Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

For example, he points out that there is no such thing as a "left-handed" scope for a rifle.

Comments? ...

Of course there's no such thing as a "left-handed scope," but who ever said there was? Straw man.

The description I recall is that the scope was "set up for a left-handed person," or words to that effect. A different animal entirely, and a definite possibility.

But quite right: there is no such thing as a "left-handed scope." Points for accuracy. And demerits to whomever mischaracterized a scope being "set up for a left-handed person."

Warren Commission exhibit 2560 -- the scope was "mounted for a left-handed person." Oddly the WC failed to mention this in its "report." Just left it there to be discovered in the "exhibits" later. McAdams is misleading and distorting.

Was Mac Wallace (or any other possible shooter) left-handed?

--Thomas

I discuss the "left-handed gun" theory in chapter 9 of my webpage:

Beyond the reasons already discussed, there are purely technical reasons to doubt Oswald was one among any number of shooters. The sniper's nest shooter was in a very crammed space, rapid firing on a target moving left to right, and was purported to have taken these shots while sitting on a box, using a gun rest. There are reasons to believe a man with Oswald's limited training would not only not be able to pull this off, but would not even attempt to fire shots in this manner. Consider:

Although Oswald's shooting scores while in the Marines were adequate at the beginning of his service, Allison Folsom, the Marine Corps officer contacted by the Warren Commission to discuss Oswald's training, said that Oswald's score on the last test he took in 1959 indicated he was a "poor shot". Folsom actually went further than this, and volunteered that, due to inactivity, there was reason to believe Oswald's skills had depreciated even further since that time.

Even worse, Oswald's Marine Corps scorebook, CE 239, reflects that he had only been trained to shoot on stationary targets, and never from elevation. It takes a bit of practice to learn how to lead a moving target, and a bit more practice to learn how firing from elevation has an effect on this lead. For one thing, there's less bullet drop. A military rifle fires slightly above its crosshairs, to account for the effects of gravity on the bullet. When firing downwards from elevation, however, the gravity effect is lessened, and an inexperienced sniper will probably aim high. The difficulty of shooting a moving target is confirmed by the 2007 book, To Be a Military Sniper, which notes "engaging a moving target is a skill that can be developed and maintained only through constant practice." Not only had Oswald never received training as a sniper, the Warren Commission found no evidence Oswald had EVER fired his rifle on a moving target.

Military Science and Tactics, a WWII-era textbook written "Conforming to the War Department Program", which would presumably be relevant to Oswald's training 14 years later, reflects that U.S. soldiers are trained to fire from the Prone, Sitting, Kneeling, and Standing positions. The drawing for the "Sitting" position is of a soldier sitting on the ground. This makes me suspect that Oswald had never practiced shooting while sitting on a box.

This book also asserts, in a section entitled "General Rules for Positions" "(1) To assume any position first face the target and then face half right. In any position the rifle makes an angle of about 45 degrees with the front of the body or the spine." If Oswald was the shooter in the sniper's nest, then, his training would have dictated his facing the west side of the building, and turning his upper torso and rifle to fire out the window.

This book also asserts, in a section entitled "Marksmanship, Moving Targets", that "There is no unit of measure for leads that the rifleman can quickly apply except the target itself. That is all he sees. So the unit of measure for leads is the actual target...When the trigger is correctly squeezed the rifleman does not know when the piece will go off. Accordingly, when he has obtained the correct lead, the rifle must continue to be swung smoothly and uniformly to maintain the lead while squeezing the trigger. The tendency to stop swinging the piece when the lead has been obtained, and fire instantly by jerking the trigger, must be avoided. This is of utmost importance. The rifleman begins to squeeze the trigger as soon as he has his lead, and maintains his lead by swinging the piece while pressing the trigger." Well, this is interesting. Oswald's facing west would have made his tracking a target from directly to his left to 45 degrees to his left a bit awkward, particularly if he was using a box as a rifle rest. In fact, this passage makes me suspect that a military-trained sniper would not even use a rifle rest for such a shot, as it would only prohibit the "smooth and uniform" movement of his rifle as he tracked his target.

A 1970's era "U.S. Marine Corps Scout/Sniper Data Book" in my possession confirms this last point. Its section on "Leads" reads: "Moving targets are the most difficult to hit. When engaging a target which is moving laterally across his line of sight, the sniper must concentrate on moving his weapon with the target while aiming at a point some distance ahead. Holding this "lead", the sniper fires and follows through with the movement after the shot. Using this method, the sniper reduces the possibility of missing..."

Intriguingly, however, this Data Book then proceeds: "Another method of leading a target, and one which is used extensively by snipers, is known as the "point" lead. By "point lead" we mean the sniper selects a point some distance in front of his target and holds the crosshairs on that point. As the target moves across the horizontal crosshair, it will eventually reach a point which is the proper lead distance from the center. At that instant the sniper must fire his shot. This is a very simple method of hitting a moving target, but a few basic marksmanship skills must not be forgotten: The sniper must not only estimate his target range, but also its speed and angle of travel relative to his line of sight in order to determine the correct lead. The sniper must continue to concentrate on his crosshairs and not on his target. The sniper must continue to squeeze the trigger and not jerk or flinch prior to the shot being fired." To Be a Military Sniper confirms this point, noting that shooting in this manner is "the preferred method of engaging moving targets." Well, this raises a few questions: 1) when would Oswald have learned to fire in this manner?; and 2) if a shooter did use a cardboard box for a rifle rest, and fire after acquiring a "point lead" and MISS, as supposedly happened in Dallas, wouldn't this cut into the likelihood of his successfully firing two rapid-fire shots in the next 8 seconds? Let's see. He hasn't been actively tracking the target. He has already guessed wrong. Are we to believe he then re-acquired his target, tracked it successfully through a tree, and fired successfully, not once but twice, the first time in 3 seconds, and the second time in 5 seconds.

An even greater reason to doubt Oswald established a "point" lead on Kennedy comes from looking at the sniper's nest view above. The President would have been coming into view not from the left of the scope, but from below--out from under the rifle barrel. This would have given Oswald (or the sniper presumed to have been Oswald) very little time to react, particularly if he was using the iron sights. It follows then that the sniper almost certainly tracked Kennedy along Elm Street, and did not use a cardboard box as a rifle rest.

There are reasons to doubt Oswald did the tracking, however. On the next page of the data book, when discussing the lead times given walking soldiers, based upon the angle they are walking in relation to the sniper, another problem becomes clear: "The leads previously mentioned hold true for a right-handed shooter firing on a target moving from his right to his left. If the target is moving from left to right, the lead must be doubled due to a natural hesitation to follow through when swinging against the shooting shoulder. This hesitation is extremely difficult to overcome even by the most experienced shooters." Hmm... As proven on the slide above, the target car was moving upward from the sniper's nest shooter's left to his right. Oswald was a right-handed shooter. Now...are we to believe he somehow knew to compensate for this "natural hesitation"?

In 1993, noted gun expert Massad Ayoob wrote an article for Handgunner Magazine in which he discussed his own impression of the shots attributed to Oswald. He noted that the two fastest shooters in a 1992 re-enactment of Oswald's purported shooting feat were both left-handed shooters firing from their left shoulder, and operating the bolt with their right hand. (The specifics of this re-enactment are not described, so no judgment can be made on its accuracy.) Anyhow, Ayoob's observation on the lefties supports what was said in the data book about left-handed shooters having a noticeable advantage when shooting at targets moving from left to right. While concluding that Oswald could indeed have made the shots, Ayoob does so in part because of speculation Oswald was a left-eye dominant shooter. There is no indication of this anywhere outside Oswald's mother's recollection he was left-handed--a point rejected by both Oswald's wife and his brothers. (Apparently, his mother was confusing him with his brother Robert, who was left-handed.) In addition, the only known photo of Oswald firing a rifle shows him to be shooting right-handed with his right eye. (Information found online suggests both that the Marines keep an eye out for left-eye dominant shooters and that they train them to shoot left-handed when discovered.) As a result, Ayoob's speculation falls flat.

Oswald's purported use of his scope only magnifies this problem. Guns of the Elite, a 1987 book on snipers and sniper weapons, notes "optical sights suffer certain inherent problems. Not only are they complicated--and often too delicate to withstand the rigours of military service--but magnification of the target means that the firer's eyes see different images if both eyes remain open during the shooting. Thus, though the sights improve deliberate shooting, they can hinder target location and (particularly) engagement of moving targets." This book then goes on to note that some armies have learned to account for this problem by using 1.5 power scopes on their sniper rifles, which permit "a wider field of view" than 4 power scopes. The scope on the assassination rifle was a 4 power scope. If Oswald was using this scope, with its limited field of view, it seems highly unlikely he could have accurately established a "point lead" on a target coming from below and to his left. If he missed this first shot, furthermore, it seems unlikely he could have adjusted rapidly enough to track the target through a tree and fire two accurate shots, the first one within a second of the target coming out from behind the tree, and the second less than 5 seconds later.

This last point is supported by the Army's tests of Oswald's rifle in March, 1964. The three Master rifleman chosen to test the rifle, after being allowed as much time as needed for the first shot, missed the second shot 4 of 6 times, even though they were aiming at a stationary target, and their target was approximately 3 times larger than the approximately 7 inch circle within which Oswald had purportedly placed two shots.. The sudden switch from waiting to turning and firing was apparently a difficult one, made even more difficult by the use of a scope.

Intriguingly, the HSCA came to agree that Oswald's use of the scope was unlikely. Their Firearms Panel concluded "that an individual could attain better accuracy using the iron sights than the scope under the circumstances involved in Dealey Plaza." In his testimony, the panel's spokesman, Monty Lutz, explained why. First he questioned the accuracy of the scope. He claimed "The accuracy is fairly undependable, as far as once getting the rifle sighted in and it is very cheaply made, the scope itself has a crosshair reticle that is subject to movement or being capable of being dislodged from dropping, from impact, or a very sharp recoil. So the accuracy would be somewhat questionable for this particular type of a scope." Then he questioned if the scope would be of help even under optimum conditions. He explained: "This scope, I will apply the principle to it. We are dealing with a four-power or a magnification of 4. The field of view is 18, meaning an 18-foot circle at 100 yards. So it is a 4 x 18 scope, a relatively small circle to locate your target in when you are firing and recovering from the recoil in successive shots. So to align your target to get a sighting position, by placing the stock into the shoulder, the head has to be adjusted or moved slightly to the left to align the way that the scope is mounted on the left-hand side and get into position to fire. The scope itself is also designed so that the crosshair, the reticles, do not remain in the exact center position. When you adjust windage or elevation those crosshairs move, so that you are not looking dead center in the object itself. A more natural and easier form or position to fire is to put the rifle against the shoulder, the cheek on the stock, and look right down the center, straight ahead from where you are now positioned, and align the iron sights, the fixed iron sights that are presently on the rifle." He then testified that, for him, using the iron sights would be "considerably easier" than using the scope. None of his colleagues on the panel disagreed.

While the panel's conclusion was no doubt influenced by the fact they'd found the rifle could also be fired faster when using the iron sights, and the HSCA was anxious to conclude the rifle had been fired faster than previously believed possible, there were presumably other factors influencing their conclusion. Perhaps one of these factors was that, as acknowledged in the 1969 testimony of the FBI's Robert Frazier--the first man to test the weapon--one had to lift one's eye away from the scope between shots in order "To prevent the bolt of the rifle from striking (one) in the face as it came to the rear." Perhaps another of these factors was that, when first tested by Frazier on 11-27-1963, the rifle, when fired using the scope, fired 4 inches high and one to the right at only 15 yards. Assuming this was the condition of the rifle as found in the depository, this meant that the sniper, in order to lead the President and hit him in the head while he was moving away and to the right, would have to have fired behind the President, and aimed for low on his back, or perhaps even at the trunk of his limousine. This would have been quite a trick. Perhaps the HSCA Firearms Panel, unlike the Warren Commission, which concluded that the use of the apparently misaligned scope had been a "substantial aid" in the shooting, saw the unlikelihood of Oswald pulling off such a trick. Unfortunately for them, however, the only man known to rapid fire the assassination rifle while using the iron sights, a Mr. Miller, the best shooter in the Army's 1964 tests, only attempted one run using these sights... On this run, Mr. Miller not only missed the head and neck silhouette of his third and final target, he missed the target completely.

A not so quick aside...While some assume the rifle and scope were in alignment on 11-22-63, only to get misaligned in the aftermath of the shooting, there is little real support for this assumption. While Sebastian Latona, the FBI's fingerprint expert, testified before the Warren Commission that the rifle had been dismantled by the FBI's ballistics examiners and inspected for prints prior to the FBI's initial test of the rifle's accuracy, he did not mention the removal of the scope. When the FBI's chief ballistics examiner Robert Frazier testified just a few days prior to Latona, moreover, he indicated he'd been present when the rifle arrived at the laboratory, and also failed to mention the scope had been removed. He did make the nebulous statement that "apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned." This indicates that he thought it possible the scope had been removed in the search for fingerprints in Dallas, something which was denied by the Dallas crime scene investigator, J.C. Day. Frazier then let on that he had reason to suspect it had not been removed in Dallas; he testified that, upon further examination of the rifle in March 1964, he found that the scope took 5 or 6 shots to stabilize after each adjustment, and that "When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting." If the scope was stabilized on 11-27, as claimed, and neither the Dallas Police nor FBI had before that time adjusted the scope and fired the rifle 5 or 6 times to stabilize the scope, as Frazier found was necessary, it follows then that the scope had not recently been removed, replaced, and re-adjusted before 11-27, and that the inaccuracies of the rifle on 11-27 were the inaccuracies on 11-22. (Frazier would later confirm this by telling writer David Fisher not that the Dallas Police had adjusted or bumped the scope to knock it out of alignment, but that they'd lost a wooden shim that had been placed beneath the scope to bring it into alignment. He, of course, offered no evidence that this shim had ever existed, let alone that the DPD had lost it after removing the scope.)

Even if the scope had been removed and haphazardly screwed back on, however, as some presume, it does nothing to suggest the rifle had been accurate on 11-22. All indications are, in fact, that it was not. In March 1964, when Frazier discovered the problem with the stability of the scope, the FBI tried to sight-in the rifle and make it as accurate as possible. They found this was impossible, and that it still fired an average of over 4 inches high and 2 1/2 inches to the right at 100 yards when using the scope even after it was stabilized. While some, apparently including the FBI and Warren Commission, have chosen to assume this misalignment was the misalignment of the rifle on 11-22, and would have worked to Oswald's advantage, they miss entirely that having the rifle fire high and to the right at a distant target moving up and to the right in the scope would only have been an advantage if Oswald knew exactly how misaligned his scope was--and that he only could have known this had he had extensive practice with his rifle...extensive practice for which the FBI and Warren Commission found no evidence...

In any event, when, subsequent to the FBI, the Army tested the rifle, they found it necessary to add wooden shims beneath the scope mount to bring it into alignment. The gunsmith adding these shims made an interesting observation, moreover, which was then passed on to the Warren Commission. He noted that "the scope as we received it was installed as if for a left-handed man." This feeds back into the sniper data book's observation that right-eye dominant shooters have trouble with targets moving left to right, and Ayoob's observation that the best shooters during the re-enactment he'd witnessed had both been left-handed, and presumably left-eye dominant. Was the sniper in the sniper's nest a left-eye dominant shooter firing right-handed to simulate Oswald? Hmmm...

Since there is no evidence the scope was ever sighted-in, the possibility exists that whoever mounted the scope at Klein's was left-handed, or just sloppy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can DVP really be this ignorant?

Can he really be this uncomprehending?

Can he really be this much of a boot licking sucker for the Commission?

You betcha.

Listen good Davey Boy, because with your degree of denseness, you have to:

WHAT DISCORDANT OR PARADOXICAL OR EXCULPATORY PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE MATTERED ONE IOTA TO THE WARREN COMMISSION VERDICT CONVICTING OSWALD!!!

NAME ONE PIECE THAT MADE ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE TO THEM!

AFTER RANKIN GOT HIS INSTRUCTIONS AND WROTE THAT OUTLINE--THAT WAS IT DAVEY! GOT IT PARTNER?

Therefore, if Oswald was not on the 6th floor, so what? We get Givens to lie for us. It's suborning perjury, but heck, Oswald has no lawyer.

If the bullet was unscathed or from the wrong stretcher [uTTER CRAP FROM DiEUGENIO, AS ALWAYS; TOMLINSON SAID ABOUT TEN TIMES IN HIS '64 WC SESSION THAT HE WAS "NOT SURE" WHICH STRETCHER HAD COME OFF OF THE ELEVATOR; NATURALLY, TO JIMBO, THIS "NOT SURE" TESTIMONY MUST REALLY INDICATE THAT TOMLIONSON *WAS* SURE; JIMBO'S OFF HIS RAILS], doesn't matter, that is what McCloy and Dulles want. Oswald is dead and buried.

If the shooting feat is hard to swallow and no one we hired could do it [DEAD WRONG, AS USUAL], does not matter in the least. Even though these guys are five times the marksman Oswald ever was. He has no rights now.

Oswald could not have walked that fast to get to 10th and Patton [DEAD WRONG, AS USUAL; OSWALD'S TRIP TO PATTON WAS EASILY DOABLE, AND HAS BEEN DUPLICATED SEVERAL TIMES IN UNDER 12 MINUTES; BUT DiEUGENIO WILL CONTINUE TO PRETEND THAT THE TRIP WAS IMPOSSIBLE; AND JIM WILL CONTINUE TO PRETEND THAT THE ESTIMATED TIMES PROVIDED BY THE WITNESSES FOR TIPPIT'S KILLING ARE TIMES THAT ARE ROOTED IN GRANITE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT MRS. MARKHAM SAID AT ONE POINT TO BARDWELL ODUM ON 11/22 THAT SHE THOUGHT THE SHOOTING OCCURRED AT ABOUT 1:30], hell, just move the time back to allow him to do so. Who will object?

If Oswald could not have picked up the rifle since it was not in his name [DEAD WRONG, AS ALWAYS; OSWALD OBVIOUSLY DID PICK UP THE RIFLE; DiEUGENIO, INCREDIBLY, WANTS TO BELIEVE THAT OSWALD--OR SOMEBODY FRAMING HIM--WOULD HAVE WANTED TO ORDER A GUN THAT HE/THEY KNEW OSWALD COULD NEVER HAVE A HOPE OF RECEIVING; BRILLIANT PLAN] heck, just lose part of the application form to disguise that fact. So what if its tampering with evidence, this is a dog and pony show.

You say CE 543 could not have been fired that day? [DEAD WRONG, AS ALWAYS; DENTED LIPS AFTER BEING EJECTED FROM CARCANO RIFLES HAVER BEEN ACHIEVED MANY TIMES SINCE 1963; DiEUGENIO, THOUGH, WILL CONTINUE TO PRETEND THAT THE "DENTED LIP" ANOMALY HAS NEVER BEEN DUPLICATED; PATHETIC] That's what Dulles wants, so he 's got it. So what if some professor from Haverford finds out about it later. We got the NY TImes on our side.

Perry says the throat wound was an entrance [MORE TWISTING OF THE FACTS BY JIMBO THE DELUSIONAL; PERRY IS ON RECORD SAYING THAT THE THROAT WOUND COULD HAVE BEEN "EITHER" AN ENTRANCE OR AN EXIT; DiEUGENIO, AS USUAL, IGNORES PERRY'S "EITHER" STATEMENTS], xxxx, just send Elmer Moore down there to talk him out of his story. Witness tampering, big deal.

And so on and so forth. The idea that the experts down at Aberdeen thought the rifle was outfitted for a left hander [bRILLIANT PLAN BY YOUR BRAIN-DEAD PLOTTERS--AGAIN], that is so minor compared to the list of travesties above, it was not even discussed. Not even a blip on the screen. Dulles and McCloy probably giggled over coffee when someone like Liebeler brought it up.

Get real Davey Boy. You think anyone believes the Commission gave a damn about things like facts? As I said, the Nazis at Nurmeburg bot more justice than Oswald.

It was all a sick joke.

Jimbo,

We all know you're excitable when you get worked up into a lather about your make believe conspiracies and cover-ups that involve literally hundreds of people.

You are beyond hope. That fact has become increasingly obvious since June 22nd, 2010. But I love to get you riled enough to where you blabber on and on about silly stuff like your quote above. It's hilarious watching you accuse hundreds of innocent people of wrong-doing. Pathetic, but hilarious.

Got any dirt on little Junie Oswald yet?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do know you are wrong and that no one buys your act here. But you persist anyway. Which really makes me question about what goes on in your brain.

Oh, I realize that changing the mind of an "Online Hardline Conspiracy Theorist" regarding the known and true facts of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination is a tougher job than building another set of pyramids over in Egypt.

But I like to post here anyway, for (#1) my archives that I keep on my own websites, and (#2) I also happen to know that there are, indeed, many reasonable lone-assassin believers who visit (or lurk) this forum to read stuff every day. I know this is a fact because I've had e-mails from some people who lurk here (but do not post) and they have told me that they appreciate my comments on this forum. And those particular people have also told me that they think you, Jimbo, are full of crap. (Which becomes more obvious with each post you make here.)

As far as your latest laundry list of conspiracy-flavored tripe -- EVERY item on that list has been explained in reasonable non-conspiratorial ways. Every one. And you, Jimbo, have to know this. But you will accept the most extraordinary explanation for everything -- every time.

For example:

Darrell Tomlinson: This man Tomlinson told the Warren Commission over and over again (by my count, I think it was up to SIX separate times) that he simply was "NOT SURE" which of the two stretchers he had taken off of the elevator. But you, Jimbo, refuse to accept this testimony. You apparently think that the WC people had a gun to Tomlinson's head when he testified that he was "not sure". Is that it?

Another example:

The timing of the trip from Oswald's Beckley address to the site of Tippit's murder:

In the years since 1964, that particular excursion has been accomplished in less that 12 minutes. Therefore, we KNOW beyond all doubt that it can be done in less than twelve minutes, regardless of how long it took the Warren Commission.

And, btw, when David Belin retraced the journey from Beckley Avenue to Patton Avenue, he took "the long way around route" (to quote Belin's words directly), which is obviously why it took him over 17 minutes to get to Patton. And Belin wasn't even hurrying in the slightest during that reconstruction. He was moving at an "average walking pace", per Belin's own version of the event (which appears at 6 H 434, during William Whaley's testimony; see below):

DAVID W. BELIN -- "Let the record further show that after visiting the rooming house

at 1026 North Beckley--that is what I call the "long way around route"--was

walked from 1026 North Beckley to the scene of the Tippit shooting,

which took 17 minutes and 45 seconds at an average walking pace, and

this route would be to take Beckley to 10th Street and then turn on

10th Street toward Patton, and this is not the most direct route.

Rather, the most direct route would be to take Beckley to Davis Street

and then turn left or east on Davis, walking a short block to

Crawford, and taking Crawford to 10th, and then 10th east to Patton,

or taking Davis Street directly to Patton, and taking Patton down to

East 10th, and that the more direct nature of the later route appears

from the map which I believe is Commission's Exhibit No. 371, which is

the Dallas street map."

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-whaley.html

As any reasonable person could deduce, if Oswald didn't take the "long way around route" and had been moving at a brisker clip than merely an "average walking pace", he would have arrived at Tenth and Patton much quicker than did David Belin.

In other words, the Warren Commission took into account the fact that Belin wasn't running or jogging or even walking FAST. And they took into account that Belin was bending over backward for Oswald (in a way) by taking the "long way around" to get from Beckley to Patton.

What the Warren Commission should have done during their various re-enactments of Oswald's movements, especially the reconstruction done by Secret Service agent John Howlett from the Sniper's Nest to the TSBD's second floor, is to insist that Howlett (et al) move at the fastest pace possible, in order to prove whether Oswald could physically have gone from Point A to Point B or not. Having Howlett, for example, move as merely two "walking" speeds doesn't prove whether Oswald could have done it quicker.

But even with Howlett moving at a snail's pace to the second floor, we STILL know that the trip from the sixth floor to the second floor was possible to accomplish in less than 80 seconds (Howlett did it, while WALKING, not running, in just 78 seconds and then 74 seconds).

DiEugenio, naturally, will totally ignore the 74-second WALKING re-creation done by Agent Howlett.

And DiEugenio will totally ignore the fact that Belin (for some reason) decided to take a very lengthy route from Beckley to Patton (thereby pretty much making such a reconstruction worthless). Why they didn't do a "shortest route" reconstruction is anybody's guess. But as far as I am aware, no such "shortest route" test was done by the Warren Commission.

In any event, everyone should always take everything James DiEugenio says with a large-sized grain of Morton's salt by their side. Because there is always a reasonable non-conspiratorial explanation for everything Jimbo utters. (There has to be, of course, because Oswald was as guilty as Hitler. And I think even Jim D., deep down, knows that is true.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Robert Morrow

I don't think John McAdams makes a lot of good points. I think he is a dishonest idiot. I suspect he is trapped inside his "conservative" political ideology and is unable to see the world as it is.

If you ever want to know the truth you have to drop kick off the planet your "conservative," or "liberal" or "liberartian" or "Marxist" or "Buddhist" or "Rothbardian" or "truther" or "establishment" ideology because a set in stone IDEOLOGY gets in the way of understanding the FACTS including facts that might be an "inconvenient truth" as Al Gore likes to say.

John McAdams: a moron and a dishonest moron at that.

And as for David von Pein - I think he may be one of the most misinformed commentators on the 1963 Coup d'Etat that I have ever seen. Count me as extremely unimpressed with von Pein's *contributions.*

(Addendum to my comments: One must also be willing to CHANGE THEIR MINDS about various aspects of the JFK case base on new evidence and the weight of the evidence. It also helps to think in terms of probabities such as "Based on the current evidence, I think such and such is true... Or based on NEW evidence or learning, I know think such and such is not true." Etc.)

Edited by Robert Morrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And as for David von Pein [sic] - I think he may be one of the most misinformed commentators on the 1963 Coup d'Etat that I have ever seen. Count me as extremely unimpressed with von Pein's [sic] *contributions.*

I'm crushed beyond repair. :(

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think John McAdams makes a lot of good points. I think he is a dishonest idiot. I suspect he is trapped inside his "conservative" political ideology and is unable to see the world as it is.

If you ever want to know the truth you have to drop kick off the planet your "conservative," or "liberal" or "liberartian" or "Marxist" or "Buddhist" or "Rothbardian" or "truther" or "establishment" ideology because a set in stone IDEOLOGY gets in the way of understanding the FACTS including facts that might be an "inconvenient truth" as Al Gore likes to say.

John McAdams: a moron and a dishonest moron at that.

And as for David von Pein - I think he may be one of the most misinformed commentators on the 1963 Coup d'Etat that I have ever seen. Count me as extremely unimpressed with von Pein's *contributions.*

I think I get what you are writing here, Robert.

I (as usual) have a different take that may seem as a refutation on all you say but is merely a twist on some matters that don't discount your plea for objectivity, ie as scientific an effort as possible.

I find your list interesting particularly initially because you said ''see the world as it is'' and then mentions ''Buddhism''.

Well, as a long time ''praciticer''of the meditation techniques as taught by the latest teaching buddha I feel qualified to comment on that. Forgive the digression. Basically what he taught , in many ways as suited to the audience) a path of mindfulness, ultimately realising that one is a mind-body phenomena with senses that tells of the outer so it's an exploration of self that reveals the various filters one has in terms of reactions to incoming signals which then shapes action. In coming to know ones self one can then begin to see the outer as it is.. I know buddhism came into being and the true teachings which has nothing to be a buddhist in the sense that one can practice it irrespective of whatever ones ideology is. It's of universal benefit.

Now for me that is making peace and love the ultimate solution. And, I think, that from that pov one can look at the persons involved with a yardstick that is reliable.

It also becomes easier to enter the minds of persons without recoiling and applying a pre judice because one finds that all good and bad is in ones self as well. It's like trying to explain a tv to a person who had never come across anything but rudimentary stoneage technology. You can't... because that person will always understand in terms of what that person knows from direct experience. That persons explanation to another person will be like a weird myth.

I think that dialectical materialism is a very good tool. Given that this IS a left right issue it is imo important to immerse ones self in the various ideologies in order to understand them from an inside pov. Imo, being a socialist, or counter to the power status quo helps in understanding that LHO was not a socialist, that the investigative units were various forms of the state as the group of armed man, as engels(?) defined the state ( a body of armed men ) , and therefore always with an agenda, everybody had an agenda.

Don't worry, I'm not sure I understand it either.

edit typos

Edited by John Dolva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there is always a reasonable non-conspiratorial explanation for everything Jimbo utters. (There has to be, of course, because Oswald was as guilty as Hitler.

I detect wishful thinking by Mr. Von Pein. I suppose the next we will hear is the Norman Mailer line that if

we painted a Hitler moustach on young Lee, he would look like Hitler.

(actually he would look more like Charlie Chaplin.)

But I have a question for DVP:

Marina Oswald told the Warren Commission

that Lee approved of JFK as president,

and she has elaborated on that down through the years.

Every crime has a motive,

so could DVP please explain

for the benefit of lurkers who are sympathetic to his POV

what motive Lee Oswald had?

THe absence of motive in Lee

and the presence of motive in others

is one reason I believe that

Lee was completely innocent.

I have read RECLAIMING HISTORY,

and it is clear that VB has no clue

about the motive behind JFK's assassination,

so please help me out, Mr. Von Pein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Because there is always a reasonable non-conspiratorial explanation for everything Jimbo utters. (There has to be, of course, because Oswald was as guilty as Hitler. And I think even Jim D., deep down, knows that is true.

...

too bad you, David Von Pein, avoided CONSISTENTLY Ben Holmes 45 questions at alt.conspiracy.jfk (the 45 questions have been posted here on this forum, which you avoided). Those questions deal SPECIFICALLY with "reasonable non-conspiratorial explanation"s. Yet, you ran from those.... and here you are posing with the term, a confirmed CTer has made popular during past years on the USENET.

I'll also point out there's isn't one lone nut that has dealt with those 45 questions in non-conspiratorial explanations, including, none other than: .John McAdams who feebly tried, when pointed out he failed, he ran back to his censored forum, alt.assassination.jfk. Sad state of affairs. Things must be getting thin in the lone nut world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And as for David von Pein [sic] - I think he may be one of the most misinformed commentators on the 1963 Coup d'Etat that I have ever seen. Count me as extremely unimpressed with von Pein's [sic] *contributions.*

I'm crushed beyond repair. :(

-----

Oswald was a guilty as Hitler?

Hey David did you finally find out whose dry cleaning that REALLY was in the bushes after the Tippet shooting? Alert the presses. Sounds like your sitting on the Dry Cleaning Story of all time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked up the 45 questions in Google.

Could not find all 45 though.

Can someone provide a link to all 45 consecutively?

Further, Ben added a qualifier for one of them, which I quote here: "Just a note for lurkers - John McAdams will hijack this thread to his censored 
group, and knowing that I will not respond where *he* can decide to allow, or 
disallow my post, will dishonestly allow people to believe that he's had the 
last word, and that I won't respond."

Does this not sound like DVP with me? He continues the "debate" by stealing the thread over to his site, knowing I will not reply there. But using my name as a rubric anyway. Thereby guaranteeing he will have the last word. That is why I call him the Freeloader from now on.

Third, In trying to respond to one of the 45 questions about the autopsy, McAdams was up to his usual "blame the Kennedys" BS. (Which has been totally discredited by Gary Aguilar.) So he goes to the corner, tag teams DVP (this is at the Pigpen of course), and WC zealot Von Pein actually posts the following:

"Conspiracy theorists love to harp on the supposed "incomplete autopsy"

or the "botched autopsy" performed by Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck.

But there's really nowhere the conspiracists can go with that type of

argument, and that's because the IMPORTANT/PERTINENT ISSUES at JFK's

autopsy were positively and satisfactorily arrived at, such as: the

cause of death and the details about where the bullets entered and

exited John F. Kennedy's body."

HA HA HA HA HA

LOL

ROTF

Mike Baden is not a conspiracist. (At least not under Bob Blakey.) Yet he himself said that the JFK autopsy was the "exemplar" for botched autopsies. Milton Halpern, the most illustrious forensic pathologist of his era, said the same. Charles Wilbur, another noted pathologist explained how something like 75 things that should have been done that night were not.

So saying that only Commission criitcs severely criticize JFK's autopsy, this is a giant piece of camouflage, meant to disguise the fact that the autopsy was botched. Or are we to beleive that somehow Von Pein knows more about pathology and autopsies that Halpern or Wilbur? When DVP shows me his medical degree from KFC Advanced Studies Medical Institute, I will consider this. If not, then this is just more of the typical DVP: empty bombast.

Bombast over what? Two pertinent facts. Namely that neither bullet that went through JFK was tracked. Now to say that this is not an important detail--as he clearly implies-- is more empty camouflage. Because if something is not tracked then you are not sure about directionality.

Is that important in this case?

Duh, yep.

Jim,

I will pass this on, see if we can't fix you up with all 45... at one time all 45 questions appeared here on the Ed Forum. 2-3 years ago...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey David, did you finally find out whose dry cleaning that REALLY was in the bushes after

the Tippet [sic] shooting?

I have no idea what you're talking about, since no "dry cleaning" was ever found in any "bushes" after the Tippit murder.

I assume you're talking about Oswald's jacket, which was found in the Texaco parking lot (not in any bushes).

And the simple answer to the "dry cleaning" tag being found in the jacket is that Oswald could have bought the jacket second-hand with the tag already in the jacket. There's also the possibility (however remote) that tightwad Oswald took the jacket to a dry-cleaning shop himself--without Marina's knowledge.

Either of the above ordinary explanations make much more sense when compared to the extraordinary explanation of the jacket being "planted", which is a theory (when you stop and think about it for more than two seconds) that makes NO sense at all. Because why would some goofball plotters who were trying to frame Oswald plant a jacket that they knew WAS NOT HIS? It's dumb (just like all other conspiracy theories which rely on "planted" evidence -- CE399 included).

In addition, if we're to believe that the jacket found on the ground behind the Texaco service station was really not Lee Oswald's, then the question has to be asked: What happened to the jacket Oswald was definitely wearing when he left his roominghouse?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could DVP please explain for the benefit of lurkers who are sympathetic to his POV what motive Lee Oswald had?

Of course, J. Raymond knows what my answer is going to be, but I guess he likes to see the same thing in print a million times. So, I'll just provide a link (which is a short post that touches on Oswald's possible motive and some of the actual evidence in the case, which people like J. Raymond and DiEugenio think was ALL fake):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswalds-motive.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I'll just provide a link (which is a short post that touches on Oswald's possible motive

I like the word POSSIBLE.

You don't sound very confident.

But, as for motive, yes, I have a thought on Oswald's reasons for

wanting to kill John Kennedy. And, yes, it aligns with anti-conspiracy

author Gerald Posner's thoughts on the matter. Call me a

Posner-Bugliosi-Warren Commission "Parrot" if you so desire (I don't

mind -- that's good company, IMO) -- but the "He Was Devoting Himself

To Political Assassination" motive makes the most sense to me,

considering the overall weirdness and "social outcast" character of a

certain Mr. Lee H. Oswald.

Please tell us, David, what life is like

from a PARROT's point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please tell us, David, what life is like from a PARROT's point of view[?]

Just fine. It's called -- "reality" (and common sense).

Now tell me to "think outside the box", Ray. I always get a chuckle out of that tired old advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked up the 45 questions in Google.

Could not find all 45 though.

Can someone provide a link to all 45 consecutively?

Further, Ben added a qualifier for one of them, which I quote here: "Just a note for lurkers - John McAdams will hijack this thread to his censored 
group, and knowing that I will not respond where *he* can decide to allow, or 
disallow my post, will dishonestly allow people to believe that he's had the 
last word, and that I won't respond."

Does this not sound like DVP with me? He continues the "debate" by stealing the thread over to his site, knowing I will not reply there. But using my name as a rubric anyway. Thereby guaranteeing he will have the last word. That is why I call him the Freeloader from now on.

Third, In trying to respond to one of the 45 questions about the autopsy, McAdams was up to his usual "blame the Kennedys" BS. (Which has been totally discredited by Gary Aguilar.) So he goes to the corner, tag teams DVP (this is at the Pigpen of course), and WC zealot Von Pein actually posts the following:

"Conspiracy theorists love to harp on the supposed "incomplete autopsy"

or the "botched autopsy" performed by Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck.

But there's really nowhere the conspiracists can go with that type of

argument, and that's because the IMPORTANT/PERTINENT ISSUES at JFK's

autopsy were positively and satisfactorily arrived at, such as: the

cause of death and the details about where the bullets entered and

exited John F. Kennedy's body."

HA HA HA HA HA

LOL

ROTF

Mike Baden is not a conspiracist. (At least not under Bob Blakey.) Yet he himself said that the JFK autopsy was the "exemplar" for botched autopsies. Milton Halpern, the most illustrious forensic pathologist of his era, said the same. Charles Wilbur, another noted pathologist explained how something like 75 things that should have been done that night were not.

So saying that only Commission criitcs severely criticize JFK's autopsy, this is a giant piece of camouflage, meant to disguise the fact that the autopsy was botched. Or are we to beleive that somehow Von Pein knows more about pathology and autopsies that Halpern or Wilbur? When DVP shows me his medical degree from KFC Advanced Studies Medical Institute, I will consider this. If not, then this is just more of the typical DVP: empty bombast.

Bombast over what? Two pertinent facts. Namely that neither bullet that went through JFK was tracked. Now to say that this is not an important detail--as he clearly implies-- is more empty camouflage. Because if something is not tracked then you are not sure about directionality.

Is that important in this case?

Duh, yep.

Jim,

I will pass this on, see if we can't fix you up with all 45... at one time all 45 questions appeared here on the Ed Forum. 2-3 years ago...

do share these, if you are possible, David. I'd be interested to read this through, also. Appreciate your work. And Jim...you have the patience of 100 men...I've linked to this thread from my page so people can see what good research and thoughtful analysis (and DVP...must include those Authors you cite..) can do to destroy a constant annoyance (EDIT). They should also get a kick with one of his standard replies to this post...roiling eyes, a sigh...whatever he chooses...)..Thank you.

Edited by Pat Speer
Abusive language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...