JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 911)


"TLR" SAID:

Would you like me to tell you what clothes the shooters were wearing and what they had for breakfast too?

There are some things we will never be sure of. The outlines of the plot are clear: elements within the military and intelligence community, with help from their blood brothers in the mob and some Cuban exiles, hated JFK's foreign policy and wanted to remove Castro and escalate the Cold War.

The plotters were not trying to create a "lone nut" scenario. They were trying to create a "Communist conspiracy." So they set up a guy who could feasibly be linked to Castro and the KGB. Then they hoped to make Oswald disappear (the story would have been that he had been flown to Mexico and then to Cuba - actually he would have been killed). The public would believe that the assassin was hiding in Cuba, and demand a new invasion of the island.


J. P. SULLIVAN SAID:

TLR:

You have;

No forensic evidence.
No medical evidence.
No physical evidence.
No ballistic evidence.

You can't tell us where the shooter(s) were precisely positioned.
You don't know the type of weapons that were fired.
You don't know the make or type of ammunition that was fired.
You don't know how many shots were fired.
You don't know how the shooter(s) managed to escape from Dealey Plaza undetected while carrying there firearms.

I'd say you have a firm foundation for a case of conspiracy.

Whenever you and the dissenting bands of conspiracy breathers get around to ironing out your differences, let us know which theory you all support.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bingo, J.P.!

But a complete lack of evidence never stopped a good conspiracy advocate. And probably never will.


ALLAN G. JOHNSON SAID:

Again, where is the irrefutable evidence that Oswald didn't do it? And where is the giant leap made from having a suspicious motive or reason for doing something to connecting that with what Oswald actually did?

Do the "Best Books" have these answers? (by the way, Kennedy actually increased the Pentagon budget, even a few months before his death and it's still debatable whether or not the Vietnam War would have happened if he lived. I, personally, think it would have. Kennedy was an avid opponent of Communist expansion and he doesn't like to lose. He would have honored our treaty commitment to Vietnam, but would have tried his best to do it without going to war).


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

TLR,

What PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is there that you think proves conspiracy?

Anything? Anything at all?


TLR SAID:

David, you (like Bugliosi, Posner and McAdams) have known very well for years that the official story is wrong. Only you know your motivation for continuing to defend it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just what I thought, TLR. You've got no physical evidence. Thanks.


TLR SAID:

How many hours a day do you spend arguing with people all over the web, and then collecting these 'debates' on your blogs? I really can't fathom it. It's pretty scary.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You get scared pretty easily then, don't you, TLR?

You think it's "scary" that I choose to archive my posts and discussions on my websites? That's a curious thing to be frightened of.

But I'm not always obsessed 24/7 by the JFK case. I've got lots of other non-JFK sites too that focus on different things that shouldn't scare you (unless you like scary movies and creepy OTR radio shows).


TLR SAID:

Yes, your taste in old movies, TV shows and radio is very similar to mine. I'm a horror fiction fan too. We probably have a lot in common if we keep away from the JFK assassination.


ALLAN G. JOHNSON SAID:

So are you [TLR] saying that this sinister Military-Industrial establishment chose to murder the President of the United States because they didn't get their way or disagreed with his policies? If this connection is still in existence, and was around even before Kennedy, then why haven't any other Presidents been eliminated in this matter? Is it because they agreed with the policies of every other President?

And they chose the loser Oswald to carry out this murder in public, using a mail order rifle, shooting it from a distance, at a moving target with only the head and top of the shoulders visible. The "Confederacy of Dunces" scenario is in play here. Was this their only option? There was no other way to kill him? If they wanted to remove him from office they could have just played a political game or blackmailed him or just threaten to reveal his personal life, have the press do it for them.


J. P. SULLIVAN SAID:

Allan;

Don't be absurd! Your way is much too simplistic!

It's much better to eliminate the president through a complex set of procedures by an unknown group of people that left not a scrap of paper behind to track their movements, to be shot by an unknown group of gunmen that were unseen before, during and after the assassination and covered up by a super-secret shadowy government that was in cahoots with the media to keep everything hush-hush. Now THAT makes way more sense! Don't you agree?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And always remember this too ---

According to nearly 100% of the "Internet" conspiracy theorists, the plotters who killed President Kennedy thought it was a GOOD IDEA to shoot at the President from both the FRONT and the back in order to (somehow) frame the lone patsy located in the Book Depository Building on Elm Street.

Multiple guns, but a lone patsy.

Brilliant plan, huh?

Such a plot is almost 100% guaranteed to fail once the first frontal shot strikes any victim in the limousine. And yet most conspiracy supporters actually believe the assassination was PRE-planned that way. Go figure.

More HERE.

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

EDIT -- To illustrate what I just said about Internet conspiracists believing in the "Patsy" silliness, just one hour after I wrote my comment above, I came across this comment elsewhere on Amazon (written by the ubiquitous Ralph Yates).....

"Oswald was innocent and was set-up by the CIA as a patsy in their assassination of Kennedy." -- Ralph Yates; March 8, 2015


TLR SAID:

David -

Yes, the ideal would have been a single shot fired from the rear in the back of JFK's head (probably from the Dal-Tex building). No one would have been able to tell it didn't come from the TSBD. But as I said before, the plotters were interested in creating a "Communist conspiracy," not a "lone nut" scenario.

Probably the first shot or two came from the rear. Perhaps a combination of sabot charges (so a Carcano bullet could be fired from a different rifle) and/or silencers on the rifles (the technology was still questionable at the time) caused the shots to go wrong (hitting the street, or hitting JFK in the upper back). The shooters in the front were meant to be backups only.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You see, folks, this is what always happens when a conspiracy theorist makes an attempt to explain (actually explain AWAY) all of the evidence that shows Lee Oswald to be the lone gunman in Dealey Plaza. The result is that the CTer is forced to make himself look very silly---which "TLR" just did above in his feeble attempt to explain away everything via his make-believe theory involving things like "sabots" and "silencers".

And the idea that such a goofy MULTI-SHOOTER, SINGLE-PATSY plan would have even been CONSIDERED in the first place by anyone is something that doesn't even pass the initial laugh test. (Except if you're a CTer like TLR.)

And this part of TLR's narrative above is a huge riot....

"The plotters were interested in creating a "Communist conspiracy," not a "lone nut" scenario." -- TLR

Well, TLR, if that was really the case on 11/22/63, then why the need for all the "sabots" and "silencers" and such in Dealey Plaza? If the plot was to CREATE the appearance of a "Communist conspiracy", then why on Earth would the "real killers" have cared if the evidence proved that more than one shooter was involved? Your statements are contradictory.

On the one hand, you're saying it was the DESIRE of the plotters to create a "Communist conspiracy"; but on the other hand, they jumped through many hoops AFTER the assassination in order to make it appear as if there was NO CONSPIRACY at all.

That's another problem with CTers (as J.P. Sullivan and Allan Johnson have already pointed out several times previously) -- the conspiracy believers don't know which way the conspiracy wind was blowing on November 22nd. Hence, they can't put together any semblance of a reasonable or semi-coherent theory that actually FITS all of the evidence in this case.

What the conspiracy advocates are forced to do, therefore, in order to make everything "fit" (especially after someone like myself points out the total absurdity of pre-planning an assassination by utilizing more than one gunman while attempting to frame a single shooter), is to create additional myths and theories to attach to other theories -- like TLR's contradictory mess of an assassination plot that he talked about above.

"Oswald's Game" author Jean Davison said it so well in her book....

"The reader [of pro-conspiracy books] will understand the difficulty these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent a story that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for 'curtain rods', left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought a package into the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against Oswald is strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up will inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt." -- Jean Davison; Page 276 of "Oswald's Game" (W.W. Norton; 1983)


TLR SAID:

No one has been able to plausibly explain why Oswald, acting alone, didn't shoot at the car coming up Houston Street, or while turning onto Elm.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Simply not true, TLR. Many "lone assassin" advocates (including myself) have placed on the table a very reasonable and logical answer to the proverbial question that CTers never get tired of asking -- i.e., Why didn't Oswald shoot when the limo was on Houston Street? (In fact, Allan Johnson, just before me in this thread, provided yet another possible--and reasonable--explanation.)

With just a tiny bit of thought (and common sense), several satisfactory answers easily rise to the surface....

"The positioning of those boxes in that window also tends to answer another of the conspiracy theorists' favorite questions -- the question of why Oswald didn't take the "best shot", per the theorists, while the President's car was on Houston Street.

In addition to the fact that by waiting until both JFK's car and the Secret Service follow-up vehicle had turned the corner onto Elm Street (thereby making sure that the majority of the "firepower" in the Plaza, possessed by the Secret Service agents, all had their BACKS to the assassin) -- there's also that pre-arranging of book cartons in the sniper's window.

The cartons were placed in the window in such a way that we can pretty much KNOW that the killer (Mr. Oswald) had every intention from the GET-GO of only firing shots at the President AFTER the limousine had turned onto Elm Street.

And I think it's fairly logical to assume that those book cartons were PRE-positioned in such a "Rifle Will Always Point West" fashion prior to the motorcade ever coming into Oswald's line of sight. For, Oswald surely didn't want to have to deal with arranging his rifle rest AFTER the President's car had already come into view, when seconds were precious to him."
-- DVP; April 2006


ALLAN G. JOHNSON SAID:

The reenactment films and demonstrations I've seen about the view from the 6th floor show it was not a clear shot for most of the ride on Houston Street, only when it was approaching and turning on Elm St.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's hard to say, since the Secret Service never used for the re-enactments the same kind of stretch limousine that JFK rode in on November 22. The SS only used a stock model Lincoln convertible, without the jump seats in the middle of the car.

The three images below are ones I captured from the Secret Service film while the "re-enactment car" was on Houston Street. If this had been a stretch Lincoln Continental, like President Kennedy's, the back seat would, of course, have been further AWAY from the windshield, due to the presence of the extra jump seats in the center of the vehicle:



The Dorman Film can give us a partial sense of what Oswald's POV was like when JFK was approaching the Book Depository on Houston Street, but it doesn't provide the precise view (or angle) Oswald had. Dorman was filming from the 4th floor, not the 6th, and she was further west in the building than Oswald was.

David Von Pein
March 9-12, 2015