Jump to content
The Education Forum
Lance Payette

Explain this and I'll take you more seriously

Recommended Posts

I’m clearly upsetting you folks and promise to go on an extended hiatus, but here is why I giggle at 98% of conspiracy theorizing:

1.       You’re planning a Presidential assassination.

2.       Your chosen patsy will be on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

3.       You have no way of knowing or controlling how many people will be in Dealey Plaza or where they will be, how many will have TV, film or still cameras, or how many will be astute observers.

4.       If you placed the real shooter(s) elsewhere in the TSBD and/or in the Dal-Tex Building, it would be virtually impossible for anyone to prove the shots had not been fired by your patsy.

5.       You could easily complicate the issue of proof (and enhance your chances of a successful assassination) by shooting at JFK both as he came down Houston Street toward your patsy and as he went up Elm Street away from your patsy.

6.       Instead, you choose not to shoot at JFK at all as he comes down Houston Street but to place shooter(s) on the Grassy Knoll, in a manhole, on the overpass or at other location(s) in front of JFK as he moves away from your patsy.

7.       Because you have made this choice, you must confiscate or alter films and photos, intimidate and murder witnesses, alter the body, fake the autopsy photos and x-rays, terrorize the doctors at Parkland, and do the myriad of other extremely high-risk things conspiracy theorists believe were done; the conspiracy outlined in steps 4 and 5 would have required none of this.

8.       Because you have done this, your conspiracy must involve a vast network of seemingly unrelated people and agencies, whereas the conspiracy outlined in steps 4 and 5 would have required no more than a handful of people.

9.       Despite confiscating and altering films, intimidating and murdering witnesses, altering the body, faking the autopsy photos and x-rays, terrorizing the doctors at Parkland, and doing the myriad of other extremely high-risk things conspiracy theorists hypothesize were done, you allowed the patsy to walk out the front door of the TSBD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one thing, I would say they did not shoot JFK on Houston Street because the patsy (who was probably not even on the 6th floor) had to have time to have gone down to wherever he was in the building (like the lunch room where in fact he was found). He would have more time to do so (barely) if the target had already gone past the building, making it less readily apparent where the fatal shot came from. 

For another thing, I share the view that the assassination was designed to look like a hit team from Castro (for an invasion of Cuba). Oswald was the designated Castro-did-it patsy, the others getting away. Getaways for the shooters were easier down Elm Street around the Grassy Knoll than right there on Houston.

No matter who the shooters were (whether for Castro or whomever), getaways were easier further down in the plaza.

Now you mention various complications that had to be dealt with, like alterating evidence etc. Such complications were the choice the assassins made when they decided that it was important that the president be seen butchered in broad daylight. As opposed to, say, being poisoned or having an induced heart attack.They wanted to blow his brains out and they did. ("Shock and awe," to use 9/11 terminology.)

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ron Ecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would any one care if this guy takes anything seriously?

Someone incapable of telling the truth about their own clothing is readily dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Because you have made this choice, you must confiscate or alter films and photos, intimidate and murder witnesses, alter the body, fake the autopsy photos and x-rays, terrorize the doctors at Parkland, and do the myriad of other extremely high-risk things conspiracy theorists believe were done; the conspiracy outlined in steps 4 and 5 would have required none of this.

Indeed. I've been pointing out the obvious flaws in the "Let's Shoot JFK From The Front And Blame A Patsy In The Rear" scenario for years now....

"I've often wondered if ANYONE who believes in the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was nothing but a mere patsy has ever even pondered upon the pre-assassination thought process that must have been dancing through the collective conspiratorial craniums of those unknown plotters who were the brilliant architects of the incredible plot that featured a lone patsy being framed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. .... Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off frame-the-lone-patsy plot really NOT consider the possibility of ALL SIX of the bullets [per the script utilized in Oliver Stone's fantasy film "JFK"] being fired by the three assassins striking President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza anyway)? .... [Stone's film is] great movie-making, but the 'patsy' plot is just idiotic." -- DVP; 2005 & 2010

More....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/The Patsy Plot Silliness (Part 1)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/How To Frame A Patsy (And How Not To Do It)

http://amazon.com/DVP Movie Review For Oliver Stone's "JFK"

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Indeed. I've been pointing out the obvious flaws in the "Let's Shoot JFK From The Front And Blame A Patsy In The Rear" scenario for years now....

 

You can do that by ignoring a likely scenario, and this is the last comment I'm going to make on this LN stuff.

It's likely that Oswald was not supposed to be a lone shooter. He was to be the one shooter who got caught. There was obviously more than one shooter. But they decided to claim Oswald was the lone shooter when something went wrong. Like Oswald being taken alive, for example. And obviously claiming that Oswald was a lone shooter makes NO SENSE AT ALL. But they got away with it, and we've seen how they got away with it for 55 years.

Now I hereby take Cliff and Jim's advice to ignore this stuff. I just hope I have the will power to stick to it when more nonsense is posted here. My will power has failed me in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There was obviously more than one shooter.

Then why does all of the physical evidence point back to just ONE shooter named Oswald on the 6th floor?

Can you answer that last question without interjecting the words "fake", "planted", or "destroyed" into the discussion?

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ron, please pay attention to Cliff Varnell and his request.

Don't feed them, just look at them like they are in an aquarium.

Would that be the "Boycott the Nutters!" request that Cliff himself had violated repeatedly before his thread was three hours old?

The beauty of my request is that you don't have to engage me at all.  Just show the rest of the world how the above scenario can be explained in terms of common sense, logic, or any basis other than the conspirators being escapees from an asylum.

One way, of course, is to separate the assassination conspiracy from the cover-up conspiracy.  Never mind what the assassination conspiracy was, the cover-up conspiracy was to destroy all evidence of more than one gunman in furtherance of the Lone Nut explanation.  But this would have required an elaborate, convoluted, multi-agency effort beginning almost instantaneously after the assassination and continuing for decades thereafter - scarcely more plausible than a unified conspiracy theory.

I thank Ron for his comments.  But when you say "Such complications were the choice the assassins made when they decided that it was important that the president be seen butchered in broad daylight," this is an after-the-fact assumption that this is what the assassins wanted.  The logical extension of this is what Sandy suggested on the Prayer Man thread:  the conspirators were so brazen they didn't even care if their patsy was standing in full view on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination.

Every which way I examine the various conspiracy theories, they all bump their heads on common sense and logic.  Jake has pointed out that sometimes the final explanation of an event doesn't mesh with what seemed at first blush like common sense and logic.  Sometimes what really happened is truly bizarre.  But here we do know there was a Presidential assassination in broad daylight.  We do have mountains of evidence as to what occurred.  We aren't simply speculating in the dark, as Jake was with his missing package.  In these circumstances it is not unreasonable to say "Show me how what you think happened would have been consistent with rational assassination planning or makes any sense at all."

What I see on the part of conspiracy theorists is an effort to force-fit the square pegs of their theories into the round holes of common sense, logic, evidence and reasonable inferences.  They essentially work backwards.  You can ignore me (and DVP) and this observation, but I don't believe you can counter it by anything other than more force-fitting of square pegs into round holes.  You can say "Nonsense!" or "Ignore him!" or "Easily dismissed!" but I don't believe you can provide a convincing substantive response.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why is this theory such a popular one?....

One of the most popular JFK assassination theories is that a massive conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, resulting in not only the death of the American President, but also resulting in so many supposed conspiratorial loose ends that a cover-up team of thousands probably wouldn't have provided enough manpower to accomplish the burdensome task of rearranging all of the various pieces of evidence surrounding JFK's murder in order to conceal the true facts and bumbling inadequacies of the harebrained "Patsy Plot" that many conspiracy believers advocate. And yet that's exactly what a goodly number of CTers think occurred in 1963.

Despite the illogic of it all, and despite the massive roadblocks in the conspirators' path, somehow ALL of the physical evidence that was actually being created by all of these OTHER KILLERS who were busy firing away and pelting President Kennedy with rifle bullets in Dallas on November 22 (physical evidence such as guns, bullets, bullet fragments, bullet shells, and fingerprints) found a way to ALL get placed on the plate of only Lee Harvey Oswald. ....

CONTINUE READING HERE:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Insane Assassination Plot


CHRIS SAID:

The most popular foolish comments are from those LNs that say it would take a massive force of conspirators to accomplish the plot described by some CTs. It just ain't so!

It would take a few main conspirators in good positions in government, and a higher up, probably just one hungry politician. The plot could be accomplished by 10-20 people at most, then the cover-up can be done by many worker bees who need not know of the plot. They only need to be given a good excuse for doing what had to be done. If told that they were helping to stop WW3, or told that they were stopping rioting and the break up of our union, they would do what was needed...as good patriots!

It's simply foolish to use the old LN gimmick of predicting a cast of thousands.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, Chris, do YOU think it would be a GOOD and WISE decision to try and frame a lone gunman in the Book Depository by utilizing multiple gunmen firing at JFK from both the back and the FRONT?

Is that a GOOD plan, Chris? And would YOU have tried to frame a patsy in such a reckless manner?

(I'm dying to hear Chris' fascinating reply.)


CHRIS SAID:

Apparently you have no reply of your own to our previous discussion, and have decided to use that ploy to escape having to have one.

The answer is not difficult, since the method you outlined worked!

First, you had to use multiple shooters to be sure you killed JFK. The main reason being that he was the POTUS, and had great resources to chase down any plotters and see to their imprisonment if left alive. If the VP were the leader or a main mover of the plot, then most would be safe.

Second, having a 'patsy' would be a necessary element in a plot like this one, since without someone to take the fall, the real plotters would be chased to the ends of the earth to be captured. Simple.

BTW, the prosectors at the autopsy discovered a wound clearly saying that there were indeed wounds from both front and back of JFK. The frontal wound was the small (5mm) wound in the right temple/forehead seen by a number of witnesses, and completely left out [of] the Autopsy Report (AR). That wound was also seen by Pierre Finck, the Forensic Pathologist and Wound Ballistics expert. He recognized it as an entry wound, partly because it had a grey ring around the circumference of the wound, which sometimes happens with lead bullets. An X-ray by technician Jerrol Custer proved that the small wound was the entrance because of the metal fragments seen in the skull originating [from] the small wound toward the rear of the skull in an expanding cone to the blow-out at the rear of the skull seen by over 40 witnesses.

All the above is recorded in sworn testimony in ARRB files, and is NOT a theory like the WC lawyers made. Links provided on request.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Chris actually thinks it's "ridiculous logic" for me to think that it's silly for a group of plotters to want to frame a lone patsy by firing shots at JFK from both the front and rear.

Therefore, per wise ol' Chris (aka "mainframetech"), it WAS indeed a great idea (a perfect plan!) to try and set up Oswald IN ADVANCE of November 22 by placing a gunman on the Knoll.

The only thing left to be said now is ---- Incredible!


CHRIS SAID:

Yep. You still don't get it. You see, when you have the resources of a government to do your bidding, you can get a lot done.

First, having multiple shooters does a better job of guaranteeing that you will get the target, who in this case could use his position to track down the guilty with a vengeance if left alive.

Second, by having the government at your beck and call, you have what you need to make it look like there was only one shooter! And that is exactly what happened! The FBI was the most responsible for modifying evidence and changing testimony and statements, and the custodian of the bullet evidence was able to do some work that helped.

Yep, once the idea sets in, you see what can be done with multiple shooters and a single 'patsy'...:)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, sure, Chris. Just snap your fingers and get the evil Government to do anything you want them to. What fabulous power "they" possessed, huh?

And Chris/"Mainframe" still misses the key point -- nobody would dare risk undertaking such a foolhardy Multi-Gun, Solo-Patsy plan in the first place. The built-in hazards and complications are all too obvious. But those hazards are things that Mr. or Mrs. Mainframe/Chris think the plotters welcomed with open arms (and with multiple guns).

Mainframe/Chris is evidently built in the "David Lifton" mold, with this motto hanging above his/her desk -- Complicate things to the max, even when you don't need to.


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

It's such fun to see a WC defender creating a conspiracy theory and blaming it on the CTs.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh sure, Pam. Try to spin things around to where it's the "WC defenders" who have "created" the "Patsy" theory. (That's a howl!)

And I suppose you also think it's the LNers who have created the theory that JFK was shot from the FRONT and the REAR in tandem with the "Patsy" theory. Is that what you're implying?

Pam....you're a riot.


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

There is such an obvious explanation for the differences in the state of the body and evidence -- when you move everything 1600 miles from the crime scene, you lose control of the evidence and all sorts of confusing things can happen. And that isn't even a theory -- it just happens to be a fact.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And how does anything you just said have anything whatsoever to do with the crazy "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy" theory that I was talking about in my thread-starting post, Pam?

Regardless of WHERE the evidence was located at any point in time AFTER the assassination, many conspiracy theorists DO believe that BEFORE the shooting ever took place in Dealey Plaza, the following two things were being planned and co-existed PRIOR to 11/22/63....

1.) At least two (or more) gunmen, located both in FRONT of and BEHIND the President's car, were going to be stationed in Dealey Plaza to take shots at President Kennedy on November 22nd.

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald was being "sheep-dipped" (i.e., he was being set up and framed) to take the lone fall for JFK's murder PRIOR to November 22nd.

Tell me, Pam .... Do you disagree with either of the two points I just mentioned above?

Were there at least TWO shooters stationed in Dealey Plaza?

And was Lee Oswald being sheep-dipped as the patsy IN ADVANCE of the actual shooting?

If you answer "Yes" to both questions, you've got a serious problem, Pam. Because only a conspiracy team that WANTED to get caught would have had a desire to incorporate both #1 and #2 above into their plan to assassinate America's 35th President in Dallas, Texas, in 1963.

David Von Pein
February 2006
January 2015

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4- this is what happened sort of . 

5 - if you shoot at him down Houston then the car could drive straight on and escape. 

Also lance, your logic has failed you here . The fact that no one shot on Houston surely suggests that a lone nut in the TSBD was not to blame as his first shot and the superb headshot were quite amazing feats from the snipers nest, especially with the supposed weapon ( which is a joke). He would have xxxx on Houston surely !? 

Also you are ignoring the fact that the shot through the neck .... no one reacted to . Yet the shot at Z- 285 that missed , everyone jumped, including Zapruda . Two guns.

Also you are assuming that a ‘ conspiracy’ would occur and nothing go wrong or no plan B be fallen on , which it most certainly did. 

You are also ignoring the fact that EVERYONE ran to the grassy knowl, there is smoke caught emanating from the grassy knowl and Many many witnesses stated that at least one shot cane from the grassy knowl. 

What’s interesting to me is that there’s no weird conspiracy here, no hammering round pegs into square holes . There is an amazing weight of consistent and synergistic evidence which, an intelligent and literate man is either ignoring or has some sort of pre set agenda . I get that there needs to be someone to quell the conspiracy’s and stop people suggesting that Jackie fired the head shot or that an ice bullet was used from the south Knowl that went through the windscreen etc... 

lance you cannot deny the massive evidence that there was a shooter at the front . The problem really is that CTers for years have used the wrong evidence to prove it . I.e badgeman, a frontal neck shot ( because of Crenshaw et al ) , black dog man, James files etc etc ... 

 keep it simple - Smoke on knowl. All witnesses running to knowl. People on knowl saying the billets came from behind them. Three independent specialists ( the best ) stating unequivocally that a headshot cane from the front when analysing the skull. Witnesses specifically saying that they saw men by the fence , with weapons. 

There was someone at the front . There is of course masses of other issues as you know but let’s keep it simple. You are entitled to voice your perspective but if we were to run a justice system with the complete ignorance of the vast weight of evidence and not investigate anything because it might get a bit complicated where would we be ? 

You cannot tell interested parties that they should ignore massive, synergistic evidence and listen to what the DPD say . Or the FBI , or worse , the CIA . 

 One last thing ... the pretense that loads of people have to be involved in a ‘ conspiracy ‘ in a premeditated , ‘ round table ‘ sense is simply not true. Most get sucked in without knowing they are part of it after the fact.  Very few are ‘ in on ‘ a conspiracy at the outset . I’d say Dulles, hunt, Angleton, Phillips, the shooters . Westbrook, croy, Ohlson . Maybe 5 others , knew about the hit and how it was organised. Everyone else was compartmentalised and sucked in posthumously . 

Your bullet point analysis is rather empty Lance , there are a lot of assumptions, ignorances and inferences. I mean the fact that you would shoot from your own place of work, being a TV commie pro Cuba celebrity... and then try to escape ( with no money, sort of , and then deny it all. Make sense ?  

And you’d use the worst weapon of all time ? And you would t shoot on Houston . C’mon . You often state common sense and ‘ most likely ‘ scenario. .... just because a scenario is complex doesn’t mean it isn’t the most likely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jake Hammond said:

The fact that no one shot on Houston surely suggests that a lone nut in the TSBD was not to blame...

You're not thinking things through here, Jake. If Oswald had shot with the car on Houston St., he would have literally been FACE-TO-FACE (in a sense) with the largest amount of fire power in the motorcade---the Secret Service. Waiting until the cars turned onto Elm makes perfect sense to me. Such a delay guaranteed that all the SS agents (and many of the policemen on motorcycles) would be looking AWAY from Oswald's location, thereby making return fire more difficult.

In addition, as you (Jake) correctly pointed out yourself, an early shot on Houston could have meant an easy escape route for the President, by taking the car straight ahead on Houston instead of turning onto Elm. Perhaps that's another reason Oswald didn't want to attempt a shot on Houston. He knew that if the car got to Elm, there was really no escape routes available at all. The car would be forced to proceed straight on Elm toward the Triple Underpass. No side streets to escape on. Even if the first shot were to miss the target (which I believe it did), Oswald knew he'd still have several more seconds to get off additional shots before the car could possibly speed away from the kill zone.

And based on the Tom Dillard picture of the 6th-floor window (below), which was taken just seconds after the last shot was fired, I think it can practically be proven that the sniper who occupied that Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the TSBD had every intention from the get-go of firing at the President only AFTER the limousine had turned onto Elm Street. And I say that because of the configuration of the boxes stacked on the window sill of the sixth floor ---- i.e., those boxes are situated in such a way so that the top "rifle rest" box is pointing southwest---down Elm Street (and the corner of that top box is easily visible in Dillard's photo below).

And I think it's reasonable to assume that the assassin placed that top box on the window ledge at some point PRIOR to JFK's car coming into Dealey Plaza. The assassin would not want to be burdened with the chore of rearranging his rifle-rest boxes at the last second or during the assassination attempt itself. I think even most conspiracy theorists would agree with me on that last point.

TSBD_Seconds_After_Shooting.jpg

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

And I think it's reasonable to assume that the assassin placed that top box on the window ledge at some point PRIOR to JFK's car coming into Dealey Plaza. The assassin would not want to be burdened with the chore of rearranging his rifle-rest boxes at the last second or during the assassination attempt itself. I think even most conspiracy theorists would agree with me on that last point.

TSBD_Seconds_After_Shooting.jpg

 

Hard to hit (SBT) what you can't see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

Hard to hit (SBT) what you can't see. 

So very silly. Here's why (culled from a discussion hosted by this forum in June of 2015)....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But we can never know what Oswald's EXACT posture and body position was when he fired each of his three shots at the President back in '63. Perhaps he was sitting on the box in the corner for some of the shots (as the Secret Service agent demonstrated), but perhaps he wasn't. That is one of the "unknowables" in this case. But one thing we DO know for a fact is that [the] three spent cartridge cases from the rifle proven to be owned by Lee Harvey Oswald were found underneath the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on November 22, 1963.

JON G. TIDD SAID:

DVP,

The three cartridges never would have been admitted into evidence in a criminal prosecution of Oswald. The prosecutor would stumble at several points. One would be chain of custody, for reasons I'm sure you know well. Another would be failure to establish the cartridges were fired from the M-C rifle in question on 11-22-63. As of Saturday the 23rd, the rifle was so badly rusted, Robert Frazier didn't bother to swab the rifle barrel to determine whether the rifle had been fired recently. Markings on the cartridges also raise questions as to when they were fired through the rifle.

You routinely win arguments like this, David, but only because you don't have to deal with the Rules of Evidence.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And the only possible way you, Jon, can "win" some of your arguments is to steadfastly and stubbornly remain married to your "Rules of Evidence" that only apply inside a courtroom.

But the FACT remains that those three bullet shells WERE fired in Oswald's C2766 Carcano (and, yes, it most certainly WAS "Oswald's" Carcano, as Waldman Exhibit No. 7 clearly proves).....

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "After receiving the cartridge cases, did you examine them to determine whether they had been fired in Commission Exhibit 139?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER (FBI) -- "Yes, sir."

MR. EISENBERG -- "And what were your conclusions, Mr. Frazier?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "I found all three of the cartridge cases had been fired in this particular weapon."


-----------------

And I can hear the laughter in the courtroom, Jon, if you tried to float the idea that the three shells found under the window really WEREN'T fired at the time of the assassination. The prosecutor would, of course, hammer home to the jury the fact that Harold Norman heard shells falling to the floor DURING the assassination itself. And the prosecutor would also mention the little fact about the two large bullet fragments FROM THE SAME GUN owned by Oswald being found in the President's car. And the fact that Oswald's rifle was also found on that very same sixth floor.

And then Jon Tidd would get up and plead with the jury for them to just IGNORE all of the above facts because Jon thinks the shells might have been planted (even though he has no hard evidence to back up such an assertion).

Reminds me of the O.J. Defense. Same thing exactly. Try to get the jury to concentrate on things that could not possibly have happened in the real world, all the while getting the 12 jurors to throw into the trash the cold hard facts in the case.

More....

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-956.html

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Geoff Heinricks said:

What a waste of electricity and bandwidth.

Yeah, I agree. CTers are a waste, aren't they?

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...