always has been.

The Warren Commission and Gerald Ford never "moved" the wound. It was
always located just where Dr. Boswell said it was located ("14 cm.
below tip of right mastoid process"
), which places it just exactly
where we find it in the authenticated-as-unaltered autopsy photo (a
photo that you, Mr. Fetzer, being the kook you evidently are, think is
a fake; which means, of course, that you've now got to include all the
members of the HSCA's photographic panel as being part of a covert
"cover-up" to hide the truth about the President's death).

And that type of talk regarding the House Select Committee is just
plain silly....especially when we consider the fact that the HSCA was
dying to actually FIND proof of a conspiracy in the JFK case.

And if they HAD "found" such proof via altered or faked autopsy
pictures, they most surely would have been shouting out that fact from
every rooftop and soapbox they could climb onto -- instead of telling
the world that all of the autopsy photos and X-rays "had not been
altered in any manner"


As author and fellow "LNer" Jean Davison has pointed out so very well
in some of her past posts on the Internet (which I've repeated below
in a January 2007 newsgroup post of my own):

"To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the
back wound up to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it,
because moving the entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT
trajectory, not strengthen it. ....

"I'll refer you to CE 903. Although Specter didn't drill a hole
in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done so,
the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a
string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18
degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during
the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT.

"If the rod is moved up to the neck, the bullet will exit well
above the exit wound under JFK's Adam's apple. .... The claim that
Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not true."
-- Jean
Davison; January 2, 2007

David Von Pein


Subject: Re: The Single-Bullet Fact
Date: 3/6/2008 7:53:16 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: James H. (Kook) Fetzer
To: Dave Von Pein (and others)


The trajectory is not even anatomically possible! The weapon is not
high velocity and cannot have fired the bullets that allegedly killed

He [Lee Oswald] was observed in and around the 2nd floor lunchroom at
11:50 AM, at Noon, at 12:15 and as late as 12:25 by Carolyn Arnold,
the executive secretary to the Vice President of the Book Depository.

Read Roy Truly and Marrion Baker's reports of their encounter with Lee
within 90 seconds of the assassination. He wasn't perspiring, he
wasn't out of breathe [sic], and he acted normally.

Marina even observed that Oswald admired JFK and had no reason to
shoot him. The alleged assassin had neither motive, means, nor
opportunity to have killed the President. But facts mean nothing to
the likes of you, who have no respect for logic or evidence [HUGE

We know where the man was hit in the back: 5 1/2 inches below the
collar just to the right of the spinal column. That means the wound to
his throat and the wounds to Connally must be accounted for on the
basis of other shots and shooters.

Sorry! The case is that easily closed using readily available evidence.


Subject: Re: The Single-Bullet Fact
Date: 3/6/2008 8:30:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Dave Von Pein
To: James H. (Mega-Kook) Fetzer


Oh goodie! A bunch of conspiracy-flavored myths being propped up as
new and true once more by a CT-Mega-Kook! How sweet!

And I love the myth about the back wound being located in the make-
believe (and wholly-unsupported by the autopsists) location of: "5 1/2
inches below the collar".

Since when was the "collar" of President Kennedy's shirt utilized as
the place from where the wound was measured by the Bethesda autopsy

Jimmy Fetzer, just face it -- you're a freakin' conspiracy-loving kook. And
probably always will be.

Hey, James, isn't it time for another dry-as-dust and evidence-mangling
session with Mr. Osanic over at Black Op Radio? Sure hope so. Because
those sessions provide more laughs than a whole DVD season set of
"The Simpsons".

With no regards at all,
David Von Pein