(PART 596)


Can you support your side without references to the Warren Commission, Posner or Bugliosi?


Why on Earth would ANY LNer ever even ATTEMPT to "support" their "side" without references to the first (and, by far, best) report and inquiry regarding the whole case -- The Warren Commission Report?

Seems to me that that would be the same as trying to confirm how to spell a particular word, but then deciding that a dictionary ISN'T the best place to go to confirm it. .... Or hitting a home run, and not bothering to touch any of the four bases. Just...silly.

The Warren Report is easily the best and most complete volume concerning the JFK case (including the 26 supporting volumes). It's not a perfect report, no. And not every witness who could have been interrogated was interrogated, true.

But the Warren Report reveals the very, very likely TRUTH about the events of 11/22/63. And it hasn't been undercut in any major (bottom-line) fashion in all the years since its 1964 publication. (And it's certainly not for lack of CTers trying to undercut its LN conclusions.)


Why do you completely ignore the work of the House Select Committee on Assassinations?


I'll readily admit right now, I don't have nearly as much knowledge about the HSCA investigation as I probably should. (Probably due to the HSCA's basic and repeated "LN" conclusions that were already established by the Warren Commission. The acoustics debacle notwithstanding, of course.)

But let me ask Gil this:

Why do YOU completely ignore the pro-SBT conclusion of the HSCA panel? You obviously DO reject both the HSCA's and the WC's "versions" of the Single-Bullet Theory, because you think a frontal shot hit JFK in the throat.

And why are conspiracy theorists so willing and eager to toss out all of the "Oswald Was The Only Shooter Who Hit Anyone In The Limo With Any Bullets" conclusion that was reached by BOTH the WC and the HSCA? Why? ~cough~

Yes, I know that the two panels came to slightly different versions of the SBT (with differing probable Zapruder Film frame numbers for the SBT bullet strike), but COMMON SENSE was being utilized by both of those U.S. Government panels, because even though they wrestled with the EXACT Z-Frame that equated to the "SBT" -- both panels realized (based on the sum total of the evidence in the case that said they were right to realize it) that a ZAPRUDER FILM FRAME WITH A SINGLE BULLET TRAVELLING THROUGH BOTH VICTIMS *WAS* TO BE FOUND WITHIN THAT 26-SECOND AMATEUR MOTION PICTURE.

It's THERE! Positively. The HSCA and WC just had differing opinions as to WHERE on the film it was exactly located (with, of course, that damn freeway sign only serving to hinder both panels significantly -- and unfortunately).

But any reasonable researcher should be able to determine that a single bullet IS, indeed, going through both victims at just about Z-Frame #224.

Film analysis is subjective, yes. And there's no large black-lettered sign appearing on the screen during any of the frames in the Zapruder Film telling the world "THIS IS THE SBT FRAME, FOLKS!" -- but when evaluating the evidence in favor of the SBT being true (vs. the incredible and extraordinary things that must be accepted if the SBT is UNTRUE), plus when examining Zapruder's movie, a reasonable person has no choice, in my opinion, but to accept the Single-Bullet Theory as the correct scenario for the double-man wounding on Dallas' Elm Street in 1963.

And, of course, these four questions of Gil's [shown below] are really aimed at CTers, right? You can't fool me. These are questions for conspiracy believers only--without a doubt. ;) .....

"Do you ever get tired of trolling?"

"Do you ever get sick and tired of being wrong?"

"Do you ever troll newsgroups where you might actually KNOW something about the subject matter?"

"Have you ever written any articles to support your side?"

David Von Pein
March 21, 2007