1967 Debate: Mark Lane vs. Wesley Liebeler

[Glenn Nall]

"You actually want to entertain the idea that ALL of the evidence (not just part, but ALL) is fraudulent/planted/manufactured."

support this statement, please?

[David Von Pein]

You guys (CTers) are really something. You actually want to entertain the idea that ALL of the evidence (not just part, but ALL) is fraudulent/planted/manufactured.

Support this statement, please?

Why pretend otherwise, Glenn? You have surely got to know that a lot of Internet CTers DO, indeed, think that ALL of the evidence that points to Oswald is fake/phony evidence. Because if it's not all fake, then Oswald is very likely GUILTY, correct? (How could he not be?)

And there have been several CTers at this forum who have said they think all of the evidence against LHO is fraudulent (or words to that effect), with the comments by Neal and Drew below certainly leaning in that direction, wouldn't you say? Granted, Ken Drew's comments are just flat-out weird, idiotic, and Twilight Zone-ish in nature, but I kinda doubt that Ken is suggesting that the evidence against Oswald is legit....

DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Because - oh, deaf one - the EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC.

TOM NEAL SAID:

JEH [J. Edgar Hoover] alone controlled all the evidence.

KENNETH DREW SAID:

There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle, there is no proof of what weapon was fired at him, there is not one piece of evidence linking any human to having fired at him, and there is not one piece of evidence that any shots have ever been fired from the sniper's nest. To sum it all up, your total is Zero.

Edited August 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

i know, man. i'm so sorry. i don't know what i was thinking.

it's been a really hard day, my aunt gineah is acting up and i had to work an extra hour at the processing plant, and my eyes are blurry from all them duck feathers.

i was thinking that you said ALL of the evidence (not just part, but ALL) is fraudulent/planted/manufactured, and not ALL of the evidence that points to Oswald.

i can't believe how stupid i am sometimes, thinking you know what you're writing and all...

i'll try harder, promise.

[David G. Healy]

You actually want to entertain the idea that ALL of the evidence (not just part, but ALL) is fraudulent/planted/manufactured.

Support this statement, please?

Why pretend otherwise, Glenn? You have surely got to know that a lot of Internet CTers DO, indeed, think that ALL of the evidence that points to Oswald is fake/phony evidence. Because if it's not all fake, then Oswald is very likely GUILTY, correct? (How could he not be?)

And there have been several CTers at this forum who have said they think all of the evidence against LHO is fraudulent (or words to that effect), with the comments by Neal and Drew below certainly leaning in that direction, wouldn't you say? Granted, Ken Drew's comments are just flat-out weird, idiotic, and Twilight Zone-ish in nature, but I kinda doubt that Ken is suggesting that the evidence against Oswald is legit....

DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Because - oh, deaf one - the EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC.

TOM NEAL SAID:

JEH [J. Edgar Hoover] alone controlled all the evidence.

KENNETH DREW SAID:

There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle, there is no proof of what weapon was fired at him, there is not one piece of evidence linking any human to having fired at him, and there is not one piece of evidence that any shots have ever been fired from the sniper's nest. To sum it all up, your total is Zero.

it appears David you're finally confronting reality... 1964 WCR best evidence is a bit tarnished these days, eh?

[David Von Pein]

You're not well, are you Glenn? Touché?

Edited August 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Davey is absolutely hysterical isn't he?

He is an expert in CYA.

First there is the CT label. When, in fact, no organization of government ever practiced a theory more than the WC.

I mean, what do you call the Single Bullet Fantasy? The WC was so theory based on that that they had to lie to their own members to get it through i.e. Richard Russell. Neither Davey nor Vince liked to talk about that. VB actually tried to say he's not sure that happened. Well, maybe one of these years the transcript will show up eh Davey.

Second, he then says that all of the critics think ALL OF THE EVIDENCE is faked. Which takes in a lot of space. And a lot of people.

And its simply Von Peinian goofiness. Let me now list some critics who do not think there is wholesale fakery in the evidence;

Randy Robertson.

Tink Thompson.

Cyril Wecht.

The late Roger Feinman .

Mark Lane.

Jerry Policoff.

Pat Speer.

Martin Hay.

Don Thomas.

Sherry Fiester.

But they all think Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. And about half of them wrote books about it. So, "all you critics think all the evidence is faked", this is just nonsense.

Now, let me go ahead and link to a fine critique of the Ayton.DVP book which attacks it without saying the evidence is faked.

http://www.ctka.net/2015/Ayton%20Review.html

So Davey is provably wrong. (What else is new?)

[David Von Pein]

Point-blank question for James DiEugenio....

Do you, Jim, think ANY of the evidence pointing to Oswald is legitimate evidence?

[Mark Knight]

What Mr. Von Pein is missing-willfully, I'm sure--is that he's twisting what has been said.

Nobody is saying the evidence does not exist.

What has been stated over and over ad finitum is that the provenance of much, if not most, of the evidence does not meet the most rudimentary standards required to be accepted in a court of law. The three shells found on the 6th floor of the TSBD? While they were from a 6.5mm Carcano, it cannot be established that they were fired ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963. THAT is the quality of much of the evidence being used to "convict" Oswald.

It's not that CTers need to "prove" the shells were planted; it's that the prosecutors needed to prove that those shells were fired ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION. As of August 1, 2015, no tests were run that would determine that those shells were fired on the day of the assassination. Had they been tested and had it been concluded that the shells had been fired on the day of the assassination, the provenance of that particular piece of evidence [the shells] might be valuable to the prosecution in a court of law.

It's NOT up to CT'ers to "prove" who, when, where or why else those shells may have been fired. It's up to the police and the prosecution to prove those exact shells were the ones used on the date and time of the assassination.

"Anyone can see..." is not provenance for the evidence.

And THAT is the problem with the evidence. It's NOT that the CT'ers all claim it's faked; it's simply that provenance and chain-of-custody are not well documented enough for your average murder case involving your average citizen...much less the President of the United States.

But Mr. Von Pein most likely isn't listening. I'm betting he still falls back on the argument that ALL CTers think ALL the evidence is "fraudulent/planted/manufactured." That isn't the case. In the paragraphs above I have pointed out the distinction between the CTer position, as I understand it, and Mr. Von Pein's interpretation of the CTers' position on the evidence.

I don't believe I'm "talking over his head" here; I think Mr. Von Pein is likely a reasonably intelligent person. I just think he chooses to ignore the same nuances that cops and attorneys must consider daily when presenting a case in a court of law.

[James DiEugenio]

MK: It's NOT that the CT'ers all claim it's faked; it's simply that provenance and chain-of-custody are not well documented enough for your average murder case involving your average citizen...much less the President of the United States.

​And let me add something else. From about 1965 to about 1975, the vast majority of the critics accepted most of the evidence.

That takes in a lot of people: I mean from Salandria to Evica.

​The point was this: the evidence in the 26 volumes did not support the WR. So the critics just attacked the WR with its own evidence. Somehow Davey does not get that. Probably because he has not read the volumes.

​In fact, Marjorie Field assembled what would have been a wonderful book based on that precise thesis. It was called The Evidence. What she did was exceptionally unique.

​She did not type a manuscript. She started with a set of large easels. She then blew up pages from the WR to show the central tenets of the report. She then blew up pages from the 26 volumes. She then glued the stuff in the volumes that contradicted the WR and put it right below the tenet, which was now proven to be questionable, if not false. This went on for about 200 pages. The WR was shredded by its own evidence. Would that have been a blockbuster book?

At the last minute the publisher pulled out saying it would be too expensive to reproduce the easels. Maggie had them in her basement until she died. Vital symbols of the perfidy of the Commission.

Edited August 2, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

But Mr. Von Pein most likely isn't listening. I'm betting he still falls back on the argument that ALL CTers think ALL the evidence is "fraudulent/planted/manufactured." That isn't the case.

In short -- The CTers who think Oswald never fired a shot at either JFK or Tippit (which encompasses roughly 80% of Internet CTers, which is probably a conservative estimate) most certainly must believe that all of the evidence that points to Oswald is fraudulent.

The only way around that belief is to theorize about an "Oswald look-alike" who shot Tippit with the real Oswald's revolver and a gunman in the TSBD Sniper's Nest who also looks a lot like Oswald who fired shots at the President while using the real Oswald's rifle.

And then, on top of those wholly speculative and nonsensical theories, the CTers would need the real Oswald to act like the guiltiest person in Dallas in the Texas Theater as he waves a gun around while trying to shoot some policemen just 80 minutes after somebody else blew away the President while using the real Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.

Whew! Somebody call the Baloney Police to allow that BS story to get off the ground.

So, yes, whether they admit it or not, it's a pretty good bet that each and every member of the "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody" society is also a charter member of the "Everything's Fake" club as well.

Now, the few vocal Internet CTers who actually have the common sense to realize that Oswald shot both Kennedy and Tippit will fall into a different category. They can easily believe that the evidence against LHO is legitimate, but also believe that the CIA or some other agency hired Oswald to kill the President. But as I look around the Internet here in 2015, there aren't many CTers who seem to fall into that category. Most Internet conspiracists want to have their Patsy cake and eat it too. God knows why, but that's the way it is.

Edited August 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

The above is pure Von Pein.

"Geez, I just got proved wrong. Better backpedal and reposition myself before anyone notices"

Edited August 2, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

Second try....

Point-blank question for James DiEugenio....

Do you, Jim, think ANY of the evidence pointing to Oswald is legitimate evidence?

And while Jimmy ponders the above question for the second time (which he likely will never answer, because Jim has said "It's not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team"), let me repeat an earlier thought....

The evidence, btw, is also perfectly consistent with Lee Harvey Oswald's guilty-like actions displayed by Oswald on 11/22/63 and also perfectly consistent with the out-of-the-ordinary things Oswald did on 11/21/63 (e.g., first-ever Thursday-night trip to Irving and telling Buell Frazier the lie about "curtain rods").

But CTers never bother to add the EVIDENCE to OSWALD'S ACTIONS in order to arrive at a logical conclusion. Conspiracy theorists, instead, will forever separate LHO's odd and guilty-like actions from the physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases.

And it couldn't be more obvious why CTers want to keep those things separate and isolated. Because if they don't, then it becomes much more difficult to pretend that all of the physical evidence was manufactured in order to frame an innocent patsy named Oswald.

Somebody prove to me that the last paragraph I just wrote isn't 100% accurate. I bet nobody can. Because it is accurate. And CTers know it.

Edited August 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

The above is pure Von Pein.

"Geez, I just got proved wrong. Better backpedal and reposition myself before anyone notices"

I haven't backpedaled on anything, Jimmy. Take another Excedrin for your headache.

Obviously, I have never ONCE suggested that a CTer who WASN'T in the "Oswald Shot Nobody" club believes that "all the evidence is fake". Why would I suggest such a stupid thing in the first place?

If a CTer actually has the brains to realize Oswald DID shoot some people on 11/22/63, then that CTer probably also thinks at least SOME of the evidence that hangs LHO is legit. Otherwise, what would make them think Oswald was guilty in the first place? Tea leaves? A Ouija board? They might think some of the evidence was fake, but not ALL of it, which would still be a silly notion under such "Oswald did it" circumstances, because if he really DID shoot JFK & Tippit, then there would be no need for anyone to run around and start faking MORE evidence that suggests the same thing that the LEGITIMATE evidence also proves.

Edited August 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Chuck Schwartz]

In the United States, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. LHO was never proven guilty in the court of law. Hence, LHO is presumed to be innocent, in the eyes of the law. The WC was run by Allen Dulles, who probably destroyed all the "Proof " that he (CIA)coordinated the assassination. Nobody will ever be convicted in the court of law for the murder of JFK.

[David Von Pein]

LHO was never proven guilty in the court of law.

So? Does that make the evidence against him disappear?

Should we just ignore the evidence against him because Ruby put a gun in his gut?

Edited August 2, 2015 by David Von Pein