Ron Bulman Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 On 9/17/2018 at 9:20 PM, Denny Zartman said: You addressed it briefly. I don't believe we've discussed it. You didn't try to argue that Oswald was the only missing warehouseman, you said he was the only one reported by Truly and the only one that mattered. You're right that he was the only one reported by Truly, but whether or not he was the only one that mattered is only your opinion. The fact is that Oswald was not the only missing warehouseman that day, and your claim that he was the only missing warehouseman is demonstrably and unequivocally false. This, for me, casts doubt upon your accuracy as an author. Me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Lance Payette said: What sort of conspiracy trusts its success to (1) whether Frazier agrees to give the patsy a ride home on Thursday or perhaps has other plans; (2) whether Ruth or Marina refuses him admittance when he shows up unannounced; (3) whether Ruth or Marina sees him getting the rifle from the garage or leaving with it on Friday morning; (4) how many bullets he has on hand; (5) whether Frazier's car starts in the morning or has an accident or breakdown on the way; (6) whether Frazier decides to pick up the package himself and inspect it; (7) whether the patsy makes it in and through the TSBD with no one stopping him and inspecting the package; (8) whether the patsy is able to assemble the weapon without being seen and to occupy a plausible sniper's nest without being seen? What sort of conspiracy equips the patsy with such an implausible weapon? Is that how Presidential assassination conspiracies work? It's all part of that ever-present "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be" mindset exhibited by conspiracy theorists since 1963. None of the evidence is really what it appears to be on the surface, according to most CTers. Per CTers, even though all of the physical evidence (and most of the circumstantial evidence too) SEEMS to point only to Oswald, it's really just a massive ruse (cover-up), so that a "patsy" could be framed for two murders. Offhand, I cannot think of a single piece of evidence in the JFK/Tippit case that CTers accept as a genuine, valid piece of evidence. And the reason for such wholesale CTer skepticism is, of course, because all of that evidence points directly at Lee Harvey Oswald. There is no other reason, and everybody here knows it. A murder case is usually solved by an examination and evaluation of the EVIDENCE associated with that murder case. But in the JFK case, if you're a conspiracist, it's that very EVIDENCE associated with the Kennedy and Tippit murders that is ALL considered to be worthless and unreliable. (Kind of funny, isn't it?) So, the CTers are left to try and "solve" a double-murder case which has ZERO pieces of credible or usable evidence associated with it. A question I've asked many times over the years is.... What are the odds that ALL of the evidence against Oswald was really and truly "fake/manufactured/planted" by a band of patsy-framing conspirators/plotters? What an incredible (and virtually impossible) feat that would have been, indeed, for the Patsy-Framing Team in November of 1963 (and for their cohorts in crime, the Post-Assassination Cover-Up Team, helmed by Mr. Hoover of the FBI, which was a Cover-Up Team that, incredibly, per CTers, possessed the exact same desire to frame a supposedly innocent man named Lee Oswald for two murders he never committed). That was sure one lucky Patsy-Framing Team, wasn't it? Edited October 11, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, François Carlier said: So you're saying that there were three shots, and only three shots fired that day, right ? Carlier can you really buy this? This is what I am saying. In a court of law, which is what Santos is saying, you would show the Z film. You would then say: this clearly shows that JFK is hit when he emerges from behind the sign. He is then clearly struck at 313. You put Tague on the stand, and he says I heard the first shot. Then a bullet hit the curb in front of me and the debris flew up and hit me in the face. That is the missed shot. After the back shot. Which sticks you with three shots in 5.6 seconds. No rifleman has ever duplicated that feat without cheating. The WC cheated and CBS cheated, for the simple reasons that they knew it could not be done under normal conditions. The WC knew this which is why they tried to time their 2 sets of tests for six seconds. Then I would bring Craig Roberts on and he would relate what the greatest sniper of the VIetnam War said to him: Carlos Hathcock did it under real conditions and he could not do it. I would then ask Craig: How many certified kills did Hathcock have? Over 90 How many uncertified? Over 200 What did the Viet Cong do to try and get rid of him? Put a bounty on his head How long did he hold the record for the longest kill shot ever by a sniper? over 20 years How far away was he? A mile and half After that your case would be toast. Edited October 11, 2018 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, David Von Pein said: No, I'm simply going to say that James Tague was probably not 100% accurate when it comes to his timeline for the shooting event in Dealey Plaza. Tague was, IMO, very likely struck by a fragment from the first (missed) shot. But he could possibly have been hit by a fragment from the third shot (the head shot) instead. I'm not so stubborn to insist that it HAD to be the first shot that struck Tague on the cheek. Maybe it was a fragment from the third shot. The angle from Oswald's window to Tague's position near the Underpass is certainly a better angle for the third shot than it was for the first. But you, Jim, seem to think that I (and the Warren Commission) are forced to believe that Tague was struck by the first shot AND that that first shot definitely hit JFK in the back. But I'm not going to box myself into those restrictions. A lot of people were wrong (IMO) when they said they thought Kennedy was struck by the first bullet. But after examining the totality of the evidence (and the statements made by the other victim in the limousine, John B. Connally), it's quite clear to me that JFK was not hit by the first shot. He and Connally were hit by the second bullet. And you've been presented a perfectly logical and rational explanation for the "36-inch vs. 40-inch" discrepancy in the rifle, haven't you Jim? Yes, you have, because I presented it to you (at the link below). You just refuse to budge an inch in your pathetic year-round efforts to take that Carcano rifle out of the hands of the person who so obviously ordered it---Lee H. Oswald. BTW, I will never ever click through to any of these links to his site. Because I learned the last time that he is still using the completely discredited CBLA test to prop up the Single Bullet Fantasy. Yessiree, after he said you did not need it. The fact that he still uses it shows you that you darn well do need it even thought its been exposed as a hoax. But that is how desperate they are. Edited October 11, 2018 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) How anyone can write down what Payette did above about LHO getting to work that day and completely ignore the fact that they had a dress rehearsal in Chicago three weeks previous to the one that worked is simply and utterly amazing. This is why I compare him to Specter. That is something he would do. The truth is that JFK was not going to make it out of 1963. Its that simple. They tried to kill him three times and the last one succeeded. In a courtroom, you would be able to admit this as evidence of previous intent. Intent is important in a murder case. Can you imagine putting Vallee on the stand? And he starts talking about who he was, what he did with the exiles, and what he was doing on the day of the attempt? And it all echoes who Oswald was. Just a coincidence right? Wrongo. Edited October 11, 2018 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: BTW, I will never ever click through to any of these links to his [DVP's] site. I'm crushed beyond repair, Jim. I'm not sure I can go on another day. 😥 Quote Because I learned the last time that he is still using the completely discredited CBLA test to prop up the Single Bullet Fantasy. Yessiree, after he said you did not need it. The fact that he did shows you darn well do need it even thought its [sic] been exposed as a hoax. But that is how desperate they are. NAA (or CBLA) is not needed to arrive at the probable truth regarding the number of bullets that hit the limo victims. And you should know why. Basic common sense will lead a reasonable person to the facts re: the bullets. No NAA required at all. (Make sure to keep your promise of not clicking any of my links ever again, Jim. You wouldn't recognize the common sense that resides in here anyway....) https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-guinn-and-naa.html Edited October 11, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 42 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: And the reason for such wholesale CTer skepticism is, of course, because all of that evidence points directly at Lee Harvey Oswald. There is no other reason, and everybody here knows it. Aren't you "skeptical" of the autopsy diagram that shows a literal arrow pointing upwards next to the dot representing the entry wound in the back of the head? https://i.imgur.com/nba1W2V.png If all the evidence points directly at Oswald, then where the heck was Oswald? NO TAKEBACKSIES Edited October 11, 2018 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said: Aren't you "skeptical" of the autopsy diagram that shows literal arrow pointing upwards next to the dot representing the entry wound in the back of the head? https://i.imgur.com/nba1W2V.png I've often wondered what that "arrow"-like mark is on the Boswell Face Sheet. Did Boswell draw that in? I have no idea. (Perhaps it has something to do with the word "slanting", which is written next to the dot as well.) ~shrug~ Anyway, since we can easily see (in the "red spot" autopsy photo) that JFK's head entry wound was, indeed, higher than Boswell's "dot" on the face sheet, then the "arrow" pointing upward is--actually--quite accurate. Quote If all the evidence points directly at Oswald, then where the heck was Oswald? On the sixth floor of the Depository, of course, taking aim at President Kennedy with Carcano rifle #C2766. Where do you think Oswald was located at 12:30 PM CST on Nov. 22nd, Micah? Edited October 11, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 Yes Bart, this thread has slipped into... https://www.bing.com/search?q=twilight+zone+song&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=bc73ddeb96074b1bbfa05f0d8ceeb967&sp=5&ghc=1&qs=EP&pq=twilight+zone&sk=LS2&sc=8-13&cvid=bc73ddeb96074b1bbfa05f0d8ceeb967 The book author never outgrew his teenage freakishness or lack of intelligence to comprehend reality. Along with his co conspirators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: I've often wondered what that "arrow"-like mark is on the Boswell Face Sheet. Did Boswell draw that in? I have no idea. I think the upwards-pointing arrow indicates a proposed upwards trajectory from the small head wound to the large head wound or beveled exit thereof. More information from the autopsy implies that the autopsy pathologists understood that a connection between the small "entrance" and large "exit" head wounds required an upwards bullet path. Sibert and O'Neill's 2:00 AM 11/23/1963 memo (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=680) summarizes the preliminary autopsy findings as "TOTAL BODY XRAY AND AUTOPSY REVEALED ONE BULLET ENTERED BACK OF HEAD AND THEREAFTER EMERGED THROUGH TOP OF SKULL. PIECE OF SKULL MEASURING TEN BY SIX POINT FIVE CENTIMETERS LATER FLOWN IN FROM DALLAS HOSPITAL AND XRAYS BETHESDA DISCLOSED MINUTE METAL FRAGMENTS IN THIS PIECE WHERE BULLET EMERGED FROM SKULL". The autopsy report says "Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput. ". The supplemental autopsy report refers to a tissue sample of the scalp around the wound as "occipital". An upwards bullet path is exactly what the Rydberg drawings depict. During Humes' WC Testimony, Allen Dulles even questions the proposed upwards angle, to which Humes replies that the angle may be a little more even because the skull fragment with outward beveling could not be perfectly matched to it's former place within the skull. But any portion of skull in the right parietal bone would be higher than the EOP, and the autopsy pathologists said the wound was only slightly above the EOP. Quote Anyway, since we can easily see (in the "red spot" autopsy photo) that JFK's head entry wound was, indeed, higher than Boswell's "dot" on the face sheet, then the "arrow" pointing upward is--actually--quite accurate. Boswell explained that this red spot may be a tear in the scalp related to the large defect. Humes and Boswell HSCA 3/11/1978: https://web.archive.org/web/20160407...nfo/hscv7f.htmDr. PETTY. What is this opposite--oh, it must be, I can't read it--but up close to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down. Dr. BOSWELL. It's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp. Dr. PETTY. That's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp? Dr. BOSWELL. It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire--I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get Dr. HUMES. To get to this entrance, right? Dr. BOSWELL. But not much [...] Boswell ARRB 2/26/1996: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htmQ. I'd like to draw your attention to in the color photograph the round, reddish marking just to the right of the ruler, very near the top of the ruler. A. Yes. Q. Could that round or ovular-shaped marking be the entrance wound? A. No. Q. What is that, if anything, that round or ovular-shaped marking? A. I think it's the--this is awfully near the front of the scalp fragment here, and here is a laceration up here with complete separation. And when-- Q. You're referring there to the very top of the scalp-- A. Just under the fingers that's holding the scalp up. And if you let--when you let this fall down, in one of the previous photographs-- Q. I'm sorry. Just for the record, you're letting the scalp fall down towards the back and cover where the ruler would be? A. Yes. If you let that fall down, then this would be right in the midline and that line that you asked me about where the tissue was separated but not completely separated. And I think this is probably the other side of that traumatic disfigurement of the scalp. Q. If I understood you correctly, were you saying that that marking that we've been pointing to that is near the top of the ruler and somewhat to the right might be the beginning or at least part of the laceration in the scalp? A. Yes. That's occurring from beneath with laceration up here with complete separation. And when-- Q. You're referring there to the very top of the scalp-- A. Just under the fingers that's holding the scalp up. And if you let--when you let this fall down, in one of the previous photographs-- Q. I'm sorry. Just for the record, you're letting the scalp fall down towards the back and cover where the ruler would be? A. Yes. If you let that fall down, then this would be right in the midline and that line that you asked me about where the tissue was separated but not completely separated. And I think this is probably the other side of that traumatic disfigurement of the scalp. Q. If I understood you correctly, were you saying that that marking that we've been pointing to that is near the top of the ruler and somewhat to the right might be the beginning or at least part of the laceration in the scalp? A. Yes. That's occurring from beneath with the explosion of the bullet. Edited October 11, 2018 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) "Anyway, since we can easily see (in the "red spot" autopsy photo) that JFK's head entry wound was, indeed, higher than Boswell's "dot" on the face sheet, then the "arrow" pointing upward is--actually--quite accurate. " -1984 Edited October 11, 2018 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: Yes Bart, this thread has slipped into... https://www.bing.com/search?q=twilight+zone+song&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=bc73ddeb96074b1bbfa05f0d8ceeb967&sp=5&ghc=1&qs=EP&pq=twilight+zone&sk=LS2&sc=8-13&cvid=bc73ddeb96074b1bbfa05f0d8ceeb967 The book author never outgrew his teenage freakishness or lack of intelligence to comprehend reality. Along with his co conspirators. Kudos to Rod Sterling for understanding him before he did himself. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=twilight+zone+intro&view=detail&mid=8ADEF5D4897DA08A2BE28ADEF5D4897DA08A2BE2&FORM=VIRE https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=twilight+zone+intro&&view=detail&mid=22DB362A665C29D331D322DB362A665C29D331D3&rvsmid=8ADEF5D4897DA08A2BE28ADEF5D4897DA08A2BE2&FORM=VDQVAP https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=twilight+zone+intro&&view=detail&mid=D82981726CAB2808A5F2D82981726CAB2808A5F2&rvsmid=8ADEF5D4897DA08A2BE28ADEF5D4897DA08A2BE2&FORM=VDQVAP Edited October 11, 2018 by Ron Bulman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: As I have said that is a fact. However, if we revisit Paul Hoch's idea it changes the view. Allen Dulles was a member of the Warren Commission and former CIA Director who had authorized the initial Castro assassination plots. He never said a word about this to the WC. Bobby Kennedy also remained silent, which is not surprising since he was more involved with the next generation of plots than even JFK. Do these facts prove that Dulles and RFK were involved in a conspiracy? Or do they indicate that the CIA didn't think John and Jane Q. Public or the WC or anyone else were ready for such a reality? So, the simple withholding of evidence does not prove a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, but rather a simple desire to prevent certain inconvenient facts from coming out. And there were several other instances within the CIA alone where the same thing undoubtedly happened. Add in the FBI and who knows what other agencies and you have a good idea of why it might look like a cover-up. It was, but not an assassination-related one. Withholding evidence, for whatever reason, is enough to have a case thrown out. That is America that is what this country stands for. To publish a government report which you admit - thank you- had information withheld from, and to label an American guilty of a crime simply is wrong. And, really, inconvenient facts? It is highly relevant to an honest investigation that there was a conspiracy to get Castro. It is extremely relevant that the SS did not notify the w.c. of the several prior attempts recent on JFK. I could go on, but, to suggest innocent motives is absurd because just by tampering or withholding the evidence, for whatever reason, the motives cannot be innocent because it is inherently wrong. Don't you understand that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 5 hours ago, David Von Pein said: The explosive force of the Z313 head shot was probably a pretty good sign to Oswald that he had hit (and killed) his target. There was no need to fire a 4th shot at all. So he didn't. (He chambered the fourth bullet, but decided he didn't need to kill the dead man again.) [IMHO] Ok, thank you for answering that. But, I have a follow up. So if JFK was as you stated the target, then do you concede that LHO, assuming he did the shooting had no other target in the vehicle other than JFK because if he did, he would have more than likely fired that fourth shot correct? Why do you think that is? Why not take out another person, perhaps Jackie or the Governor? Would that not have further given him the historical glory some suggest he wanted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Cory Santos said: Why not take out another person, perhaps Jackie or the Governor? Would that not have further given him the historical glory some suggest he wanted? I think that Oswald likely would have thought that killing the POTUS was enough. Additional killings would have been superfluous. Edited October 11, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now