Yet another Harvey & Lee factoid that doesn't withstand scrutiny?

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Cliff’s Irrefutable Solution

Lance can't stay away.  His bloviating mediocrity must find release.

In the above instance this self-described "lawyer" demonstrates his inability to grasp the significance of physical evidence found with the body in a murder case.  He ascribes the evidence to me personally, sans even a trace of intellectual honesty.

He has a lot of company, sad to say.

[Jim Hargrove]

To understand fuss about the HARVEY AND LEE website....

CLICK HERE!

Edited August 20, 2019 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

12 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Believe Harvey & Lee if it makes you happy.  Buy into Cliff’s Irrefutable Solution or Lifton's stuff if it makes you happy.  Tell yourselves Jim DiEugenio and John Newman are reliable mainstream historians if it makes you happy.  You aren’t moving the needle of history one iota.  A hundred years from now, every history book will still say Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK – because he did.

 

To understand Mr. Payette's "needle of history" .... See what Americans have thought about the Kennedy Assassination for the last half century....

Does Mr. Payette seriously think we have been fooled?

Edited August 20, 2019 by Jim Hargrove

[Robert Card]

4 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

A hundred years from now, every history book will still say Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK – because he did.

 

Lance,

LHO is not, and will never be guilty of killing JFK.  Only a trial can decide that issue, and he never had one.

Atty Gen Katzenbach said that the ''American people must be convinced to believe that LHO was the assassin.'   I guess you were convinced, or maybe bugliosied?

Edited August 20, 2019 by Robert Card
add info

[David Von Pein]

DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

David says my assertions have been explained numerous times in reasonable ways, but so far he hasn't explained or countered a single one. In my view, that's very telling.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, quite frankly, after doing this back-and-forth "CTer vs. LNer" thing at various forums for about 16 years now, it gets tiresome and repetitive to type in the same answers time and time again (year after year). Which is one of the main reasons I created my INDEX page at my "JFK Archives" website/blog, so that I can quickly access information about a particular assassination sub-topic being discussed (which is what I did in my first post above). It sure saves a lot of time (and typing).

But, quite obviously, Mr. Zartman didn't like any of my Lone Assassin arguments in those links at all. Oh well, such is life when talking to a conspiracy advocate.


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

David's interpretation of events is, in my opinion, not reasonable. He seems to be trying to convince us of the single bullet theory by using a simplistic and flawed logic based upon the fundamental refusal to believe that evidence could ever be suppressed, altered, or destroyed.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But CTers don't ever seem to want to admit that ANY non-SBT theory involves far more complications, implausibilities, and incredible coincidences than does the Single-Bullet Theory --- e.g., the perfect "lining up" of the bullet wounds on the two victims. CTers don't think it's a bit odd or incredible that THREE different bullets would have had to cause those three bullet wounds in Kennedy and Connally (and have the wounds line themselves up in a perfect "SBT"-like manner) if their conspiracy theory is correct about JFK's throat wound being a wound of entry.

And then there's the disappearing bullets that the conspiracy theorists say entered JFK's body but never exited---and then those bullets were never seen again.

I guess I'm supposed to think that those two incredible things I just mentioned are more believable and more reasonable than to just believe that one single bullet went through both victims simultaneously (which is, of course, precisely what the Zapruder Film shows, based upon the reactions of Kennedy and Connally seen in the film).





DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

He [DVP] is also completely ignoring the experienced (at least in terms of Parkland) medical professionals who were there at the time and examined the President's wounds in person.

The doctors at Parkland knew the difference between a bullet entrance wound and a bullet exit wound; they had seen and treated them many times. In my opinion, it is arrogant to try and imply that they didn't know the difference between an entrance wound and an exit wound and that your flawed and biased logic trumps their real world medical expertise. They saw an entrance wound on the front of JFK's neck. I'm not going to trust David's simplistic, immature, and what I view to be fundamentally flawed "logic" over the doctors who had experience in seeing that kind of wound in person and who all reported seeing a bullet entrance wound on the front of JFK's neck at Parkland.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Among the few doctors who actually saw the throat wound at Parkland Hospital before Dr. Malcolm Perry cut through it to start the tracheotomy, there were at least two physicians (Dr. Perry and Dr. Carrico) who said that the throat wound could have been "either" an entrance or an exit wound.

Do CTers think that Perry and Carrico are lying to the Warren Commission here?:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"

DR. PERRY -- "It could have been either."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MR. SPECTER -- "Was the wound in the neck consistent with being either an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?"

DR. CARRICO -- "Yes."

MR. SPECTER -- "Or, did it look to be more one than the other?"

DR. CARRICO -- "No; it could have been either, depending on the size of the missile, the velocity of the missile, the tissues that it struck."


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

The doctors at the Bethesda autopsy examined the back wound and felt the end of it. It was a shallow wound. It did not traverse the body. The single bullet theory ends there. LN's have not and can not provide one piece of evidence that CE 399 did traverse JFK's body except with what I feel is immature "logic" that willfully rejects any notions that any evidence could be suppressed - even if there are multiple instances where evidence WAS suppressed in this case.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The fact that there was NO WHOLE BULLET IN PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ENTIRE BODY is strong evidence (all by itself) that the bullet went clean through his body.

Plus, there's the fact that the autopsy doctors knew that JFK had one bullet hole of entrance in his upper back and one bullet hole of either entrance or exit in his throat, with very little damage in-between those two cutaneous wounds.

Two bullet holes. No bullets in the body. No major damage in the body that would have caused a bullet to stop dead in its tracks. Hence, we got this conclusion from the autopsy surgeons (which is the only reasonable conclusion the autopsy physicians could have logically reached):

"The missile...made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." -- Warren Report; Page 543


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

And I am sure that my last post about Admiral George Burkley was going to go nowhere, because LN's can't explain it. I understand why they wouldn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. If I were an LN, I would be ashamed to have to stand behind the Warren Report as well.

To recap for those just joining us, Burkley was the President's personal physician. Burkley was the only medical professional to see Kennedy at Parkland and Bethesda, and Burkley directed the President's autopsy. Burkley was not called to testify in front of the Warren Commission. And LN's think this failure of the WC to call Burkley to testify was entirely reasonable and that the WC did a thorough and fair investigation of JFK's murder.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There were several witnesses who could have been called by the Warren Commission to testify, but weren't. Dr. Burkley was one of them. Bill Newman was another. Gayle Newman another. Charles Brehm another. And James Chaney. And on and on.

But, in my opinion, none of the people I just mentioned are key "conspiracy" type witnesses at all. Not even Bill and Gayle Newman, who have been touted for decades by CTers as critical witnesses that prove a conspiracy in JFK's murder. But they actually don't prove any such thing.


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

Lee Harvey Oswald was seen on the second floor of the TSBD at 12:25 PM, the exact time when JFK's motorcade was scheduled to pass the building and 5 minutes before the assassination, and he was also seen there in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:32 PM, calm, collected, not sweaty, possibly even holding a soda, two minutes after the assassination and seven minutes after he was last seen.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're placing way too much faith in Carolyn Arnold....




DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

Is it reasonable to assume that Oswald ran up four flights of stairs, ran a maze of boxes from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the 6th floor, politely forwent shooting JFK or Connally in their faces as they moved toward him on Houston, shot the president and Connally with the only rifle ammunition remaining in his possession, while his vision was obscured by tree branches, ran another maze of boxes to stash the rifle, ran back to the stairwell, ran down four flights while not being observed by others who were also descending the stairwell at the time, and arrived back in the same place, not appearing suspiciously sweaty or even breathing hard, all in seven minutes? Is that reasonable?

Or is it truly unreasonable to even entertain the possibility of the explanation of why Oswald was seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:25 PM and seven minutes later at 12:32 PM was that he was in the lunchroom the whole time.

That kind of thought enrages Lone Nutters. Their proof that Oswald did all that running and shooting and running was the shooting itself. They know he did it because they know he did it. They know Oswald is guilty, so they know that anything suspicious that can't be explained in a non-conspiratorial way CAN be explained in a non-conspiratorial way, because they know that Oswald did it. It's this circular, fundamentally flawed logic Bugliosi relied upon.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, you're starting out with a false premise in the first place---Oswald being on the second floor at 12:25 PM (based on Carolyn Arnold's 1978 tale about having seen Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:25, which is almost certainly a false story).

I'm not going to type out all this material yet again, so it's "Link Time" again. Click if you so desire. If not, so be it:

http://jfk-archives/Reconstructing The Steps Of A Presidential Assassin

http://jfk-archives/Lee Harvey Oswald 11/22/63 Timeline (Part 1)

http://jfk-archives/The Lunchroom Encounter


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

Why did Oswald go back to his boarding house for his revolver? Wouldn't it be reasonable for him to have carried it into the TSBD with him when he went to work that morning, on the chance that he might have to shoot his way out afterward?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I touched on this issue almost exactly 9 years ago at The Education Forum:

--- Quote On: ---

"Oswald also knew that nobody at the TSBD had his Beckley address, so that fact would buy him some extra time to go get his revolver (and, no, I don't know why he would not have taken his Smith & Wesson revolver with him to work on 11/22; the reason there, IMO, is likely because he would have needed to take the revolver into work at the Depository Building TWICE [and transport the gun in Wes Frazier's car TWICE too], because of his unusual Thursday trip to Irving; perhaps he thought Frazier might see it and start asking questions, with Frazier possibly putting 2 & 2 together and then saying something to somebody about LHO having a gun; I really don't know).

I also think it's quite possible that Oswald just simply forgot his revolver when he left for work on Thursday, the 21st. His plan to murder JFK was, indeed, slipshod and half-assed in some ways. And it certainly reeks of being "last minute" (or nearly so, relatively-speaking).

But, hey, it's hard to argue with success, isn't it? He achieved his primary goal of killing the President, despite a slipshod getaway plan.

Too many people criticize the way Oswald did things on Nov. 21 and 22, 1963. But, as mentioned, it's hard to knock perfection. And Oswald achieved "perfection", from his point-of-view -- he assassinated the person he was attempting to assassinate." -- DVP; August 21, 2010

--- Quote Off ---

My 2010 comment about Oswald needing to take the revolver into the TSBD twice assumes, of course, that Oswald would not have wanted to leave his revolver somewhere inside the Book Depository overnight on November 21-22. But hiding the gun someplace overnight within the TSBD would certainly have been an option for Oswald had he brought the revolver to work with him on Thursday morning.


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

Why didn't Oswald go to the bus station, or take a taxi to an airport, or have any plan whatsoever after the assassination? According to the official story, Oswald gave up a taxi to a lady, and then boarded a bus that was heading back in the direction he came, and then took another taxi. I don't know if he boarded that first taxi, but that's TWO motor vehicles that he was able to get on, yet his very best plan for escaping after the crime of the century was to... go to the movies. Reasonable, right?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Oswald didn't have a car of his own. So how else would you expect this Lone Assassin to get from Point A to Point B on November 22nd? He'd have to either walk, take a bus, or a taxicab, or hitch a ride with someone. And LHO did three of those four things right after the assassination. All three of which seem logical to me from the POV of Oswald as the lone killer who was trying his best to get away from the crime scene in Dealey Plaza as quickly as possible.

And his plan most certainly did not include going to the movies. He ducked into the movie theater merely because the theater was handy and nearby, and at that point in time he was desperately trying to avoid capture after killing Officer Tippit. And what better place than a dark movie theater to hide out and get off the sunny streets? Makes perfect sense to me. Which means, of course, it won't make a lick of sense to a JFK conspiracy theorist. (What's new there?)


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

Is it reasonable to assume Oswald planned out the assassination, but gave absolutely no thought at all to escape, especially since he had over $180 at his disposal and a demonstrated ability to leave the country?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As I've said in the past, I don't think Oswald really thought he would have a chance to shoot JFK from the Depository on November 22. He took his rifle to work that day, yes. (There's no question about that fact, IMO.) And he wanted to shoot Kennedy that day, yes. But he knew that the odds would probably be against him as far as being able to secure total privacy at the exact moment when JFK passed by the building. And it's my opinion that if LHO had not had the total privacy that he ended up having on the sixth floor at exactly 12:30 PM on 11/22, he would certainly not have attempted the assassination at all. And if Bonnie Ray Williams had not vacated the sixth floor when he did at about 12:20 PM that day, Oswald would have abandoned his assassination plan.


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

Is it reasonable for Louie Steven Witt to have had his first and only political protest of his entire life right next to a stranger with a handheld radio precisely in front of the president being assassinated? A specific type of protest/heckling that no one else seemed to have ever engaged in before, invoking Neville Chamberlain, a man whose visual trademark was using a closed umbrella not an open umbrella.

Is it reasonable to be suspicious of Witt when he claims to have had his vision blocked by the umbrella, when we can all clearly see with our own eyes that the umbrella was over his head at the time of the shooting? What is the reasonable explanation for his lie? When is being suspicious going to be appropriate?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, certainly not when we're talking about Umbrella Man. Because being "suspicious" of Umbrella Man means that I'm going to have to start believing in some really crazy conspiracy s-h-i-t --- like poisoned darts coming from that umbrella in broad daylight and in front of hundreds of witnesses. Or: having the umbrella being used as some sort of signaling device to tell the shooters when it's okay to fire. And neither of those conspiracy theories comes close to measuring up on the "Reasonable" or "Believable" scales.


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

Oswald didn't want to be tied to the rifle, so he ordered it under an alias that ended up tying him to the rifle. More luck, in this case good luck for the LN's and bad luck for Oswald. Is it reasonable to wonder why Oswald didn't just go into any gun store in Texas and pay cash for a rifle if he truly didn't want to be associated with it? If he truly, truly didn't want to be associated with the rifle or take credit for JFK's assassination, why did he pose for a picture with it?

How many times had Oswald posed for photographs with his weapons before?

How many boarders had Ruth Paine ever taken in, before and after the assassination?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In my opinion, it was crazy for Lee Oswald to keep the rifle in his possession for seven months after he tried to kill somebody with it on April 10, 1963. But the fact remains: he did exactly that. He shot at General Edwin Walker in April, and he held on to that same Carcano rifle for seven more months and then killed John F. Kennedy with it in November.

I guess maybe my point here is: The mindset of an assassin is a hard thing to figure out.


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

I could go on and on, but the LN's hand wave it all away. Luck, coincidence, mistakes...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In a case the size and scope of the JFK/Tippit/Ruby case, there is bound to be quite a bit of all three of those things --- Luck, Coincidence, and Mistakes. And there are. No doubt about it.

But what I want to know is:

How much evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald are the conspiracy theorists willing to "hand wave" away?
 

Edited August 20, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Michael Clark]

@Denny Zartman Comgratulations Denny, your work has found a place on David Von Pein’s site. Please let us know what share of the royalties you get.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Michael Clark

[Denny Zartman]

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

@Denny Zartman Comgratulations Denny, your work has found a place on David Von Pein’s site. Please let us know what share of the royalties you get.

Really? He's taking my name and my words from this forum and using them as content for his website?

[Paul Baker]

22 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Yes, there is credible physical evidence. It's the police dictabelt. It was so credible that the current official position of the United States government is that JFK was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

The dictabelt 'evidence' has been thoroughly debunked. It came in at the eleventh hour of the HSCA proceedings, and was tenuous to say the least, and was the only justification for the 'probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy' outcome. (Note: 'probably'). Credible? Far from it. In any case, no other actual physical evidence or reliable witness testimony supports the notion of another shooter. 

[Paul Baker]

22 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Even Lyndon Johnson didn't believe it.

Why is that relevant? Even my mum thinks there was a conspiracy. I wonder what Donald Trump thinks.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Paul Baker

[Paul Baker]

22 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination isn't coherent because the Commission could not determine Oswald's motive, nor would or could it demonstrate that he was mentally unbalanced.

Is motive and mental state required to prove that Oswald did it? I would have thought that it was sufficient that it was his gun, the same one he snuck into the TSBD that morning, that he was seen shooting at the President from the sixth floor of the TSBD, that he ran off in the wake of the assassination (that was the full extent of his escape plan, if indeed he had one. I'm not sure he expected he would escape), that he murdered a policeman shortly afterwards, etc ... etc ... etc ... etc ... etc ... etc ...

... It's all in the report.

[Paul Baker]

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 

To understand Mr. Payette's "needle of history" .... See what Americans have thought about the Kennedy Assassination for the last half century....

 

Now let's see a graph of 'The proportion of Americans who know enough about the JFK assassination to form a considered opinion'.

The number of Americans who think there was a conspiracy is completely, utterly irrelevant.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

11 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But, quite obviously, Mr. Zartman didn't like any of my Lone Assassin arguments in those links at all. Oh well, such is life when talking to a conspiracy advocate.

I had the same problem a while back when arguing with the H&L people. They claimed that if I didn't produce evidence to refute them on this site (by retyping the same thing over and over) that it was somehow invalid and that the websites I linked to somehow didn't exist. A form of denial I guess.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Paul Baker said:

Now let's see a graph of 'The proportion of Americans who know enough about the JFK assassination to form a considered opinion'.

The number of Americans who think there was a conspiracy is completely, utterly irrelevant.

Good point Paul. We know that most Americans will not read Bugliosi's book or Posner's book or even browse through the Warren Report. Their opinions are based on what they have heard from conspiracy books and websites which dominate the "market." It is my observation that the majority of journalists, academia, professional investigators and the like believe LHO acted alone. Facebook and Twitter fortunately do not determine history.

[Guest]

23 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Bart,

Are we to assume Malcolm Blunt found this in the National Archives? 

Where was it? (Was it part of the JFK records collection? What file or folder was it in? )

Do you have any information as to why Malcolm Blunt associated this article with the JFK case?

(I know all about the Norton/Oswald controversy. I just want to know where Malcolm found this, especially if some governmental authorities had it.)

It was not in the archives it was sent by another researcher to him.

[Steve Thomas]

Does the ignore function still work?