Things Don't Add Up : A Novel of Kennedy Assassination Research

[David Von Pein]

Yeah, right. Anybody who has the gall to think Oswald was guilty (or "no conspiracy") is automatically labeled "CIA".

Makes me sick.

I'm with you, David. Now, if we could just get supposedly rational people to stop calling everyone who has the gall to point out flaws in the evidence "kooks," "nuts" or "wackos," we might get somewhere.

The two biggest lessons that JFK conspiracy theorists need to learn are these:

1.) "Flaws in the evidence" do not automatically equal "All The Evidence Is Fake".

and

2.) "Flaws in the evidence" do not automatically equal "Oswald Was An Innocent Patsy".

A lot of Internet conspiracy theorists do not seem to agree with either one of the above two statements. But each of those statements is 100% true nonetheless.

Edited May 16, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Martin Blank]

Yeah, right. Anybody who has the gall to think Oswald was guilty (or "no conspiracy") is automatically labeled "CIA".

Makes me sick.

I'm with you, David. Now, if we could just get supposedly rational people to stop calling everyone who has the gall to point out flaws in the evidence "kooks," "nuts" or "wackos," we might get somewhere.

The two biggest lessons that JFK conspiracy theorists need to learn are these:

1.) "Flaws in the evidence" do not automatically equal "All The Evidence Is Fake".

and

2.) "Flaws in the evidence" do not automatically equal "Oswald Was An Innocent Patsy".

A lot of Internet conspiracy theorists do not seem to agree with either one of the above two statements. But each of those statements is 100% true nonetheless.

define flaws

[Ian Kingsbury]

He has to define the evidence first ...surely?.

[Martin Blank]

classic chicken or the egg conundrum; what came first the evidence or the flaws?

[David Josephs]

The only 99 cent book that's 98 cents overpriced... well... you get what you pay for.

So, anyone wonder how he addresses the 11 degree UPWARD MOVEMENT of the SBT with a shot from 70 feet ABOVE the target...

The holes in the clothing at T3

and Humes letting us know he was working on JFK 25 minutes before he arrived...

at least he got the title right

Good for Dennis Ford.

Now that's one of the 40 new books (so far) that I wouldn't mind reading. And for 99 cents [the book's current price as of 5/15/13], how can you lose?

Edited May 16, 2013 by David Josephs

[Ian Kingsbury]

It's good to have a thread to let off a bit of steam would you agree?.

[David Von Pein]

define flaws

Why don't you ask Pat Speer. He's the one I was quoting when I put quotation marks around the words "flaws in the evidence":

...if we could just get supposedly rational people to stop calling everyone who has the gall to point out flaws in the evidence "kooks," "nuts" or "wackos," we might get somewhere.

[David Josephs]

Yeah, right. Anybody who has the gall to think Oswald was guilty (or "no conspiracy") is automatically labeled "CIA".

Makes me sick.

I'm with you, David. Now, if we could just get supposedly rational people to stop calling everyone who has the gall to point out flaws in the evidence "kooks," "nuts" or "wackos," we might get somewhere.

The two biggest lessons that JFK conspiracy theorists need to learn are these:

1.) "Flaws in the evidence" do not automatically equal "All The Evidence Is Fake".

and

2.) "Flaws in the evidence" do not automatically equal "Oswald Was An Innocent Patsy".

A lot of Internet conspiracy theorists do not seem to agree with either one of the above two statements. But each of those statements is 100% true nonetheless.

That's correct David... Flaws in the evidence requires we look to CONTEXT, COROBORRATION and AUTHENTICATION of said evidence to determine its value

When this is done, "FLAWS" become "FRAUD" and point directly to a conspiracy and cover-up... how that changes the determination about Oswald is a matter of interpretation.

If you conclude that a T3 bullet hole is moved to the middle of the cervical vertebrae for "clarity" - and this is simply a FLAW or FRAUD with no bearing on the evidence as a whole or Oswald's guilt or ability to have performed the assassination from his supposed position... you're a bit more far gone than anyone cares to know.

Tell you what Dave... try telling us what FLAWS IN THE EVIDENCE means... not what it doesn't mean.

(and not just 1 flaw buddy, ALL the flaws... what in YOUR MIND do they add up to... just the grossest examples of massive incompetece ever seen? coincidence upon coincidence?)

At what point do the FLAWS in the WCR and beyond actually lead to Oswald's guilt and to the conclusion that all the evidence is actually reliable, authentic, coroborrated and within context.

Stop trying to get us to prove negatives...

YOU offer a conclusive statement about said evidence and support it... offer some evidence you can PROVE is not Fake or Flawed... and has a bearing on the case.

C'mon now Dave... here are the WCR conclusions and a few questions.... got the chops for it?

1. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor

Connally were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast

corner of the Texas School Book Depository.

(put Oswald in that window)

2. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots

fired.

(the HSCA proved that wrong plus there are numerous “marks” in DP from that day to prove well more than the 4 shots the HSCA found (they actually found 6, 2 were not fired from the only two locations they test- fired from… they were still gunshot sounds… just not from the GK or SE window)

3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission

to determine just which shot. hit Governor Connally, there is

very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same

bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s

wounds.

(please present said evidence – show how an 11 degree UPWARD angle needed to connect back to front can be accomplished from 70 feet above the target)

4. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded

Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald

(any evidence that shows he fired a rifle or THAT rifle was fired would be appreciated)

5. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately

45 minutes after the assassination

(please connect this with the killing of JFK and the evidence presented by Markham and Bowley)

6. Within 80 minutes of the assassination and 35 minutes of the

Tippit killing Oswald resisted arrest at the theatre by attempting to

shoot another Dallas police officer.

(and this has to do with JFK how?)

7. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning

Oswald’s interrogation and detention by the Dallas police :

(a) Except for the force required to effect his arrest, Oswald

was not subjected to any physical coercion by any law enforcement

officials. He was advised that he could not be compelled

to give any information and that any statements made by him

might be used against him in court. He was advised of his right

to counsel. He was given the opportunity to obtain counsel of

his own choice and was offered legal assistance by the Dallas Bar

Association, which he rejected at that time.

(Newspaper, radio, and television reporters were allowed

uninhibited access to the area through which Oswald had to pass

when he was moved from his cell to the interrogation room and

other sections of the building, thereby subjecting Oswald to harassment

and creating chaotic conditions which were not conducive to

orderly interrogation or the protection of the rights of the

prisoner.

© The numerous statements, sometimes erroneous, made to

the press by various local law enforcement officials, during this

period of confusion and disorder in the police station, would have

presented serious obstacles to the obtaining of a fair trial for

Oswald. To the extent that the information was erroneous or

misleading, it helped to create doubts, speculations, and fears in

the mind of the public which might otherwise not have arisen.

(explain what this has to do with FLAWED EVIDENCE)

8. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning

the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963

(this has what to do with proving Oswald’s guilt or the killing of JFK?)

9. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey

Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign,

to assassinate President Kennedy

(it was right there, in a pile in the corner… they didn’t even bother to look at it… what exactly are Duran and Alvarado? What was he doing in Mexico or why was he FRAUDULENTLY placed in Mexico? please address the evidence that DOES indicate a connection and was presented in the WCR… it was found, it was ignored…. Just another FLAW?)

10. In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence

of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by

any Federal, State, or local official

(there’s “found” again do we really need to cover the mountain of evidence that DOES support this?))

11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes

that. Oswald acted alone

Hoover on Dec 12, 1963:

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

The FBI report from Dec 9^th:

On the contrary, the data developed strongly

indicates that he acted on his own initiative or impulse with little

advance planning.

12. (f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds

that the (SS) agents most immediately responsible for the President’s

safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD.

(who would you say are the agents MOST IMMEDIATELY REPONSIBLE for the President’s safety? Greer? Kellerman? Ready? - who are they talking about here David and please provide the evidence that shows they reacted “promptly” All I have is this

Greer who has without a doubt the GREATEST RESPONSIBILITY and ABILITY TO AFFECT JFK's ENVIRONMENT: just stares at him as he is killed...and this AFTER he is told to get the heck ouot of there...

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Good. There was enough for me to verify that the man was hit. So, in the same motion I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson, this is Kellerman,"--this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into. the back seat

As you can see below, Kellerman has his hand/mike to his head starting in this image at z302... he had ALREADY told Greer to get out of here.

Instead of leaving, Greer SLOWS and turns to look at JFK.

Mr. GREER. Well, when we were going down Elm Street, I heard a noise that I thought was a backfire of one of the motorcycle policemen. And I didn't--it did not affect me like anything else. I just thought that it is what it was. We had had so many motorcycles around us. So I heard this noise. And I thought that is what it was. And then I heard it again. And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong. I tramped on the accelerator, and at the same time Mr. Kellerman said to me, "Get out of here fast." And I cannot remember even the other shots or noises that was. I cannot quite remember any more. I did not see anything happen behind me any more, because I was occupied with getting away.

So David... is he lying or is the Zfilm wrong?

[David Von Pein]

We've had nearly fifty years of conspiracy theorists looking for (and finding) "flaws" in the evidence. So, quite naturally, such activity by the CTers will inevitably lead to the situation that has existed for nearly all of those 50 years -- debate over whether those "flaws" equate to "cover-up" or "conspiracy" or merely "incompetence".

Incompetence, of course, is much much more likely to be the truth. Certainly more so than the type of rampant "Let's Frame Oswald" plot that many conspiracists have embraced over the years, which is a theory that has virtually everybody involved in the whole case being on a single mission--to paint an INNOCENT Lee Oswald as a double-murderer. And that, of course, is just downright ridiculous to begin with.

Let's take the "flaw" in the autopsy report (re: the exact place on the back of JFK's head where the entry wound was located):

I want to know WHERE the conspiracy advocates can really go with the argument that the "four-inch mistake" that was apparently made by Dr. Humes leads in ANY way whatsoever to conspiracy or to body alteration or to a cover-up of any kind?

Do CTers really think that Dr. Humes (and Boswell and Finck too) were totally wrong about there being just the ONE single bullet hole of entry on the BACK side of JFK's head?

Yes, there was a four-inch discrepancy in the precise location of that bullet hole -- but (again) where can CTers go with it (logically)?

Should we think that maybe Humes was wrong about a whole bunch of OTHER stuff regarding the autopsy too?

Okay, that's possible. And I, too, have utilized that type of thinking in the past as well -- e.g., I've said that Roger Craig's words on several matters shouldn't be trusted based on the PROVABLE FACT that he lied about at least one important matter connected to this case (his lie about seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the TSBD rifle).

But the difference here would be -- those autopsy photos and X-rays, which are photos that CORROBORATE the basic conclusions reached by Dr. Humes in the autopsy report -- i.e., JFK was struck by just two bullets, both entering from behind. (And this is true even WITH the four-inch discrepancy in the head entry location.)

So I've got the autopsy photos to tell me that Dr. Humes was simply WRONG (not conspiratorial) regarding the exact location of that head wound. Roger Craig, on the other hand, doesn't have any such pictures to help him out with his "7.65 Mauser" tale. In fact, as many people have determined, Tom Alyea's film (plus Craig's own 1968 interview with the L.A. Free Press) proves that Craig was a xxxx, because that film shows the police lifting a CARCANO (not a MAUSER) from the stacks of books in the Depository.

That head-wound discrepancy is just one example of a "flaw" not equalling "conspiracy".

Another would be: Gerald Hill's "flaw" (aka: mistake) in initially saying that the Tippit bullet shells had come from an "automatic" weapon.

But--again--the CTers can't really go very far with that "flaw"/(error) either, because of the two non-Poe shells that were picked up in the Davises' side yard and which were handed over to two separate DPD detectives.

Should I really believe that ALL FOUR shells now in evidence were planted by the cops? Is that a truly reasonable belief (particularly in light of the many witnesses who positively IDed the gunman as Lee H. Oswald--and Lee Oswald, we know, did not own an automatic)?

IMO, every "flaw" in this case can be explained in non-conspiratorial ways. There is no need for "conspiracy" or "cover-up" to enter into this case, because even with the warts and flaws that exist in this case, it is quite clear to this writer that Lee Harvey Oswald did kill JFK and Officer Tippit.

And another big reason to know Oswald was guilty of both murders is because of his own actions (which are always ignored or mangled by conspiracy theorists). Every single thing Oswald did (and said) after 12:30 PM on 11/22 points to his guilt, including these words he spoke to DPD Officer C.T. Walker in the police car on the way to City Hall (right after Walker had told Oswald that he might find out what it's like to "burn for murder"):

"Well, they say it just takes a second to die."

Show me an innocent man who would make such a statement. Those words reek with guilt. Or do CTers want to pretend that those words actually suggest INNOCENCE on Oswald's behalf? (Or maybe C.T. Walker was one of the hundreds of people on the "Let's Get Oswald" payroll too. Is that it?)

Edited May 16, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Josephs]

Sorry David, but not so much.

That there was a conspiracy and cover-up is a priori at this point... it's a postulate, an AXIOM from which intelligent and honest people discuss the case.

It has only been the WCR apologists, the LONE NUTTERS who these past 50 years search in vain for the evidence of his guilt in a tome so entirely discredited within the first few years of its existence as to render it one of history's finest example of FRAUD as perpetrated by the US Government.

Evidence itself is not "flawed"... the manner it was collected, preserved and presented is... so much so as to render it FRAUD... Specter's SBT for example.

So David... is this FLAWED or FRAUD?

(edit: in case you're not paying attention... one makes the SBT "more" possible without addressing all the other problems CREATED by moving the shot to that location...

while the other is the truth and makes the SBT and the rest of the WCR the pile of burning bs it is...)

Edited May 16, 2013 by David Josephs

[David Von Pein]

So David... is this FLAWED or FRAUD?

FLAWED (of course). It's just flat WRONG. In fact, both of the wounds shown in that Rydberg drawing are wrong.

But we all know Rydberg's drawings were not being drawn while Rydberg (or Dr. Humes) had the autopsy pictures in front of them. A stupid decision--yes. But not conspiratorial. Just plain stupid.

But--again--where can David Josephs possibly go with his "fraud" theory regarding the Rydberg drawings?

Answer--nowhere. And that's because we now have the authenticated (7 HSCA 41) autopsy photos and X-rays to rely on. We don't have to rely on the lousy Rydberg drawings in 2013. So why even use them? They're wrong. Plain and simple. And the WC didn't rely on those drawings for its SBT conclusion either. That's obvious by looking at CE903. The WC relied on the "14 cm. from mastoid" measurements that appear on the Face Sheet. That's the key measurement, regardless of what is shown in Rydberg's drawing.

And the autopsy photos are showing us that the President was NOT shot from the front. He was only shot from behind.

And those same autopsy photos also illustrate that the SBT can work out just fine--as CE903 easily demonstrates. So even with the crappy Rydberg drawings, the WC still managed to get it right...right down to the SBT.

Of course, common sense alone--plus the knowledge that bullets don't usually have a habit of vanishing into thin air--pretty much proves the SBT. Naturally, the CTers like to take the rockiest road to reach their destination. And any non-SBT road is surely filled with more rocks and absurdities than is the single-bullet conclusion.

Edited May 16, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Josephs]

But--again--where can David Josephs possibly go with his "fraud" theory regarding the Rydberg drawings?

Where? Really David? How about YOU answer questions posed to YOU and I will answer them when asked of ME... K?

Sorry DVP, but that drawing at the instruction of one of the commissioners is FRAUD...

This is an exerpt from the JAN 27, 1964 Commish meeting... LONG before Ford works this magic....

Mr. Rankin:

Then there‘s a great range of material in

regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit

or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all

has to be developed much more than we have at the present time.

We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably

a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation

the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent,

since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in

the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the

right of the backbone, which is below the place where the

picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt

in front

, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike

any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through.

So that how it could turn, and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went.in a

finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

The hole in the jacket was 5 1/8" below the collar.... 5 1/4" on the shirt.

the "14cm below mastoid process" is a technically incorrect way to identify something on the body...

The hole in the throat was ABOVE the collar as described by the nurses and doctors who saw it before the removal of his clothes... the holes in the shirt is once again FRAUDULENTLY described as the exit holes for the SBT bullet....

FRAUD is being perpetrated by the WCR writers at most every turn... prove otherwise.

In criminal law, fraud is intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual;

A flaw occurs when it is NOT INTENTIONAL....

FLAWED

Adjective

1. (of a substance or object) Blemished, damaged, or imperfect in some way.
2. (of something abstract) Containing a mistake, weakness, or fault.

Will you now tell us that this change was NOT INTENTIONAL and without the full knowledge that he was intentionally deceiving the reader about the wound as described in the extant autopsy and by Burkley??

No David, the SBT does NOT work out fine... from back to front an 11 degree angles was determine.. 11 degrees UP from back to front.

AND a 25+ degree from right to left - which would extend past JFK to JC for the SBT to even be considered...

How again does an 11 degree UPWARD angle become a 25 degree DOWNWARD and if the right to left angle is correct... how far over to the left must JC be to even get hit?

Oh wait... JFK needs to be leaning over to tie his shoes at the time... you have anything that changes JFK's vertical position in the car as well??

No, bullets are taken, removed, hidden and lied about. they do NOT disappear.

The only thing RIGHT about this book is the Title

Edited May 16, 2013 by David Josephs

[Pat Speer]

So David... is this FLAWED or FRAUD?

FLAWED (of course). It's just flat WRONG. In fact, both of the wounds shown in that Rydberg drawing are wrong.

But we all know Rydberg's drawings were not being drawn while Rydberg (or Dr. Humes) had the autopsy pictures in front of them. A stupid decision--yes. But not conspiratorial. Just plain stupid.

But--again--where can David Josephs possibly go with his "fraud" theory regarding the Rydberg drawings?

Answer--nowhere. And that's because we now have the authenticated (7 HSCA 41) autopsy photos and X-rays to rely on. We don't have to rely on the lousy Rydberg drawings in 2013. So why even use them? They're wrong. Plain and simple. And the WC didn't rely on those drawings for its SBT conclusion either. That's obvious by looking at CE903. The WC relied on the "14 cm. from mastoid" measurements that appear on the Face Sheet. That's the key measurement, regardless of what is shown in Rydberg's drawing.

And the autopsy photos are showing us that the President was NOT shot from the front. He was only shot from behind.

And those same autopsy photos also illustrate that the SBT can work out just fine--as CE903 easily demonstrates. So even with the crappy Rydberg drawings, the WC still managed to get it right...right down to the SBT.

Of course, common sense alone--plus the knowledge that bullets don't usually have a habit of vanishing into thin air--pretty much proves the SBT. Naturally, the CTers like to take the rockiest road to reach their destination. And any non-SBT road is surely filled with more rocks and absurdities than is the single-bullet conclusion.

But David, you KNOW the chalk mark on the stand-in's jacket fails to align with Specter's trajectory rod, and you KNOW the photos proving this were not introduced into evidence or published by the WC, and you know Specter got agent Thomas Kelley to testify that this chalk mark was established by the Rydberg drawings, when, most obviously, it was established by the autopsy photo Kelley showed Specter before the re-enactment.

And yet, you still like to pretend this exhibit shows the true path of the bullet. I mean, wha? Specter didn't believe it--or he'd have published the photos taken from the other side. And the HSCA pathology panel didn't believe it--or they wouldn't have insisted the SBT only made sense if Kennedy was hit while behind the sign.

It's just you, David. You're all alone on this one.

[David Von Pein]

Pat,

Do you really think that the chalk mark on the JFK stand-in is as far RIGHT as it is depicted in the Rydberg drawing in CE386? (And, no, this top picture does not represent the WC's SBT trajectory, because the bullet obviously didn't exit JFK's chin.)

Edited May 16, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903-part-2.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3.html

Let me ask this of the CTers:

Do you REALLY think that the Warren Commission has skewed the angles and the measurements and the wound locations that are depicted in CE903 so badly that the SBT is a total impossibility?

If you do believe such a thing, I think you need to re-examine CE903 and the testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier.

And while you're at it, re-examine Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation project again too. Because there's no way in the world that Dale's computer model, which fixes the SBT bullet striking at Z223, is so far out of whack that anyone looking at it can say this: "Myers is nuts! His model isn't even close! The wounds are miles off! And the trajectory isn't even close either!"

If anyone says anything like that about Myers' model, they're nuts.

In any event, CE903 is the Warren Commission's trajectory for the SBT, and it does not require a wound way up in the NECK of Kennedy (which is what most CTers seem to want to believe; i.e., those CTers seem to believe that the WC's own trajectory for the SBT requires the back wound to be "moved" way up into the neck; but that is just a flat-out myth and a lie, as CE903 vividly demonstrates).

Edited May 16, 2013 by David Von Pein