(PART 795)


The FBI's original report didn't account for a missed shot, the one which caused James Tague's wound .. ergo .. the WC's Arlen Specter was forced to invent the Magic Bullet Theory in order to keep the number of shots to three and three ONLY - hence just one shooter and no conspiracy as per Katzenbach's 11/25 directive.

When you and Mel go on a tour for your new book, do you truly feel half-truths and lies will fool more than two or three people out of fifteen, Davy?


Your silly assertion that the Warren Commission had to "invent" the SBT in order to stay inside a "three shots" framework is totally untrue.

The WC fully acknowledged that the HEAD SHOT bullet could have accounted for Tague's wounding and the Main Street curb damage.

Why do you (and all other CTers) always totally ignore Page 117 of the Warren Report? Dishonesty perhaps--so you can incorrectly assert that the Warren Commission had no choice but to just MAKE UP the SBT?

HERE'S WCR page 117 (which no CTer has apparently ever even glanced at).

And I'm the "dishonest" one? Geesh, what a crock.

But even apart from the crystal clear language found on WR page 117, since the SBT is so obviously true---then why in the world would the Warren Commission accept ANY other non-SBT theory? The truth, after all, is normally the BEST conclusion to come to---don't you agree?


You KNOW FOR A FACT that the SBT is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to a lone assassin conclusion.


Yes -- I, myself, think the SBT is vital to the "Lone Assassin" conclusion. But that was not the issue when I was answering the CT clown calling himself or herself "asdfg". That clown said this:

"The FBI's original report didn't account for a missed shot, the one which caused James Tague's wound .. ergo .. the WC's Arlen Specter was forced to invent the Magic Bullet Theory in order to keep the number of shots to three and three ONLY."

To which I responded that the above paragraph is wholly and provably untrue and just a flat-out lie. See Page 117 of the Warren Report for the proof that it's a lie.

And there have, indeed, been "LNers" who have postulated theories that have Oswald acting alone WITHOUT the Single-Bullet Theory being part of those theories. Take Mark Fuhrman's position in his 2006 book "A Simple Act Of Murder". I totally disagree with his "anti-SBT" stance, but he got his book published nonetheless. And he's got two separate shots hitting Kennedy and Connally, the first one striking JFK at Z186 and the second one hitting only Governor Connally at Z231.

So who's to say that the Warren Commission in 1964 couldn't have arrived at a theory very much like Fuhrman's? I'm glad they didn't, but they COULD conceivably have done so.


You can hypothesize Tague's wounding and what caused it all you want.

What you *CANNOT* do is explain both JFK and Connally being hit less than 2 seconds apart without either the SBT, or a second assassin.


True. I cannot. But I don't need to. And that's because the SBT is as true (and blatantly obvious) today as it was when the Warren Commission examined all of the evidence surrounding the assassination in 1964.

Maybe one of these decades you'll begin to realize that ANY "anti-SBT" theory is far less credible or believable or reasonable than is the Single-Bullet Theory.

Any substitute theory won't even pass the laugh test. Such as THREE separate bullets hitting the two victims and then ALL THREE bullets simply vanishing. Warner Brothers couldn't even make a believable cartoon out of that because it's so preposterous and silly. But, incredibly, a large percentage of conspiracy theorists actually buy into that "Three Bullets" theory. And maybe even a FOUR-bullet theory, with Connally getting hit twice! Care to go for five? (Fetzer has.)


Nor is the SBT "obviously true".


You're wrong. It is obviously true. And all sensible people know this to be the case. No other theory comes even close to matching the sensibleness of the SBT.


You must *START* with the assumption that there was only one shooter - *then* and only then does the SBT become "obviously true".

But you know, even if you're unwilling to admit it, that both medical and ballistic testimony & conclusions DO NOT SUPPORT the "obviously true" SBT.


Yeah, sure, Ben. That must be why the HSCA also endorsed the SBT, huh?
[See HSCA Final Report, Page 44.]

But, at the same time, they also endorsed a conspiracy in Kennedy's murder. So you can't rely on the old CT motto of "The Government Is Covering Everything Up", can you now?

So you believe that not only did the Warren boys screw everything up (on purpose), but 14 years later ANOTHER committee got it all wrong too when it comes to the single-bullet conclusion.

TWO incompetent and/or lying committees/commissions inside of 15 years. Right, Ben?

Again you fail to pass the laugh test with your beliefs.


Why can't you tell the truth, David?


I've got a much better question....

Why not try to acquire some common sense, Benny? Couldn't hurt ya, could it? And it doesn't cost a cent.


I'm asking you DIRECTLY now. Can you cite for the training or expertise in investigation work that *ANY* Warren Commission staff had?


You're being sillier than usual, Ben. (Which, granted, is hard to believe, since you're always as silly as all get out every time your mouth opens.)

Are you really suggesting that NONE of the 7 Warren Commissioners (from Earl Warren on down) and NONE of the many counsel members (including J. Lee Rankin, Arlen Specter, Joseph Ball, Melvin Eisenberg, David Belin, Wesley Liebeler, Burt Griffin, and Albert Jenner, among several other LAWYERS) had any experience whatsoever when it came to "investigating" crimes? Is that what you're saying, Ben? Really?

Good heavens, what a silly position to take (if that is, in fact, the position you are taking here).

Most lawyers participate in "investigating" the cases that they are assigned to. Yes, in the Warren Commission's case, they relied heavily upon the FBI for a lot of the investigative work (and that's only natural, IMO). But the lawyers themselves will often investigate on their own.

Take Vincent Bugliosi, for example. He has said many times in the past that he almost always investigates his cases himself. He does a lot of the leg work on his own. The Manson case being a prime example of that fact.

It's just common sense to also think of lawyers, by nature, as being "investigators" in a sense too.

And to think that Earl Warren himself--the Chairman of the whole Warren Commission--had no experience in investigation is a preposterous notion on its face. Warren was District Attorney in Alameda County, California, from 1925 to 1939. Do you, Ben, think that as a D.A. in California for FIFTEEN YEARS, Mr. Warren did NO "investigating" at all?

Here's just a small example of what kind of an "investigator" Earl Warren was while he served as Alameda County's District Attorney.....

"Warren vigorously investigated allegations that a deputy sheriff was taking bribes in connection with street-paving arrangements. He was a tough-on-crime District Attorney...who professionalized the DA's office. Warren cracked down on bootlegging and had a reputation for high-handedness, but none of his convictions were overturned on appeal. .... Warren soon gained a statewide reputation as a tough, no-nonsense District Attorney who fought corruption in government; in a 1931 survey, voters listed him as the best District Attorney in the country." -- Wikipedia

Now, you can argue that "Wikipedia" is a lousy source. But let's see you disprove the above paragraph regarding Mr. Earl Warren.

Ben and other conspiracy theorists should also listen closely to Joe Ball, Wesley Liebeler, and Albert Jenner in this 1966 radio program (also embedded below). It sure sounds to me like those guys did quite a bit of investigating and digging into the JFK case on their own. And I think it's only logical to assume that such investigative techniques were practically second nature to that trio of experienced lawyers....

David Von Pein
September 4-5, 2014 (EDT)
September 6, 2014 (EDT)