DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The persistent rantings and ravings of conspiracy theorists couldn't possibly matter less when it comes to the grand scheme of history. And that includes
this huffing and puffing by Mr. Charles E. Ochelli.
The physical evidence in the JFK murder can only lead in one (reasonable) direction -- and it's not toward the type of multi-gun "triangulation of crossfire" conspiracy plot that people like Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison imagine took place.
I always invite people to watch (and listen to) the original "as it is happening" TV and radio coverage from 11/22/63. And after performing that kind of exercise, the first question I would then ask any conspiracy believer is this one:
Where within that first-day television and/or radio coverage from November 22, 1963, is there even a HINT of the kind of THREE-GUN, SIX-SHOTS-FIRED shooting scenario that was endorsed and thrown up on the movie screen by fantasist filmmaker Oliver Stone?
Answer: It doesn't exist. Nowhere within any of the TV and radio footage are you going to find any bulletins that come even close to this kind of crackpottery:
THREE GUNMEN FIRED SIX SHOTS AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S MOTORCADE TODAY IN DALLAS! THE PRESIDENT WAS HIT IN THE HEAD BY A BULLET FIRED FROM THE GRASSY KNOLL TO THE FRONT OF KENNEDY'S LIMOUSINE!
Instead, what you'll find in the November 22 TV and radio footage is report after report indicating the following:
ONE GUNMAN FIRED THREE SHOTS AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S MOTORCADE ON ELM STREET IN DALLAS, TEXAS. AND THAT ONE GUNMAN LATER SHOT AND KILLED POLICE OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT IN OAK CLIFF. AND THAT SAME ONE GUNMAN, JUST 35 MINUTES AFTER KILLING TIPPIT, WAS THEN APPREHENDED IN A MOVIE THEATER AS HE TRIED TO KILL MORE POLICEMEN WITH THE SAME GUN HE USED ON OFFICER TIPPIT.
In 47 years, nobody has produced a single solitary piece of physical evidence to support their make-believe multi-gun conspiracies in the JFK assassination. And they never will produce any physical evidence to support their theories, because no such evidence exists--nor did it ever exist in the first place except in the imaginations of conspiracists who have a kooky desire to change history and accuse dozens and dozens of innocent people of being liars, frauds, and "cover-up" agents for the United States Government.
As another student of the JFK assassination case once said (and it's oh so true):
It was either Lee Harvey Oswald alone, or many, many people attempting to make it LOOK like Lee Harvey Oswald alone.
I ask -- which of the two above choices is the most reasonable?
BUD SAID:
I think there is a great fear in the CTer community about losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the public. Since they can't produce any conspirators (because they don't exist), they can only get solace from poll results and the HSCA finding of probable conspiracy.
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
Try actually watching and listening to the As it Happened TV coverage from that day. Several commentators said that it was obvious[ly] a conspiracy, even before they knew that Tippit was killed.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Some commentators gave their OPINION about it being a conspiracy, yes. But, so what? Those people were merely expressing a wholly unproven opinion about the events in Dallas.
And in some cases, it was a completely irresponsible opinion that was being put forth on live TV and radio on 11/22 -- for example: when ABC executive James Hagerty went on live television within hours of JFK's death and announced to the world that the assassination simply "had to be a well-planned conspiracy" [paraphrasing].
Hogwash. Hagerty knew NOTHING of a concrete or firm nature that would have justified him making such a silly and unwarranted announcement to the world on live television on the afternoon of November 22nd.
And then there was Mayor Earle Cabell's ridiculous statement on live TV, in which he said that practically the whole country should share in the shame and disgrace of the President's murder.
Cabell wasn't talking about a "conspiracy", but his statement was still unwarranted and irresponsible (IMO). He was suggesting that somehow EVERY citizen in the USA should take part of the blame for driving the assassin to the evil act that was committed in Dallas. That's just plain silly, and Cabell should have been scorned because of such an outlandish statement. (Was he scorned? I don't know.)
In any event, my main point brought up in my thread-starting post is still as valid and 100% correct as ever -- i.e., when watching or listening to the original 11/22/63 TV and radio coverage, you will not find even a hint of the kind of massive multiple-shooter assassination plot that many conspiracy theorists advocate.
And you're certainly not going to find a single original news report that comes even close to the number of gunshots that many CTers also believe in -- such as Oliver Stone's six shots, Bob Groden's 8 to 12 shots, or Don Adams' 11 shots.
And the reason you won't hear any such "6 to 12 shots" reports is because there simply weren't nearly that many shots fired in Dealey Plaza. It's as simple as that.
CHUCK OCHELLI SAID:
Before CBS had its cameras warmed up, the mention of three bursts of gunfire was there.
I know you have not bothered to read any of Biting the Elephant by Rodger Remington (Before you attacked it on this [Amazon.com] website), but if you did you would see what a trained Historian does to the work of people like the man who elevated No Name Maddox to the status of anti-hero when they did little of their own work on this case... Vinnie and the English tv cartoons aside ... Why don't you go attack Remington's other 3 books and give them the maximum stars allowed also.
1 peice [sic] of actual evidence to support the lone gunman theory is all I ask. Fact is the proof of LHO's guilt was so strong the DPD wouldn't even grant him a lawyer no matter how many times he begged for it on t.v., and they didn't even bother to conduct remotely fair line-ups just to give his defense a fighting chance.
Where is the witness or physical connection to the rifle he supposedly owned?
From your point of view, the book ["Reclaiming History"] should be an embaressment [sic] simply because the thing is one misrepresentation after another. Even if I agreed with you, I could not support a book that supports the work [of] a man who lies under oath like [Vincent] Guinn and relies almost entirely on a postal employee who heard Oswald say things in a room full of trained observers that no one else present heard.
As far as other early news reports go, Mr. [Bill] Newman and Mrs. [Jean] Hill don't quite jive with the Dulles commission, do they?
I guess the inquisitions across Europe were good since it was a Christian thing. Just like a guy who doesn't use a computer can release a cd-rom of end notes. It's a good idea to have a guy you fire participate in the investigation of the murder victim. The multiple confrontations where non-existent Secret Service agents stop multiple police and other silly witness types from going in certain directions? Not odd in the least.
Who's the Kook?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You are, Charlie. That's quite obvious.
You and all other conspiracists don't have the slightest idea how to evaluate evidence properly (and reasonably).
A good example being the way you talk about Oswald demanding a lawyer and yet (says you) the DPD refused to provide him with one.
That's a crock of nonsense and you know it. Oswald told Mr. Nichols on Saturday, 11/23/63 that he didn't even want a lawyer at that time. (I suppose H. Louis Nichols was a liar too, huh Charlie?)
Nichols' live news conference on November 23rd [see video below] is all anyone needs to hear to properly evaluate the "Oswald Wants A Lawyer" question.
Yes, Oswald did say on live TV that he wanted a lawyer. But obviously he was just begging for a little bit of pity at that time (or he was playing one of his mind games with the authorities, like he was known to do, such as when he toyed with them about the backyard photos being faked).
If Oswald truly was desperate for legal counsel, he would have jumped at Nichols' offer, instead of just brushing him aside.
It's a shame that more people can't (or simply refuse to) step back from their conspiracy-tinged abyss long enough to properly evaluate the totality of evidence in the JFK/Tippit case. But they never will do that--and that's because people like Oliver Stone and Jim Douglass and Charles Ochelli WANT a conspiracy to exist in this case. And even though they have zero pieces of physical evidence to back up their theories, they will continue their hunt for chaff from now till the year 2525. Because that's what they do best--promote fantasies, sans any non-Oswald bullets (or rifles).
And btw, I never once "attacked" Mr. Remington's "Biting The Elephant" book on the Amazon site. Don't believe everything a kook named DiEugenio tells you. He's wrong about almost everything. He actually thinks Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just made up their stories about the paper bag. That's how delusional some of these nuts have gotten over the years.
But, of course, it doesn't matter how many innocent people a person like Jimbo D. has to call liars or cover-up operatives. The more, the merrier in the conspiracy fantasy world. And, incredibly, he actually gets more CTers to jump on his bandwagon of buffoonery.
A MONTH LATER, CHUCK OCHELLI SAID:
huffing and puffing????
yes dave we've all seen your youtube ch.
but the first broadcast reports can be used a thousand different ways
they got plenty right and wrong from any point of view
and I make no claim to any theory sir
I examine the joke the WC and its dgmatic [sic] defenders spew in mantra form and see LIES
just like Vinny who doesn't do his own work and dirrectly [sic] misrepresents witness accounts, omits critical points of honest researchers and over 20 years insists on reliance on junk science that has been discredited
I don't want a conspiracy either
But I am sure dave didn't read the entire doorstop as i did
did you enjoy any of his other work?
in addition to the obvious, I wish to inform vinny's fans that there is a serious difference between a dallas courtroom and a london TV set no matter how much stock you want to put in his defeat of the obviously uninvolved jerry spense [sic]
Fraggle rock had a better grasp on reality
but those who learn by assumption instead of reading and only contact authors staff instead of speaking with witness and players in any given event will love Vin and Forrests work i guess
I seek the truth and it is obscured
there may even be only one lone assasin .....
problem is looking into the evidence ...
It was not Oswald
No valid balistics [sic],
No valid forensics,
No valid witness,
just manipulation obvious to a blind guy, and I don't mean the WC star witness that without his high index prescription glasses knew how tall the shooter was from the ground when the shooter was 6 floors up ....... and by the z-film was not even looking that way when shots are claimed to be fired.
but i just read books and documents, and photos, films, and reports, and all that tin foil hat type stuff.
I hope Bugliousi [sic] pays you for your campaign efforts
supporting propeganda [sic] like that has to be taxing
unless the world is in fact flat
CHUCK OCHELLI ALSO SAID:
I am the in-the-flesh pot that the kettle called black
Not a ct as DVP contends
just know LHO is not guilty based on the known evidence
DVP wants to put the tin foil cap on me cuz I wrote some op-ed peices [sic] calling restraining history and Forrest Gump out in some NY and NJ papers as well as my little stuff i give away
DAVE has to defend vinny as we know .... and vin has to except [sic] it
after all if I spent 20+ years having others write my book "for the ages" as poorly as vinny allowed I would take help from people who don't read entire works, and despite being clearly psychologicly [sic] weakened by old age I might even not be able to deal with mild chalenges [sic] from jesse ventura too.
And I know how much the truTV show was wrong DAVE better than you do i am sure.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's difficult to even decipher Charles Ochelli's last two horribly written posts of nonsense. But nonsense it still is nonetheless.
(Chuck seems to write better when he's spreading his pro-conspiracy tripe at Amazon.com. He'll actually use punctuation and proper capitalization there.)
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
I see that Mr. Charles "Chuck" Ochelli is in a "Let's Attack DVP For A Few Days At Various Forums" mode.
Maybe this isn't the same Charles Ochelli I confronted at the forums at Amazon.com, however, because the person who wrote the mess above under Charles' name is sure lousy at writing, whereas that hasn't been the case at Amazon. ~shrug~
In any event, I'm enjoying Chuck's February 2011 round of pro-conspiracy and anti-Bugliosi crappola. Stupid junk like Chuck's always makes me smile, especially the part where he insinuates that I didn't even read all of Mr. Bugliosi's outstanding book. [LOL.]
And the part about Bugliosi not doing his own work/research is a howl too. Naturally, Mr. Ochelli will instantly believe the accusations of David "Bugliosi's Book Was Ghostwritten" Lifton as if they were the Gospel.
Maybe he should read the post below before accepting the unfounded and ridiculous claims made by Lifton in May 2007:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/ghostwriting.html
In the final (reasonable) analysis, Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" has not been torn to shreds by people like James DiEugenio or David Lifton or anyone else. And that's because there is rock-solid evidence within the 2,800+ pages of "Reclaiming History" to illustrate that every conspiracy theorist's favorite patsy was, instead, a double-murderer.
And no long-time CTer wants to ever admit to that (double) fact. Certainly not David Lifton or Jim DiEugenio, who have spent years and years trying to convince people that a massive conspiracy took place in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
Conspiracy theorists who think Lee Harvey Oswald was totally innocent of shooting both President Kennedy and Officer Tippit are attempting to extinguish a six-alarm fire with a squirt gun.
And that's just exactly what the CTers have done with Vincent Bugliosi and his book "Reclaiming History". They are trying to make the massive amount of evidence against Lee Oswald disappear by merely pretending that ALL of this evidence is phony. And that's a really silly approach (especially considering the sheer volume of evidence that exists against Oswald--in TWO separate murders too).
The constant refrain that we always hear (year after year) about every single piece of evidence against Oswald being faked or manipulated or planted is just not going to cut it. And it never did cut it.
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
I've never seen you criticize Bugliosi.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Then you haven't been paying close enough attention. See my comments about Chapters 3 and 4 here.
And scroll about 60% of the way down this webpage, and look for the paragraph that begins with these words:
"One mistake made by Bugliosi that DiEugenio could definitely have raked Vince over the hot coals for is..."
David Von Pein
January 3, 2011
January 6, 2011
January 3—February 6, 2011
January 3—February 6, 2011
