David Von Pein

6 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:

Did O.J. murder Nicole [Brown] and Ron Goldman?

Yes. Absolutely. No doubt about it.

And, as you probably realize, many similarities exist between the O.J. Simpson case and the JFK assassination (discussed below)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1060---JFK AND O.J.

34 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

You're counting on the membership forgetting that we won these arguments...

So you say. But I say your "Conspiracy" side hasn't won an argument yet.

And you're not even close to winning the "common sense" side of the "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy" argument. That one went to the "Lone Nutters" in the first round.

2 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

O, rocks, DVP.

Translation please.

32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

...there were two conspiracies... one to kill Kennedy (and blame it on the Russians and Cubans), and the other to cover up the first.

And---incredibly!---BOTH "conspiracies" had one very important thing in common --- Frame Lee Harvey Oswald!

What remarkable like-mindedness on the part of the TOTALLY DIFFERENT PEOPLE involved in each of your two make-believe "conspiracies".

Wouldn't you agree with my "remarkable" comment, Sandy?

I love this thread! It's fun to watch the conspiracists flop around as they try to convince themselves that the alleged (and insane) Multi-Gun, Solo-Patsy plot was a plan that a band of JFK-hating assassins would have actually wanted to put into action in 1963.

My favorite part of David Andrews' last post of utter desperation is this....

"...creating an atmosphere of uncertainty of firing positions, the value of which should be obvious."

In other words --- Why make this a fairly simple crime and shoot the target from the location of our lone patsy, when we could make things ultra-complicated and run the risk of exposing the multi-gun plot immediately by firing at Kennedy from God knows how many non-"Patsy" locales, thereby "creating an atmosphere of uncertainty of firing positions, the value of which should be obvious" ?

Is it "obvious" to you, Lance?

Yeah, me neither.

But, like I said to Geoff earlier --- "I have to maintain a sense of humor when dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists."

25 minutes ago, Geoff Heinricks said:

David, you do have a sense of humour...

Thanks, Geoff.

I have to maintain a sense of humor when dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists. For, I ask, how can a reasonable person not bust out laughing when confronted with the proverbial "Multi-Gunmen, One-Patsy" conspiracy theory being discussed in this thread? It's just too laughable for words. Especially when we add in the following layer of absurdity which has been crammed into the theory by this forum's very own Mr. David S. Lifton of Orange County, California....

"It was a plot not just to murder President Kennedy by shooting him, but then (i.e., afterwards) to alter the medical facts of the case (i.e., alter the wounds, remove bullets, etc.) -- all of that done to change the story of how JFK died. To alter the "medical facts" and thus change the "legal facts" as to how JFK died for the FBI, and for any subsequent investigation, whether it was a presidential commission, a congressional investigation, whatever. It would not matter. Viewed that way, this was a plot "with a built-in cover-up"--and was akin to a piece of domestic espionage." -- David Lifton; May 5, 2013

Now, I think all sensible persons with their wits about them can fully agree with me when I say that a robust sense of humor is certainly required after reading the above paragraph.

Would you not concur, Mr. Heinricks?

36 minutes ago, Geoff Heinricks said:

Thanks for playing. You get a home version of our game, and a $35 gift certificate for [from?] Spiegel...

Chicago 60609???? Great! Thanks.

22 minutes ago, Geoff Heinricks said:

The fact that two men were shot on the afternoon of 22nd November, and they bore an eerie similarity to each other can't be a coincidence.

Tippit looked nothing like Kennedy. Not even close. Why anyone thinks they were practically twins is a mystery to me.

4 minutes ago, Geoff Heinricks said:

What a waste of electricity and bandwidth.

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

8 minutes ago, Rich Pope said:

I know for a fact the Zapruder film was altered.

Please fill us all in on your incredible knowledge regarding Z-Film fakery, Rich! I'm fascinated!

And I'm sure CNN and FOX News will no doubt also be fascinated when you call them with your bombshell discovery too! A 90-minute documentary awaits! Please don't squander this amazing opportunity! Please!!

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

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.

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

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?

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"

Reprise....

4 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

So where is the X-ray mentioned in Dr. Humes' memo?

Is it listed (by number) in the Clark Panel report? ....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html

1 minute ago, Cory Santos said:

So where is the X-ray mentioned in Dr. Humes' memo? 

What memo?

20 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

...do you admit that the collection of x ray and autopsy photos which are available today is not complete?  Yes or no please.

I don't know. Since all the photos and X-rays have never been made available on the Internet (and probably never will be, since that action would require the permission of the Kennedy family, and that's not ever going to happen), I can't say for certain if any pictures or X-rays are "missing".

The Clark Panel, in Feb. 1968, did an inventory of the photos and X-rays that they examined that year. I assume this is the entire "inventory" of photos & X-rays. But perhaps it's not a complete list. I really have no idea ---- http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html.

Let me add this further observation by the late Mr. Bugliosi....

"There is little reason to place importance in these kinds of accounts of a few allegedly missing or altered photographs. Why? Because they can’t possibly show something that contradicts what is depicted in the many photographs that do exist and are available. More importantly, as I’ve stated frequently, the photographic experts of the HSCA unanimously agreed that the existing photographs (and accompanying X-rays) were authentic and depicted the president’s body as it was on the night of the autopsy. And they prove beyond any doubt that the president was shot from above and behind. Consequently, any missing or “altered” photographs cannot show something else, as the conspiracy theorists claim." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 276 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

47 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

So the very compelling evidence that Douglas Horne of the [ARRB] found is ignored?  What does Bugliosi have to say about that?

"RECLAIMING HISTORY" EXCERPTS (RE: DOUGLAS P. HORNE).....

[Vincent Bugliosi Quotes On:]

      "Unbelievably, [Doug] Horne said that the depositions taken by
the ARRB caused him to conclude that there were two (not one)
supplemental brain examinations following the autopsy, and the second
one--are you ready?--wasn't on the president's brain, but on another
brain from some anonymous third party.

      "Horne, accusing Drs . Humes and Boswell of criminal conduct to
cover up the true facts of the assassination, said that what happened
was a "carefully controlled, compartmented operation in regard to
orchestrating who was present, and what procedures were performed, at
the two separate brain examinations." ....

      "It was critical to Horne's mad theory that the "first" exam be
NO LATER than the morning of November 25 because he concludes the
brain was buried with the president's body, and the funeral was that
afternoon. Hence, per Horne, the president's brain wasn't even
available to be examined on November 29, when Horne says the "second"
supplementary exam took place.

      "But to arrive at the twenty-fifth as the date of the "first"
supplementary brain exam, Horne had to engage in what appears to be
deliberate distortion. The only other option is serious
incompetence. ....

      "Horne conveniently omits from his report the reference to the
brain being turned over to [Dr. George] Burkley after December 6,
1963. If he had, this would have proved that his theory that the
president's brain was buried with his body on November 25, 1963, was
wrong.

      "Instead, he focuses only on the desire of the Kennedy family to
inter the brain with the body, and since the president's funeral was
on the afternoon of November 25, 1963, he concludes that "the
supplementary brain examination [took place] prior to the November 25,
1963 state funeral of President Kennedy." ....

      "Exactly like his congenitally suspicious predecessors, who
apparently have different experiences in life than normal humans,
whenever Horne spots a discrepancy in the recollection of two or more
people trying to remember a long-ago event that supports his theory of
what happened, he immediately smells the sweet (to him) aroma of a
conspiracy. .... But when a discrepancy can't be used to support
Horne's theory, he suddenly becomes normal and doesn't think anything
of it. ....

      "Now why would Humes and Boswell, who testified that there was
only one supplementary brain exam, have conducted a second one of a
different brain? Of course, Horne has an answer, in effect accusing
Humes and Boswell of being a part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the
true facts of the assassination. ....

      "Horne also goes on to say he believes "that President Kennedy's
body was altered--tampered with--prior to the commencement of
the...autopsy, presumably to remove evidence (i.e., bullets or bullet
fragments) inconsistent with the lone-assassin-from-behind cover
story." ....

      "Since Horne and his fellow conspiracy theorists passionately
believe that the conspirators shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll to
the president's right front, then tried to frame Oswald by making it
look like the shots came from the president's rear, where Oswald was,
did the thought ever enter their mind that rather than get surgeons
beforehand to alter the wounds on Kennedy's body and remove bullets or
fragments, and then have the autopsy surgeons engage in a monumental
charade of having two separate brain exams, why wouldn't the
conspirators avoid the necessity for all of this by simply shooting
Kennedy from the rear instead of the front? That way they wouldn't
have to pull off an operation of staggering difficulty and complexity
and wouldn't have to bring into the conspiracy all these surgeons and
doctors, each one of whom could expose it and put all the conspirators
on death row. ....

      "Before Doug Horne, the main beef that most conspiracy theorists
had with the autopsy surgeons was their alleged incompetence. But
thirty-five years after the assassination, Horne showed all these
naive, whippersnapper conspiracy theorists a thing or two. Humes and
Boswell weren't incompetent. They were criminals and co-conspirators.

      "One would think that Horne would be ashamed of himself for
writing the memorandum he did. But to the contrary, he is very proud.
In an introduction to his memo that he wrote for 'Probe', a small,
informative conspiracy publication that has since folded, he said his
view of his memo as being "extremely significant, even seminal" was
confirmed by the reaction of others of its importance, and that while
he was writing it he "felt electrified" because of his "unique and
revelatory interpretation" of the evidence "that was critical to
proving that there was a massive government cover-up of the medical
evidence in the JFK murder."

      "Horne goes on to say in his introduction that he was "still
surprised" that no one else previously saw what he did and published
the hypothesis before he did. But he has no reason to be surprised.
Most people don't have thoughts this irrational. And if, perchance,
such a vagrant thought enters their mind, they recognize it as such.
When you have such a virtually insane thought and you don't realize
it, that's when, you know, there's a problem.

      "There is one delightful gem that I must add to this section to
lighten it up. Dr. David Mantik, a Loma Linda, California, cancer
specialist, is, like Dr. Gary Aguilar, a part of the new wave of
conspiracy theorists. Taking Horne's theory to vertiginous heights,
listen to what he has to say about Horne's substitute brain.

[Quoting Mantik:]

      "If there was a surrogate brain, it ALSO has disappeared...It is
not likely that RFK would have wanted even a surrogate brain placed on
public display as if it were his brother's. Most likely, RFK placed
the authentic brain into the coffin for initial burial on Monday,
November 25, and was therefore fully aware that a surrogate brain had
later surreptitiously appeared...If RFK understood the role that the
surrogate brain had played, as he probably did, he could have used any
convenient waste disposal site [to dispose of it]."

[End Mantik quote.]

      "My God. RFK somehow finds out that Humes and Boswell, as part
of an apparent conspiracy to cover up the assassination of his
brother, used a brain other than his brother's to conduct their
examination. So he [RFK] goes out and finds, seizes, and then gets rid
of his brother's substitute brain [DVP: instead of taking the proper
action to prosecute these criminal autopsists to the fullest extent of
the law]. Is there any end to this silliness? ....

      "A great number of nuts have kept pumping out conspiracy
theories for years. But these are private nuts, on the outside as it
were. But when someone like Horne, working for an official review
board of the federal government, someone we expect to be responsible,
can author a document that couldn't possibly be any sillier or
transparently irresponsible, then unfortunately we know that the
notion of a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination will be alive and
well until the crack of doom.

      "I suppose it is a given that there will be other Doug Hornes
who will breast-feed the conspiracy loonies for generations to come
with their special lactations of bilge, blather, and bunk.

      "One wants to take earnest, well-intentioned, and intelligent
people like Drs. David Mantik and Gary Aguilar seriously, even though
neither of them are pathologists. But when they take someone like Doug
Horne seriously, and accept his outrageous and patently false theory
as completely valid, it becomes much more difficult to take them
seriously."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 435-437, 439-440, and 443-444 of "Reclaiming History"

==============================

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com#Doug-Horne

3 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Lets settle this rather easily, do any of the wc defenders believe that even 1 xray from the autopsy was lost destroyed or unaccounted for?  

Here's what Vince Bugliosi had to say on the subject of "missing photographs" (and I would assume that this comment would extend to the similar topic of "missing or lost X-rays" as well)....

• "For years conspiracy theorists have charged that the "missing" autopsy photographs are, in their minds, one more indication of a conspiracy in the assassination. .... But...with literally hundreds of people from various official investigative agencies...examining and working with the photos throughout the years, I not only don't find it suspicious, I find it completely predictable that one or more photographs ended up missing, misplaced, or expropriated by people through whose hands they passed." --Vincent Bugliosi; Page 275 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

David Von Pein said:

You [Sandy Larsen] think that your claim that has the autopsy pictures being fakes is a "reasonable explanation"? I beg to differ. Such a conclusion is not "reasonable" at all. Far from it. It's nothing but utter desperation. And, furthermore, such a conclusion has been proven to be incorrect. Just check out 7 HSCA 41 yet again. (But you think all 20 experts on that Photo Panel lied their eyes out, don't you? Which is yet another unreasonable conclusion to reach, of course.)

And that's what we're left with most of the time with JFK conspiracy theorists ---- a series of unreasonable explanations and wholly unsupportable conclusions.

James DiEugenio said:

Davey:

I hate to repeat this again, but you cannot be serious about that alleged authentication?

Of course I'm serious. You know that I am. The HSCA did numerous tests to confirm the validity of all of the original autopsy photos AND X-rays. Read their conclusions again---starting RIGHT HERE. It's pretty detailed. Is all of that information nothing but a pack of lies? All of it!!? Come now.

Is there anything in this case you don't think is phony? At some point, the "Everything Is Fake" mantra repeated by conspiracists becomes very tiresome, desperate-sounding, and—quite frankly—very silly.

2 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

... was there a black blob added at the rear of the head to hide the rear blow out ? Yes I think there was. 

Which must mean they "blacked out" the back of Clint Hill's head in the Z-Film too. (Is that a likely scenario? I guess some CTers must think it is likely.)

More....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-895.html

2 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

There is just no positivity from that side of the fence. It’s all scoffing and inferences ...

Agreed.

1 minute ago, Jake Hammond said:

 Come on guys , show me your facts and I’ll show you mine ! 

Are you talking to the LNers or the CTers in your above post?

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The only time those things are the Best Evidence is when they haven't been tampered with.  40+ witnesses prove that it's been tampered with.

No, Sandy, those witnesses do not "prove" any such thing.

There hasn't been a single CTer in the history of "CTers" who has "proved" that any of the autopsy photos or X-rays (or the Z-Film) have been faked or "tampered with". And they never will.