ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:
You CAN'T lie this away Dave, there was a hole in the windshield.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
At the end of today (like all other days), you and I are left with the same "Who Do I Believe?" question with regard to the "hole in the windshield" debate (and many other JFK debates).
You, Rob, being a conspiracy believer, choose to believe any and all things that you think will help you prop up your insane and obviously incorrect "Anybody But Oswald" theory.
I, on the other hand, being a non-conspiracist, will try to weigh the overall evidence, realizing that discrepancies are a part of life and realizing also that there's no possible chance on this Earth that a police officer named Stavis Ellis actually went up to that limousine and stuck a pencil through a hole in the windshield (even if there HAD been a hole in it); because such a belief is, frankly, just stupid. Why on Earth would ANYONE have a desire to stick a "pencil" through a hole in the windshield?
Can't you see how idiotic that sounds, Rob?
BTW, I'm doubting very much that Ellis said that he actually DID physically put a pencil through the windshield. I think he merely stated that if he'd wanted to, he COULD have stuck a pencil through it (in his [wrong] opinion). Big difference.
But the "non-kook" position on this topic is, of course, the only way to arrive at the truth. And that's because of the testimony of the FBI's Robert Frazier [see
5 H 68-71], plus the photos of the windshield [CE350 and CE351]. Frazier's testimony regarding the windshield always has and always will trump Ellis and all other "there was a hole in the windshield" witnesses -- no matter how many of those witnesses there are.
Also --
We know for a fact that the windshield was ONLY struck by a bullet from BEHIND, because the lead residue was only located on the INSIDE of the windshield's glass (Rob obviously must think that Bob Frazier just made up that stuff about the residue ONLY existing on the INSIDE portion of the glass).
But a conspiracy theorist like Rob Caprio has no choice but to dismiss the BEST evidence every time, on every subject. Because if he didn't dismiss the best evidence totally, then he'd have to admit that his favorite patsy was guilty of two murders in Dallas.
David Von Pein
November 28, 2008
