The Magic Bullet Theory

[Ron Ecker]

It is worth reading his nonsense in order that Robert Charles Dunne can give him a lesson in logic. After all, this is an educational forum.

That would make sense if Von Pein had any interest in such a lesson. As Von Pein reminds everyone over and over, we CTs do not have "common sense." But if reasoned replies such as Robert's have the side benefit of helping any other readers think more logically, well and good. As far as benefiting Von Pein, I can cite the case of Bill Miller, who engaged Von Pein on the Lancer Forum for page after page page after page page after page page after page page after page page after page page after page, until I believe Bill gave up from sheer exhaustion, or until Von Pein got booted from the forum, whichever came first.

[John Simkin]

It is worth reading his nonsense in order that Robert Charles Dunne can give him a lesson in logic. After all, this is an educational forum.

That would make sense if Von Pein had any interest in such a lesson. As Von Pein reminds everyone over and over, we CTs do not have "common sense." But if reasoned replies such as Robert's have the side benefit of helping any other readers think more logically, well and good.

That is the intention. I know there is no chance we can change Von Pein's mind. In fact, I would rather Von Pein remains a lone nutter. I would hate to think he agrees with me about anything.

[Jack White]

Robert Charles-Dunn's superb intellect enables him to swat

Von Pain around effortlessly when it comes to FACTS.

What I wish Robert and others would address is WHY people

like Von Pain waste their time trolling the internet. NO SANE

PERSON wastes hours on hours defending something so

obviously flawed as the Warren Report. Assuming that Von

Pain is NOT insane, we are forced to wonder what alternative

motive he has. Is he on assignment? WHY does he endlessly

promote the official fiction? Any opinions on this, Robert?

Fletcher Prouty once told me that the CIA actively employs

people to be disruptive and promote false information.

Nuff said.

Jack

Edited July 20, 2006 by Jack White

[Bill Miller]

What I wish Robert and others would address is WHY people

like Von Pain waste their time trolling the internet. NO SANE

PERSON wastes hours on hours defending something so

obviously flawed as the Warren Report. Assuming that Von

Pain is NOT insane, we are forced to wonder what alternative

motive he has. Is he on assignment? WHY does he endlessly

promote the official fiction?

I have wondered the same thing, but others have convinced me that someone like Von Pein has a type of sickness.

Fletcher Prouty once told me that the CIA actively employs

people to be disruptive and promote false information.

Nuff said.

Jack

I wonder what Fletcher would have said had he seen where you posteed a clip of Jean Hill saying how she was 'standing in the street', while not pointing out where she said she had gotten back out of it before the first shot was fired ... all in an effort to promote your position. It's not right to fault others for something you do yourself. If JFK's murder could have been investigated from a human rights standpoint instead of a political matter, then maybe more could have been learned.

Bill Miller

I don't follow you. How could the plotters not consider the possibility that

a non-fatal round would inspire the President to hit the deck?

The only way to INSURE an easy kill shot is paralyze the target first.

Kennedy was confined to a limited space in the back seat with assassins looking down into the car - he had nowhere to hide IMO, thus while anything is possible ... I think the assassins were shooting to kill and were merely missing their mark until the head shot occurred.

Bill Miller

Edited July 20, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

I wonder what Fletcher would have said had he seen where you posteed a clip of Jean Hill saying how she was 'standing in the street', while not pointing out where she said she had gotten back out of it before the first shot was fired ... all in an effort to promote your position.

dgh: was Prouty alive when the Moorman5 street/grass issue came to light? What difference does it make if Hill was in the street before the first shot? I suspect most on the infield were on the street before the first shot.

Bill Miller

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Robert Charles-Dunn's superb intellect enables him to swat

Von Pain around effortlessly when it comes to FACTS.

What I wish Robert and others would address is WHY people

like Von Pain waste their time trolling the internet. NO SANE

PERSON wastes hours on hours defending something so

obviously flawed as the Warren Report. Assuming that Von

Pain is NOT insane, we are forced to wonder what alternative

motive he has. Is he on assignment? WHY does he endlessly

promote the official fiction? Any opinions on this, Robert?

Fletcher Prouty once told me that the CIA actively employs

people to be disruptive and promote false information.

Nuff said.

Jack

I believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK but I always try to squeeze the various theories through a very specific test:

Imagine that time has stopped just before the first bullet was fired. Now imagine all of the machinations that would have to be in place for such a conspiracy to be carried out.

From various theorists, you would have to imagine that LBJ knew, Hoover knew, the Secret Service knew, numerous people in Dealey Plaza knew, elements of the military knew, the Dallas Police knew, etc.

JFK is nearly the only one who didn't know!

So while I do believe that LHO acted as part of a conspiracy that day, and that there was likely another shooter, the larger the conspiracy net, the less I believe it.

Mark

Each time that someone posts intellegent and rational thought, my hope for mankind receives a boost.

Hopefully, you will keep thinking along that lines, and even in the event that you do not come to the conclusion that there was only a "lone assassin/lone shooter", you wil nevertheless come closer to the facts and truths than have most.

[Bill Miller]

dgh: was Prouty alive when the Moorman5 street/grass issue came to light? What difference does it make if Hill was in the street before the first shot? I suspect most on the infield were on the street before the first shot.

David, your thinking is so narrow sighted that it is little wonder that you say the things that you do. I could check my last correspondences with Fletcher to see if the date fell before the 'Moorman in the street' claim, but that is not the point behind what I said. I spoke of the principal of withholding evidence in order to make a claim seem plausible ... I am certain that Fletcher would not agree with such deception.

I only know of three people who were positioned along the south side of Elm who had stepped into the street - Mary Moorman when she took the McBride photo - Jean Hill when she yelled to the approaching JFK to look her way, and James Altgens when he took his number 6 photo. But why I singled out Jean Hill is that she was asked about when she got into the street because of Jack's allegations of film alteration. This revolution came out in an interview Jean gave to Black Op' Radio and Jean was very clear that she had gotten back into the grass before the first shot had sounded, thus the Zfilm was correct and Jack was in error. Jean had given the interview long before Jack ran his edited clip of Jean saying she had stepped into the street. So because Jack believed Jean was in the street in the assassination films, he only showed Jean claiming she had stepped into the street, while not telling the reader the whole story. What Jack had done was designed to mislead the reader by withholding the information about Jean saying that she was back in the grass before the shooting started. That is the importance of mentioning Jean Hill and when she had stepped into the street.

Bill Miller

Edited July 20, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Thomas H. Purvis]

He {DVP} accepts as a premise that which is very much in doubt - that 399 was really the bullet found at Parkland.

Naturally, the rabid CTers "doubt" that 399 was found at Parkland. They "doubt" everything. What's new there?

But, since I have no good enough reason to "doubt" the authenticity of 399, I can say with a good deal of certainty that that bullet (from Oswald's gun) was found (before 2 PM on 11/22) near JBC's stretcher @ Parkland.

Remarkable, isn't it, if 399 is a "switched" bullet (switched for the actual "pointed-nose" one, per RCTers) that the amount of lead missing from this NEW (399) bullet, which never went into any victim on Nov. 22, just nicely matched the approx. amount of lead grains taken from Connally (plus the "microscopic" fragments left inside JBC, weighing, per Dr. Gregory "less than a postage stamp")?

Even if the CTers who buy into the switched/planted bullet nonsense want to think the lead amounts are OFF one way or the other....isn't it quite CLOSE to the amount missing from CE399, the bullet that no CTer thinks was even involved in the assassination at all?

How did these expert plotters manage that bit of lead-aligning wizardry? They just got lucky?

And isn't it also quite remarkable how this "planted/switched" bullet was said to have been inside JBC's body via NAA analysis -- 'to a great degree of certainty', that is.

Again, even if CTers want to balk at Guinn's NAA analysis (and, of course, they do), isn't it at least SOMEWHAT remarkable that that exact bullet (CE399) could actually be said by NAA examination to have PROBABLY been inside JBC?

How did the bullet-planters manage that bit of lead-matching NAA data? Just got lucky (again)? Or was Guinn on the Patsy-Plotters' payroll too?

Just food for CT thought.

DVP

1. I still await a clarification as to the "impossibility" of a bullet fired on a downward angle of approximately 18-degrees to enter the body on a downward angle of 45-degrees to 60-degrees.

Unless incorrect, I do believe that most of those who have even the most basic understanding of force as opposed to resistance, understand the rotational inertia of a bullet which happens to be turning end-over-end, and the effect on said bullet when it strikes an object which changes the direction of it's force.

2. Because you apparantly have never played the game of: "Which shell has the pea" is quite recognizable.

That however does not mean that either Arlen Specter and his "Shell" game in regards to which stretcher has the bullet, or the FBI's game of "where did the fragment go", happens to be so "slick" that it passed over the heads of us "ole" country boys.

We may be dumb, but we most certainly are not stupid!

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/ce840.jpg

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/CE/CE840.gif

So, certainly, the NAA provides statistical data which has some "certainty" as to the comparison of data from two sources.

The COMPLETE UNCERTAINTY, regards the fragments tested, and exactly where did they originate from.

And in that regards, "Lookout boys" JEH & Specter are at it again!

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

Mr. FRAZIER - There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened

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

"POSS Q1" should also give one an additional "hint". (Comments for fragments identified originally as Q-14, which became CE840, of which one fragment disappeared prior to being given to the National Archives.

http://jfklancer.com/docs.maps/FBI43646.gif

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

And then of course, we also have Frazier's additional "hint" as given during the Clay Shaw trial.

"Or the other alternative would be if the bullet tumbled in flight and wound up in a base-first attitude, then the lead would be exposed at the point of impact".

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

So DVP, the things which you do not know and/or do not understand, were most assuredly fully understood by JEH & Company, (which includes Arlen Specter), long before you and I stuck our noses into this business.

And, rest assured that the FBI was fully qualified to not only resolve the issues of the assassination, but with the assistance of such as JEH and a "slicky boy" laywer such as Arlen Specter, there was little difficulty in confusing the facts as well.

Edited July 20, 2006 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Cliff Varnell]

Mr. Purvis apparently feels entitled to his own set of facts.

Mr. Purvis has claimed on ths Forum that there was a fracture in the tip of the

transverse process of JFK's seventh cervical vertebra (C7). Mr. Purvis knows

that the SBT doesn't work with an inshoot lower than C7, so he made up this "fact"

of C7-level damage to conform with his pet theory.

From HSCA Exhibit F-32, "Examination of JFK Autopsy X-Rays":

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/hsca/davis.txt

(quote on)

There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in

comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken

film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area.

(quote off)

Mr. Purvis has also cited the Official Autopsy Report as evidence of a C7

"back wound" (??) ignoring the Autopsy Report's description of the wound as:

(quote on)

Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of

the scapula there is a 7 X 4 millimeter oval wound.

(quote off)

As this diagram shows, the described location is consistent with T2.

http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif

[Jack White]

Correcting Von Pain's woeful lack of information regarding

witnesses who saw JFK's head wound.

Jack

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

What I wish Robert and others would address is WHY people

like Von Pain waste their time trolling the internet. NO SANE

PERSON wastes hours on hours defending something so

obviously flawed as the Warren Report. Assuming that Von

Pain is NOT insane, we are forced to wonder what alternative

motive he has. Is he on assignment? WHY does he endlessly

promote the official fiction? Any opinions on this, Robert?

Can't offer much comment here, Jack. I know there are some perfectly decent, well-meaning folks who hold views different to my own, and I don't begrudge them the chance to air those views. In the process, perhaps they'll come to change those views, at least somewhat. Or perhaps they'll offer some fresh insights that'll make me reassess my own views. It happens. [No matter how much I may disagree with some people - Tom Purvis and Tim Gratz come to mind - if they do their position the service of mustering facts to support their arguments, I welcome their contribution, no matter how wrong-headed it may strike me as being.]

However, it is clear that a certain percentage of lone gunman advocates spend an incredible amount of time patrolling the various forums dedicated to this subject. I envy them the amount of free time they must have, though I find it hard to understand their motivation. I freely declare that I don't believe the earth to be flat, but wouldn't spend a nano-second patrolling sites dedicated to flat-earth believers in order to convince them that they're mistaken. Life's already too short to squander it goading those who are unlikely to change their opinions in any case.

Among that percentage of lone gunman advocates, however, there exists a small handful devoted to posting in a style so abrasive, so churlish, and so self-defeatingly antagonistic that they must know they will win no supporters, no new converts. It is this group that has me most puzzled, because they don't even bother to bolster their assertions with any data; they merely insist we share their certainty. They hit and run with empty declarations like "I win," or "You lose," or refer to their adversaries as "rabid" or "stupid" or whatever demeaning epithets enter their mind, as though these comments are somehow a substitute for actual content. Fortunately for those prepared to invest the time, they are also among the easiest to expose as dilettantes and dabblers precisely because of the hollowness of their output.

Despite their linguistic cartwheels and grandstanding, they'll remain impotent unless and until they master the data needed to put forth something approaching a persuasive case. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that day to come, mind. Firing an endless series of duds seems the only thing of which they're capable. It appears they hope the quantity of their silly posts will compensate for what they lack in quality.

Fletcher Prouty once told me that the CIA actively employs

people to be disruptive and promote false information.

Nuff said.

Jack

This wouldn't surprise me in the slighest, but I certainly hope the Agency can retain the services of better mouthpieces than what's on offer here. I have higher hopes for the Agency than that, apparently. Were I DCI, I'd demand back every penny from Max Holland, Gus Russo and their ilk, for starters. There's enough waste of tax dollars without compounding the issue by squandering more on sponsoring those incapable of delivering value for money.

[Owen Parsons]

The remainder of this CTer's post is stuff that's been debunked time after time by astute LNers far smarter and wiser than I (of which, of course, is Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi, who's got every crazy pro-CT base covered in "Final Verdict" -- that's a given). ......

"{Bugliosi's} book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic evidence, re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public. While reading it we have the eerie feeling that we are in Dallas the day a lone gunman changed the course of history. Mr. Bugliosi's irresistible logic and absolute command of the evidence shed fresh light on this peculiarly American nightmare. At last we know what really happened; at last it all makes sense." -- W.W. Norton & Co.

Here we go again.

Edited July 20, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Jack White]

What I wish Robert and others would address is WHY people

like Von Pain waste their time trolling the internet. NO SANE

PERSON wastes hours on hours defending something so

obviously flawed as the Warren Report. Assuming that Von

Pain is NOT insane, we are forced to wonder what alternative

motive he has. Is he on assignment? WHY does he endlessly

promote the official fiction? Any opinions on this, Robert?

Can't offer much comment here, Jack. I know there are some perfectly decent, well-meaning folks who hold views different to my own, and I don't begrudge them the chance to air those views. In the process, perhaps they'll come to change those views, at least somewhat. Or perhaps they'll offer some fresh insights that'll make me reassess my own views. It happens. [No matter how much I may disagree with some people - Tom Purvis and Tim Gratz come to mind - if they do their position the service of mustering facts to support their arguments, I welcome their contribution, no matter how wrong-headed it may strike me as being.]

However, it is clear that a certain percentage of lone gunman advocates spend an incredible amount of time patrolling the various forums dedicated to this subject. I envy them the amount of free time they must have, though I find it hard to understand their motivation. I freely declare that I don't believe the earth to be flat, but wouldn't spend a nano-second patrolling sites dedicated to flat-earth believers in order to convince them that they're mistaken. Life's already too short to squander it goading those who are unlikely to change their opinions in any case.

Among that percentage of lone gunman advocates, however, there exists a small handful devoted to posting in a style so abrasive, so churlish, and so self-defeatingly antagonistic that they must know they will win no supporters, no new converts. It is this group that has me most puzzled, because they don't even bother to bolster their assertions with any data; they merely insist we share their certainty. They hit and run with empty declarations like "I win," or "You lose," or refer to their adversaries as "rabid" or "stupid" or whatever demeaning epithets enter their mind, as though these comments are somehow a substitute for actual content. Fortunately for those prepared to invest the time, they are also among the easiest to expose as dilettantes and dabblers precisely because of the hollowness of their output.

Despite their linguistic cartwheels and grandstanding, they'll remain impotent unless and until they master the data needed to put forth something approaching a persuasive case. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that day to come, mind. Firing an endless series of duds seems the only thing of which they're capable. It appears they hope the quantity of their silly posts will compensate for what they lack in quality.

Fletcher Prouty once told me that the CIA actively employs

people to be disruptive and promote false information.

Nuff said.

Jack

This wouldn't surprise me in the slighest, but I certainly hope the Agency can retain the services of better mouthpieces than what's on offer here. I have higher hopes for the Agency than that, apparently. Were I DCI, I'd demand back every penny from Max Holland, Gus Russo and their ilk, for starters. There's enough waste of tax dollars without compounding the issue by squandering more on sponsoring those incapable of delivering value for money.

Thanks, Robert...your usual excellent assessment!

Jack

[Michael Hogan]

Late in 1975, Gaeton Fonzi was beginning his work as a Government investigator on the Kennedy assassination. In his book The Last Investigation Fonzi details a conversation he had with Vince Salandria, already a legend among the growing circle of Warren Commission critics.

"I'm afraid we were mislead," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were mislead very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy......

......The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face the fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and eventually, they'll wear you down."

Salandria's prophetic words of thirty years ago have been proven true time and time again. Salandria, Lane, Meagher, Thompson, Weisberg, and others proved forty years ago that there WAS a conspiracy and the Warren Commission conducted a fraudulent investigation. Unfortunately, the microanalyzation that Salandria referred to still persists today.

Why do members feel it necessary to debate the single bullet theory with the likes of Von Pein and Slattery and others that come and go? What can possibly be gained? Who really cares what they think? Granted their smugness against all things conspiratorial combined with their inabilty or unwillingness to address so many salient issues can be irritating. But, in my opinion, engaging in debate with such people is such an exercise in futility. Their opinions mean nothing in the scheme of things. Their arguments convince no one.

That there was a conspiracy in the murder of President Kennedy was demonstrated forty years ago. While the exact nature of who, how, and why remains elusive, speculative and an enduring mystery of our time, debating details with those that believe the Warren Commission was a truthful, historical document is nothing more than a waste of time, and a rehash of arguments that were settled long, long ago for those that bothered to do the reading.

Responding to taunts, rudeness and inanities from those that profess to believe the official Government version(s), to the exclusion of all other known facts is a mistake, in my opinion.

Mike Hogan

[Pat Speer]

We all have an obligation to the truth and it would be lovely if everyone could proceed with comity.

And, failing that, there's always "comedy".

A 25+-page thread on the "foot-hand" debate????

Five words best describe that activity -- What Difference Does It Make?

As you know I started that thread, and while it dissolved into an argument over what the original photo really showed, the basic point was eventually accepted by every contributor. The basic point? That the foot in a photo reprinted hundreds of times, including in Pictures of the Pain, was drawn-in. Admittedly, it's a minor point. But it's nevertheless informative to know that something as obvious as a fake drawn-in foot could be shown to millions of people and be accepted by millions of people, and only now 42 + years later be revealed as a fake.

By the way, I agree with you on something. The wound in the autopsy photo is 14cm from the mastoid. On the back. This proves that Humes lied when he said the Rydberg drawing depicting the wound at the base of Kennedy's neck was created with the help of the measurements.

Mr. DVP, why do you think he lied?