Did Lee Harvey Oswald Order The Rifle? The Answer Is Yes

[David Von Pein]

Well, DVP, you need to wipe your Pigpen slop off your eyeballs...[snip]

Nice DiEugenio imitation.

Pretty soon you'll be saying "okay" after every sentence.

Edited June 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Did I say JFK wasn't shot? I said "there is no proof he was shot with a rifle." Well, can you, or anyone, prove that? No. I said there is no proof of what type of weapon was fired at him? Well, is there?

Yeah, right, Ken.

Kennedy must have been shot with a bow and arrow instead of a rifle --- even though there were bullet fragments from a RIFLE found right there in the car. And those were fragments from not just any ol' rifle. They were from the C2766 rifle. But that little fact means zilch to a conspiracy hobbyist and fantasist like you. Perhaps you think those bullet fragments were already there in the limousine BEFORE the car passed the Depository on November 22, eh?

Your posts are getting more ridiculous with each passing hour.

Time for a new hobby, Ken. Maybe croquet. Or bird watching. Because you're really lousy at this "JFK" thing.

And last, but not least, there is not any evidence of any shot ever having been fired from the sniper's nest.

Yeah, all those witnesses who saw a gun in the sixth-floor window (Brennan, Couch, Euins, Jackson, and Worrell) must have all been imagining it. They must have really seen a bow & arrow instead.

And those three spent bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest must have been figments of Luke Mooney's imagination when he found the Nest at 1:12 PM on Nov. 22. Right, Ken?

And Williams, Jarman, and Norman must have been dreaming when they heard the shots coming from over their heads. And Norman was also dreaming when he heard three shells hit the plywood floor directly above him. Must have been nails or screws instead, just as Gerry Spence laughably suggested to Harold Norman when he had Norman on the witness stand in 1986. Right, Kenny?

During his cross-examination of Harold Norman, Spence was actually suggesting to the jury that perhaps--just perhaps--the jury should consider the possibility that the metal objects Norman heard hitting the floor on 11/22/63---at the exact same time JFK was being shot with rifle bullets from the Depository---were not bullet shell casings at all....but were, instead, possibly screws or nails striking the floor. IOW, somebody just happened to be dropping some screws or nails on the floor directly above Norman at the same time somebody was ALSO shooting at JFK with a gun in the same location on the sixth floor.

If I had been on that jury in London in '86, I doubt I could have kept from busting a gut with laughter when Spence threw that one up for the jury's consideration. But, incredibly, Gerry threw it up there just the same.

Edited June 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Steven Gaal]

http://www.ctka.net/2014-mantik/essay/Harper4.html

see Appendix K. The Three Headshot Scenario

===============================================

SPARKS BEHIND LIMO.

Golly even if someone shot from 6th floor TSBD. No proof any hit POTUS. No proof LHO did any shooting.

You know if only you could have place LHO in the Dal-Tex building. /// Gaal

Edited June 2, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[David Von Pein]

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-948.html Edited June 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Steven Gaal]

Good gravy! Does anybody in this place (except me) ever say anything that isn't covered with a thick layer of myth and misinformation? It's unbelievable---even for a mostly "CT" forum.//DVP

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Dear Sir, science and fact presented to you and you don't address the Mantik article and just say "MYTH". DVP not ready for debate. // Gaal

http://www.ctka.net/2014-mantik/essay/Harper4.html

see Appendix K. The Three Headshot Scenario

===============================================

SPARKS BEHIND LIMO.

Golly even if someone shot from 6th floor TSBD. No proof any hit POTUS. No proof LHO did any shooting.

You know if only you could have place LHO in the Dal-Tex building. /// Gaal

Edited June 2, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Kenneth Drew]

Did I say JFK wasn't shot? I said "there is no proof he was shot with a rifle." Well, can you, or anyone, prove that? No. I said there is no proof of what type of weapon was fired at him? Well, is there?

Yeah, right, Ken.

Kennedy must have been shot with a bow and arrow instead of a rifle --- even though there were bullet fragments from a RIFLE found right there in the car. And those were fragments from not just any ol' rifle. They were from the C2766 rifle. But that little fact means zilch to a conspiracy hobbyist and fantasist like you. Perhaps you think those bullet fragments were already there in the limousine BEFORE the car passed the Depository on November 22, eh?

Your posts are getting more ridiculous with each passing hour.

Time for a new hobby, Ken. Maybe croquet. Or bird watching. Because you're really lousy at this "JFK" thing.

And last, but not least, there is not any evidence of any shot ever having been fired from the sniper's nest.

Yeah, all those witnesses who saw a gun in the sixth-floor window (Brennan, Couch, Euins, Jackson, and Worrell) must have all been imagining it. They must have really seen a bow & arrow instead.

And those three spent bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest must have been figments of Luke Mooney's imagination when he found the Nest at 1:12 PM on Nov. 22. Right, Ken?

And Williams, Jarman, and Norman must have been dreaming when they heard the shots coming from over their heads. And Norman was also dreaming when he heard three shells hit the plywood floor directly above him. Must have been nails or screws instead, just as Gerry Spence laughably suggested to Harold Norman when he had Norman on the witness stand in 1986. Right, Kenny?

During his cross-examination of Harold Norman, Spence was actually suggesting to the jury that perhaps--just perhaps--the jury should consider the possibility that the metal objects Norman heard hitting the floor on 11/22/63---at the exact same time JFK was being shot with rifle bullets from the Depository---were not bullet shell casings at all....but were, instead, possibly screws or nails striking the floor. IOW, somebody just happened to be dropping some screws or nails on the floor directly above Norman at the same time somebody was ALSO shooting at JFK with a gun in the same location on the sixth floor.

If I had been on that jury in London in '86, I doubt I could have kept from busting a gut with laughter when Spence threw that one up for the jury's consideration. But, incredibly, Gerry threw it up there just the same.

"Kennedy must have been shot with a bow and arrow instead of a rifle" Certainly could have been with a handgun. There are alternatives to bows and arrows.

"even though there were bullet fragments from a RIFLE" Rifle? actually a 'firearm'. No proof of weapon.

"They were from the C2766 rifle." Good vivid imagination.

"Your posts are getting more ridiculous with each passing hour." Well, at least you don't have that to worry about. Your posts have always been ridiculous.

"Yeah, all those witnesses who saw a gun in the sixth-floor window" Le's see now; seeing a gun equals shooting a gun. See what I mean?

"three spent bullet shells" you're incluing the one with the bent edge, right? So spent shell equals someone shot someone? See what I mean? or do you prefer; Okay?

"During his cross-examination of Harold Norman, Spence was actually suggesting to the jury" Wow, a fake trial, you should see how my fake trial turned out. I do know that tv show trials usually turn out how the writer writes them. Okay?

All your time spent collecting artifacts hasn't helped you one bit, though I think you might know the truth, for some reason you don't want it revealed. One day I'm going to show my home video, then you won't be able to deny any longer. uh, okay?

Edited June 2, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Kenneth Drew]

Good gravy! Does anybody in this place (except me) ever say anything that isn't covered with a thick layer of myth and misinformation? It's unbelievable---even for a mostly "CT" forum.//DVP

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Dear Sir, science and fact presented to you and you don't address the Mantik article and just say "MYTH". DVP not ready for debate. // Gaal

http://www.ctka.net/2014-mantik/essay/Harper4.html

see Appendix K. The Three Headshot Scenario

===============================================

SPARKS BEHIND LIMO.

Golly even if someone shot from 6th floor TSBD. No proof any hit POTUS. No proof LHO did any shooting.

You know if only you could have place LHO in the Dal-Tex building. /// Gaal

Stephen, I try to stick with the truth, which is that someone knows who shot the president. Who? is not known to the public. I try to be realistic.

[David Josephs]

David - you remain the only person posting on this forum who has that "thick layer of myth and misinformation" you speak of....

Continually referring to outdated and debunked government investigations and conclusions as if they are the tablets from Sinai continually makes you sound like a grazing sheep willing to be happily led to slaughter.

I applaud your persistence though... for someone to remain as wrong about everything as you are and keep going back to the well as if the water wasn't poisoned is, well, the role of the WCRHSCA defender.

The real problem is that discussing the case with you is akin to having a conversation with a parrot - you only have one channel and you present it as if you haven't given the topics a single thought since it was put on paper in 1964.

What I'm wonder is what you are most scared of... the reality of the conspiracy involved and the depth of evil required or that you have so much invested in defending the government's position (ala Dunkel) you've left yourself no room to have a doubtful thought.

The simplist of questions Dave... to connect the back and front wounds the bullet must RISE 11 degrees within the body.

The shot, if from the 6th floor, would be traveling DOWNWARD at almost 20 degress (angle plus incline)

The WCR says it did not hit anything that would change it's course and goes on to hit Connally...

Kinda obvious from the image below that the bullet went in well below the throat - for it to RISE in the body, JFK must be tying his shoes when it happens...

Is this what you are now claiming? or is there another explanation for themovement of the bullet hole and the impossibility of a bullet rising when shot on a downward trajectory?

[David Von Pein]

Continually referring to outdated and debunked government investigations and conclusions as if they are the tablets from Sinai...

You're funny, David. Only in the world of JFK CTers could someone consider the huge pile of evidence against Oswald as being "outdated and debunked". I wonder how the facts and the physical evidence suddenly become "outdated". And none of that evidence has been "debunked", despite the CTer efforts to capsize the LN ship.

Nothing has come along to supplant the conclusions reached by the Dallas Police on 11/22/63 and by the Warren Commission in 1964. Certainly nothing you CTers believe happened can replace the hard evidence put forth by the DPD and the WC. That's not even a close call. You don't have a single piece of physical evidence to back up your claim of conspiracy. Not one. And you never did. And you never will. Because no such evidence exists. Nor did it ever exist.

To show just how pathetic and miserable the case for conspiracy is at this forum, Ken Drew is running around trying to pretend that just maybe JFK was killed by a pistol shot--or a handgun of some type. Even with CE567/569 staring him in the face (assuming he even knows what those are). The case for "denying the evidence" doesn't get much stronger than that.

In short -- LNers possess all the physical evidence. CTers have Prayer Man, Umbrella Man, and their overactive imaginations.

That's the way it's always been and always will be. Because Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LNers don't even need the Warren Commission to prove Oswald's guilt. The DPD already did that on Day 1.

Edited June 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Continually referring to outdated and debunked government investigations and conclusions as if they are the tablets from Sinai...

You're funny, David. Only in the world of JFK CTers could someone consider the huge pile of evidence against Oswald as being "outdated and debunked". I wonder how the facts and the physical evidence suddenly becomes "outdated". And none of that evidence has been "debunked", despite the CTer efforts to capsize the LN ship.

Nothing has come along to supplant the conclusions reached by the Dallas Police on 11/22/63 and by the Warren Commission in 1964. Certainly nothing you CTers believe happened can replace the hard evidence put forth by the DPD and the WC. That's not even a close call. You don't have a single piece of physical evidence to back up your claim of conspiracy. Not one. And you never did. And you never will. Because no such evidence exists. Nor did it ever exist.

To show just how pathetic and miserable the case for conspiracy is at this forum, Ken Drew is running around trying to pretend that just maybe JFK was killed by a pistol shot--or a handgun of some type. Even with CE567/569 staring him in the face (assuming he even knows what those are). The case for "denying the evidence" doesn't get much stronger than that.

In short -- LNers possess all the physical evidence. CTers have Prayer Man, Umbrella Man, and their overactive imaginations.

That's the way it's always been and always will be. Because Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LNers don't even need the Warren Commission to prove Oswald's guilt. The DPD already did that on Day 1.

Translation = I have no logical rebuttal for your arguments, Mr. Josephs, but I hope if I make enough noise, it will distract the less enlightened of the readers from the content of your arguments, and what else really matters?

[David Von Pein]

As can be easily seen in the autopsy photos, Dr. Humes was right (and the HSCA was wrong) regarding the height of the two JFK wounds (back & throat). There was no "11-degree upward" angle through JFK's body. The back wound was anatomically higher than the throat wound (just like Dr. Humes told the WC in '64). And these photos prove it....



"The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the

point of entrance posteriorly." -- Dr. James Humes; 1964

Edited June 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Josephs]

Dave... please point to this passage Rankin describes in the autopsy. or is Mr. Rankin lying ?

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

Rankin's comment is from the Exec Session on January 22, 1964... and they STILL dont know if it was an entrance or exit...

then how could Humes have written and delivered an autopsy report which states:

Date 11/22/63 1300 (CST)

Prosecter: CDR J.J. Humes, MC, USA (497831)

Assistant: CDR "J" Thornton Boswell, MC, USN, (439878);
LCOL, Pierre A. Finck, MC, USA (04 043 322)

Full Autopsy

The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above
the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and
the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.
This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura
and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The
missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
structures in its path through the body.

Once again Dave... in the existing autopsy, please point us to the section that described a fragment exiting the throat...

Also like to know what anatomy class or book you've seen which places the throat below the scapula... Using the following, can you show us where the bullet went in the back?

And this one to show right to left as well as up and down

Thanks

Edited June 2, 2015 by David Josephs

[Bruce Fernandez]

I'm sensing here that we have with DVP ... "he doth protest too much" ... mostly protest, little reality ... not sure where to go with that, but I'm feeling more wary than anything else ... who's he representing?

[David Von Pein]

Humes was using ordinary common sense, David. He knew there were no bullets in JFK's body. And after he talked to Dr. Perry, he confirmed that the trach masked a bullet hole. Given these facts, should Humes have written this in the autopsy report?....

Two bullets entered the upper body of the President, one in the upper back and one entered the throat. Neither of these bullets caused much damage at all, and both missiles have disappeared without a trace.

Sounds mighty silly, doesn't it? (It sure does. And is.)

Edited June 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

I'm sensing here that we have with DVP ... "he doth protest too much" ... mostly protest, little reality ... not sure where to go with that, but I'm feeling more wary than anything else ... who's he representing?

Does every LNer have to be "representing" somebody else? Get a grip.

And Bruce's "little reality" comment is a howl.

IOW, the person who has ALL of the physical evidence on his side (that'd be me) is somehow a person who is dealing with "little reality".

That's comical. And dripping with irony that no doubt just sails over Bruce's cranium.

Edited June 3, 2015 by David Von Pein