DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
A few random comments about the above JFK assassination radio debate between John McAdams and Tom Rossley on March 13, 2010....
RE: JOHN CONNALLY'S CHEST....
Tom Rossley is unique (in a way), because there's not another conspiracy theorist alive (that I'm aware of) who actually believes Governor Connally was shot in the chest from the FRONT.
And there's also not another conspiracy theorist alive (to my knowledge) who thinks that Connally's chest wound was a very small "round" wound.
The following quotes can easily be found in the Warren Commission testimony of one of Connally's Parkland physicians, Dr. Robert R. Shaw:
"A large sucking wound in the front of his right chest." -- Dr. Robert Shaw
"We knew this [an area below the right nipple on the body] was the wound exit...by the fact of its size, the ragged edges of the wound." -- Dr. Robert Shaw
RE: ROBERT FRAZIER....
As John McAdams said, Tom Rossley has completely misinterpreted some of the testimony of FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier (with respect to the topic of "tumbling" bullets).
Rossley wants the unsuspecting listener to believe that when Bob Frazier of the FBI said that there was "no evidence at all of tumbling or yaw" [3 H 438] of the many test bullets fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (CE139), this comment by Frazier is supposed to prove (per Rossley) that a Carcano bullet could not and would not tumble or yaw AFTER THE BULLET HAD STRUCK AN INTERVENING OBJECT IN ITS PATH.
But that, quite obviously, is not at all what Bob Frazier meant when he said what he said on page 438 of Warren Commission volume 3. Frazier was talking about the stability of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet in flight BEFORE it reaches its target.
Frazier certainly wasn't suggesting in his testimony that a Carcano bullet would NEVER tumble or yaw AFTER it had struck an object. And Tom Rossley is just silly if he believes that IS what Frazier meant in that testimony.
RE: JOSEPH MILTEER....
Another very good point brought up by Professor McAdams was the point he made regarding Joseph Milteer.
As McAdams pointed out (which is something I had never really thought about from this particular point-of-view before), the shooting scenario that Milteer speculated about to William Somersett in 1963 was certainly a LONE-ASSASSIN PLOT.
I.E., what Milteer was talking about certainly wasn't a MULTI-GUN plot, and therefore, according to virtually all conspiracy theorists, it's the kind of shooting scenario that DID NOT OCCUR in Dallas on November 22.
Plus, as Mr. McAdams also rightly pointed out to Mr. Rossley, Milteer was most definitely talking about an assassination attempt that was supposedly going to be made in FLORIDA, not in TEXAS. That fact is very clear when listening to Milteer's recorded words.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/milteer.htm
FINAL DEBATE RESULTS:
John McAdams, quite naturally, very easily won the debate on March 13, 2010. And that's not too surprising, since Mr. McAdams has ALL of the evidence on his "Oswald Did It Alone" side, while Mr. Rossley is left looking mighty desperate by not only having to speculate about things that nobody else on Planet Earth believes (such as John Connally being shot in the chest from the FRONT), but by also being forced to misrepresent testimony to suit his conspiratorial purposes (such as the blatant way Rossley distorted the "tumbling" testimony of FBI agent Robert Frazier).
All in all, it was a predictable 90 minutes worth of debating, with the lone-assassin advocate using the facts and evidence in conjunction with a whole lot of common sense and logic, while the conspiracy theorist continues to believe in stupid stuff (including the intolerable theories of one Douglas P. Horne). A typical day at the office for a JFK conspiracist.
David Von Pein
March 15, 2010
