David Von Pein

Oh, brother. Horne's got you hogtied and brainwashed. Doug Horne's Silliness (Part 1)

Main point being: DiEugenio is dead wrong .... the brain WAS partially sectioned. What do think the words "section" and "taken" mean here?: "The following sections are taken for microscopic examination." And why on Earth do you think a brain cannot be "partially" sectioned? Of course it can be. And it was. And Dr. Humes says so in his ARRB testimony I quoted earlier. Let's see it again (and have DiEugenio ignore it again, as usual): Dr. J.J. Humes -- "We did take certain sections a day or two later..."

"...some very limited sectioning [of JFK's brain] was done..." -- Page 383 of Reclaiming History And Page 544 of the WR confirms this. Right there in the autopsy report, which DiEugenio will always ignore. Also: Via Dr. Humes' ARRB testimony: Question -- "Were any sections taken at all from the brain?" Dr. Humes -- "Not at that time. Some place else I showed you, the report you showed, we did take certain sections a day or two later, whatever it was, from the location--we didn't divide the brain like we often do. You know, we often make a so-called bread loaf-type incision. Some people do it fore and aft. Some people do it different ways. But we didn't do that with this brain, because the next thing you know George Burkley wanted it. We might have gone on to do that, but when he came and said that they wanted the brain, fine, you know. I'm not going to argue about it."

RE: brain sectioning: From the supplementary autopsy report: "The following sections [of JFK's brain] are taken for microscopic examination..." Seven specific "sections" of the brain are then listed on Page 544 (a thru g). If this isn't a partial sectioning of the brain, then what is?

"And the bullet went through the coat way below where this would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the way I know this best is my memory of the fact that-- see, we probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything..." -- Dr. Boswell

No, it doesn't. He was talking about probing the back wound, not the throat wound. Better read this again: "When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was--if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the coat had been--was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the way I know this best is my memory of the fact that-- see, 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. Boswell

It's in the Supplementary Autopsy Report (WR; Pg 544): "In the interest of preserving the specimen, coronal sections are not made. The following sections are taken for microscopic examination..." http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284b.htm

You think that Boswell is talking about probing the FRONT-OF-THE-NECK wound in the quote below? You're kidding. He's talking about the UPPER-BACK wound being probed, not the throat wound, even though he uses the word "neck" here; which many people did, because the wound was near the junction of the upper back and lower neck: "When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was--if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the coat had been--was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the way I know this best is my memory of the fact that-- see, 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. Boswell It's obvious that Boswell is talking about the BACK wound with the "small hole" and JFK's "big and strong" BACK muscles. You think he's talking about the muscles in the front of JFK's throat there, Jim?

So you want to throw away the SBT based on the fact that the neck wasn't dissected? Can I then feel free to toss aside the ludicrous "Two Bullets Went Into JFK & Got Themselves Lost" theory, due to the fact there are no bullets to prove that theory at all?

No, it didn't make any sense at all. That's why I revised my opinion on that point -- because those people who believe Oswald was involved in some way in the assassination but think he fired no shots DO have an opinion about whether Oswald fired shots, which is the only thing that ABC question was asking. So to answer "no opinion" to that question is inaccurate for those particular respondents. It's worded clearly enough (for people who have any sense). It couldn't be more obvious that ALL portions of the question refer to GUNMAN in the assassination. Only conspiracy theorists have to struggle with this. I sure don't.

You probably won't believe this, but I hardly ever discuss the JFK case with anyone outside of this computer. I cannot remember the last time I asked anyone, outside the Internet, their opinion on the subject. It just never comes up. I see your point here, Pat. But, then too, we'd have to know how many of those 1,031 people in the poll had seen Stone's fantasy flick. We can never know that stat.

There are several discrepancies between the WC and HSCA re the SBT, to be sure. But there are a whole bunch of discrepancies between the conspiracy theories re the SBT and/or its alternatives too. Who should we believe? IMO, it's not even a close call (even with the cockeyed analysis of the HSCA on some things). The SBT stands erect, and always shall, IMO. The bottom-line conclusions are identical, however, between the WC's SBT and the HSCA's SBT -- one bullet (CE399) passed through both JFK and JBC. The HSCA was half-drunk (I guess) when it concluded these crazy assertions: 1.) JFK was leaning forward 11 degrees at the time of the SBT shot. 2.) JFK's throat wound was located above his back wound (anatomically). 3.) The SBT occurred at circa Z190. And #4 (bonus) -- A fourth shot was fired at JFK's car. Those four things are totally nuts, yes. And I've always said they were nuts. And I'll just have to live with my disagreements with the HSCA on these points. But I happen to agree with the HSCA on the big-ticket conclusions they reached: 1.) Oswald killed Kennedy. 2.) Oswald killed Tippit. 3.) Oswald shot at General Walker. 4.) Only two bullets struck JFK and JBC. 5.) The SBT is correct.

Jim, The brain WAS partially sectioned. Why are you insisting it wasn't sectioned at all. And there WERE probes used by Drs. Humes and Boswell in an effort to track the back/neck wounds, but as Dr. Boswell said to the ARRB in 1996: "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." You think the neck should have been torn open to dissect the wound, right Jim? Well, they didn't do that (for whatever reason, probably the wishes of the Kennedy family to not have certain portions of JFK's body mutilated at the autopsy). So, we're left to guess as to if there was an actual visible "track" through JFK's back & neck or not. But the doctors most certainly attempted to probe the wounds.

Pat, I think you're again merging together the silly beliefs of the "Internet" conspiracy crowd with the beliefs of the "general population". There almost certainly IS a difference there. But, no, I haven't performed any detailed study or poll to confirm what I just said. But, IMO, the 2003 ABC poll is proving my point, because 32% of the people in that poll said Oswald shot Kennedy BY HIMSELF, which is a much, much higher pct. than believe such a thing on the Internet. And when you factor in the other 51% who said Oswald was a shooter (along with at least one other "gunman"), then the pct. of "Oswald Was A Shooter" respondents goes even further above the pct. of such believers at Internet forums like this. Plus, the "Oswald Was A Patsy" believers can also believe Oswald was a shooter. And many do. They think Oswald was a shooter in a scenario that had multiple shooters, with Oswald then having the rug pulled out from under him and he was used as the lone scapegoat. Surely, even you know that some CTers possess that POV. Unless a large pct. of those respondents in that ABC poll totally misunderstood the "gunman" question, or unless they just deliberately answered with a response that reflected Oswald as a GUNMAN, then 83% of those people in that poll truly were of the belief that LHO was firing a gun at JFK in Dallas. Also, since that particular question (to my knowledge) has not been asked in the various polls in the past (the question, that is, about "gunmen" specifically), then it's really not something we can compare to any other poll sample. It's kind of a one-of-a-kind question. At least I don't recall seeing any question worded that way about "gunmen" before. Have you? Let me ask you, Pat: If you were among the people in the world who truly believed that Oswald didn't fire a shot that day (and you aren't, are you?), how would you yourself have answered that question when the phone rang and you talked with that pollster from ABC News? Would you have really not understood that the question was SEPARATE from the issue of conspiracy (which, per the order of the questions on the Polling.com website, was asked PRIOR to the "gunman" question)? And would you have really not understood that the ABC people were asking whether you thought Oswald was a GUNMAN or not? Plus, if you DID misunderstand the question, wouldn't you have ASKED the person on the phone to clarify it for you? I'm not sure if the pollster would have actually re-worded the question or not; but wouldn't you have ASKED anyway if you were confused? And it makes me wonder if some of those 1,031 people DID ask to have it clarified for them. And if it was clarified, then it only makes those poll results stronger and more ironclad.

Yeah, sure, Jimbo. That must be why we find the SBT being upheld by the HSCA. And it's a very good idea that you try to stay away from the details of what REPLACES the Single-Bullet Theory. Because when you start to explain all those disappearing bullets and SBT-like coincidences (not to mention the BB guns that the shooters apparently were using that caused not just one bullet--but two!--to go into JFK's body just a few inches and stop), you're surely going to end up looking like a fool. So, the best strategy is to just ignore the details. Good plan.

When examining all of the possibilities and, just as important, probabilities regarding the double-man wounding of JFK and John Connally, if a person looking at these possibilities/probabilities is truthful with himself or herself, the SBT is by far the most logical conclusion to reach. Any other conclusion falls miles short of the SBT, particularly the type of ludicrous bullet-vanishing theories that people like Jimmy DiEugenio place their (blind) faith in -- such as: the theory that has JFK hit in the throat with a bullet from the FRONT that does not exit his body, and having a second separate bullet hitting JFK in the upper back that does not exit his body, and having John Connally being hit by yet another (third) bullet that strikes Connally (miraculously for the SBT crowd) in the upper back. And then, by pure magic apparently (or via the wishes of the unknown/unnamed conspirators who were stupid enough to green-light this absurd "Let's Shoot JFK From The Front And Try To Blame Only Oswald In The Rear" plot in the first place), ALL THREE of those bullets that entered those two victims then disappeared off the globe right after the shooting (including the "real" Connally bullet--because no CTer on the Web thinks that CE399 is the "real" Connally stretcher bullet, naturally). And if we choose to expand this nuttiness even further (as people like James H. Fetzer do), we could also add an additional bullet or two to the mix that supposedly hit John B. Connally and then also VANISHED without a trace. Professor Fetzer, btw, has stated on the Internet record that he thinks it's quite possible that Connally was hit by up to THREE different bullets on November 22. None of which entered the official record of this case, of course. Can it get much sillier, folks? I'm doubting it. "Most of my book ["Reclaiming History"], if you want to say it, is devoting myself to rebutting silliness." -- Vincent Bugliosi; June 7, 2007; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (audio below) http://Box.net/shared/4xan7hmdds http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

Have you asked the 1,031 respondents to that 2003 ABC poll about that, Jimbo? And it's my guess that a total of ZERO of those 1,031 people have ever posted a single message on a JFK Internet forum like this one, and they've never heard of Jim DiEugenio either, which makes them "cleansed" of the really goofy Anybody-But-Oz beliefs that are held by many in the JFK Forum community. Any idea WHY Oswald was being paid by the CIA? What great skills did Oswald possess that the CIA required? Maybe the 34% of "CIA Did It" respondents were thinking that Oswald was merely a guy the CIA hired to bring them soda pop and pretzels for the Sunday afternoon football games, eh? The fact that he was once a Marine sharpshooter meant zilch, right?

Bull. The SBT is obviously the only way the shooting could have occurred, and Blakey undoubtedly realized that fact very early on in his investigation. You're just upset because a different investigation backed up what the Warren Commission said. Therefore, you must believe that Blakey, et al, were just as corrupt as you (falsely) believe the WC was. That's called "sour grapes". And Jim's got 'em.

As I mentioned to Pat Speer earlier in this thread....MANY Americans believe Oswald was a CIA agent. And many Americans (34% via one poll) also think the CIA had Kennedy killed. Therefore, what in the world is so illogical about my believing that many Americans think Oswald killed Kennedy for the CIA? Please enlighten this weak-minded LNer.

Whatever, Michael.

Silly question here. DiEugenio is suggesting that there would be no avenue for "conspiracy" AT ALL if the HSCA believes in the SBT. Utterly foolish. There are many avenues of potential conspiracy to pursue that aren't related in any way to the SBT. There are no PROVABLE angles of conspiracy, true. But that doesn't mean that the HSCA saying the SBT is true = No Conspiracy Whatsoever. (Is Jimbo serious?) See above response, because this question is every bit as stupid as Jim's first one. Again, Jimbo seems to be saying that an advocate of the SBT cannot think that ANY conspiracy could exist in THE WHOLE CASE -- including Ruby, Ferrie, the Mob, the CIA, or any of the other bogus theories peddled by various conspiracy mongers since 1963. (Has Jimbo lost it?) You're undoubtedly talking about a very small percentage of people here. Naturally, you probably want to expand this number of "know nothing" investigators to triple digits. The examples you provided are from the Garrison case in New Orleans, which, as we all know (and the HSCA knew this from Day 1 too) was a totally bogus fraud of a case to begin with. Clay Shaw had as much to do with Kennedy's death as Elvis Presley or Mary Tyler Moore. Simple. The CIA and FBI (for the most part) told the truth about the assassination and their investigations and neither organization had anything to hide with regard to the major question of: Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone in assassinating President Kennedy? Period. That, naturally, is a fact that the DiEugenios of the world will never swallow. But the constant whining of conspiracy fanatics like Jimbo could hardly matter less. The history books of the world will always finger Jim's favorite patsy as JFK's murderer. And that's because the EVIDENCE proves that to be a fact. Like it or not. That's Jimbo's conspiracy spin on Canning. And, as usual, it's all bullxxxx. Canning's trajectories work just fine. Naturally, you think he deliberately skewed things. But, as usual, you're wrong. >>> "Question for DVP: How could Blakey be looking for ANY conspiracy, if he was saying that a guy who could not hit a falling zeppelin, could suddenly just point his rifle at a moving target--WITHOUT AIMING--and get 2 of 3 hits in the head and shoulder area." <<< Whether or not Oswald utilized the telescopic sight on his Carcano rifle has always been a question open for debate. We can never know, of course. But the FACT remains that Oswald was TRAINED IN THE UNITED STATES MARINES to fire a rifle. And the fact remains that Oswald was a sharpshooter in the early days of his Marine hitch. Now, a question for Jimbo The Great -- Is a MARINE SHARPSHOOTER normally considered to be a guy who "could not hit a falling zeppelin"? If the Marine Corps issues "Sharpshooter" rankings to people who are piss-poor gunmen, then God help the United States Marine Corps. >>> "Von Pein is making stuff up here. He is angry because the HSCA actually said there was a shot from the Grassy Knoll that missed." <<< And Jimbo The Great is even angrier that the HSCA came to the same identical conclusions about Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt that the Warren Commission came to -- i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald, and only Oswald, hit any victims with any bullets on Elm Street in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. That declaration by the HSCA no doubt burns both sides of DiEugenio's toast. >>> "He [Von Pein] should count his blessings: if Sprague and Tanenbaum were allowed to stay, the entire conspriracy would have been exposed. And DVP would be in the Betty Ford Center." <<< James DiEugenio, therefore, somehow thinks that the great Sprague and Tanenbaum would have created a make-believe conspiracy out of whole cloth. Because that's the only kind of "conspiracy" that exists in the JFK murder case (one built from whole cloth), with or without the Gods known as Mr. Sprague and Mr. Tanenbaum. JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/DVP-Vs-DiEugenio-The-Complete-Series

Michael, if you can't figure out that that ABC question involves the topic of GUNMEN ONLY (not conspiracy, per se), then you're a lost cause. Because the wording of that question is quite clear, even as written. And now you want to call me a xxxx, saying that my original comment about "No Opinion" is still (right now) my current stance on this topic. Well, you're wrong, it isn't. Because THE ONLY correct answer that the respondents to that particular inquiry could possibly have, if they believe Oswald fired NO SHOTS, would be to answer "Oswald Was Not Involved At All", with a built-in parenthetical "AS A GUNMAN" included, because that IS what that question meant, which could hardly be more obvious -- i.e., ABC was asking people if OSWALD WAS A GUNMAN OR NOT. And it is you, not I, who is unnecessarily complicating a question that is very clear to begin with. I'll ask you, Michael, the very same question I asked Patrick J. Speer in April of 2009: Why would 83% say that LHO was a gunman if a certain percentage of those respondents really DIDN'T believe such a thing? Do you REALLY think that 83% of the people completely misunderstood the question? The thing that the conspiracists should really be upset about is the amazingly-high percentage (from the "Internet" CTer's perspective) of 32% of those 1,031 poll respondents believing that Oswald was the lone gunman. Or did those people misunderstand the question too, Michael?

Yes, I did initially write that. But then I realized that that response ("No Opinion") is really not the best answer to the parameters you laid out earlier (i.e., the best answer for people who think Oswald was "involved" but not as a shooter), because the third option ("Oswald not involved at all") is really the only response that fits your criteria, not "No Opinion". And that's because those people DO have an opinion on the subject of Oswald as a "gunman", and it would be (via the criteria you laid out) "Oswald was not involved at all". Why? Because that was a COMPARTMENTALIZED question that ABC News was asking -- separate from the other question regarding "conspiracy". It ONLY involved the question of "GUNMEN", not conspiracy. It could have been worded better, just as I said in my last post above. ABC News could have put the specific word "gunman" in ALL THREE portions of the question, instead of just the first two segments. But, good gosh Michael, since that word "gunman" IS right there in the first two-thirds of the question, isn't it pretty clear that the question is focusing on OSWALD AS A GUNMAN there? I think it's still fairly clear even as written. Addendum: Here's the conversation I had with Pat Speer on this exact subject in 2009. A couple of other "LNers" chimed in with their thoughts too during this discussion (which occurred at the IMDB.com forum for the Oliver Stone "JFK" movie). Highlighting one of my main points during this 2009 discussion: "You, Pat Speer, seem to think the ABC poll's "gunman" question is deceptive and misleading. But let me ask you this: If the 83% of people who comprise the first two categories of that "gunman" question really DIDN'T believe that Oswald was a "gunman" at all, then why on Earth would they have responded the way they did to that poll's question (which, as I said, couldn't be any clearer with respect to the first two segments of that inquiry, with the word "gunman" appearing in both segments)? Why would 83% say that LHO was a gunman if a certain percentage of those respondents really DIDN'T believe such a thing?" -- DVP; April 2009 ---------------------- DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Per a 2003 ABC poll (which included twice the number of respondents than the Gallup Poll), only 7% of people asked thought that Oswald was completely innocent (i.e., only 7 of every 100 think that Oswald didn't fire a shot at JFK). Compared to the paranoid fringe that appear on Internet sites, that's quite a difference. Because probably better than 85% of those paranoid kooks seem to think Oswald never fired a shot. 2003 poll: www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy PAT SPEER THEN SAID: David, your interpretation of the poll results is incorrect, and reflects an obvious bias. Although only 7% of conspiracy theorists thought that Oswald was "not involved"[,] that by no means means the rest thought he was a shooter. The majority of conspiracy theorists believe he was involved on some level; some believe he was a lookout, others believe he was infiltrating the plot on behalf of an intelligence organization. Only a minority believe he fired a shot at Kennedy. DVP THEN SAID: Yes, it does mean exactly that...because of the specific way ABC News worded that particular question. Better look again. 83% of the 1,031 people polled think Oswald was definitely firing a gun at JFK via that "gunman" polling question. NICK KENDRICK THEN SAID: As usual, David is right and you [Pat Speer] are wrong. Question, ABC news poll, November 5-9th, 2003. "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?" Only Oswald - 32% (All of them CIA, presumably - NSR) Another Gunman - 52% [it was actually 51%] Oswald Not Involved - 7% No Opinion - 10% Plainly, the question is phrased so that people who (are insane enough to) believe that Oswald was a "lookout" or a "government operative" but (are insane enough to) believe that Oswald didn´t fire a single shot, would answer "Oswald not involved". The figure for those who (are insane enough to) believe Oswald wasn´t involved is clear - an unlucky seven percent. When it comes to sheer arrogance and pomposity, patspeer, you take the cake. You owe David an apology and you owe yourself a reality check - either Oswald was innocent, which goes against all the evidence, or he acted alone. PAT SPEER THEN SAID: Here is the question, David: "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?" By asking whether or not "Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all" as opposed to the more logical third alternative "Oswald was not a shooter on 11-22-63"[,] the question becomes blurred. The words "at all" bit extend way beyond merely shooting. FWIW: There is a book called "Tainting Evidence" which deals with this very phenomena--the skewing of poll results via adding bits like "at all" at the end of the question. Over the years, I have discussed the Kennedy assassination with at least 1,000 people beyond those I've met online or at conventions. The vast majority have no real opinion on the assassination; many saw [Oliver Stone's] JFK and were half-convinced but then saw the ABC or the Discovery Channel and were half-convinced, etc. IMO, this represents the bulk of Americans. Most of them--rightly or wrongly-- have doubts that Oswald could have fired the shots. A large percentage--perhaps a majority--believe he was involved in some way, however. So, bottom line. You are correct to point out that the number of people thinking Oswald was some innocent guy framed because he was a leftist is small. But you are totally incorrect if you think the vast majority of Americans think Oswald shot Kennedy. NICK KENDRICK THEN SAID: Now now, Pat Speer, it's very simple - David was right, and you were (once again) wrong. Pompously, arrogantly and stupidly wrong. That's all there is to it. Naturally, I didn't really expect you to have the class to apologize to David, but at the very least, you could have avoided compounding your stupidity. Oh well. PAT SPEER THEN SAID: Geez, Louise. Let's be CLEAR about this. David and Nick (assuming they're not the same person--ha) are now BOTH claiming that 93% of Americans think Oswald shot Kennedy. Is this right? If so, I suggest they both get out a little bit, and talk to people other than themselves (ha). DVP THEN SAID: Again, Pat Speer misses the boat (and point). I was talking about the SPECIFIC POLL done by ABC News in Nov. 2003. And that's a poll (whether you like its results or not) that shows, undeniably, that 83% (not 93%, because 10% had "no opinion" one way or the other) of the respondents--which numbered 1,031 people, twice the number of the Gallup Poll, btw--were of the opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald was firing a gun at JFK on 11/22/63. Live with it, Pat. PAT SPEER THEN SAID: Weak sauce, David. You prop up a poll with misleading data and then run from it when I ask you to say you believe what it implied. Once again...It was a flawed poll because it had a flawed question. Think of it in the reverse. If the same group of people had been asked if they 1) thought the Warren Commission deliberately misled the public, or 2) thought the Warren Commission told the truth ABOUT EVERYTHING, how many do you think could bring themselves to go along with #2? Almost no one, right? It is the use of the absolute that steers the vote. Same thing with the ABC poll. By saying "not involved at all"[,] the pollsters knew damn well they were steering their subjects in the opposite direction. DVP THEN SAID: Pat, you must be totally blind not to recognize that the first two parts of the question (within that particular 2003 ABC Poll question being discussed here) have the word "GUNMAN" in them: 1.) "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination." 2.) "Do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day." 32% of the 1,031 people responding voted for #1 above, while another 51% said #2 was their choice. Which means, by definition, Pat, that 83% total thought that Oswald was, indeed, shooting at Kennedy. You cannot slide by those figures and pretend that that 83% really didn't understand the question or utilize some other excuse to skew the plain-as-day figures regarding the "GUNMAN" topic in the JFK assassination. The fact is that more than 8 out of every 10 of those respondents said they thought that Oswald was either the lone gunman in Dallas or that Oswald was one of the gunmen -- hence, the words "ANOTHER GUNMAN" in the wording of the second part of that particular question. And since the words "ANOTHER GUNMAN" are followed by the words "IN ADDITION TO OSWALD" in the wording of the poll's question, those respondents who fall into that "Another Gunman" category are telling ABC News that Oswald was ONE OF THE GUNMEN they thought were shooting at President Kennedy. Get it now, Pat? Or should we dance around this Mulberry bush a few more times before the obviousness of this whole thing sinks in? "BOOGIE KNIGHT" THEN SAID: Pat, once again proving that a self-taught man has an idiot for both a teacher and a student, is showing that polling, like other topics such as "science" and "forensics", is just beyond his grasp. PAT SPEER THEN SAID: I see your point, David, but I assure you that the question is deceptive. DVP THEN SAID: Well, your "assurance" doesn't mean much. PAT SPEER THEN SAID: If asked, point blank, "Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy?"[,] do you REALLY believe 83% of those asked would say "yes"[?]" DVP THEN SAID: Yes. Absolutely. But you don't need my opinion on that matter, because we have the results of just such a "Do You Think LHO Shot JFK?" inquiry in black- and-white via the ABC News poll from 2003. The "gunman" question in that ABC poll couldn't be any clearer, with ABC asking those 1,031 people if they thought Oswald was the "ONLY GUNMAN" or if there was "ANOTHER GUNMAN IN ADDITION TO OSWALD" or if Oswald was "NOT INVOLVED IN THE ASSASSINATION AT ALL". I think you're probably confusing the answer you'd get from kooks at Internet forums like this one with the answer you'd get to that question from the vast majority of Americans who don't frequent pro- conspiracy Internet boards. The Anybody-But-Oswald nuts that are abundant online certainly do not reflect the thinking of the majority of America. Probably 85% of the kooks online think Oswald never fired a shot. But, as the ABC poll demonstrates, the majority of people in the mainstream who have an opinion on the subject believe Oswald was firing a gun at JFK. That doesn't mean, however, that that same mainstream doesn't believe in a conspiracy, as these numbers from the exact same 2003 ABC News poll readily suggest: "Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man, or was it part of a broader plot?": One Man -- 22% Broader Plot -- 70% No Opinion -- 8% Also, let me add this: You, Pat Speer, seem to think the ABC poll's "gunman" question is deceptive and misleading. But let me ask you this: If the 83% of people who comprise the first two categories of that "gunman" question really DIDN'T believe that Oswald was a "gunman" at all, then why on Earth would they have responded the way they did to that poll's question (which, as I said, couldn't be any clearer with respect to the first two segments of that inquiry, with the word "gunman" appearing in both segments)? Why would 83% say that LHO was a gunman if a certain percentage of those respondents really DIDN'T believe such a thing? I'll leave you to sort out my last question in your own mind. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ecfae05e92eaf9f2

If they didn't want to be misleading, they'd have no choice but to answer with the third option: i.e., "Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all". Because the other two options are things they definitely do not believe. And if they answered the question the way you obviously think they did answer it, with the second option (i.e., "Do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day?"), then they are putting a gun in Lee Oswald's hands (whether they intended to put that gun in his hands or not). The poll question could have been worded a little better at the end, yes. It probably should have said "Or do you think Oswald did not fire a gun at President Kennedy at all?" But even being worded as it is, it's quite obvious that the question is, indeed, talking about Oswald's involvement as a "gunman", since that exact word ("gunman") is used in the first two segments of the ABC News poll question. http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

With regard to Oswald acting alone, yes. But as the ABC News poll indicates, it's doubtful that I'm in the overall minority with regard to Oswald shooting at the President.