David Von Pein

But every one of those things WAS known to the HSCA. And what again did the HSCA conclude?..... They concluded that only Oswald fired shots that wounded JFK and John Connally. But, per CTers, we're supposed to believe that this SECOND official investigation into the President's death was corrupt too, even though that very same committee DID conclude there was a "probable conspiracy" in the case. Go figure the logic of the CTers when it comes to sorting out that dichotomy. It's always a fascinating pastime to watch the CTers preach to me about how the HSCA came to a conclusion that Oswald did not act alone, but then those same conspiracists will, in their next breath, talk about how they think that same HSCA "covered up" this or "falsified" that --- e.g.: Most Internet CTers believe that the 20 members of the HSCA's Photographic Panel decided to lie through their collective teeth when they concluded that there was no fakery whatsoever to be detected in any of Oswald Backyard Photos and there was also no signs of any "altered" images amongst any of the JFK autopsy photos or X-rays. Plus, there are the bald-faced liars, per many conspiracy theorists, who were part of the HSCA's handwriting panel, which concluded that all of the various documents allegedly written in Lee Harvey Oswald's own handwriting or handprinting WAS, indeed, the actual handwriting and/or printing of Lee Oswald and was not the result of fakery or forgery. That makes over two dozen rotten liars among just those two HSCA sub-panels alone. And the CTers have no problem at all believing that those 2 dozen or so people decided to toss their morals and scruples out the nearest window in order to paint Lee Oswald as an assassin (even though, per the CTers, those people HAD to know they were reporting something to the public that was exactly the OPPOSITE from the actual truth). Call me stupid and naive, but I just don't think you could get SO MANY different people, working for the same investigative organization, to tell one lie after another concerning the various pieces of evidence connected with the JFK case. A good question, IMO, to ask is --- How is it possible to get so many JFK conspiracy theorists to believe that so many people (ranging from the Bethesda autopsy doctors, to the Warren Commission, to the Clark Panel, to the HSCA) would be willing to tell so many lies---for decades on end---regarding virtually everything connected with Lee Oswald and the assassination of John F. Kennedy? Has the "research" world gone crazy? Or were they all merely hypnotized by the clever and deceptive Mark Lane way back in 1964? The answer to that inquiry remains a mystery to me.

Geesh! A CTer is whining about an LNer escaping into "a world of assumptions"???? That's hypocrisy at its finest indeed.

Jimmy: Is it utterly impossible for you to fairly and reasonably and rationally look at a piece of evidence in the JFK case (any piece at all!) without concluding that that piece of evidence was faked, planted, or manufactured by someone? Answer: Yes.

Jim, What you think of as "problems" with the letter are, in fact, mostly just the deliberate LIES being told by a person---Lee Harvey Oswald---who liked to LIE when it suited his needs. And the "Kostin" error was likely just an HONEST mistake on Oswald's part.

Jim, Do you think the letter (CE15) is a "fake" letter, which was written (and signed) by someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald? (Silly question, I know. But I'm just looking for confirmation of that belief.)

And that has been reasonably explained by Dr. Boswell. But I'm guessing that Jim D. doesn't like this explanation about the "probing" at all. Right, Jim?.... "We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it." -- Dr. J.T. Boswell; Feb. 1996; ARRB Testimony

In the November 9th letter in question [Commission Exhibit No. 15], Lee Oswald tells us the exact date of Hosty's visit---November 1. But Oswald then goes on to tell one of the multiple lies that he told in the letter by implying that he and Hosty met face-to-face, which, of course, never happened on Nov. 1 (or on Nov. 5). But let me get this straight, Jim.... You think the CE15 letter is totally bogus, right? And yet you think that the plotters who concocted that letter would want to put things in it that would tend to PROVE its "bogus" status? That's similar to crooks who have a desire to videotape their own heists, isn't it? Were your "plotters" REALLY that stupid? Or could it be---just maybe!---that the great James DiEugenio of Los Angeles is full of beans when it comes to CE15 (and so many other matters regarding the events of November 22, 1963)? (I'll vote for the latter option.)

No, I didn't. Re: CE15 and the envelope.... https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1255.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/boh.html#JFK-Head-Wound

All the more reason to think that it wasn't a "metallic" object at all, but an "artifact", just as Ebersole said (per the ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer).... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-970.html

Kostikov. Oswald just got the name wrong.

Yeah, naturally. Everything inconvenient to CTers is fake. Including ALL THREE items I mentioned previously----i.e., the autopsy PHOTOGRAPHS, the autopsy X-RAYS, and the ZAPRUDER FILM too. And this must mean, per Sandy's beliefs, that the HSCA lied its collective eyes out when it gave ALL of the autopsy photos and X-rays a clean bill of health on page 41 of HSCA volume 7. (That's at least 20 liars right there. Not even counting the top-level HSCA members.) Time for a triple dose of this little icon. It's certainly needed here....

Yeah, naturally. Why did I even bother to ask? Everything inconvenient to CTers is fake. What a cop-out. Unbelievable.

It's just too bad (for conspiracy theorists) that the photographic evidence of President's Kennedy's head wounds completely destroys the idea that JFK had a big hole in the back of his cranium---no matter how many witnesses claimed to have seen such a "BOH" wound. Let me guess----I'm supposed to believe that ALL THREE varieties of photographic material seen below are ALL FAKE. Right? ....

Yes. Yes. But, so what? A lot of people were looking (and running) toward the Knoll at that time. DCM was merely watching the various people run up the slope. You actually think that because DCM merely LOOKED toward the Grassy Knoll, that fact signifies something "conspiratorial" on his part? If so, you're really desperate to grasp any straw you can find, aren't you? Not necessarily. The thing you think he's got up to his mouth might just be part of the person standing to his right-rear. I can't tell. The picture's not clear enough. (See the photo montage below.) But I doubt that he's holding anything at all. He certainly has nothing in his right hand in the clearer picture just to the right of the fuzzier one. And those photos seem to have been taken at almost an identical point in time. Take note of the position of DCM's left hand and arm in both images. The position of that arm looks exactly the same to me. Very hard to tell. The thing you think is an antenna could easily be something else or a photo anomaly. I can see the same type of "straight white line" formed on the back of the uniform of the motorcycle cop in the very same image. What do you think caused that white line? It's certainly not an antenna on the policeman's back. But let me ask you this: Are you really suggesting that Mr. Dark Complected Man was part of some assassination plot, and he just casually and calmly decided to get on his walkie-talkie and radio in a message of some kind to his co-plotters within seconds of the shooting --- right out in the open where he knew he was being photographed and filmed? Talk about some large-sized gonads! Mr. DCM sure had those, didn't he? Bottom Line: All the suspicions about "DCM" and "Umbrella Man" and "Black Dog Man" and (a newer one) "Tan Jacket Man" are nothing more than that --- unsupportable "suspicions" by conspiracy believers who are looking for conspirators behind every bush and retaining wall and oak tree in Dealey Plaza---and even right out in the open on Elm Street with open umbrellas and walkie-talkies while being filmed performing their conspiratorial work. It's just plain (dare I say it again?)----silly.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B8UwZ588YcqINWxGVHFXWXQ1M3c

......

Either that, or somebody mixed up the calls (and the callers). Because there was certainly NOT an "imposter Oswald" roaming the streets of Mexico City in September and October of 1963. And the main reason we can be certain of that fact is because----- The one and only "real" Lee Harvey Oswald positively DID travel by bus to Mexico City in late September '63. That fact has been proven in many different ways, not the least of which is available in Oswald's own words in Commission Exhibit No. 15. Do you really think this is a fake letter, Sandy (complete with a fake LHO signature)?.... https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0029a.htm ------------------------------------------- Mexico City Addendum.... I've yet to get an answer from any conspiracy theorist to this question I asked 8 years ago.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/Oswald In Mexico City

Probably not.

It was 3 vehicles Bowers saw. And, yes, I agree that Bowers made such statements. But it's also very telling, indeed, when we read Bowers' 11/22/63 affidavit, that he doesn't say a word about any "unusual activity" or flashes of light or anything happening near the Knoll. His only concern (practically) are those 3 cars which circled his parking lot. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VbLO0q2JWak/Tvw51KplxFI/AAAAAAAABwE/bdRYwp5YmsA/s1200-h/Lee-Bowers-Affidavit.gif I can't fully agree with that statement re: DCM, because we don't know for a fact that DCM was carrying any "radio" with him at all. You're just guessing. (CTers do a lot of that, I've noticed.)

OK, "Jimmy". Whatever you say. Reprise..... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Ultimate In SBT Denial Among Conspiracy Theorists

More sheer speculation by a conspiracy fantasist named James. But---that's why Jimmy is Jimmy.

Lee Bowers is one of those witnesses who has been turned into a (supposedly) excellent "It Was A Conspiracy" witness by conspiracy authors, but he's really not much of a "conspiracy" witness at all. It's CTers (like Mark Lane) who want everyone to believe Bowers saw some killers on the Grassy Knoll. But Bowers never ever said any such thing. More.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/lee-bowers.html

No, but that's got nothing to do with the evidence surrounding the question of "Who Shot JFK?". Try again.

That's total nonsense, Jim. In fact, when a sensible and reasonable person looks at all of the variables pertaining to the Single-Bullet Theory, it becomes blatantly obvious that the SBT is the only conclusion that makes any sense at all [as I explain in great detail at the link below]. No other (anti-SBT) theory comes even close. And nobody on the "CT" side of the fence has ever come forward with an alternate theory to share with the world that isn't completely laughable. Why don't you be the first, Jim? I'd love to hear your shot-by-shot anti-SBT theory. Give it a shot. I'm overdue for my daily belly-laugh anyway. (A "Debate" portion of the above website starts here -----> http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT)