Dealing with deniers

[David Von Pein]

As I mentioned to Pat Speer earlier in this thread....MANY Americans believe Oswald was a CIA agent. And many Americans (34% via one poll) also think the CIA had Kennedy killed.

Therefore, what in the world is so illogical about my believing that many Americans think Oswald killed Kennedy for the CIA?

Please enlighten this weak-minded LNer.

Edited June 20, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

IF he [blakey] was, he would not have spent for much time and energy in preserving the Single Bullet Fantasy.

Bull. The SBT is obviously the only way the shooting could have occurred, and Blakey undoubtedly realized that fact very early on in his investigation.

You're just upset because a different investigation backed up what the Warren Commission said. Therefore, you must believe that Blakey, et al, were just as corrupt as you (falsely) believe the WC was.

That's called "sour grapes". And Jim's got 'em.

[David Von Pein]

The people who think the CIA did it and that Oswald was a CIA agent think someone else killed Kennedy--not Oswald.

Have you asked the 1,031 respondents to that 2003 ABC poll about that, Jimbo?

And it's my guess that a total of ZERO of those 1,031 people have ever posted a single message on a JFK Internet forum like this one, and they've never heard of Jim DiEugenio either, which makes them "cleansed" of the really goofy Anybody-But-Oz beliefs that are held by many in the JFK Forum community.

Any idea WHY Oswald was being paid by the CIA? What great skills did Oswald possess that the CIA required?

Maybe the 34% of "CIA Did It" respondents were thinking that Oswald was merely a guy the CIA hired to bring them soda pop and pretzels for the Sunday afternoon football games, eh? The fact that he was once a Marine sharpshooter meant zilch, right?

Edited June 20, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

The SBT is "obviously the only way the shooting could have occurred"?

More Von Peinian malarkey.

Its the thing that probably has convinced more people that the WC is full of crap. Which it was.

When examining all of the possibilities and, just as important, probabilities regarding the double-man wounding of JFK and John Connally, if a person looking at these possibilities/probabilities is truthful with himself or herself, the SBT is by far the most logical conclusion to reach.

Any other conclusion falls miles short of the SBT, particularly the type of ludicrous bullet-vanishing theories that people like Jimmy DiEugenio place their (blind) faith in -- such as: the theory that has JFK hit in the throat with a bullet from the FRONT that does not exit his body, and having a second separate bullet hitting JFK in the upper back that does not exit his body, and having John Connally being hit by yet another (third) bullet that strikes Connally (miraculously for the SBT crowd) in the upper back.

And then, by pure magic apparently (or via the wishes of the unknown/unnamed conspirators who were stupid enough to green-light this absurd "Let's Shoot JFK From The Front And Try To Blame Only Oswald In The Rear" plot in the first place), ALL THREE of those bullets that entered those two victims then disappeared off the globe right after the shooting (including the "real" Connally bullet--because no CTer on the Web thinks that CE399 is the "real" Connally stretcher bullet, naturally).

And if we choose to expand this nuttiness even further (as people like James H. Fetzer do), we could also add an additional bullet or two to the mix that supposedly hit John B. Connally and then also VANISHED without a trace.

Professor Fetzer, btw, has stated on the Internet record that he thinks it's quite possible that Connally was hit by up to THREE different bullets on November 22. None of which entered the official record of this case, of course.

Can it get much sillier, folks? I'm doubting it.

"Most of my book ["Reclaiming History"], if you want to say it, is devoting myself to rebutting silliness." -- Vincent Bugliosi; June 7, 2007; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (audio below)

http://Box.net/shared/4xan7hmdds

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

Edited June 20, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

But anyone who you explain it to, will say the SBT is pure crapola.

Yeah, sure, Jimbo.

That must be why we find the SBT being upheld by the HSCA.

And it's a very good idea that you try to stay away from the details of what REPLACES the Single-Bullet Theory. Because when you start to explain all those disappearing bullets and SBT-like coincidences (not to mention the BB guns that the shooters apparently were using that caused not just one bullet--but two!--to go into JFK's body just a few inches and stop), you're surely going to end up looking like a fool.

So, the best strategy is to just ignore the details. Good plan.

Edited June 20, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

As I mentioned to Pat Speer earlier in this thread....MANY Americans believe Oswald was a CIA agent. And many Americans (34% via one poll) also think the CIA had Kennedy killed.

Therefore, what in the world is so illogical about my believing that many Americans think Oswald killed Kennedy for the CIA?

Please enlighten this weak-minded LNer.

Define "many." By your reasoning, roughly TWELVE TIMES as many people think Oswald killed Kennedy as think he was a patsy... and nearly FOUR TIMES as many people think he killed Kennedy on behalf the CIA as think he was set-up. No one who has SERIOUSLY studied this case would claim such a thing, IMO. I doubt that Bugliosi, or even Posner, would claim such a thing. When I pressed you on this before you acknowledged that you felt you had to believe such a thing because what the rest of us know is the truth of the matter--that a large percentage if not the majority of Americans believe Oswald innocent of killing Kennedy--was beyond your comprehension. i.e. that you couldn't believe in a country where so many people believed in such a thing.

Open your eyes. Believe.

[David Von Pein]

Pat,

I think you're again merging together the silly beliefs of the "Internet" conspiracy crowd with the beliefs of the "general population".

There almost certainly IS a difference there. But, no, I haven't performed any detailed study or poll to confirm what I just said. But, IMO, the 2003 ABC poll is proving my point, because 32% of the people in that poll said Oswald shot Kennedy BY HIMSELF, which is a much, much higher pct. than believe such a thing on the Internet.

And when you factor in the other 51% who said Oswald was a shooter (along with at least one other "gunman"), then the pct. of "Oswald Was A Shooter" respondents goes even further above the pct. of such believers at Internet forums like this.

Plus, the "Oswald Was A Patsy" believers can also believe Oswald was a shooter. And many do. They think Oswald was a shooter in a scenario that had multiple shooters, with Oswald then having the rug pulled out from under him and he was used as the lone scapegoat. Surely, even you know that some CTers possess that POV.

Unless a large pct. of those respondents in that ABC poll totally misunderstood the "gunman" question, or unless they just deliberately answered with a response that reflected Oswald as a GUNMAN, then 83% of those people in that poll truly were of the belief that LHO was firing a gun at JFK in Dallas.

Also, since that particular question (to my knowledge) has not been asked in the various polls in the past (the question, that is, about "gunmen" specifically), then it's really not something we can compare to any other poll sample. It's kind of a one-of-a-kind question. At least I don't recall seeing any question worded that way about "gunmen" before. Have you?

Let me ask you, Pat:

If you were among the people in the world who truly believed that Oswald didn't fire a shot that day (and you aren't, are you?), how would you yourself have answered that question when the phone rang and you talked with that pollster from ABC News?

Would you have really not understood that the question was SEPARATE from the issue of conspiracy (which, per the order of the questions on the Polling.com website, was asked PRIOR to the "gunman" question)? And would you have really not understood that the ABC people were asking whether you thought Oswald was a GUNMAN or not?

Plus, if you DID misunderstand the question, wouldn't you have ASKED the person on the phone to clarify it for you? I'm not sure if the pollster would have actually re-worded the question or not; but wouldn't you have ASKED anyway if you were confused? And it makes me wonder if some of those 1,031 people DID ask to have it clarified for them. And if it was clarified, then it only makes those poll results stronger and more ironclad.

Edited June 20, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

But anyone who you explain it to, will say the SBT is pure crapola.

Yeah, sure, Jimbo.

That must be why we find the SBT being upheld by the HSCA.

And it's a very good idea that you try to stay away from the details of what REPLACES the Single-Bullet Theory. Because when you start to explain all those disappearing bullets and SBT-like coincidences (not to mention the BB guns that the shooters apparently were using that caused not just one bullet--but two!--to go into JFK's body just a few inches and stop), you're surely going to end up looking like a fool.

So, the best strategy is to just ignore the details. Good plan.

It is preposterous for you or any of today's robo-LN's to cite the HSCA's views on the SBT as evidence for its likelihood. You and other devotees of the Lattimer/Posner/Bugliosi tribe assure us that 1) the HSCA pathology panel was incorrect in its claim Kennedy must have been leaning sharply forward when struck, 2) the back wound was inches higher on the body than as determined by the HSCA pathology panel, 3) the HSCA photography panel was incorrect in its determination of when Kennedy was first struck, and 4) the HSCA trajectory panel was incorrect in its determination of the moment when Kennedy's and Connally's wounds aligned. In short, you reject ALL of their findings leading to their conclusion the SBT was viable, but then claim their conclusion as support for the viability of your own conclusion.

Here's an analogy... A corpse is found in the desert near Roswell. An autopsy team examines the corpse and says it is an alien because the corpse has four fingers, is 7 feet tall, and has three eyes. A panel of doctors then examines the photos, and say, no, the corpse has six fingers, is four feet tall, and has one eye. You then cite the doctors' original analysis as evidence for the conclusion of the second panel--even though it is based on a nearly entirely different set of facts. This is LUDICROUS. What you ought to be noticing is not that their conclusions agree, but that their underlying facts do not. You should then wonder how it is that people with your shared mindset inevitably claim the SBT is viable--no matter when it happened, and no matter where the bullet struck Kennedy. This then should make you question its actual viability, and question it hard.

Nope, David, it wasn't an alien, just a decomposed body in blurry photos...

[David Von Pein]

Jim,

The brain WAS partially sectioned. Why are you insisting it wasn't sectioned at all.

And there WERE probes used by Drs. Humes and Boswell in an effort to track the back/neck wounds, but as Dr. Boswell said to the ARRB in 1996:

"We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it."

You think the neck should have been torn open to dissect the wound, right Jim?

Well, they didn't do that (for whatever reason, probably the wishes of the Kennedy family to not have certain portions of JFK's body mutilated at the autopsy). So, we're left to guess as to if there was an actual visible "track" through JFK's back & neck or not. But the doctors most certainly attempted to probe the wounds.

[David Von Pein]

It is preposterous for you or any of today's robo-LN's to cite the HSCA's views on the SBT as evidence for its likelihood.

There are several discrepancies between the WC and HSCA re the SBT, to be sure. But there are a whole bunch of discrepancies between the conspiracy theories re the SBT and/or its alternatives too. Who should we believe? IMO, it's not even a close call (even with the cockeyed analysis of the HSCA on some things). The SBT stands erect, and always shall, IMO.

The bottom-line conclusions are identical, however, between the WC's SBT and the HSCA's SBT -- one bullet (CE399) passed through both JFK and JBC.

The HSCA was half-drunk (I guess) when it concluded these crazy assertions:

1.) JFK was leaning forward 11 degrees at the time of the SBT shot.

2.) JFK's throat wound was located above his back wound (anatomically).

3.) The SBT occurred at circa Z190.

And #4 (bonus) -- A fourth shot was fired at JFK's car.

Those four things are totally nuts, yes. And I've always said they were nuts. And I'll just have to live with my disagreements with the HSCA on these points. But I happen to agree with the HSCA on the big-ticket conclusions they reached:

1.) Oswald killed Kennedy.

2.) Oswald killed Tippit.

3.) Oswald shot at General Walker.

4.) Only two bullets struck JFK and JBC.

5.) The SBT is correct.

Edited June 20, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

I think you're again merging together the silly beliefs of the "Internet" conspiracy crowd with the beliefs of the "general population".

There almost certainly IS a difference there. But, no, I haven't performed any detailed study or poll to confirm what I just said. But, IMO, the 2003 ABC poll is proving my point, because 32% of the people in that poll said Oswald shot Kennedy BY HIMSELF, which is a much, much higher pct. than believe such a thing on the Internet.

And when you factor in the other 51% who said Oswald was a shooter (along with at least one other "gunman"), then the pct. of "Oswald Was A Shooter" respondents goes even further above the pct. of such believers at Internet forums like this.

Plus, the "Oswald Was A Patsy" believers can also believe Oswald was a shooter. And many do. They think Oswald was a shooter in a scenario that had multiple shooters, with Oswald then having the rug pulled out from under him and he was used as the lone scapegoat. Surely, even you know trhat some CTers possess that POV.

Unless a large pct. of those respondents in that ABC poll totally misunderstood the "gunman" question, or unless they just deliberately answered with a response that reflected Oswald as a GUNMAN, then 83% of those people in that poll truly were of the belief that LHO was firing a gun at JFK in Dallas.

Also, since that particular question (to my knowledge) has not been asked in the various polls in the past (the question, that is, about "gunmen" specifically), then it's really not something we can compare to any other poll sample. It's kind of a one-of-a-kind question. At least I don't recall seeing any question worded that way about "gunmen" before. Have you?

Let me ask you, Pat:

If you were among the people in the world who truly believed that Oswald didn't fire a shot that day (and you aren't, atre you?), how would you yourseldf have answered that question when the phone rang and you talked with that pollster from ABC News?

Would you have really not understood that the question was SEPARATE from the issue of conspiracy (which, per the order of the questions on the Polling.com website, was asked PRIOR to the "gunman" question)? And would you have really not understood that the ABC people were asking whether you thought Oswald was a GUNMAN or not?

Plus, if you DID misunderstand the question, wouldn't you have ASKED the person on the phone to clarify it for you? I'm, not sure if the pollster would have actually re-worded the question or not; but wouldn't you have ASKED anyway if you were confused? And it makes me wonder if some of those 1,031 people DID ask to have it clarified for them. And if it was clarified, then it only makes those poll results stronger and more ironclad.

David, I would probably listen closely to the question, and would demand it be clarified before answering. But I would be in the vast minority. Most people, I have no doubt, would just say--well, he must have been involved in some way. I mean, do you have any idea how polls work? Have you ever read up on this? A large percentage of polls are written with deliberately skewed questions designed to influence the outcome of the poll. These polls are quite often commissioned by someone with an agenda.

And sometimes they're just flawed. In any event, it has been well-established, for decades now, that polls are often unreliable. It's like eyewitness identification. Studies have found--over and over again--that witnesses, when asked to ID a suspect, pick the person who looks MOST like the culprit, and then search for cues from the detectives before deciding how sure they are of their selection. If the detective lies through his teeth and says "you got 'em" or something like that, witnesses are far more likely to say they felt sure of the ID than if the detective says nothing.

So, without hearing the tapes of the ABC poll, it's tough to say how much of its inaccurate results came from the poorly worded question, and how much came from the tone of the question.

But we know the results were wrong.

I, personally, have spoken to approximately 1500-2000 non-buffs about the assassination. At least 75% said they suspected a conspiracy. Of that 75% two-thirds thought Oswald innocent of shooting Kennedy. So, my poll results would read something like this: 25% think Oswald killed Kennedy while acting alone, 25% think Oswald shot at Kennedy as part of a conspiracy. and 50% think Oswald failed to fire a shot from the sniper's nest. 50% is a long way from 7%.

What does your experience tell you? Be honest here...

Like I said, if ONLY 7% of the public, in 1993, thought Oswald innocent of firing his rifle at Kennedy, where in the heck does anyone get off claiming Oliver Stone misled the public?

[David Von Pein]

What does your experience tell you?

You probably won't believe this, but I hardly ever discuss the JFK case with anyone outside of this computer. I cannot remember the last time I asked anyone, outside the Internet, their opinion on the subject. It just never comes up.

Like I said, if ONLY 7% of the public, in 1993 [Pat meant to say 2003 here], thought Oswald innocent of firing his rifle at Kennedy, where in the heck does anyone get off claiming Oliver Stone misled the public?

I see your point here, Pat.

But, then too, we'd have to know how many of those 1,031 people in the poll had seen Stone's fantasy flick. We can never know that stat.

Edited June 20, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Steve Duffy]

Jim,

The brain WAS partially sectioned. Why are you insisting it wasn't sectioned at all.

And there WERE probes used by Drs. Humes and Boswell in an effort to track the back/neck wounds, but as Dr. Boswell said to the ARRB in 1996:

"We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it."

You think the neck should have been torn open to dissect the wound, right Jim?

Well, they didn't do that (for whatever reason, probably the wishes of the Kennedy family to not have certain portions of JFK's body mutilated at the autopsy). So, we're left to guess as to if there was an actual visible "track" through JFK's back & neck or not. But the doctors most certainly attempted to probe the wounds.

You think the neck should have been torn open to dissect the wound, right Jim?

We all do...that's the point of an autopsy..like the use of the word torn

Isn't there....some "mutilating" of the body during an autopsy?....I'm sure it has a medical term.

R F K: Yes, you can saw open his skull and slice his brain into pieces..but no mutilating the neck!.....

Christsakes....

Edited June 20, 2011 by Steve Duffy

[Michael Hogan]

Like I said, if ONLY 7% of the public, in 1993 [Pat meant to say 2003 here], thought Oswald innocent of firing his rifle at Kennedy, where in the heck does anyone get off claiming Oliver Stone misled the public?

I see your point here, Pat.

But, then too, we'd have to know how many of those 1,031 people in the poll had seen Stone's fantasy flick. We can never know that stat.

David is fond of making a lot claims, claims he can't substantiate. He originally wrote that unless someone were stupid, they would have to answer the question: no opinion.

He realized this would paint him into a corner and quickly revised his position to something like: If someone thought Oswald "was somehow involved in the assassination,"

(and didn't fire a gun) they would have no choice but to answer "he was not involved in the assassination at all" They would have to do this in order to avoid putting a gun in

Oswald's hand. Look at how ridiculous his amended claim is. David piles tons of irrelevancies on top of this which change nothing.

He should have stuck with what he wrote originally. At least that made a bit of sense.

Then he tries to claim that this question is clearly worded. Whatever.

ABC News Poll Question:

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to

Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?"

ABC News wrote this about the poll in 2003 (Italics added):

THE FILM – The director Oliver Stone reinvigorated the debate with the December 1991

release of “JFK,” his film based on Garrison’s investigation. The movie today is widely

known – four in 10 Americans say they’ve seen it, and nearly as many have heard or read

about it.

But its impact on public opinion is debatable

.

Twenty percent of Americans say the film made them more likely to think there was a

conspiracy behind the assassination.

But many of them may have held that view even

without the film’s influence.

The overall number who suspect a conspiracy is the same

now as it was in a poll leading up to the movie’s release, before many people had a

chance to see it. And as noted, suspicions of a plot peaked in 1983, long before the film

was made.

The movie in any case has attracted a conspiracy-minded crowd. Suspicion of a plot

peaks at 81 percent of those who’ve seen it, compared to about six in 10 of those who’ve

only heard or read about it, or don’t know about it at all. Similarly, 63 percent of viewers

suspect there was a second gunman; that declines to 43 percent of those who haven’t seen

the film. And 78 percent of viewers suspect a cover-up, compared to 61 percent of nonviewers.

But this doesn’t necessarily mean that seeing the movie creates suspicion; it could be instead

that suspicious people have been drawn to the film.

David's statement at the top of this post is a perfect example of how baseless so many of his assertions are.

Many times his inability to do his homework does him in.

David has conceded that his beliefs about Oswald and the assassination place him with the

extreme fringe of American (and worldwide for sure) opinion. Ten to thirteen per per cent agree

with him according to Gallup and CBS polls. That's a mighty small number to be aligned with.

Little wonder so many of his arguments are little more than incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo.

And he calls others a lost cause. Whatever.

[David Von Pein]

He should have stuck with what he wrote originally. At least that made a bit of sense.

No, it didn't make any sense at all. That's why I revised my opinion on that point -- because those people who believe Oswald was involved in some way in the assassination but think he fired no shots DO have an opinion about whether Oswald fired shots, which is the only thing that ABC question was asking.

So to answer "no opinion" to that question is inaccurate for those particular respondents.

Then he tries to claim that this question is clearly worded. Whatever.

It's worded clearly enough (for people who have any sense). It couldn't be more obvious that ALL portions of the question refer to GUNMAN in the assassination. Only conspiracy theorists have to struggle with this. I sure don't.

Edited June 20, 2011 by David Von Pein