DVP. Time to be real.

[David Redemer]

The point of my post was that anyone can cherry pick the evidence to reach their conclusions. You are picking gnat xxxx out of pepper to quote the JFK film, when you suggest that the DPD collected the evidence regarding the JfK and Tippett murders. The WC used this evidence to establish their findings.

Of course the WC used that evidence. Why wouldn't they use the evidence collected at the crime scenes? But, again, the WC didn't invent the evidence. It was collected mostly by the Dallas Police. Was the DPD supposedly part of the plot too? Even to frame Oswald for Policeman Tippit's murder too?In short, the evidence is what it is. And it all points to Oswald--and to no one else.

The fact that LHO was charged with two murders within 24 hours, before a complete investigation could be conducted and included the assassination of the President of the United States, seems awfully quick to me. With the ramifications of the political atmosphere, shouldn't there have been a complete investigation (especially since Oswald had CIA and FBI files open at the time), even if the Patsy was killed before a trial could be conducted?

So does that response mean you think the DPD manufactured the evidence which enabled them to officially charge Lee Oswald with two murders before midnight on 11/22/63?Quite obviously, the DPD felt they had enough evidence to charge Oswald with Tippit's and Kennedy's murders. Should I disbelieve the DPD and disbelieve the evidence they collected? If so, why?

And I can defend the acoustic evidence because it was the finding of the HSCA, just like the WC evidence...if you are going to question one, then question both.

Apples and oranges. Why do I have to believe the HSCA's conclusions, even though I just talked about how that Dictabelt evidence is seriously flawed? Why should seriously flawed evidence be treated the same as evidence that has not been proven to be seriously flawed?

What I want to know, is do you think nothing good has come from the public's investigation of the JFK assassination?

That's correct. IMO, nothing positive or constructive (or true) has come from ANY of the conspiracy researchers or their books. Nothing. In fact, just the opposite. People like Mark Lane and David Lifton and Jim Garrison and Doug Horne have done far more harm than good when it comes to arriving at the truth regarding JFK's murder. How can that fact even be questioned?

That through the JFK assassination research that light hasn't been shone on the corruption present since?

I don't necessarily "connect" the JFK case to any "corruption" that might exist in the Government since 1963. I think too many people try to trace all the evils and the wrongs of the world back to the events of 11/22/63. It's a convenient excuse is all it is. (IMHO.)>>> "Do you think LBJ was a criminal?" <<<Of course not. Why on Earth would any sensible person even begin to think such an outrageous thing?>>> "That J E Hoover was being manipulated by organized crime?" <<<I have no idea. But even if he was, IMO that's apples and oranges too (as far as the JFK case is concerned). Oswald killed Kennedy. Not organized crime.>>> "That foreign policy was being dictated outside the White House and Congress by the CIA?" <<<I have no idea. But--again--what has that got to do with whether or not a loner named Oswald took his own rifle to work on November 22nd and shot the President? (And any "CIA" connections to Oswald are very dubious ones--at best. Even Harold Weisberg could find no connection there.)>>> "That like minded individuals haven't since prospered by taking their cue's since this momentous event?" <<<This, again, has nothing to do with Kennedy's murder. Not EVERYTHING in history is connected to the way John Kennedy met his demise.>>> "The assassination is important because it marked a sea change in the way government was run and those who aspired to be a politician. Do you not see a connection with what occurred in '63, to what has happened since?" <<<See my last reply.Regards,DVP

It's reasonable to think that the DPD did indeed manufacture evidence. The MC was sent to the FBI who couldn't find a print linking the gun to Oswald but later the DPD does?? Seems incriminating.

Also the DPD could be guilty of suppressing evidence that didn't fit the lone gunman scenario...the Mauser found on the 6th floor comes to mind.

Dave

[Ken Davies]

**yawn**

The DVP story. The man who doesn't label people, calls others CTers.

Bring on the KFC!

[David Von Pein]

The DVP story. The man who doesn't label people, calls others CTers.

I suppose you'd also object if I called you a "man" or "an Education Forum member"?

But for some reason, addressing a conspiracy believer as a "conspiracy theorist" seems to be way out of bounds. I can only shrug my shoulders and look bewildered when trying to figure that one out.

Bring on the KFC!

DVP's Potpourri / The Colonel On TV Game Show In 1963 (Right After The JFK Assassination)

Edited October 4, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

**yawn**

The DVP story. The man who doesn't label people, calls others CTers.

Bring on the KFC!

"I could carve a better man out of a banana."

Kurt Vonnegut

Edited October 4, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Ken Davies]

Je suis d'accord, Robert.

DVP can't acknowledge his own labeling comments from above.

Kurt Vonnegut's bananas were not obsessed with "15 minutes of fame".

[David Von Pein]

It's reasonable to think that the DPD did indeed manufacture evidence.

I disagree. Such a belief is not "reasonable", IMO.

The MC was sent to the FBI who couldn't find a print linking the gun to Oswald but later the DPD does?? Seems incriminating.

The reason the FBI could find no print (even though Lt. Day told the FBI they probably could still find one on the barrel) is simply because Carl Day of the DPD had already lifted the print off of the underside of the Carcano barrel. And Day talks all about this in his WC testimony:

LT. J.C. DAY -- "On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm

I'll also add this:

Anyone who thinks that J.C. Day was a xxxx regarding the palmprint matter needs to read "Reclaiming History", starting on Page 799.

A key excerpt:

"Warren Commission assistant counsel Wesley Liebeler told the HSCA that in "late August or September" of 1964, he suggested questioning [DPD Lieutenant J.C.] Day further in an attempt to resolve the multitude of questions that remained surrounding the discovery of the palm print.

It had occurred to Liebeler and a few other assistant counsels, as it would later to Mark Lane, that perhaps the palm print didn't come from the rifle at all. The Commission, at that time, only had Day's word for it. It wanted something stronger. But when Liebeler approached Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin about it, he objected. "Mr. Rankin was not terribly enthusiastic about having a couple of Commission lawyers go down to Dallas and start questioning the Dallas Police Department," Liebeler told the HSCA in 1978. "Quite frankly . . . it would have raised all kinds of questions at that time as to what in the hell was going on, what are we doing going down and taking depositions from the Dallas Police Department two months after the report was supposed to be out?"

But Liebeler said they realized the problem could be resolved "in another way." Several Commission assistant counsels subsequently met with FBI inspector James R. Malley, the bureau's liaison with the Commission, and FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona. Liebeler asked Latona whether there was a way to prove that the lift came from the rifle. Latona reexamined the lift submitted by Lieutenant Day and noticed pits, marks, and rust spots on it that corresponded to identical areas on the underside of the rifle barrel--the very spot from which Day said the print had been lifted.

J. Edgar Hoover sent a letter by courier to the Commission on September 4 to confirm this finding, along with a photograph showing the corresponding marks on the barrel and the lift. Liebeler was satisfied. Now, there was no doubt whatsoever--the palm print Day had lifted had come from Oswald's rifle."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 803 of "Reclaiming History"

[Also See: 11 HSCA 254-255.]

Also the DPD could be guilty of suppressing evidence that didn't fit the lone gunman scenario...the Mauser found on the 6th floor comes to mind.

But the "Mauser" thing has been fully explained. The two Deputy Sheriffs who first saw the rifle behind the boxes in the TSBD have BOTH said (on television) that they were mistaken about originally calling the gun a "Mauser". Both of them. And neither one of them was a member of the "DPD"....

Seymour Weitzman in 1967 (at 26:45 of Part 1): http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report-1967.html

And Eugene Boone in 1986:

Edited October 4, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

DVP can't acknowledge his own labeling comments from above.

Only someone bent on arguing over trivial things could possibly gripe about someone calling a JFK conspiracy advocate a "conspiracy theorist". Hilarious.

Edited October 4, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

Only someone bent on arguing over trivial things could possibly gripe about someone calling a JFK conspiracy advocate a "conspiracy theorist". Hilarious.

Calling someone a "JFK conspiracy advocate" is even worse. (I see what you did there.) Why should someone have to "advocate" simple facts? They only need to be stated. Facts speak for themselves.

Lone nutters (if you'll excuse the convenient term) are the advocates, advocating an absolute certainty that exists in their own minds despite contrary evidence, just like young-Earth creationists do. Just like Oswald did it alone 50 years ago, God did it alone (creating the universe) about 10,000 years ago. And again it doesn't do any good to argue.

[David Von Pein]

Calling someone a "JFK conspiracy advocate" is even worse. ~snip~

Oh, for Pete sake. Does this semantics silliness have an end?

Or is today "Let's Nitpick Everything To Death" day here at the Simkin forum?

Edited October 4, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Calling someone a "JFK conspiracy advocate" is even worse.

Oh, for Pete sake. Does this semantics silliness have an end? Or is today "Let's Nitpick Everything To Death" day here at the Simkin forum?

If you don't like it, Dave, you could always just leave the forum. Everything and everybody here seems to disgust you; how can you stand being here?

[David Von Pein]

If you don't like it, Dave, you could always just leave the forum. Everything and everybody here seems to disgust you; how can you stand being here?

Didn't I explain that already, Bobby? Even with the Govt. shutdown, I'm still chained to the Langley desk. I have no choice. The CIA Disinfo must continue to flow no matter what. ~sigh~

But, in reality ("CIA Disinfo" kidding aside), I like to post the actual facts and sources of information for at least a few interested people to see and read on conspiracy-oriented forums like this one.

That way, the LN vs. CT playing field is leveled at least a tad bit. Somebody should provide SOME degree of balance in the arguments, don't you think? Why should the incredibly silly "OSWALD DIDN'T SHOOT ANYBODY" debaters win by default?

Edited October 4, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

If you don't like it, Dave, you could always just leave the forum. Everything and everybody here seems to disgust you; how can you stand being here?

Didn't I explain that already, Bobby? Even with the Govt. shutdown, I'm still chained to the Langley desk. I have no choice. The CIA Disinfo must continue to flow no matter what. ~sigh~

But, in reality ("CIA Disinfo" kidding aside), I like to post the actual facts and sources of information for at least a few interested people to see and read on conspiracy-oriented forums like this one.

That way, the LN vs. CT playing field is leveled at least a tad bit. Somebody should provide SOME degree of balance in the arguments, don't you think? Why should the incredibly silly "OSWALD DIDN'T SHOOT ANYBODY" debaters win by default?

Sorry, Dave, but you don't make any sense. What can the CT community possibly "win"? It's not like the case is about to be re-opened or anything.

I don't understand why you try so hard or why you stalk this forum for twelve hours a day. The WC decided in your favour; what are you trying to prove?

P.S. For anyone who believes JFK was shot from behind, I give you this excerpt from the Warren Commission testimony of Clinton J. Hill, Secret Service:

"Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?

Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head."

Edited October 4, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[David Von Pein]

Now let me provide some of that "balance" I was talking about previously....

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- Via JFK's Autopsy Report

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm

Plus: The next "best" evidence is, of course, the autopsy pictures,

which the HSCA determined were "authentic and unaltered".....

"The committee did, however, subject the autopsy photographs and X-rays to scientific analysis. These examinations by the committee's consultants established the inaccuracy of the Parkland observations. The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy personnel and providing additional support for the conclusions of the medical consultants." -- HSCA Report; Volume VII

Plus there's the fact that the person mentioned in Robert's last post -- Clint Hill -- has fully endorsed the WC's conclusion of Oswald (alone) shooting JFK. Hill doesn't support the SBT, but he has no doubt that Oswald shot the President. And the only shots Hill heard came from his "right rear" (i.e., from the direction of the Book Depository), which is also consistent with what we see in the James Altgens photograph. In that picture (depicted below), two of the Secret Service agents on the follow-up car are looking over their shoulders, toward the Depository. This fact is almost never mentioned by any of the conspiracy theorists. (Oops, I'm sorry--I should have said People who don't accept the findings of the Warren Commission, but hate being called "conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy advocates".)

Edited October 4, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Blah blah blah...so why did Hill and a few dozen other people say JFK had a large hole in the back right part of his head?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Blah blah blah...so why did Hill and a few dozen other people say JFK had a large hole in the back right part of his head?

You know what's fun about living on the West Coast? It's only 10:00 here; must be 1:00 AM where you are, eh?

And I just KNOW you're too stubborn to just walk away and go to bed.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme