JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 601)


BEN HOLMES SAID:

>>> "The photo showing a bullet being dug out of the grass." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There was no bullet. That's your CT myth taking ahold.

If there was a bullet -- produce the damn thing! If you can't (or if you can't cite somebody who said they saw such a missile)...then shut up about it.


>>> "But the best medical evidence is that there WAS NO TRANSIT, isn't it?" <<<

Certainly not. The "best medical evidence" (coupled with just a small dose of common sense) is -- A thru-and-thru transiting bullet went through JFK's neck. The alternatives to this defy all belief, logic, and common sense. (And everybody should know why.)


>>> "Your "common sense" is another word for sheer speculation, isn't it?" <<<

Speculation based on "common sense" isn't an evil, you're-gonna-rot-in-hell syndrome to be ashamed of in many instances regarding this case. Not EVERY single thing CAN be answered with ONLY "evidence".

Why in the world WOULDN'T you apply some CS&L [Common Sense & Logic] to the proceedings at hand? You seem to think it's illegal to do so. Odd. And silly. (See "The Crazy Multi-Shooter, One-Patsy Theory" for examples of how CTers fail to use "common sense"; it's blatantly obvious there.)


>>> "Actually, there still *IS* one... although it's quite likely to be merely a shotgun pellet. On the other hand, perhaps it isn't..." <<<

Are you "speculating" here? That's a no-no, ya know.

Shotgun pellet?? LOL. Some great pro hit men you've got there. Using "shotgun pellets" on their Presidential hit. Hilarious.


>>> "And, in any case, the first and best medical evidence is for the neck wound to be an entry, wasn't it?" <<<

The FIRST "speculation" regarding that wound was that of "entry", yes. So what? Dr. Perry said it could be "either" an exit or entry wound. He's a liar, right? Or a Govt. shill. Right? Right.


>>> "That the head wound extended to the back of the head, which is, of course, IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile to the BOH photo." <<<

Today's dictionary lesson for Ben-boy....

http://webster.com/dictionary/somewhat


>>> "No, this [transiting wound] was speculation created *after* the body had already left the autopsy, as you well know." <<<

Sure. So what? How does that make a transiting wound impossible or even improbable?


>>> "Shaw was also quoted on 11/27/63 in the New York Herald-Tribune as stating that a bullet had entered the front of JFK's throat and "coursed downward into his lung [and] was removed in the Bethesda Naval Hospital where the autopsy was performed"." <<<

So? Who cares what Dr. Robert Shaw said on an AUTOPSY matter. WAS a bullet found in JFK's lung?

Answer: No. End of story. Shaw's comments are meaningless. Besides, was Shaw one of KENNEDY'S Parkland doctors??

Answer: No.


>>> "Or that you'll admit that Shaw was quoted on 11/29/63 in the Houston Post that "The assassin was behind him, yet the bullet entered at the front of his neck. Mr. Kennedy must have turned to his left to talk to Mrs. Kennedy or to wave to someone"." <<<

Ridiculous comments by Shaw (assuming you've got those silly quotes correct). He didn't have any more knowledge of JFK's wounds than I did at the time.

And your quoting CONNALLY'S doctor with respect to JFK's wounds and JFK'S AUTOPSY (which Shaw did not attend of course) is silly too.

But, being a CTer who likes to jump on every stupid thing imaginable -- let's just totally disregard the testimony of THOSE WHO WERE AT THE AUTOPSY and believe, instead, the word of a third party who was thousands of miles to the southwest at the time of Kennedy's post-mortem exam.

Yeah...let's do that, OK? It'll look good in court, too, to drag Dr. Shaw into court as an "expert" on JFK's wounds and JFK's autopsy (which he knew NOTHING about first-hand). Great Johnnie Cochran-esque tactic there. Keep it up. You're doing fine.


>>> "So kindly explain why we should accept a statement that Shaw has contradicted with far more explanation, and under oath?" <<<

Are you high on Groden Gas or something???!!!

Are you sure you're quoting the right doctor here? Shaw??? Who NEVER treated or even saw JFK at Parkland Hospital on 11/22? .....

Mr. SPECTER - Were you called upon to render any aid to President Kennedy on November 22?

Dr. SHAW - No.

Mr. SPECTER - Were you called upon to render medical aid to Gov. John B. Connally on that day?

Dr. SHAW - Yes.



>>> "Actually, according to Dr. Shaw, who was the medical doctor who was one of those treating Connally, he could have been struck by as many as 3 shots... and Dr. Shaw didn't find it "monstrously silly" to so consider." <<< Nor did he find it silly to state on Live TV on 11/22 that ALL of Connally's wounds were likely caused by "one bullet". If shot THREE times...where are the freakin' bullets? Naturally, they "vanished" into CT Smoke, right? Yeah, right. >>> "The FBI made quite a bit of stuff simply disappear." <<<

Speculating again, Ben? You know better, right?

IOW -- Prove it.


>>> "Didn't take long to toss the rifle in to a car trunk, did it?" <<<

Did the gunman/gunmen crawl into that trunk too? Must have I guess. Nobody saw him/them.


>>> "It was burned in a fireplace... remember?" <<<

And please explain the logic of Humes ADMITTING to burning ANY documents if he were on a "Mission To Make DVP's Life A Living Hell & A Mission To Make Ben-Boy (Not Sherlock) Holmes Look Like A Grandiose Sleuth 40+ Years Later"??

IOW -- WHY would he say ANYTHING about "burning" evidence up in his home fireplace when he had no reason to do so in a strictly "cover-up" mindset?

Humes is being boiled in hot CT oil for merely TELLING THE TRUTH regarding the "fireplace burning", and for actually using some COMMON SENSE when attempting to figure out how JFK was killed.

And Dr. Humes is also strung up by CT morons for merely placing into the official record THE ONLY CORRECT AND VALID AUTOPSY REPORT (post-Perry conversation).


>>> "With no other guns being eliminated as being part of the crime via other fragments." <<<

Nor was Oswald's C2766 weapon "eliminated" as the source of such smaller fragments. But you know that of course.


>>> "Yep...to LNT'ers, an observation made by medically-trained doctors on a topic that is their specialty means nothing if it doesn't support their "theory"." <<<

Would the above comment also apply to Humes/Finck/Boswell with respect to the "Only Two Bullets Struck President Kennedy" conclusion of their Official Pathological Examination on JFK?

And -- Would that argument also apply to Dr. Gregory with respect to the "micrograms" of bullet fragments left inside John Connally's wrist?

Or is that argument only valid when a conspiracy kook espouses it in feeble attempts to avoid the obviousness of Lee Oswald's lone guilt?


>>> "Quite probably [re: Ben's unsupportable belief that a bullet or bullets lodged in JFK's chest and/or lungs]." <<<

Oh, you must mean here that you are "speculating". Right? Which is something I'm not allowed to do it seems, ever. But you can do it when it suits your needs (and whims).

Nice double-standard. Thanks. I get it now.


>>> "Of course, Davey-boy is free to explain why Parkland felt the need to insert chest tubes if no damage ever occurred in the chest." <<<

Nothing mysterious there.....

"I asked someone to put in a chest tube to allow sealed drainage of any blood or air which might be accumulated in the right hemothorax." -- Dr. Malcolm Perry (to Warren Commission)

But at autopsy, it was concluded there was no significant damage to the chest or lungs (except for a slight bruising of the pleura cavity, which was NOT punctured or violated by any missile).

Wanna try another silly tack regarding this matter?


>>> "Untrue [re: bullets left in body], of course." <<<

OK. I'll bite. Produce those bullets you say were in his body.


>>> "Dr. Kemp [sic; LOL added here] stated at the 11/22 press conference that the head wound could have been a tangential wound. According to a newspaper article dated 11/27, he was still stating this." <<<

So? What does that prove?

Answer -- Nada.

(Think Dr. Clark might have been "speculating" there?)

BTW -- The doctor's name was "William Kemp Clark", not "Clark Kemp". ROFL.

But, then again, maybe "Clark Kent" was aiding "Clark Kemp" at Parkland on 11/22. Could be. Kent and Superman MUST certainly have been there....because nothing short of "Super Hero" status could have resulted in all those disappearing bullets and all the rest of that cloak-&-dagger stuff following the shooting.


>>> "You simply line it up with the hole in the windshield, and follow the line." <<<

And suppose you tell the rest of the world just exactly WHERE this "frontal" shooter could have been situated (with rifle in tow) within Dealey Plaza in order to achieve that "BOH" (far-right-rear) wound on JFK's head that most/many CTers believe existed in 1963.

Where was this killer? On the Overpass (amongst Holland, Dodd, Simmons, and TWO Dallas cops)? On the south side of Elm someplace? Perhaps James Tague was really the killer. Hey, there's a theory I've never heard spouted before. You could write a new book!


>>> "Hint: "SBT" means "Single Bullet THEORY". It's never been anything better than a theory - and one that has both ballistics experts and medical doctors who disagree with it." <<<

And (hint) it's also a "theory" that has MANY, MANY ballistics experts, doctors, animators, and investigators agreeing with its conclusions.

Shy of a reasonable, believable, based-on-the-evidence-in-the-case alternate CT theory to replace it, the SBT is still (by far) the best explanation of the double-man wounding that took place on Elm St. in Dallas. And everybody SHOULD know why this is.


>>> "When you have to lie to make a point, all you've shown is that you're willing to lie." <<<

The usual Ben-boy "Willing To Lie" mantra. I love it. Every time I see it, I love it more. No matter how stupid it sounds. Thanks.


>>> "Every [SBT] "test" has failed....beginning with the bullets fired into a cadaver's wrist by the WC, and moving up to the recent test done in Australia." <<<

All together now! -----

Bull----S**t!

If you think the Australian 2004 re-creation test "failed" to show the viability (or at the very least, the "possibility") of the SBT....you're as goofy as The Comic Book Guy.

That re-creation verified virtually every aspect of the SBT's potential doability; and anybody outside of CT Kooksville USA could easily see that was so.

And Dale Myers' SBT work only further cements the Single-Bullet Theory as closer to "factual" than "theory". And anybody with one eye who isn't buried a mile deep in books written by Marrs, Groden, Garrison, Mellen, Livingstone, and Fetzer could easily see that fact as well.

Apparently, Ben's stack of Fetzer and Marrs tomes is too tall to see around.
A pity.

David Von Pein
May 23, 2006