JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1008)


GAYLE NIX JACKSON, AUTHOR
OF THIS BOOK, SAID:


I hope ya'll will indulge me with this request. Since I got back into JFK research in 2013, after taking a 14-year hiatus, I had hoped that the community had found some things all on every side of the debate could agree upon. Do you think we could attempt to do this or is there no hope?


JIM HESS SAID:

Offhand, I would say there is no hope. Though, of course, it would be well worth the effort if any success at all could be achieved.

The biggest problem as I see it would be in defining precisely who "all" is. Theories range from JFK committed a disappearing act and is still alive to the Lone Assassin "theory".


SCOTT R. KAISER SAID:

Unless someone can publish indisputable evidence regarding either guilty or not guilty, sadly, Gayle, there's no hope.


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

Well, that's a hard one, isn't it? I suppose this would have to be done in levels or surveys. For instance, if you believe there were Navy Seals in the trees shooting JFK, you couldn't be included. So I suppose there would have to be some sort of initial filtering. I know that's not politically correct and I realize everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but we have to find some common foundation. As to whether or not there was a conspiracy could be defined, I suppose, to begin.

JIM HESS SAID:

Scott, therein is the problem. Nothing is completely indisputable.

I can dispute the world is round. It is therefore disputable.


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

I'm an indefatigable idealist...there has to be a way!


PAUL MAY SAID:

Actually, indisputable evidence of Oswald's guilt as the sole shooter has been established to those without bias of some sort. The greater unanswered question today should be: Is there any evidence Oswald was manipulated by another person or groups of people?


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

Paul, I respectfully submit that there isn't indisputable evidence LHO was the sole shooter.

Why did so many witnesses see/hear shots from areas other than the TSBD?

Can we first agree that there were many groups in Dallas there that day who were threatened by JFK and could've been a part of helping the murder occur?

[...]

I think there are great minds on both sides. With that said, I think there are biases, guilt, agendas and more on both sides. It is a definite minefield for abuse and rancor, but since we all care, why not work together?


JIM HESS SAID:

Saddest to me is that we are all in the same position yet cannot pull together.

You are actually thinking you can pull both sides together when the CTs cannot even agree with EACH OTHER.


PAUL MAY SAID:

When the conspiracy movement can, without bias, look at the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt as the shooter, there is a possibility of moving on.

52 years of theoretical nonsense (still unproven) of planted evidence, altered evidence, multiple shooters, etc. etc., has bogged down every individual who has looked at this case.


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

I would submit, Mr. May, that there is still evidence being uncovered, both proving WC [Warren Commission] and all the other tax payer funded groups got some right and some wrong. For example, I have been talking to a witness for several weeks now. He believes the WC, but he has also shared the things they got wrong with him.

With flawed studies come flawed conclusions, whether governmental or private.


PAUL MAY SAID:

Consensus on JFK is a difficult subject. As of this evening, other than agreeing on the victim, the location and the date, is there anything out there LN's and CT's can agree on?


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

Can we agree there were many groups who publicly stated their dislike for the Kennedy family and had (in some minds, not mine) reason to want him dead?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think two important first steps toward "consensus" would be these:

1.) If everyone could agree that Lee Harvey Oswald, whether he was a shooter or not, was certainly NOT completely "innocent" on 11/22/63.

2.) If everyone could agree on the fact that Oswald definitely DID own and possess the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (CE139; serial number C2766).

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Oswald-Ordered-Rifle


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

As for number one, I go with not completely innocent. And for number two, he owned a rifle....just personally unsure if it was a MC, Mauser, Enfield or what.


PAUL MAY SAID:

Are there any posters who believe Oswald was 100% innocent of any involvement of any kind on 11/22/63?


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

I don't and never have believed him 100% innocent.


PAUL MAY SAID:

Ms. Jackson, do you believe, based on your own research of a shot from the front or the grassy knoll?


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

I do, Mr. May. Whether or not it hit the president or the street, I cannot say.


PAUL MAY SAID:

May I ask why you believe this?


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

My grandfather (shows my bias), Virgie Rackley's testimony...Forrest Sorrels and Stavis, Smith and Price testimonies...oh and Summers.


PAUL MAY SAID:

So, you totally rule out the science and rely entirely on witnesses. Is my statement accurate?


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

Paul, I don't totally rule out science by any means. Sherry Fiester has done forensic research to prove a frontal shot. I just am not as convinced as y'all are concerning the WC.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Regarding my earlier point about the rifle....

Gayle, there can be no "reasonable" doubt that Oswald owned not just any ol' rifle. And it wasn't an Enfield or a Mauser. It was an Italian rifle with the serial number C2766 on it. Waldman Exhibit 7 proves that Klein's mailed the C2766 weapon to Oswald's P.O. Box.

And the C2766 rifle has at least one of Oswald's prints on it. And we also know beyond "reasonable" doubt that THAT C2766 rifle fired bullets into Kennedy's car (CE567 and 569 prove that--they are the front-seat fragments found in the car).

So that should give us consensus on OSWALD NOT BEING COMPLETELY INNOCENT (as agreed on by almost everyone) and OSWALD OWNING THE JFK MURDER WEAPON. That's a good (dual) starting point.


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

We also know Holmes had access to the PO boxes and was an informant and interviewer, David.

With so many questions involving the integrity of the investigation, I just cannot say this was the same rifle. But I'm not the arms expert you guys are, I concede. Gerry Hemming said it was his rifle, but like the WC, it's hard for me to believe all he said too.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But, Gayle, Harry D. Holmes of the POST OFFICE had absolutely NOTHING to do with the palmprint OF OSWALD'S that was found on the C2766 rifle by Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department.

Do you think the Oswald print was planted on the weapon?


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

I don't know if it was or wasn't, David.

Here's what I do know....

The DPD was getting heat from the FBI and Mayor Cabell....the Dallas Secret Service was kind of doing their own thing much to the chagrin of the DC boys...then you have DPD guys who are members of the KKK, the JBS and more who were scared that one of these groups may have had a hand in this so they're worried about their association...then you have Ruby's buddies on the DPD and the Sheriff's office hiding things....then innocent people like my grandfather being intimidated and having lived through the depression not wanting to upset the Apple cart...add to that disgruntled Cubans, pompous oil rich men who wanted to stay that way putting pressure on these law enforcement agencies AND add to it being election time??? Yes, I can see where things wouldn't have gone like they should.


PAUL MAY SAID:

Ms. Jackson...what you just presented is pure speculation not supported by evidence.


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

Yes it was, Mr.May....it was. But I was answering David's question as to what I thought and why.


PAUL MAY SAID:

If one cannot objectively digest the documented physical evidence, then consensus is not possible. On anything.


PAUL MAY ALSO SAID:

I just don't see how there can ever be consensus if the CT side will not accept as indisputable that Oswald owned and possessed C2766 on 11/22. There is NO evidence at 52 years to dispute this. None.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you for laying out some of your beliefs above, Gayle.

But, as Paul May correctly pointed out, those items you mentioned belong in the "speculation" and "what if?" categories....not in the "evidence" category.

And I guess that brings up another key point --- can there ever be "consensus" on what evidence in the JFK case is VALID AND LEGITIMATE evidence, versus all of the evidence being considered tainted or manufactured in some manner?

It's always been my belief that the evidence could not possibly have been planted (and that includes the evidence in the Tippit murder as well), because we have the evidence scattered throughout (essentially) FOUR different crime scene areas ---

1.) The Book Depository (the bullet shells, the rifle, the paper bag, and LHO's prints on various objects on the sixth floor)....

2.) The President's limousine (the two front-seat bullet fragments)....

3.) Parkland Hospital (Commission Exhibit No. 399)....

4.) And the Tippit murder site at Tenth & Patton (the four bullet shells from Oswald's revolver).

That was one heck of a wide-sweeping operation of evidence planting and/or evidence manipulation if we're to believe conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio (and many other CTers who seem to believe that NONE of the physical evidence passes any kind of smell test for legitimacy).

And, IMO, when a theorist has to resort to a belief in THAT much deception regarding virtually everything that points squarely at Lee Harvey Oswald, well, then I say it's time to put on the brakes and re-think such a belief in wholesale fakery.

Plus, I should also point out that all of that evidence was collected by MULTIPLE law enforcement agencies too---not just one agency. The DPD was heavily involved in gathering and collecting the evidence, but so was the Secret Service (for the bullet evidence in the limo and for CE399, with the DPD not even touching the stretcher bullet or the front-seat fragments at all on 11/22/63).

So what we'd have to believe, if the CTers are correct about the evidence all being tainted, is an amazing LIKE-MINDEDNESS (and willingness to immediately frame an innocent man) on the part of multiple law enforcement organizations. I ask---is that even remotely likely in this case? Or in any case?


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

David? I hope I'm not being looked down upon as an ignorant tin foil hat person, but in regards to the WC, we must begin at the beginning....what were the edicts the men of the WC given?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gayle, I would never "look down" on you. (I see no foil hat on your head.) :-)

But you must also consider the important fact that the Warren Commission members weren't the ones who found and COLLECTED the evidence. The DPD and the Secret Service and ordinary civilian witnesses (like Domingo Benavides and Barbara Davis and Darrell Tomlinson) did the "finding" of the evidence. The Warren Commission didn't even exist until a week later.

So I think some of the conspiracy theorists should consider re-thinking the longstanding mantra of the evidence being "THE WARREN COMMISSION'S EVIDENCE". It wasn't the WC's evidence. The WC merely evaluated it. They had nothing whatsoever to do with the collection of that evidence.


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

Thank you, David...but in my long-winded speculation, I tried to explain how that evidence was collected...or in some cases not collected. :-)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Question for Gayle ---

Do you think Lee Oswald lied to Buell Wesley Frazier when he (Oswald) said the paper bag he was carrying on 11/22/63 contained curtain rods?

And if that was a lie, can you think of any conceivable reason for Oswald to tell such a tall tale (twice) to Buell Frazier other than to keep Frazier from knowing that the package really held a rifle?


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

Yes, I think he lied. No, I don't know why.

Buell says the bag was too short for a rifle, but no curtain rods were ever found.


"CONAN T. CONTRARIAN" SAID:

The Warren Commission's biggest failure lies with the confusion it created with some of the evidence it put in the record....and some that it inexplicably didn't. If you also include the lack of important information from CIA, FBI (and ONI to a lesser degree) then it seems really unbelievable to consider the conclusions to have been based on complete knowledge when that simply was not the case.

There is nothing in the official record that conclusively proves that Oswald was the sole culprit in this crime.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I disagree, Conan. Again I'll stress what I said to Gayle earlier --- the Warren Commission was seven days away from even being created when virtually all of the incriminating physical evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald was found and collected (and even tested).

The Dallas Police Department pretty much knew Oswald was guilty prior to 11:30 PM (Dallas time) on November 22, 1963. And since when do the police formally charge someone with TWO murders within a half-a-day of the murders being committed if they have no solid evidence at all to back up such serious charges?

The police charged Oswald with J.D. Tippit's murder at 7:10 PM on 11/22/63 and with JFK's murder at 11:26 PM that same day. And yet many CTers think that Oswald was totally innocent of BOTH of those crimes. Both of them! That's crazy talk.

Truth is, the DPD had ample evidence (and positive witness identification in the Tippit murder) to feel confident enough to officially charge Oswald with double murder before midnight on the same day the murders occurred. That fact alone is a pretty strong indicator that Mr. Oswald was no innocent "patsy".


CONAN SAID:

I am aware of all of that, David. I am even perfectly willing to believe that there was a single shooter. But, I am also of the belief that the intent of these government agencies to redact, destroy, or lock away information for decades is about more than just simple embarrassment and protecting sources.

It is perfectly reasonable to question the veracity of government investigations such as the Warren Commission.


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

That the DPD KNEW Oswald did it so quickly is another reason I have doubts as to the evidence (and of course the mishandling of evidence).

How did they know to go to Beckley when Marina didn't even know how to get there?

How did LHO get to Beckley so quickly?

Lots of questions in that scenario for me, as I have lived in Dallas my whole life and know how quickly government works around here. :-)

By the way, thank you everyone for debating civilly! It's so refreshing!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gayle, I think the Dallas Police were able to trace Oswald to the Beckley address by way of first talking with Ruth Paine. Ruth knew the telephone number of the Beckley roominghouse but she didn't know the address. So the police likely used the phone number as a cross-check to get the address. And this could have happened very quickly after the police obtained the phone number from Mrs. Paine. A policeman could have simply called the number and asked whoever answered "What's the address there?" I think that's what probably happened.

I know that some conspiracy believers think the DPD were able to find out the Beckley address too quickly, and they'll point to various times provided in the testimony and/or the written reports of the police officers. But human beings are often very poor when it comes to trying to nail down times with absolute precision and accuracy. Take Earlene Roberts as an example. She claimed that Oswald spent 3 to 4 minutes in his very small room on Beckley after the assassination. But she also said that Lee was in that room "just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on" [6 H 440]. And even Grandma Moses with severe arthritis wouldn't need to take three or four minutes to just grab a jacket and put it on.

As for your question of "How did LHO get to Beckley so quickly?" --- I'm wondering if you really meant to say "Tenth Street" instead of "Beckley". But anyway, Oswald getting to either of those locations (to Beckley after leaving the TSBD and then to Tenth Street to encounter Officer Tippit) was not a Herculean feat at all.

Re-creations have been done to clock the timing of both of those excursions, and it was shown that Oswald did have time to get from the Depository to his roominghouse at 1026 North Beckley by 1:00, and enough time after leaving his room to get to Tenth and Patton in time to kill J.D. Tippit [Warren Report; Pages 163-165].

And several independent researchers have re-created the route from Beckley to Tenth Street and have been able to make it there on foot in about 11 minutes or so. Plus, nobody knows for certain how fast (or slow) Oswald was walking (or running) during his trek from Beckley to Tenth Street.


SCOTT R. KAISER SAID:

What makes you so certain that the police asked Mrs. Paine for the number?

And what makes you so certain that the police called the boarding house? Is there proof of that?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There are the following two reports from Dallas Deputy Sheriffs Harry Weatherford and Buddy Walthers which explain it....

"While standing near the phone bar, I saw a black telephone address book which I picked up and thumbed through, finding in the "O's" the name of Lee Oswald. Texas School Book Depository and the telephone number. Then another phone number, which I believe was written in pencil. I asked what this number was, pointing to this pencil number, and Mrs. Payne [sic] said that is the phone number where Lee is living. I gave this number to Deputy Buddy Walthers and told him to call the Sheriff and advise him of our findings." -- Harry Weatherford; November 23, 1963


"Mrs. Payne [sic] then gave us a telephone number and stated that was the phone number of Lee Oswald, however, she advised she did not know an address where he was staying. At this time, I called Sheriff Decker and advised him of this and he criss-crossed this telephone number and gave us an address of 1026 North Beckley. He advised he would dispatch other officers to cover this address." -- Buddy Walthers; November 22, 1963


JIM HESS SAID:

This brings up the "almost but not quite" factor. CTs claim Lee could "almost but not quite" have made it to Patton in the allotted time...and from the 6th floor to the 2nd "almost but not quite" in the allotted time.

To me, these are among the weakest CT arguments. Considering a fleeing assassin would no doubt be in a hurry to escape, there seems little doubt it could and in all probability would be possible. I have seen it said "no one saw him running", which is not in any way conclusive.


CONAN SAID:

Looks like there were several instances where Oswald had "just enough time."

Imagine Oswald's luck that day!! If the timing fails during just one of those actions, then the official story doesn't work.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've always maintained the timing of certain events (such as Oswald getting from Beckley to 10th Street and Oswald going from the sixth floor's Sniper's Nest to the second-floor lunchroom) should be very tight. Why wouldn't those timelines be very tight?

I think we can all agree that Oswald wasn't just sitting up on the sixth floor picking lint out of his belly button after he had shot JFK in the head. He was no doubt MOVING as quickly as he could to get off of that sixth floor and put as much distance as he could between himself and the sixth-floor crime scene.

And we know via Secret Service agent John Howlett's re-enactments that even at a walking pace, a person can make it from that Sniper's Nest to the lunchroom on the second floor in less than 80 seconds. Why CTers refuse to accept that re-enacted timing is a mystery to me.


JIM HESS SAID:

I contend we should reach a consensus [that] the timing we are discussing of 6th to 2nd floors as well as Beckley to Patton are feasible.


CONAN SAID:

Maybe these ideas can be part of a consensus:

1.) No one is certain if Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the moment of the assassination.

2.) The timing of the first shot is truly unknown.

3.) Questioning the veracity of a government investigation like the Warren Commission is reasonable.


PAUL MAY SAID:

Conan, questioning is surely responsible. However, accusing revered dignified people from the commander in chief to chief justice of the Supreme Court without hard credible evidence is reprehensible. I have little tolerance for those who do so.


CONAN SAID:

I have never accused the members of the Warren Commission of doing anything nefarious regarding the Kennedy assassination. However, I freely criticize some of their judgement and some of their efforts in substantiating the FBI's case against Oswald. That was their mandate, after all. The one clear exception I must make regarding a myriad of nefarious actions (once again mostly unrelated to JFK) and orders is with Allen Dulles. I would not under any circumstances consider him a good human being.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Conan, it's my belief that the Warren Commission wasn't even needed when it comes to being able to answer the most important questions surrounding this case, which are --- Did Lee Oswald kill President Kennedy and J.D. Tippit?

As I said before, the Dallas Police had enough evidence and information to charge LHO with those murders long before anybody ever heard the words "Warren Commission". So the DPD certainly didn't need Earl Warren's or Gerald Ford's or Arlen Specter's help in figuring out who the guilty party was.

Now, as far as being able to definitively answer the question of "Was there anyone else involved with Oswald?", neither the Dallas Police Department nor the Warren Commission could positively answer "No" to that question. But I've certainly never seen anything in the "hard evidence" category that would indicate Oswald had any co-conspirators. All I've ever seen is mush and guesswork in an effort by CTers to answer that question about conspiracy.

Have you ever seen anything that rises above "mush" status that could conclusively prove (or at the very least, strongly suggest) that a conspiracy existed in the JFK case, Conan? I sure haven't.

And while Ruby's shooting of Oswald certainly adds fuel to the conspiracy fire for CTers, when we examine Jack Ruby's known movements and behavior on November 23 and 24, it's my considered opinion that it's virtually impossible to squeeze any kind of a pre-arranged plot or "conspiracy" into Mr. Ruby's actions in the DPD basement on 11/24/63.


J. PHINEAS GAGE SAID:

There is no "hard evidence" that Ruby had anything to do with Kennedy's assassination. But, Ruby's movements at DPD starting Friday evening are not exactly the actions of a person who decided to kill Oswald in the basement on a whim. Motivations aside, that is the epitome of premeditated murder.

What I can't seem to wrap my head around is the lack of will to consider other solutons to this case (be it conspiracy or not) and give it its proper due, when the lies and obfuscations (and yes, some have very reasonable, non-sinister explanations) are so well known.

It is easy to see how this mess came about and to me it was more about political legitimacy and the genuine fear of being perceived as weak as a country. Let's face it, blaming an assassination on a dead man is far more convenient in many ways. There likely WASN'T a conspiracy to murder the President. But, there was DEFINITELY a "conspiracy" to obfuscate the whole truth....and there is a difference.


SCOTT R. KAISER SAID:

The timing of everything was so tight that Oswald was even able to get three shots off in 6.3 seconds. That's pretty remarkable considering the timing and all.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oswald probably had more than 6.3 seconds. And you don't count the FIRST shot in any shooting timeline anyway. The bullet's already chambered. So it's really 8+ seconds to fire TWO more shots after the first. Why is that so hard to fathom? I'm guessing even I could do it, and I've never fired a rifle in my life.


SCOTT R. KAISER SAID:

Probably don't count, and close only counts in horseshoes.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

OK, Scott, so anyone's "6.3 second" timeline "don't count" either. Because it, too, is just a guess. Ain't it?


SCOTT R. KAISER SAID:

Refer to your WC. Their best guess is your answer.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I often refer to the WC. I would suggest more CTers refer to it too. Particularly Page 117 of the Warren Report (my favorite page in the whole book), where it says the following --- "The three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds."

See? The Warren boys weren't saying absolutely that Oswald had just 5.6 seconds. They were allowing for up to 7.9 seconds for the three shots. Go to Page 117, Scott. It'll do you good.


SCOTT R. KAISER SAID:

In other words, they couldn't get their shit straight?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, Scott. They were being forthright and honest by giving a RANGE of times (4.8 to 7.9 seconds) for the three shots. And that's because it is largely a GUESSING GAME as to the exact amount of time Oswald had to take his shots in Dealey Plaza.

Just like the Warren Commission didn't want to get pinned down on any exact Zapruder Film frame for the Single-Bullet Theory either. So they used a RANGE of frames (Z210-Z225). And they were right too, because the bullet is (IMO) striking both victims within that 16-frame span. Good job, Warren Commission.

In short, the WC did the only thing they could do given the evidence they were evaluating --- they said Oswald did it.

Should all seven of the Warren Commissioners and the whole WC staff have just pretended that all the evidence that pointed to Oswald was fake or tainted in some manner? Would that determination (which has been made by many CTers over the years) have been more responsible than telling the world that Lee Oswald was the lone assassin?


SCOTT R. KAISER SAID:

Hell, my kid could have written a better 800-page report.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not surprised you say that, Scott. A hard-boiled CTer wouldn't be satisfied even if Oswald had confessed to Ike Pappas (on tape) just before he was shot by Jack Ruby. Nothing "satisfies" a veteran Internet conspiracy theorist. Not even the 2,800 meticulous pages of "Reclaiming History".


SCOTT R. KAISER SAID:

David, in the end, after it was all said and done, the Commission themselves questioned the validity of their report, including Ford, Earl Warren and LBJ.

Allow that to sink in.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

More myths. I never once heard Gerald Ford question the Commission's basic findings. And the same goes for Earl Warren. You're putting too much faith in conspiracy authors who love to use hearsay as "proof" that Warren said this to someone, or that Ford said that to someone else. Let me hear FORD or WARREN themselves saying it. I doubt they ever did.

My basic rule of thumb for the last few years (after dealing with the "Internet" brand of conspiracy theorists for quite a long while) is --- If a CTer says something, it's likely just another myth.

Take the "OSWALD COULD HAVE WALKED INTO ANY STORE IN TEXAS AND BOUGHT A RIFLE THAT COULD NEVER BE TRACED" theory. Jean Davison posted some material a few years ago [here and here] that pretty much blows that myth to pieces. But CTers still seem to like Oliver Stone's version of events better than the verifiable truth. Go figure.


SCOTT R. KAISER SAID:

Better get a new ruler.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why, Scott? My ruler works fine. Almost perfectly, in fact. Because nearly every time I go to check up on something that a CTer insists is the absolute truth, I invariably discover that the CTer was just blowing smoke out his rear end.

In other words --- JFK conspiracy theorists endorse myths, and they never want to let go of them. Take that "5.6 seconds" myth we talked about earlier. That's a myth. And Page 117 of the Warren Report proves that it's a myth. And yet we still hear CTers to this day exclaiming that the Warren Commission never ever considered the idea that Oswald had longer than "5.6 seconds" to pull off the shooting.

And the "magic bullet" garbage is another myth that CTers won't let go of either--no matter how many times they're set straight.




DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

So, it looks like Jim Hess was right. There's not much hope for a consensus on much of anything when conspiracy theorists talk to lone-assassin believers about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

David Von Pein
August 23-24, 2015