(PART 66)


>>> "I mean they [the DPD] interviewed the guy [Lee Harvey Oswald] for like 12 hours; why is there no recording of him confessing or anything else?" <<<


I guess maybe that's because he didn't confess....or anything. (Duh.)

Let's see you come up with proof that it was a regular DPD policy to
record or transcribe the statements of prisoners/suspects, circa 1963.
Can you do that?

Plus, we have this from J. Will Fritz. (But Fritz, a 31-year veteran
of the Dallas Police Department as of 11/22/63, is probably just lying
out his fat ass, right Mr. Rob-Kook?).....

JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you have any tape recorder?"

CAPTAIN J.W. FRITZ -- "No, sir; I don't have a tape recorder. We need
one, if we had one at this time we could have handled these
conversations far better."

MR. BALL -- "The Dallas Police Department doesn't have one?"

CAPTAIN FRITZ -- "No, sir; I have requested one several times but so
far they haven't gotten me one."


>>> "Also, if [the Dallas Police] had guarded him better, he would have gone to trial and we could have heard all the details." <<<

Oh, you mean all of those "conspiracy" details, right? You think that
a vast conspiracy would have been revealed by Patsy Oswald had he gone
to trial, huh? (He would have been a fool to step up on that witness
stand, of course, but that's another discussion.)

You kooks have been attempting to drag that Patsy Plot out into the
daylight for 44 years and 3 days now, and we haven't seen a vestige of
that plot proven yet. But I guess you think Oswald would have taken
that witness stand and started singing like a jaybird had he lived to
see his trial, right?

~Chuckle Time~

>>> "...But the DPD can't protect anyone I guess." <<<

So you think the DPD deliberately allowed Oswald to be killed in the
police basement? Is that it, kookmeister?

Or are you merely down in the dumps because your favorite patsy was
gunned down before he was convicted of the two murders that he
positively committed on 11/22/63?

>>> "Why did they [the DPD] not get him a lawyer?" <<<

The President of the Dallas Bar Association (H. Louis Nichols) came to
see Oswald on Saturday, November 23rd and offered the services of the
DBA, but LHO turned down the offer and told Nichols that he might
contact him later if he could not secure Mr. Abt's services. .....

"The chief [Jesse Curry] had the officer open the door, and he introduced me to Oswald, and told him my name and said that I was the president of the Dallas Bar Association and had come up to see him about whether or not he needed or wanted a lawyer. .... I said, 'What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?' He said, 'No, not now'." -- H.L. Nichols; Warren Commission Testimony; April 8, 1964


And there's also this testimony from Captain Fritz:

JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you say anything to him [Oswald] about an attorney
the first time you talked to him?"

CAPTAIN J.W. FRITZ -- "Yes, sir; the first time. He asked about an
attorney, and I told him he certainly could have an attorney any time
he wanted it. I told him he could have an attorney any time he liked,
any attorney he wanted. I told him, I said, we will do it. He said he
wanted an attorney in New York. And he gave me his name, Mr. Abt, and
he said that is who he wanted, and I told him he could have anyone he


CAPTAIN FRITZ -- "He [LHO] told me that he didn't want a lawyer and he
told me once or twice that he didn't want to answer any questions at
all. .... I talked to him about a lawyer a number of times and he said
he didn't want the local attorneys, some attorney had been up to see
him after one of these questionings, and he said he didn't want him at
all. He wanted Mr. Abt."


Still think Oswald was being denied legal representation?

>>> "There is no evidence in LN land; therefore, I can't be a LNer if I follow the evidence." <<<

Let's listen to that one more time (just for the mindboggling
stupidity that exists within these few words):

"There is no evidence in LN land."

(It's even more mindbogglingly stupid the second time around.)

>>> "I started by reading the official document called the WCR, and unsatisfied with this horrible and ridiculous account, I began searching for more information." <<<

Yeah, why stick with the documented facts and the verified "It Was
Oswald" evidence when you can just as easily go "searching for more
information" until you find the pro-conspiracy kookshit you're desperately
seeking, right?

Good plan.

>>> "More people who were in the Marines with him have said he was a horrible shot, vs. anyone you can find. It is well documented with his scores as well." <<<


Dr. John Lattimer was able to acquire Oswald's original "Score Book"
from the Marines (or at least one such book that recorded some of
Oswald's rifle-range scores), and that book showed the results of two
of Oswald's near-perfect scores on the range (at a 200-yard distance,
which is more than twice the distance of Oswald's third shot in Dallas,
which was only 88 yards).

In a documentary a few years ago, Dr. Lattimer showed the two pages of
the Score Book on camera. One of the scores was 48 out of 50; and on
another day, Oswald scored a 49 out of 50 on the 200-yard rifle range.

But it's best for you conspiracy-happy kooks if you keep on believing
that Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't hit the broadest side of the
proverbial barn, despite the fact that you're dead wrong.

>>> "He had no practice between this exam and the assassination, so how is he better than a civilian that hunts and practices all the time?" <<<

Firstly, you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that Oswald "had no
practice" between the time he scored that 191 late in his 3-year hitch
in the Marines and the day of the assassination. He might very well
have practiced with his Carcano between March and November. Nobody can
prove he did; but nobody can prove he didn't either.

Secondly, while I'll readily admit that Oswald's shooting ability
could have been a tad rusty as of November 1963 (since he had been out
of the Marines for four years by that time), he DID spend three full
years in the U.S. Marine Corps and DID make some very good scores on
the rifle range during those three years.

In short, Lee Harvey Oswald was a TRAINED MILITARY RIFLEMAN -- like it
or not. He was trained by men who know how to teach people how to
shoot rifles; and while Oswald was never in the top ("Expert") category,
he did make "Sharpshooter" in 1956, so the ability for some pretty decent
shooting with a rifle was certainly within the person of Lee H. Oswald.

Should I use the "It's like riding a bike--you never forget" analogy
here? (Okay...I just did anyway.)

>>> "You are the one saying I'm wrong, but as usual you have no proof to show." <<<

What is considered "proof" to a conspiracy kook anyway? Would a note
from God saying "It Was Lee" do the trick?

I guess it's going to take that heaven-sent message from above to
convince the kooks, because apparently the FIFTY-PLUS separate pieces
of individual evidence that lead toward Oswald's guilt are not nearly
enough for the "Anybody But Oz" loony-toons.

V.B. BREAK........

"As a prosecutor, I found out something -- and, really, you don't have to be a prosecutor to know this; it's just common sense -- and that is: if you are innocent of a crime, there's probably not going to be anything pointing toward your guilt. Why? Well, because you're INNOCENT. But because of the nature of life, and the unaccountability of certain things, every once in a while there might be one or two things that point toward your guilt, even though you're innocent. And in very rare situations, there might even be THREE things that point toward your guilt even though you're completely innocent. But in this case, EVERY SINGLE THING pointed toward Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. Everything! In "Reclaiming History", I set forth 53 separate pieces of evidence that point irresistibly to Oswald's guilt. And under those circumstances, it would not be humanly possible for him to be innocent. Because you cannot have fifty-three separate pieces of evidence pointing toward your guilt and still be innocent....at least not in the world in which we live. Only in a fantasy world can you have fifty-three pieces of evidence pointing to your guilt and still be innocent." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; 2007

>>> "I don't see what is so nutty about what I say." <<<

You supposedly have studied the evidence in this case (right??), and
yet you have the balls to say crap like this (on more than one occasion):

"LHO shot no one."


"There is no evidence in LN land."

And then you have the additional gall to say this:

"I don't see what is so nutty about what I say."

(Apparently Robby wouldn't notice a pair of elephants sitting in his
bathtub, even when Rob's in the bathtub with them.)

Fact is (of course): The junk Rob spews is so "nutty", we could make a
gallon of peanut butter with it. (Those elephants might come in handy
here after all.)

>>> "You think LHO is guilty based on very little evidence..." <<<

There's that nutty talk again. (Really nutty.)

You're just plain wrong here, Rob. Simple as that. No matter how many
times you insist that there's "very little evidence" against Lee
Oswald, it still won't be true. The exact opposite is true, in fact.

There is so much evidence against Oswald for the two murders he
carried out on November 22, 1963, it's almost beyond belief.

I suppose that's part of the reason you just simply don't want to
believe in the vast assortment of evidence that exists against Mr.
Oswald; i.e., you probably think it's just "too pat", right? It's too
convenient. Which means, per some CTers, that this huge mountain of
evidence (both physical and circumstantial) must somehow be fake or
manufactured in some way.

But at some point, the person making such bold claims must PROVE HIS
CASE, and prove that all (or ANY) of this evidence against LHO is, in
fact, "faked" or "planted", or whatever. Thus far, such proof has not

In fact, CTers are pitiful in this regard. They don't really even TRY
to prove their claims about "phony evidence". They think that by just
SAYING the evidence is "no good", it magically makes it so. But, as
Vincent Bugliosi (a seasoned courtroom lawyer) would say -- "It's not
quite that easy!"

Speaking (again) of Vince, now seems like a pretty good time for
another "Vince Common Sense Break". Let's bask in the following logic
for just a minute or two, shall we? All quotes are directly from the
indicated pages of Bugliosi's 2007 masterwork "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy":

"Not only was there PHYSICAL circumstantial evidence against Oswald [e.g., guns, bullets, and fingerprints traced to the defendant], but there was an enormous amount of non-physical circumstantial evidence, including the very most powerful in this category: his flight from the murder scene, his resisting arrest, and his telling one provable lie after another upon his apprehension, all showing an unmistakable consciousness of guilt." -- Page 528 of endnotes


"In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Page 964


"It is remarkable that conspiracy theorists can believe that groups like the CIA, military-industrial complex, and FBI would murder the president, but cannot accept the likelihood, even the possibility, that a nut like Oswald would flip out and commit the act, despite the fact that there is a ton of evidence showing that Oswald killed Kennedy, and not an ounce showing that any of these groups had anything to do with the assassination. It is further remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Pages 951-952


"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence." -- Pages 952-953


"I can tell the readers of this book that if anyone in the future maintains to them that Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against Oswald or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Page 969

>>> "The real point is that LHO could not do what your theory claims by himself (in terms of the SBT [Single-Bullet Theory], only with God's help); therefore, common sense says he had help at the very least. Help = conspiracy. Not real difficult, Dave." <<<

And just because ALL of the physical (ballistics) evidence DOES,
indeed, tell the world that you are 100% wrong, with that evidence
showing that one gunman DID, indeed, pull off the assassination of
President Kennedy all by himself (i.e., with Lee Harvey Oswald's very
own C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, firing three shots from Oswald's
own workplace on the 6th Floor of the Texas School Book Depository
Building in Dealey Plaza)....you, a rabid conspiracist, choose to
believe exactly the OPPOSITE from what this ballistics evidence

Is that about the size of the situation as she currently exists there
in Kookville? (Meaning: Things are normal in Kookville....everything
is upside-down and topsy-turvy.)

And maybe you should take a closer look at the Single-Bullet Theory,
Robert. It's the only possible scenario that makes a lick of sense (when
all of the physical evidence and all variables regarding the victims
are evaluated).

I've taken a pretty close look at the SBT, along with the crazy solutions
that some CTers have invented to replace the SBT; and if you truly think
that ANY theory purported by CTers (if you can even get a CTer to talk
about a detailed anti-SBT scenario, which is very rare) is MORE reasonable
and MORE convincing than the single-bullet scenario, then you are immersed
deeper in conspiracy quicksand than anyone could possibly imagine.

If you peruse some of these articles, you'll be able to see what I mean.

>>> "Like he [Oswald] knew about all the things they were doing to frame him. Please. They are professionals; they knew how to do this and get away with it." <<<

Hilarious. The kook thinks that these "professionals" would have actually fired
upon JFK's limo from three (or more) different locations within the framework

Did those "professionals" have a patent on "Miracles Coming True", too?
They must have, if they forged ahead with a cuckoo scheme like that
one (which is a theory that many, many conspircists actually believe, too).

>>> "How do you explain the horrible effort by the Warren Commission if there was no coverup?" <<<

What "horrible effort"? Their effort was outstanding, for they arrived
at the truth about what happened on November 22, and then published
their findings (a few warts and all) for all Americans to read.

Thousands of pages of testimony were published and 3,154 exhibits were
introduced into evidence by the WC (not counting the many extra
"Commission Documents"). 552 witnesses were interviewed (many at great
length). And a staff of full-time lawyers investigated and researched
the case for over nine months.

Maybe you should try reading this impressive 888-page document. After
all, the truth rests within it.

>>> "They couldn't have planned on a better group of numskulls if they tried (except for Dick Russell)." <<<

What a surprise, huh? Rob picks out as his WC hero the one person on
the Commission who was, by far, the biggest know-nothing member of
that Commission (Richard Russell). Still batting triple-zero, Rob.
Good job.

>>> "Nothing like proving anything, huh? He [Vince Bugliosi] just uses an abstract reference to make his point. Just pathetic." <<<

Spoken by the kook as if Bugliosi presented ZERO pieces of evidence
pointing to Oswald's guilt during the course of the 21-hour TV Docu-Trial
in 1986.

Maybe you should actually THINK before you post your foolishness, Rob.
That might be nice for a change. And then you might want to actually
WATCH the TV Trial, to see the large amount of evidence against Oswald
that was introduced into the record of that trial (albeit a "mock" trial, yes;
but it's the exact same evidence that prosecutor Bugliosi would have
introduced at Oswald's real trial; and all of it dooms Lee Harvey).

Or, you can read some "On Trial" excerpts in print form HERE.

I guess Rob will next be saying that all of the following people were
liars, or were strong-armed, or were coerced by evil forces when they
each testified about things at that Mock Trial that point to a guilty
Lee Harvey Oswald (even though NONE of these witnesses was forced
to testify at the television "trial" in London, England, in July 1986; each
one of them appeared voluntarily):

Harold Norman, Wesley Frazier, Eugene Boone, Ruth Paine, Lyndal Shaneyfelt,
Jack Tatum, Charles Brehm, Marrion Baker, Ted Callaway, Vincent Guinn,
Charles Petty, Nelson Delgado, and Johnny Brewer (among others).

>>> "There is no real evidence linking him [Lee Harvey Oswald] to the two murders, if you want to look." <<<

Oh, I've looked. Perhaps you should look. Apparently you've conveniently
missed seeing the fifty or so things that incriminate your favorite patsy.
(Are all 50 "fake"? .... Put down the bottle.)

>>> "The DPD did a horrible job of protecting him on purpose, so there would be no trial." <<<

More hilarity. The DPD was willing to DELIBERATELY give the whole
department an irreversible black eye by allowing Ruby to shoot their
prisoner on live TV. Right, kookman?

And killing the patsy in front of 70 policemen and millions watching
on television would surely calm the public's fears that JFK's murder
was the result of some kind of conspiracy....wouldn't it, Robby?*

* = If a plot was brewing in Dallas, then the plotters killing Oswald
on TV in a police basement with cops all around him would certainly
have fueled more people's suspicions about a conspiracy than it
would squelch (and it did fuel such suspicions, of course). Which is
exactly the OPPOSITE of what any covert "plotters" would want the
general public to think, if there had, in fact, been an elaborate
"Let's Frame Oswald And Then Bump Him Off Before He Can Talk"
type of plot afoot in Dallas in 1963.

>>> "Why was Ruby allowed to get so close to shoot LHO? Answer that one." <<<

An amazing combination of things brought about the murder of JFK's
assassin in the police basement on November 24th, 1963. .....

1.) Jack Ruby and WHO he was; i.e., he was KNOWN by many DPD officers
and Dallas officials; and Ruby was SEEN by some of these people
earlier that weekend at DPD Headquarters. This made it very easy for
Ruby to blend in with the crowd at the bottom of the basement's ramp
just before Oswald was brought out. In effect, it would have been a
"normal" thing to have seen Jack Ruby there.

2.) The fact that the basement had been searched by police BEFORE Ruby
entered the basement at 11:20 AM. If Ruby had managed to sneak into
the basement a half-hour or so earlier, he almost certainly would have
been ejected by police officers. But Jack's timing was impeccable,
entering the basement probably no more than 45 seconds before Oswald

3.) The moving of the police car which exited the basement garage just
seconds before the shooting....which allowed Ruby to sneak in
unnoticed by Officer Roy Vaughn, who was guarding the entrance ramp to
the garage, because Vaughn had to step into the street to stop traffic
so that Officer Pierce could drive out of the garage. Again, only the
incredibly fortunate timing by Jack Ruby allowed him to gain entry
into that basement.

4.) Karen Carlin's telephone call to Ruby on Sunday morning. That
call, and its timing, permitted Ruby to be in the right place at just
the right time at 11:20 AM at the top of the Main St. ramp, just one
minute before Oswald was killed.

5.) Ruby's habit of almost always carrying a gun ON HIM wherever he
went. Because if Ruby HADN'T had this habit, he wouldn't have been
able to kill Oswald anyway (unless he had planned to beat Lee Harvey
to death with the brass knuckles that Jack had in his car, also known
as "Ruby's Thrift Shop On Wheels").

6.) Jack Ruby's violent temper and his willingness to take the law into
his own hands. Without these character traits of Ruby's firmly in place
on 11/24/63, it's very likely that Mr. Oswald would have lived to see
the sun come up November 25th.

>>> "You are getting desperate Dave, as I never said that [i.e., Rob is saying here that he never claimed that the three bullet shells found in the sniper's nest were NEVER linked conclusively to Oswald's rifle], and you adding it later is not going to prove it." <<<

How about my proving it with a cite from the Google post where you
actually said it? Would that suffice? Yes, you did make that stupid
claim about the bullet shells, on November 17, 2007:

I said (while listing some of the evidence against Oswald):

"The three bullet shells in the SN."

Rob then said in direct response (which is actually a double hunk of
idiocy, including its second part too):

"From a Carcano, but never proven they were from the C2766, which in turn was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt to even belong to LHO."

Here's the whole post by Robert (for verification).

>>> "[The three shells in the sniper's nest] were fired at some point to the time of the assassination and left to frame LHO." <<<

And the DPD just happened to have three spent rifle cartridges on them
to "plant" beneath the killer's window, huh?

If that's not what you're suggesting, then what shells were photographed
by Lt. J.C. Day and Robert Studebaker very shortly after the assassination
(and BEFORE the Carcano rifle of Oswald's was even removed from the

>>> "CE399 is undoubtedly from the M-C, but it is an obvious plant and was not actually fired at the president or JBC." <<<

You're an idiot.

>>> "Got it straight now[?]" <<<

Oh, sure. You're a freaking idiot. Couldn't be any clearer.

>>> "The term 'very likely' is not definitive, as I have shown you several sources that said metal either matches or it doesn't, there is no 'very likely' about it." <<<

Again, you're an idiot. I've proven that you're wrong about this (regarding
the front-seat bullet fragments being provably linked to Oswald's rifle "TO
THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS"), but you refuse to believe it.

I have even supplied weblinks to the testimony which proves this important
fact (a fact that every JFK researcher should know by heart, and without
ever having to refresh their memory).

But, I'll try it yet again.....

ROBERT FRAZIER -- "[CE]567 [one of the two front-seat bullet fragments], the one we have just finished."

JOHN McCLOY -- "Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. McCLOY -- "You have no doubt about any of those?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "None whatsoever."


MR. FRAZIER -- "This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569 [the other of the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the limousine], was fired from this particular rifle, 139."

MEL EISENBERG -- "Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."



Here's another important point I'd like to make about the Warren Commission
and the "experts" who were called upon to testify for that Commission:

Conspiracy theorists rarely, if ever, acknowledge the fact that the
Warren Commission went to additional lengths (beyond what they
certainly HAD to do, of course) to determine the truth with respect to
the major pieces of physical evidence connected with the assassination
(such as the ballistics/bullet evidence and the fingerprint evidence), in
that those pieces of evidence were examined by not only people
employed by the FBI....but also by INDEPENDENT experts OUTSIDE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in these fields of evidence identification.

Independent experts Joseph Nicol of Illinois (for ballistics) and Arthur Mandella
of the New York City Police Department (for fingerprint analysis) were
brought in by the WC to examine various pieces of evidence connected
with the case, and both Nicol and Mandella arrived at the exact same
conclusions that the FBI did.

In fact, one of the independent experts (Nicol) even went a step
beyond the FBI when he testified that one of the four bullets removed
from Officer J.D. Tippit's body could positively be linked to Lee Harvey
Oswald's Smith & Wesson .38 revolver to the exclusion of every other
gun on the planet. Here's what Nicol told the Commission:

JOSEPH NICOL -- "On specimen 602--I'm sorry--603 [one of the four bullets taken out of Tippit's body], which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606."

MEL EISENBERG -- "That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?"

MR. NICOL -- "Yes, sir."


So, it would appear to me that the Warren Commission did an excellent
job of getting at the truth of the matters concerning these very important
determinations regarding the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the John F. Kennedy
murder case.

The Commission, in fact, utilized (in many instances) TRIPLE redundancy
when it came to arriving at conclusions about the evidence in the case;
i.e., the WC had up to three separate people (from both Governmental
and non-Governmental institutions) examine the critical pieces of physical
evidence in this murder case....and they ALL came to the same basic
conclusions when each of them testified for the Warren Commission in 1964.

The Commission, come to think of it, possibly utilized that type of
redundancy in an effort to ward off the exact kind of allegations that
are still be hurled at the WC to this day -- i.e., allegations that the
"fox [the Government's own FBI] was investigating the chicken coop".

But what about experts like the previously mentioned Nicol and
Mandella (who worked for non-Federal Government organizations in
Illinois and New York)?

Do conspiracy theorists think that those independent experts in the
fields of ballistics and fingerprint identification told a bunch of lies to
the Warren Commission, too?

In short, is there anything that conspiracy theorists won't do, say,
twist, or allege in order to try to discredit the work that was done
by the Warren Commission and its legal staff in 1963 and 1964?

I think I know the answer to that last question. Don't you?

>>> "My question is simple: if he [LHO] craved world attention, and he accomplished something the best shots in the world couldn't accomplish, why deny it?" <<<

Denying it got him the same amount of world attention, idiot. And
that's because Oswald knew he was guilty and he also knew that he left
behind a popcorn trail for the police that convicts him 30 times over.

Perhaps that's a viable explanation for why he left behind those
bullet shells in the window, and the gun on the same 6th Floor, and
his fingerprints all over the place, and the shells on 10th Street,
etc. Maybe, deep down, he WANTED to get caught.

We know that he certainly EXPECTED to get caught, that's for sure.
And we know this via his actions that Friday morning in Irving (e.g.,
leaving behind the $170 and the wedding ring for Marina).

It's hard to get inside the head of a person who actually has it
inside him the capacity to murder the President of the United States.
That's what makes it a bit difficult to know what Oswald's exact
motives were; or why he was so incredibly stupid and inept after
performing the shooting (e.g., leaving behind enough "LHO Was Here"
evidence to make sure he'd be convicted, and then, on top of that,
also killing a policeman while in full flight from the first murder,
and doing the latter in front of many witnesses too).

But to think that ALL of this stuff has been conveniently "planted" by
other people after the fact is just too ridiculous to be considered.
Author and ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan said it very nicely in
his 2005 book when he said:

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops", with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "Evil Geniuses", with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"

Oh, btw Robby, this statement of yours is dead wrong (as per your norm) --
"He accomplished something the best shots in the world couldn't accomplish."

Fact is, of course, that many people have duplicated (and even bettered)
Oswald's so-called "impossible feat", including some expert riflemen in
1967 (for this CBS-TV special).

So you can take that CT Myth out back and bury it too. (Along with all
the other outdated and debunked myths you insist upon espousing as
the truth.)

>>> [Referring to Jim Garrison:] "You don't have to agree with everything someone says or does to still find worth in their effort. You should learn this." <<<

Garrison did NOTHING of a redeeming or "worthy" nature. Nothing. Quite
the opposite, in fact. He prosecuted a man he knew to be totally innocent
(Clay Shaw), and he believed in the craziest of all imaginable JFK
conspiracy theories -- a pre-arranged one-patsy plot involving up to
FIVE shooters blasting away at the President.

And: Garrison went further into nutsville territory by uttering this brazen
lie in 1967 (just one of the many lies and misrepresentations he spewed
forth in the late 1960s):

"The clincher, as far as I'm concerned, is that four cartridges were found at the scene of the [Tippit] slaying. Now, revolvers do not eject cartridges, so when someone is shot, you don't later find gratuitous cartridges strewn over the sidewalk -- unless the murderer deliberately takes the trouble to eject them. We suspect that cartridges had been previously obtained from Oswald's .38 revolver and left at the murder site by the real killers as part of the setup to incriminate Oswald." -- Jim Garrison (Via his Playboy Magazine interview in 1967)

Maybe Mr. Garrison should have taken a good look at these affidavits
before shooting off his mouth to Playboy Magazine:



>>> "He [Garrison] was after Shaw due to his CIA ties." <<<

Which, of course, were non-existent (apart from Shaw's "Domestic
Service" CIA involvement, which is a service that many, many other
ordinary Americans volunteered for and participated in as well).
You're talking crazy shit, as per usual.

>>> "Do you think there are open windows for Dubya? Kind of
doubt it." <<<

Why wouldn't there be? President Bush never drives around in a
convertible with the top down. No President has done that since
Kennedy on 11/22/63.


>>> "Can't you quote anyone besides Bugman [aka: Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq.]?" <<<

Well, my policy is this: Why not quote from the best source available
whenever possible? (IOW: Why quote a bunch of conspiracy kooks when
I've got Vince?)

Besides, your question is based on yet another inaccuracy....because
I've quoted many other people in my posts and reviews [click the link
below for plenty of examples] -- e.g., Belin, Sturdivan, Davison, Myers,
Lattimer, Posner, Fuhrman, Rahn, Ford, Manchester, Bud (from the
alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup, whose logic-filled posts many times rival
the words of Bugliosi), and many more.

David Von Pein
November 2007