JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 879)


"TLR" SAID:

If Oswald couldn't hit a rabbit with a shotgun, hitting JFK with a rifle would be impossible for him.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're funny. JFK's almost stationary head at Z313 would probably have been much easier to hit than a nervous rabbit.


TLR SAID:

The paper and tape came from the wrapping station on the first floor, which was run by Troy Eugene West, who never left his desk even to eat lunch.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, and Troy had a portable toilet right there at his work station too.

Right, TLR?


TLR SAID:

David obviously doesn't know the difference between a shotgun and a rifle.

And Oswald, working mostly on the upper floors, had to get lucky and hope to use the equipment while West was in the bathroom, which gave him maybe 2 minutes to quickly assemble that bag without anyone noticing? Again, why isn't the tape covered with his prints?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I always get a kick out of the CTers who seem to think that EVERY object that a human being touches MUST leave tons of visible prints. Such an idea is ludicrous. Particularly on paper objects.

But, of course, there ARE two of Oswald's prints on the paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest that conspiracists will forever ignore. And that bag was SEEN in that Nest on 11/22/63 by at least four police officers---Day, Studebaker, Johnson, and Montgomery. But I guess they all lied about seeing the bag in the Nest. Eh, TLR?

Many Internet CTers seem to adhere to this very curious rule....

The MORE evidence there is to show Lee Oswald was guilty of TWO murders on 11/22/63, the MORE INNOCENT he seems to become.


R.A. MILLEGAN SAID:

What a crock. We aren't CTers, we are simply Americans looking at our history. And you are?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm also an American looking at history. I just choose to evaluate that history in a reasonable fashion. Internet conspiracy believers seem to be incapable of performing that task.


TLR SAID:

Stay focused, David, I'm talking about the tape, not the paper. Sticky tape shouldn't retain prints? Try handling any kind of tape, and you'll see your prints are visible with the naked eye.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"TLR" is providing his (her?) audience with yet another hilarious example of a conspiracy theorist not being satisfied with the evidence that DOES exist (i.e., the two verified prints of Oswald's on CE142, the paper bag).....the CTer always wants MORE (i.e., LHO's prints on the tape too).

Tell me, TLR, why aren't the two prints of Oswald's that DO exist on the bag enough to convince you that Oswald was, indeed, in possession of that paper bag (with or without any prints on the tape)?


TLR SAID:

The neat little case that LNers want to sell to the public unravels under any close examination.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Only according to conspiracy theorists who are anxious to "find" justification for the very silly things they want to believe. (Like the "fake paper bag" theory.)

There is absolutely no PROOF that Commission Exhibit No. 142 (the paper bag) is a "fake" or "DPD manufactured" bag.

And as I mentioned before, at least four officers testified that they DID see a long paper bag in the Sniper's Nest on November 22, 1963. Am I really supposed to believe those officers just lied their heads off?

Frankly, TLR, that's not a reasonable conclusion to reach.


TLR SAID:

Yet again, David, your dramatic over-simplifying of the evidence only misleads people. The devil is in the details:

http://maryferrell.org/archive/PageId=388376

http://maryferrell.org/archive/PageId=388428

http://giljesus.com/jfk/the_bag.htm

Also see Weisberg (WHITEWASH), Meagher (ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT) and Roffman (PRESUMED GUILTY).


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Please load me up with a few more worthless CTer links, TLR. You didn't supply nearly enough CT conjecture on the paper bag. I want more.

How about DiEugenio? Don't leave Jimbo out.....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-26.html


TLR SAID:

Your blog page is also high on assertions, low on facts.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nothing could be further from the truth. And even you must surely know it.


TLR SAID:

Once again, your links don't address the points I was making about the bag.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Your points about the bag are recycled speculation (i.e., garbage) from Ian Griggs' article. Nothing more.

Even Griggs cites the four officers who said they positively SAW with their own eyes the long brown bag in the Sniper's Nest. But that testimony (multiplied by FOUR officers) isn't nearly good enough for Mr. Griggs. So, like a good little pretzel-twister (which most CTers are when it comes to any of the "Oswald Did It" evidence associated with JFK's assassination), Griggs attempts to twist their testimony into something it's not. Pathetic.

And the following two quotes from Griggs' paper bag article are enough all by themselves to make any sensible person want to totally ignore anything else he has to say on the subject of JFK's murder--because these two quotes can only elicit laughter from a reasonable person:

"Lee Harvey Oswald did not carry a long paper bag from the Paine house to the Frazier/Randle house, place it into Buell Wesley Frazier's car and then carry it from a parking lot to the book depository." -- Ian Griggs

"Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire a rifle at anybody that day!" -- Ian Griggs

Any halfway decent prosecutor could confidently rest his own case after reading the above two totally absurd quotes to the jury.

(Now I know where James DiEugenio probably got the silly notion that Oswald never carried any large bag into the Book Depository on 11/22/63 --- from Griggs' article. But there's not a thing in that article that proves Commission Exhibit No. 142 was "The Paper Bag That Never Was". The article is 100% "conspiracy spin" and nothing more. In other words, it's par for the CT course.)


TLR SAID:

I know you are beyond persuading, David, because you're so heavily invested in defending the official story. Only you know the reasons why. Personally, when I first began studying this subject I had no firm opinions about it. I was like Henry Hurt, who wrote in REASONABLE DOUBT:

"During the early months of work, I fully expected that at any moment I would encounter that single, unalterable piece of evidence that left no question that Oswald was the man who killed Kennedy....That discovery never came. Instead, the evidence continued to point in a different direction..." "A powerful case can be made that Oswald did not kill Kennedy."

If the evidence for the official story added up, I would have no problem accepting that and move on to other things.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But in order to believe that Oswald didn't act AT ALL (as many conspiracists do believe), you've got to believe that virtually all of the evidence is fake and/or that a lot of people lied about the evidence.

I ask -- Is that truly a reasonable thing(s) to believe?

TLR -- Do you think Oswald fired any shots at Kennedy or Tippit on 11/22/63?


TLR SAID:

I'm not sure precisely what Oswald's role was that day (what he thought he was doing versus how he was being used - similar to James Earl Ray), but I'm convinced he did not shoot JFK, and most likely did not shoot Tippit (though he may have been present at the scene).

I was born a few years after JFK was killed and never got caught up in the "Camelot" thing, never was a huge fan of the Kennedy family, and would gladly support the Warren Commission if the evidence didn't reek to high heaven.

Let me ask you something, David: Do you think JFK was trying to end the Cold War and get out of Vietnam at the time of his death? I know you're a huge Kennedy fan, so your answer will be interesting.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think he was most certainly trying to end the Cold War. No doubt about that fact, IMO. (What President WOULDN'T want to put an end to that struggle?)

As far as the Vietnam question goes, no one can KNOW for certain what JFK would have done in the future re: Vietnam had he not been killed in Dallas. But he is on record himself saying "I think we should stay" and that it would be "a great mistake" for the U.S. to pull completely out of Vietnam (at least as of the date he made those statements to Walter Cronkite on CBS-TV on September 2, 1963).

So unless you want to believe the President was just telling a tall tale to the American public on national TV on that September day, then it's fairly clear that Kennedy was not planning to pull completely out of Vietnam as of late '63.

However, in his press conference on October 31, 1963, JFK did talk about the U.S. Government's plans to withdraw 1,000 men from southeast Asia by the end of 1963. (Go to about the 6:00 mark in the audio below to hear JFK say it himself.)





But regardless of any decision and plans President Kennedy had concerning the troops in Vietnam, it's always been my opinion that the "Vietnam" question as it allegedly relates to JFK's assassination has always been nothing more than a red herring brought up by conspiracy hobbyists in order to attempt to cast doubt over the motive behind JFK's murder.

It was Lee Harvey Oswald who killed JFK. Nobody else did it or was involved, IMO. And I don't really think Oswald's motive for shooting Kennedy had anything whatsoever to do with the Vietnam situation. It had much more to do with Oswald's status as a "pro-Castro sympathizer", which he most certainly was, and is a status he freely exhibited via his August 1963 radio interviews in New Orleans.

David Von Pein
January 15-16, 2015