DVP. Time to be real.

[David G. Healy]

ya know.... challenging DVP is an exercise in futility... you might want to use your spare time reading Earl Warren's high school manifesto (if there is one). Useless and time wasting comes to mind.... just what the lone nuts want. The Warren Commission can't change, Bugliosi can't change and WON'T change and lone nut adherents like the DVP's of the lone nut variety, can't and WON'T change. Waste of time...

I like the direction Bill Kelly is going: additional suspects, for one... the Von Pein's of the world simply disappear in threads like that, they know only the WCR mantra... "LHO by his lonesome," did those herculean feats Nov 22nd 1963.

Keep up the good work Bill!

[David Von Pein]

Ken,

Why is it, then, do you think Clint Hill fully endorses the OSWALD DID IT ALONE policy? He sees this huge hole in the BACK of JFK's head---and yet he still fully believes Oswald caused that head wound. How come? Is he a rotten, evil LN/WC shill too? But if he is, then why would he continue to be a "Back Of The Head" witness at the same time? Any idea?

Plus, the fact that blood was all over the car means nothing. Robert Frazier of the FBI (a person no CTer would trust any farther than they could toss him) said this:

"There were blood and particles of flesh scattered all over the hood, the windshield, in the front seat and all over the rear floor rugs, the jump seats, and over the rear seat, and down both sides of the side rails or tops of the doors of the car." -- Robert A. Frazier; 1964

Plus, the Zapruder Film most certainly does not support a frontal shot. JFK's head moves slightly FORWARD at the impact frame (Z313) prior to the rear head movement. And the blood spray (all to the FRONT of Kennedy's head) is perfectly consistent with a shot coming from behind. Plus, the Connallys were covered with debris from the head shot. They each testified to that fact multiple times. (And how could that be the case if the shot was propelling most of the head debris toward the REAR and TRUNK of the car?)

And, of course, there are still those pesky photos and X-rays, none of which show the things the CTers want to believe about JFK's wounds.

Edited October 4, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

The Warren Commission can't change, Bugliosi can't change and WON'T change and lone nut adherents like the DVP's of the lone nut variety, can't and WON'T change.

Why on Earth would Bugliosi or I want to "change"? Oswald killed Kennedy and the evidence proves it ten times over.

Who would want to abandon the truth in favor of fairy tales and sheer speculation? Not me.

I like the direction Bill Kelly is going: additional suspects, for one... the Von Pein's of the world simply disappear in threads like that.

Because such threads are the true time-wasters. Of course you can come up with a long list of possible "suspects". What does that prove? Heck, some of the suspects weren't even near Dallas on Nov. 22--but they get put on certain "Suspects" lists anyway. Talk about a waste of time.

[Robert Prudhomme]

What can I tell ya, Bob? These pictures trump the witnesses (Robinson and all others). You really think these are fakes? .....

Yes, Dave, the photos and x-rays are, indeed, fakes.

Now, in response to my question, how could an experienced mortician describe a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head if it was not there?

Would you like me to post the HSCA interview with Tom Robinson, just to refresh your memory?

*bump*

David

Thomas E. Robinson was interviewed by HSCA staff in the late 70's. He was, as we all know, one of the morticians who prepared JFK's body following the autopsy. As we also know, he described seeing a 3" hole in the back of JFK's head, caused by a bullet.

He was not in a rush, as JFK was dead, and he prepared a piece of rubber to fill in the 3" hole. He likely had the best look at this large gaping wound, in the rear of JFK's head, of anyone following the assassination.

With this knowledge in mind, please explain for everyone how Mr. Robinson could have made such a mistake, or if you believe he was lying.

[David Von Pein]

How many times do I need to repeat my belief on this point, Bob? Will an 11th time suffice? .....

At the end of the day and in the final analysis, the autopsy photographs and X-rays trump ALL witnesses.

BTW, the Zapruder Film most certainly trumps Tom Robinson and the other "BOH" witnesses too. Tell me, Bob, where is the big hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head in this Z-Film footage?

Edited October 5, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Redemer]

Excellent questions Dave. The more I research (or anyone honestly for that matter) the more I truly wonder about those who take DVP's position when you come across facts such as the FBI deliberately neglecting to document eyewitness testimony or altering it to fit (Dodd, Simmons, Mercer et al.) what many of us today, consider the 'official story' or the WC intentionally neglecting to call a myriad of witnesses to testify who's testomony would have been utterly damaging to the official line.

It is unfathomable the crazy and confusing (or lack thereof) amount of evidence to suggest (at the very least) an "uncertain" response on whether or not Oswald did it, whether or not he even ordered the rifle given the absolutely insane chain of custody (the mileage he allgedly walked which makes absolutely no sense, missing financial instrument numbers) and this is dealing with the rifle order alone. You choose a scenario in this complex plot and it has its oddities and complexities and yet, we're told so damned quickly "yeah he did it, beyond a reasonable doubt" and frankly, it is not...in fact it is far from reasonable to accuse Oswald when there is so much that is not clear. Evidence has been most likely destroyed, apprehended (FBI's quick acquisition of his School records in LA is just one example of many) and so on, so forth. My point is, it is terribly difficult to say "Oswald did it" when, with proper and very careful research of this vast case, one is at least left with a verdict of "not guilty" if anything.

I believe it also takes far greater research work to conclude that Oswald is guilty for just a few reasons stated above. Botched autopsy (illegal I might add) ballistics evidence was very poor, the WC's handling of witnesses was very poor (some of the WC's senior members are absolutely questionable beyond a reasonble doubt firstly), disappeared or planted evidence, etc. One would have to credibly and rationally make sense of what seems to be so many errors or inconsistencies. If Oswald was innocent until proven guilty, and evidence today seems to circumstantially exonerate him, then he's most likely not guilty and the killers are/were still at large but with that statement I digress into darker, more complex territory.

Thanks B.A. for your comments. I don't think Oswald was innocent but neither do I think he shot Kennedy. This is the greatest site for research and exploring the "darker/complex" side of the assassination. But I become frustrated when I see great threads drug down by the same tired old arguments that the WC foisted on the world 50 years ago.

Regards,

Dave

[David Redemer]

"Time to be real"? I learned some time ago that arguing with lone nutters is like arguing with young-Earth creationists. This is not meant as any ad hominem attack, as young-Earth creationists are Christian, God-fearing people. But I spent a good deal of time and effort arguing with them, as I wrote a couple of books on the creation/evolution debate, and young-Earth creationists simply can't be argued with. In their methodology, their standard repetitive talking points, their changing the subject ("Yeah, but what about this?"), young-Earth creationists and lone nutters are virtually indistinguishable. Simply stated, no amount of evidence (the telltale bullet hole in the clothes and the back, for example), or no new findings of independent researchers, or no new release of documents (not to mention dogged government withholding of documents), will change lone-nutter minds. Their view is set in stone. It is what it is. And if that comes across as disrespectful, well, that's why I quit arguing with young-Earth creationists, and why I won't argue with lone nutters: I don't want to seem disrespectful.

Hi Ron,

Thanks and I couldn't agree more with your analogy.

[David Von Pein]

I become frustrated when I see great threads drug down by the same tired old arguments that the WC foisted on the world 50 years ago.

I get frustrated when I see the same old tired conspiracy myths repeated time and time again as if they were the proven truth -- even though every one of them has been debunked years ago.

Edited October 5, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Ken Davies]

Why is DVP calling Clint Hill names?

[Robert Prudhomme]

How many times do I need to repeat my belief on this point, Bob? Will an 11th time suffice? .....

At the end of the day and in the final analysis, the autopsy photographs and X-rays trump ALL witnesses.

BTW, the Zapruder Film most certainly trumps Tom Robinson and the other "BOH" witnesses too. Tell me, Bob, where is the big hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head in this Z-Film footage?

Can you not or will you not answer the questions?

Edited October 5, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[David Von Pein]

Why is DVP calling Clint Hill names?

I didn't.

[Robert Prudhomme]

David Von Pein has NO answers.

[David Von Pein]

It's simple, Robert....

Either the autopsy pictures AND X-rays AND Zapruder Film (which all corroborate each other) are right. Or the BOH witnesses are right.

You think the BOH witnesses are right. And you think the photos are fakes (and you also really have no choice but to think the Z-Film is fake too--since that film does not show what you think it should show--a great-big hole in the back of JFK's cranium).

So, we've got this choice staring us in the face:

1.) Mass fakery of the photos AND the X-rays AND the Zapruder Film (with the photo/X-ray mass fakery somehow totally eluding the HSCA's Photo Panel, which was SEARCHING for signs of fakery in the photos).

Or:

2.) A bunch of mistaken witnesses.

Guess which option I'll go with?

I don't like being confronted with the above choice either. But that's the way it is. In fact, as I alluded to in a previous post, I think the "All The Witnesses Were Mistaken" option pretty much sucks. But given the choice between #1 and #2 above (esp. when factoring in Page 41 of HSCA Volume 7), I've got to go with Option 2. Because Option #1 is too silly and impossible to even begin to consider. So what reasonable person wouldn't go with #2?

Edited October 5, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

How do you explain the fact that all of these "mistaken" back-of-head wound witnesses, and there were a LOT of them (I shall post each and every one of their interviews if you'd like, David), placed a large gaping wound in pretty much the same spot; that being the right rear of JFK's head?

Was it:

a) mass delusion?

mass hypnosis?

c) mass hallucination?

or.......

d) a CONSPIRACY?

[David Von Pein]

I wonder why Robert P. can't read? He wants me to post the same answers over and over again.

Hint --- go to POST #31 in this forum thread.