JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 710)


BEN HOLMES SAID:

James Chaney...pinpoints this "bang-bang" as being separate shots to JFK and Connally.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Conspiracy theorists will forever ignore the multiple witnesses who said the shots were pretty much "EVENLY SPACED" vs. being "bunched together". Below are 7 such "evenly spaced" examples, and I could probably find more than this if I wanted to dig even deeper into the Warren Commission volumes and my audio/video archives.

This list also includes Nellie Connally too, because she is a witness who thought the second and third shots were further apart than the first and second shots, which is an observation that doesn't do the conspiracy theorists any good at all:


James Romack:

Mr. BELIN. How many [shots] did you hear?
Mr. ROMACK. Three.
Mr. BELIN. How close did the shots sound like they came together?
Mr. ROMACK. Oh, they happened pretty fast. I would say maybe 3 or 4 seconds apart.
Mr. BELIN. Were they equally spaced, or did one sound like it was closer than another one in time?
Mr. ROMACK. It sounded like to me that they were evenly spaced.

-------------------

Marrion Baker:

Mr. BELIN - Do you have any time estimate as to the spacing of any of these shots?
Mr. BAKER - It seemed to me like they just went bang, bang, bang; they were pretty well even to me.
Mr. BELIN - They were pretty well even.

-------------------

Tom Dillard:

Mr. BALL - How many explosions did you hear?
Mr. DILLARD - I heard three - the three approximately equally spaced.

-------------------

Mal Couch:

Mr. BELIN - And what's your best recollection now as to the amount of time between shots?
Mr. COUCH - Well, I would say the longest time would be 5 seconds, but it could be from 3 to 5.
Mr. BELIN - And would this be true between the first and the second shots as well as between the second and the third - or would there have been a difference?
Mr. COUCH - As I recall, the time sequence between the three were relatively the same.

-------------------

Emmett Hudson:

Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?
Mr. HUDSON - Three.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the shots seem evenly spaced or were some of them closer together?
Mr. HUDSON - They seemed pretty well evenly spaced.
Mr. LIEBELER - Evenly spaced; is that it?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

-------------------

Harold Norman (Via his re-creations of what he heard):

Mr. NORMAN - Boom...(click-click)...Boom...(click-click)...Boom.

Norman always "re-created" his "booms" and "clicks" in a PERFECTLY-EVEN distribution of the gunshots.

------------------

Pierce Allman (Via WFAA-Radio interview on 11/22/63, which can be heard below):

Mr. ALLMAN -- "The shots didn't seem rapid at all. They were three well-spaced reverberating shots."



------------------

Nellie Connally:

Mr. DULLES. I just have one question. Mrs. Connally, on one point your testimony differs from a good many others as to the timing of the shots. I think you said that there seemed to be more time between the second and third than between the first and the second; is that your recollection?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. That is, the space between the first and the second was less than between the second and the third? You realize I just wanted to get whether I had heard you correctly on that.
Mrs. CONNALLY. You did.


PATRICK COLLINS SAID:

Oh Holmes, I don't deny that some 20 or more witnesses thought they heard two shots right on top of each other, and that they were the last two shots.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

FLASH... better let DVP know.

It's good that you're finally seeing the evidence in this case...even if you keep lying about it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not DENYING that many witnesses DID say they thought the shots (particularly the last two) were "bunched" closely together. Why in the world would I deny that undeniable FACT?

But as everyone can easily see via the eight witnesses I presented in my last post, there are several witnesses who DON'T think the last two shots were bunched together. THAT, too, is an undeniable FACT.

And that's the whole point really -- i.e., you can't wholly rely on such subjective witness observations. Some say one thing, while others say something totally different.

I merely provided proof that several witnesses on the other side of that "bunched" coin DO exist, although you'd never know it from the way the CTers talk. To hear them tell it, EVERY witness in the Plaza said they heard "bunched together" shots. But that is simply not correct, as I prove here.


DALE H. HAYES JR. SAID:

This is why the theorists are so threatened by David Von Pein and hurl insults his way even when he hasn't posted [at the Amazon.com forums] in several months. They do the same with Hank [Henry Sienzant]. These impressive men really get under their thin skin.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Truly funny comment, Dale. It may be true that he [DVP] hasn't posted here in a while, but rest assured he's been elsewhere. He posts thousands of times a week. The sheer number of his posts alone qualifies him as a troll. He has been kicked off numerous forums for his behavior.

He also posts under other screen names. I caught him once posting as "NYLibrarian" because he posts so often he can't keep track of which character said what. It's kind of pathetic.

Yeah, we really feel threatened by the Peinster, if by "threatened" you mean "annoyed."

Hank is kind of a Von Pein understudy. He doesn't carry nearly the cachet DVP does in troll circles.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

~sigh~

Oh, good. This junk again. How sweet.

Garry Puffer just told a complete lie above. I have never once posted under any "Librarian" moniker, nor have I ever posted under any other name at any JFK forum or on my own websites.

The closest Puffer could possibly come to saying I posted under another name is at the IMDB forum, where I am registered as "DVP-1". But that's hardly an "alias" or altering my real identity, is it now?

And the only public place (JFK-related or otherwise) where I can recall registering under a username other than my real name (or my initials) is at the Airliners.net forum/site in December 2000. I chose an "airport"-like moniker at that site--"LAX". But even there, my real name, which I've never attempted to hide at any forum or website, is in full view in my public profile.

It really does get tiresome to hear supposed know-it-alls like Puffer continuing to spread such falsehoods about how "The Peinster" uses "other screen names". But it's quite humorous as well as being tiresome.

Why people like The Puffster think I'd even WANT to hide my identity, on any forum, is a bigger mystery to me. Why should I want some person known as "NYLibrarian" to get credit for any of the things I write about the JFK case? That's dumb.

But I guess it makes some CTers feel like they've "got the goods" on the lowly LN "trolls" by pretending to know the LNers all use different names on the Internet.

But as we all know, the things the CTers pretend to "know" rarely line themselves up to reality here in the real world, as Puffer's last post filled with lies about me amply illustrates.


DALE H. HAYES JR. SAID:

It's obvious that Mr. Von Pein, [S.V.] Anderson and Hank have taken up residence in your mind, Garry. Every few days a snide little comment about one of them is uttered by a theorist, indicating insecurity about your own convictions and fear of their factual refutation of your theories, suppositions and fancies.

I do think they are honest because what they post on their websites is congruent with the evidence in this case and because what they post has gone without refutation for 50 years.

Don't be influenced by Ben's escape hatch by calling every LNer a liar - it makes you look weak and ineffective - just like Ben. He shuts down debate with this petty behavior and then accuses those who tire of his nastiness of being liars and cowards. It's juvenile.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

"Gone without refutation for 50 years?"

And you want me to refrain from pointing out that this is a lie? Dream on, Dale.

I'd link you to some essays cataloging the many lies of Von Pein, McAdams, and so on, but you wouldn't read them anyway. Honest they are not, and saying they are does not make it so. I can back up my contention that they are dishonest. Your position cannot be backed up except by declaring it so. "I can prove they are honest because they are right."


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Tell us David - why did you lie on your website about the Autopsy Report?

[Quoting DVP:]

"If JFK had a massive hole in the back of his head at Parkland and at Bethesda Medical Center on the night he was autopsied, then we must totally trash the official autopsy report (signed by all three primary doctors who performed that post-mortem exam on the President)."

[End DVP quote.]

Since the Autopsy Report *ALSO* puts the wound as extending into the Occipital - it *ALSO* officially supports a BOH wound.

So why did you lie?

You claim not to lie, but here's a perfect example.

Let the excuses begin...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's no lie in that statement of mine at all, Ben. It's a perfectly accurate and reasonable statement concerning the autopsy report in conjunction with the known and provable locations of the wounds in President Kennedy's head.

But you're so desperate to catch an LNer in what you think is a "lie", you'll go to any lengths at all to accomplish that task. Even to the point of making yourself look utterly foolish (like you just did when you used my quote above, which is obviously not even close to being a "lie").


BEN HOLMES SAID:

So tell us David, what part of the Occipital is *NOT* in the back of the head?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Isn't the occipital in the back of the head? Be patient with me, please. I'm being quite serious.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Ben and Garry, the "occipital" IS in the BACK of the head. No doubt about that fact. But the language used in the autopsy report is NOT implying or suggesting that there was a HUGE HOLE in the back (or "occipital") area of JFK's head. And you are dreadfuilly mistaken if you think it does suggest that.

Although I guess I should say that it's nice and refreshing to see that a CTer like Ben thinks the autopsy report is NOT some kind of a fake or phony document. Most CTers DO believe it is a sham, of course.

But since Ben seems to think that the language we do find in the completed autopsy report is actually SUPPORTIVE of a great-big huge blasted-out hole in the back part of President Kennedy's cranium, I guess that must mean that Ben thinks the autopsy doctors who wrote that language in the report were NOT trying to "cover up" or conceal anything in order to blame that little fellow from New Orleans named Lee for the President's murder. Thank you, Benji.

Anyway, the rather imprecise wording ("somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions") is obviously not meant to imply that the BIG HOLE in JFK's head was located primarily in that part of the head. And, of course, we have the X-rays to verify that fact, with those X-rays confirming for all time that there is NO MISSING SKULL BONE in the "occipital" portion of JFK's head at all. The back of his head is INTACT, with only partial fracturing of the skull--but NO MISSING BONE.

In past years, I've had detailed discussions with John A. Canal (who, ironically, is an LNer) about what I think the doctors meant when they used that imprecise term ("somewhat into the occipital") in their autopsy report. But it most certainly does not (and CANNOT) mean that there was a large deficit of skull bone in that occipital area of the head--because other evidence (plus Dr. Humes' own words in later interviews) proves that there was no deficit of skull bone in the back of the head. Therefore, the reference to "occipital" in the autopsy report MUST indicate something OTHER than "missing skull bone".

Linked below is one of the discussions I had with John Canal on this subject in 2009 (see specifically "questions 2 and 3" asked by Canal):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/boh-part-6.html


BEN HOLMES SAID:

So tell us David, what part of the Occipital is *NOT* in the back of the head?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The "occipital" part of JFK's head IS damaged. No doubt about it. Anyone can easily SEE the fractures in the skull in the right-rear ("occipital") area of Kennedy's head. I've never denied that fact. Why would I? Why SHOULD I? It's true. But there's no "massive hole" in the occipital. Any child can see that fact too.



Therefore, my previous quote supplied by Benjamin "Everyone's A Liar" Holmes is also quite accurate....

"If JFK had a massive hole in the back of his head at Parkland and at Bethesda Medical Center on the night he was autopsied, then we must totally trash the official autopsy report (signed by all three primary doctors who performed that post-mortem exam on the President)." -- DVP

Allow me to emphasize the key portion of the above quote that seems to be escaping Ben Holmes---

"If JFK had a massive hole in the back of his head..."

But he DIDN'T have any such "massive hole" in the back of his head. And the X-rays and photos prove he didn't. The scalp in the back of the head is totally undamaged (except for the small entry hole near the cowlick), and the occipital bone is all still there. Ergo, no "massive hole in the back of his head".



So, to repeat something I said just a few minutes ago in a post above....

"Therefore, the reference to "occipital" in the autopsy report MUST indicate something OTHER than "missing skull bone"." -- DVP

Keep searching for those DVP "lies", Benji. You haven't found one yet, and you never will, because there aren't any to be found (except in your own imagination).


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

David,

I will definitely read the article you linked to, but only after I stop laughing. I read the following in the introduction and I'm still in the throes of amusement:

"...his impeccably-researched "book for the ages" ("Reclaiming History")"

You need to get more real with your assessment of this book. This is an embarrassingly silly statement. "Book for the ages," indeed.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Vincent Bugliosi's book is a great book, Garry. It's a fabulous "reference" type of book that I have turned to again and again since I acquired my first copy on May 21, 2007.

If you disagree and want to trash Mr. Bugliosi and his immense 20-year-long research effort, by all means feel free to do so. It's a free country after all. But if you do, it will be DVP (that's me) who won't be able to stop laughing.




BEN HOLMES SAID:

The Autopsy Report *BACKS UP* what the Parkland staff stated.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, it doesn't. Not even close. And you HAVE to know it's not even close on that score. A large number of the Parkland witnesses insisted that there was a huge BLOW-OUT (i.e., MISSING SCALP & SKULL) in the very back portion of JFK's head (which, of course, does not exist and never did; and there are various forms of corroboration that prove beyond all possible reasonable doubt that those Parkland witnesses were mistaken).



And the language in the autopsy report doesn't come close to supporting such a huge BOH blow-out. The "somewhat into the occipital" language obviously isn't close to suggesting that the huge hole in Kennedy's head was ALL in the occipital (BOH) region, which is where many Parkland witnesses placed the ENTIRE massive hole in the President's head.

And there is also the "Summary" section of the autopsy report (Warren Report; Page 543), which states....

"A portion of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp."

The above portion of the autopsy "summary" doesn't even come close to supporting anything the Parkland witnesses said they saw.

But keep scraping up that chaff, Benji, instead of trying to harvest the wheat that's right in front of your eyes. You seem to thrive on a steady diet of that "chaff" crap.

Bon appetit.


A CONSPIRACY THEORIST KNOWN AS "ASDFG" SAID:

David,

How do you explain Dr. Robert McClennan's [sic] remarks from [this] interview where he describes the wound at the rear of JFK's head having a diameter of roughly 5 inches?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dr. McClelland has said some very odd things over the years, but I love his radio interviews that he's done with Canadian host Brent Holland. (Another one of those interviews--a longer one--is presented at my website linked here, and it's very good--except for McClelland's silly "Mob" theories.)

For more reasons why Dr. McClelland's "BOH" explanations make no sense whatsoever, go here.

I really like Robert McClelland, though. (Even though I disagree with his conspiracy claims.)


BEN HOLMES SAID:

The Autopsy Report CLEARLY stated that there was a massive hole measuring approximately 13cm. devoid of bone & scalp THAT EXTENDED INTO THE OCCIPITAL.

And, since a portion of the parietal is *also* in the back of the head, you can't avoid the fact that the Autopsy Report puts the wound in the back of the head.

You lied.

You *CONTINUE* to lie.

But do you think that you're convincing anyone?

[...]

So tell us David, how long do you think you can keep lying in the face of these quotes from the Autopsy Report proving you a liar?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Can it actually be that Ben Holmes really thinks the verbiage we find in the autopsy report (even INCLUDING the "somewhat into the occipital" language) truly merges perfectly with the Parkland witnesses, who said they saw ONLY a huge blown-out area in the OCCIPITAL part of JFK's head?

Can Ben really think the word "somewhat" actually equates to "the whole darn massive blow-out"?

Is it possible to evaluate evidence in such a poor and unreasonable manner? Or is Ben just playing his "I LIKE TO CALL EVERYBODY A LIAR" game here? (Yeah, that's no doubt the answer.)

In any event, it's just not possible for a reasonable individual to think that the autopsy report actually aligns itself with the Parkland "BOH" witnesses. Because it doesn't. Not even close.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

One thing above all else that proves the JFK assassination was a conspiracy is this:

There was a man behind the picket fence posing as a Secret Service agent.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

At another forum, I had this conversation a few years ago.....

[Quoting excerpts from the above 2009 article:]

"[In] a report written by Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley, dated November 29, 1963...Kelley reports on the things he observed when he was present during some of Oswald's interrogations at the DPD....including Oswald's remarks to Kelley on 11/24/63 (just an hour or so before LHO was shot and killed):

"He [LHO] asked me [Thomas J. Kelley] whether I was an FBI Agent, and I said that I was not, that I was a member of the Secret Service. He said when he was standing in front of the Textbook Building and about to leave it, a young crew-cut man rushed up to him and said he was from the Secret Service, showed a book of identification, and asked him where the phone was. Oswald said he pointed toward the pay phone in the building and that he saw the man actually go to the phone before he left." -- WR; Pg. 629

[...]

Of course, we can have all the confidence in the world that Oswald did not hear the words "Secret Service" come out of the mouth of the man he encountered near the Book Depository's front entrance at approximately 12:33 PM on November 22, 1963.

And we can also be just as confident of the fact that Oswald was not shown any "book of identification" by the man LHO encountered that day.

And that's because we can be fairly confident that Oswald saw one of two newsmen (possibly both) -- Pierce Allman of WFAA or Robert MacNeil of NBC. And neither of those men is a "Secret Service" man, nor did either man show anyone any "Secret Service" identification on 11/22/63.

So, we're again back to my main point regarding this matter, which was (and still is):

"If Lee Harvey Oswald could easily misidentify a newsman as a Secret Service agent in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 (and he did, per his comments about this matter to the police after his arrest) -- then why is it out of the realm of possibility for other witnesses in the Plaza to have made the very same kind of mistake that Oswald made that day?" -- DVP; April 9, 2009

Or, to use the words of Vincent Bugliosi:

"From all the evidence it clearly appears that the Secret Service sightings on the grassy knoll and behind the Book Depository Building after the shooting are entitled to about the same weight as Oswald's statement in Captain Fritz's office about being confronted by a Secret Service agent in front of the Book Depository Building." -- Page 871 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)

[...]

It's fairly obvious that Lee Harvey Oswald HIMSELF was confused about the real identity of the man he saw outside the building on November 22nd.

[...]

Therefore, if that kind of mix-up could happen to Oswald, then why couldn't it also happen to other people in Dealey Plaza that day as well?

Author Vincent Bugliosi covers this topic very nicely in his book "Reclaiming History" (in a 7-page chapter devoted specifically to this very subject, entitled "SECRET SERVICE AGENTS ON THE GRASSY KNOLL"; Pages 865-871).

Bugliosi thoroughly explains the alleged "Secret Service" sightings by the various witnesses. And Vince logically concludes that Police Officer Joe Smith very likely ran into NOT a Secret Service agent on the Grassy Knoll, but instead Smith encountered James W. Powell, who was a member of the 112th Military Intelligence Group (which is an organization that aided and augmented the Secret Service during President Kennedy's visit to Dallas on 11/22/63).

Powell was off duty that day, but he was in Dealey Plaza when the assassination occurred, and he ran behind the picket fence atop the Grassy Knoll after the shooting.

Additionally, on April 12, 1996, Powell told the ARRB that he was pretty sure that he had shown his identification to some people behind the picket fence that day. He said he had "flashed my credentials" (a 1996 quote from Powell) to various police officers when he was behind the fence. And one of those police officers was very likely Joe Marshall Smith. [See pages 868-869 of "Reclaiming History".]"


[End 2009 quotes.]


DALE H. HAYES JR. SAID:

Excellent posts from David Von Pein and Patrick [Collins] that effectively vaporize Ben's twisting of the autopsy's wording - "somewhat" becomes "entirely" in Ben's illogical, unreasonable way of thinking. It reveals a dishonesty that prevents Ben from seeing the plain truth.

There is a term in psychology which describes the proclivity to accuse others of actions the accuser is engaged in himself - projection. Ben lies - a lot - and accuses other posters (ALL lone assassin believers) of lying. This exchange is a perfect example - Ben's next post would be to demand to know one example of his lying. I just gave it.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Hey, all you conspiracy kooks, take a lesson from Vincent Bugliosi as to how logic is supposed to be applied:

1. Lee Oswald mistakenly identified a reporter as a Secret Service agent.

2. Therefore, anyone else who "thought" they ran into a Secret Service agent anywhere in Dealey Plaza obviously made the same mistake.

3. So Officer Smith, who was shown credentials, was in error when he claimed the man he ran into identified himself as a Secret Service agent.

4. Officer Smith could not have been correct because there were no Secret Service agents in Dealey Plaza at that time.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Garry, your above 4-point synopsis is just about spot-on correct.

Do you deny the POSSIBILITY (at least) of the #2 item on your list as being true? How could you totally eliminate that distinct possibility, especially when we know that your #1 item is true? (I.E., Oswald, of all people, made the mistake of thinking a reporter was a "Secret Service agent".)

What's not to love about the irony in that? With the assassin HIMSELF, in a way, helping to debunk the longstanding conspiracy myth about "phony Secret Service agents".

And as for the #3 item on your above list -- allow me to repeat my previous remarks about a certain Mr. James W. Powell:

"Powell told the ARRB that he was pretty sure that he had shown his identification to some people behind the picket fence that day. He said he had "flashed my credentials" (a 1996 quote from Powell) to various police officers when he was behind the fence. And one of those police officers was very likely Joe Marshall Smith." -- DVP

So we KNOW, via James Powell's statement made to the Assassination Records Review Board in 1996, that Powell DID "flash [his] credentials" to some police officers while he (Powell) was behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll very shortly after the assassination of JFK.

Shouldn't that last little tidbit of information regarding a person who WASN'T a "secret Service agent", but who WAS "flashing credentials" to policemen right after the assassination at the very LEAST make some conspiracy theorists pause and at least consider the possibility that the theory about "fake Secret Service agent(s)" just might be able to be explained in another (and non-sinister) fashion?

If the conspiracy theorists don't even want to consider the possibility I just described above, even with the information about James Powell "flashing credentials" staring them in the face, then what does that really say about the integrity of those stubborn conspiracy theorists?

And what does it say about the desire of those conspiracists to find the "truth" about the events in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, which is a "truth" that most conspiracy believers are always telling us they are searching for so desperately every day of their lives?


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Ben Holmes refuses to read properly, and he refuses to comprehend simple things....such as when I said the autopsy report does not support a "massive hole in the back of his [JFK's] head". Which is a 100% accurate statement made by me, because the autopsy report does NOT support such a "massive hole".

Ben's inability to comprehend the most basic of statements isn't my problem -- it's his.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Au contraire, I clearly read much better than you do. I don't have any problems WHATSOEVER seeing that the Autopsy Report *SUPPORTS* what the eyewitnesses at both Parkland and Bethesda said....that there was a large wound in the back of JFK's head.

[...]

You tried to claim that the Autopsy Report *COMPLETELY* fails to support any BOH wound.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's a lie. I never said that.

Better get new eyeglasses (and some new "comprehension" eyewear too), because the ones you're wearing now are lousy.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

A common LNer tactic is to get someone to admit the POSSIBILITY of something, as if that somehow makes that thing more PROBABLE.

So, yes, David, but it is also possible that a pig could fly by my window, but I'd still bet against it.

Allow me here to invoke the often-used LN principle of timing and self-interest to respectfully suggest that:

1. Such a statement [by James Powell in 1996], made 33 years after the fact, carries with it the likelihood that it is incorrect,

2. Powell had a definite interest in protecting the official story. Powell was Army intelligence.

I will add that Powell gave no compelling reason for him to be in Dealey Plaza that day (similar to Eugene Hale Brading) and that Officer Smith's description of the "agent" he encountered does not seem to fit military man Powell. In addition, Officer Smith stated that he knew what SS credentials looked like, and whatever Powell's credentials looked like, they were not Secret Service.

Also, Powell, by his own testimony, did not identify himself as "Secret Service," as he stated over and over.

Also, by his testimony, he was not behind the picket fence where Officer Smith, within seconds of the shooting, encountered the faux agent.

Surely, David, you have to admit that my assessment is POSSIBLE.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Garry, your assessment is "possible".

But given the two competing "possibilities" re: the "Secret Service agent(s) on the Knoll", which is more likely?....

Fake agents running around (knowing that the "real" Secret Service will be exposing those "fake" agents as "fakes" very shortly)?

Or: a few people, in a rather frantic situation right after JFK had been shot, being mistaken about just WHO was flashing the badges in Dealey Plaza on 11/22?

Guess which option I'm going to choose? And guess which one Garry will opt for?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Now there's a massive assumption in several ways. The major purpose was to simply delay any immediate investigation, would be my assumption. For all we know, the guy Officer Smith ran into was the shooter who had tossed his rifle to a confederate and was there to block anyone from going farther in the first moments after the shooting.

To claim they were worried about being outed "very shortly" assumes quite a few things, don't you think, David? I could list several unreasonable assumptions you're making here, not the least of which is they were definitely not assured of some official cooperation in the matter.

I would guess that they were there mostly to keep private citizens at bay temporarily. If the conspiracy worked the way most of us think it did, the presence of people with fake credentials would be expected, so you are assuming there was no plot in order to claim this fake agent was not part of the plot.

[...]

No, David, it is MOST reasonable to believe that Officer Smith was accurate in his statements. Police are trained to react in crisis situations, so they are much less likely than you or I to be confused in the heat of the moment.

What frazzled him in the heat of the moment, according to his own assessment, was having a hunch there was something not right about the guy, but believing in his credentials. He regretted that later, realizing he had made a mistake. I rather doubt that he would have had the same hunch if the guy had been James Powell, who was apparently quite a classy, cool dude. And as I showed, Powell could not really have been the guy in that position anyway. Smith's statements just confirm that notion.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'll just let this testimony of Police Officer Joe Marshall Smith speak for itself. Everyone can judge for themselves whether it's reasonable or unreasonable to allow for the possibility that Officer Smith might not have examined this man's identification in great detail in the immediate aftermath of what was a frenzied and chaotic situation atop the Grassy Knoll at 12:31 PM CST on November the 22nd....

OFFICER JOE M. SMITH. I checked all the cars. I looked into all the cars and checked around the bushes. Of course, I wasn't alone. There was some deputy sheriff with me, and I believe one Secret Service man when I got there. I got to make this statement, too. I felt awfully silly, but after the shot and this woman, I pulled my pistol from my holster, and I thought, this is silly, I don't know who I am looking for, and I put it back. Just as I did, he showed me that he was a Secret Service agent.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you accost this man?

Mr. SMITH. Well, he saw me coming with my pistol and right away he showed me who he was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember who it was?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I don't--because then we started checking the cars. In fact, I was checking the bushes, and I went through the cars, and I started over here in this particular section.

---------------

I'll also add this addemdum to the "fake Secret Service agents" topic.....

What GOOD did any of those "fake agents" really end up serving on November 22nd behind the fence? Did their presence on the Knoll somehow make Officer Smith (and other officers) turn around and head in the other direction (in order to keep Smith, et al, from searching the area behind the fence and in the railroad yards)?

The answer to that question is obviously -- No.

Smith testified that "we started checking the cars" just after encountering the alleged Secret Service agent. So the "fake agents" were not keeping the "real" cops from investigating and searching behind the Grassy Knoll.

Or maybe some conspiracy theorists think that the "fake agent" that Officer Smith encountered was an ACTUAL GUNMAN who fired shots at President Kennedy that day. Is that it? (Garry said in his last post that that could be a possibility.)

The fake agent killed the President, then tossed his weapon into the trunk of a '63 Pontiac in the parking lot, and then proceeded to play his fictional part as a fake Secret Service man?

I guess that particular theory might satisfy the needs of some conspiracy theorists. But there's a big problem with that theory too -- no frontal shots struck any limo victims that day.

But, the theorists can always change gears a little bit and pretend that the fake Secret Service man fired one shot from the Knoll and missed everybody in the Plaza.

Of course, the NAS study pretty much destroyed that "4th shot" business in 1982, so the theorists don't have much wiggle room on that last theory either. But small roadblocks like the NAS/CBA report have never stopped the CTers. They'll just slide right past those facts as if the NAS study never existed.

Yes, we all do some "picking and choosing" of evidence when examining the events of November 22, 1963. We ALL do it. I do it. Ben Holmes certainly does it. And I'm sure Garry Puffer of Riverside has done it a few times too.

But one thing the JFK conspiracy theorists have never been able to do is to piece together a coherent, believable, and REALISTIC "conspiracy scenario" that accounts for all the known evidence in the John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit murder cases.

And the reason the CTers can't come up with such a realistic and coherent theory is because ALL of the physical evidence in both murders I just mentioned points in the direction of one inescapable conclusion -- which is: Lee Harvey Oswald committed both of those murders.

David Von Pein
May 2014