David,

Now that Michael Keene has received an official warning, are you taking over the trolling duties from him?

IAN
.

"No Case To Answer - a retired English detective's essays and articles on the JFK assassination, 1993-2005" by Ian Griggs. Published by JFK-Lancer (2005).
Available from amazon.com.

David,

I'll just respond to 1 of your statements.

>>However, while compiling your own CT list, and rejecting the vast array of evidence that convincingly shows that a Mr. Oswald pulled that trigger, I think it might be wise to just ask yourself ..... IS IT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE THAT OSWALD COULD HAVE COMMITTED THIS CRIME ALONE?! <<


No, it is not remotely possible, or more importantly, humanly possible for LHO or ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING on earth you would
care to put in his shoes on the 6th floor that day.
Let's hear your SBT theory explanation. If you going to refer
me to the Warren Commission or Gerald Posner, there's no point
in responding.

Gene

>12.) Oswald was the only Depository employee to leave work
>prematurely on 11/22. Why do you suppose this was? The day
>was only half over.

Ummmm... not exactly true.

At 1:46p.m. Inspector J.H. Sawyer broadcast this message over the police radio:

"We have a man we would like to have you pass this up on to the CID to see if we can pick this man up. Charles Douglas Givens, G-I-V-E-N-S. He's a colored male, thirty-seven, six foot three, a hundred sixty-five pounds. He has an ID number in the Sheriff's Department, 37954. He's a porter that worked on this floor up here. He has a police record and he left."

Steve Thomas

David,

Please go to the "SBT challenge for MK only" thread and prove the SBT that Keene couldn't or wouldn't do.

RJS

These 'points' are all false and have already been thoroughly demonstrated as such by a great many people. Do some reading!

>When one piece of evidence that favors Lee Harvey Oswald's
>guilt is piled atop another, and another, and another....I
>just was curious as to how many pieces of individual evidence
>that show Oswald killed JFK in 1963 it takes to sway a person
>away from the notion of conspiracy? Or, if nothing else, sway
>that person away from the "Oswald is completely innocent"
>claims?
>
>From everything I can see, it's a veritable mountain of
>"Oswald Is Guilty" evidence (both circumstantial and
>physical). And not a single speck of it has been shown to be
>refutable with 100% absolute certainty.
>
>Does the average researcher just simply ignore all of the
>evidence that supports Oswald's lone guilt (and every bit of
>hard evidence supports it), or is the idea of "it must have
>been a conspiracy" so ingrained into subsequent generations of
>people since the event took place that they feel they have no
>choice BUT to go with the flow and believe the CTers?
>
>For I ask you HOW could ALL of the following evidence against
>Oswald have been either fabricated, planted, distorted, or in
>some manner faked?! There's just TOO MUCH stuff here on the
>"Oswald Did It" table to ignore! Granted, I'd agree that
>perhaps one or two of these things could have been
>manufactured to set up a patsy. But ALL of these items?! And
>complete silence be maintained by the many, many operatives
>who must certainly have been involved in the acts themselves
>and ensuing 40-year cover-up?!! Common sense (to me) dictates
>otherwise. And the "otherwise" leads anybody who isn't prone
>to cry "Conspiracy!" at every turn in the road to finally
>envision the fact that LHO was a lone nut who DID indeed pull
>off what the majority of people say couldn't happen in a
>million years.....He murdered John F. Kennedy without the
>assistance of others in late 1963 in Dallas, Texas.

David, I take it that since you have listed your irrifutable evidence, you are welcoming challenge? Let me travel to the darkside (to the defense table) for a moment and see what we come up with.

>The evidence against Oswald includes these subtle
>tidbits...........
>
>1.) Oswald definitely owned the rifle found on the 6th floor
>of the TSBD on 11/22.

I would not challenge this, but I do question why someone who is not suffering from retardation would choose such a rifle at this price through mail order when they could pick up a Mauser lets say over the counter in Texas without paperwork for a similar price.

>2.) He also definitely owned the handgun that was shown to
>have been used in the Tippit killing.

I will not challenge him owning the .38 he was picked up with but be careful on stating it was shown to be linked to the Tippit Killing. Take another look at the ballistics.

>3.) Marina admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these
>weapons on his person.

Marina did not know a rifle from a shotgun and the photos she admitted taking were from a different angle in the backyard photos.

>4.) Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the
>Depository on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.

Not a problem here.

>5.) Oswald's claim of "curtain rods" within the package cannot
>be supported at all. His room needed no curtains, nor rods,
>and NO such rods were ever found in the TSBD or at 1026 N.
>Beckley. Nor was LHO seen carrying any type of package (rods
>or otherwise) out of the building after leaving work
> unannounced to anyone) after the assassination. It can
>therefore be reasonably assumed that no rods ever existed.

So it must have been the Carcano he was carrying, eh. And who exactly saw Oswald leave the building empty handed?

>6.) Oswald was seen working on the sixth floor that morning.
>Co-workers sent the elevator back up to Oswald on the 6th
>floor shortly before the assassination.

Careful with the term "shortly before the assassination. Vague and challenging as I will address below.

>7.) Oswald's palmprint found on Carcano rifle. .... But, of
>course, this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in
>linking LHO to the weapon. For even without it, it's glaringly
>obvious that the weapon was Oswald's. It was proved the alias,
>Alek/Alex Hidell, was actually Oswald himself; and the order
>form from Klein's to purchase the mail-order rifle was
>positively proven to have been in Oswald's handwriting, and
>sent to a Dallas P.O. Box that was used by him. Obviously,
>just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
>trigger. But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic
>dictate (with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it
>was the owner of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired
>the shots on 11/22. The alternative is to believe that Oswald,
>for some unknown reason, handed over his Carcano to someone
>else for the purpose of using it. Why would he knowingly have
>done this idiotic act, knowing full well what might be the
>implications of doing so?!

In regards to the palmprint, it was found on the underside of the barrel that was covered by the wood forend that is only exposed after the forend/stock group is removed. I will not refute that Oswald ordered the rifle or even possessed it at one time so having his partial palm print in this location simply shows that he had taken the rifle down at one time, and obviously not on the sixth floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63. Why were no other identifiable prints found on the weapon. The excuse given was the wood would not hold prints but we are led to accept that the gunsteele would. Placed immediately into a controlled environment, these prints would last less than 24 hours with the methods they used for lifting in 1963. This rifle was kept on the 6th floor of the TSBD for over an hour and then paraded through the halls and at press conference at DPD before the print was lifted. You state it would be idiotic for him to loan the rifle out, but accept it normal that he would leave it behind on the sixth floor after the shooting?

>8.) Not ONE SPECK of any bullets/bullet fragments/bullet
>shells OTHER THAN OSWALD'S 6.5 MM MANNLICHER-CARCANO were
>discovered anywhere in Dealey Plaza, the limousine, the TSBD,
>Parkland Hospital, or in the victims. This one, to me, is
>simply impossible for conspiracy advocates to overcome, IF
>there had been (as some claim) up to 3 firing teams and 6
>shots fired in DP on Nov. 22nd. HOW could every single scrap
>of ballistics evidence be completely eradicated from the 2 (or
>more) non-Oswald weapons almost immediately after the event?!
>Couldn't have been accomplished by even Kreskin!! .... Plus:
>This massive task of removing all non-Oswald wounds & bullets
>would most certainly have had to include the many doctors who
>worked on BOTH the President and Gov. Connally at Parkland.
>PLUS it would include the multitude of people who observed the
>body at Bethesda (unless you subscribe to the
>totally-implausible accounts of body-altering and all that
>business aboard AF1, or elsewhere before the body got to
>Washington. Again, even Kreskin would be amazed by such
>incredible sleight-of-hand). .... ALL ballistic evidence was
>traced back to being consistent with the weapon owned by Lee
>H. Oswald. The probability of this occurring IF there were
>multiple guns firing at the motorcade is probably so low to be
>considered virtually impossible.

There is an issue called crime scene preservation in regards to the plaza and the limo. Neither was followed. The plaza was immediately opened up after the assassination and there is no record of any ballistic material located, not even the governments errant round that struck the curb and wounded Tague. There are photos of the limo being washed out with a sponge and bucket at Parkland. The Parkland Doctors do not do any procedure that would allow discovery of such material. There are reports from Witnesses at Bethesda of a bullet being located and also FBI Agent O'neil taking possession of a missle from the body of the president. Where is either of those. I move to strike this entire issue of ballistic evidence.

>9.) Over 90% of the Dealey witnesses said shots came from
>behind the President, in the direction of the School Book
>Depository building. NINETY per cent plus! Now, HOW could
>THAT MANY people all be mistaken. Are we to actually believe
>the much-fewer number of 9%-10% of ear/eyewitnesses that
>claimed to hear shots from the front? That is illogical on
>its face. If 9 out of 10 people say it happened a certain
>way....WHY would the claims of the minority 10% be taken as
>gospel? Makes no sense! .... In addition, over 95% of this
>90%+ claim there were EXACTLY three shots. No more, no less.
>And three spent shells (co-incidentally?) were found in the
>"sniper's nest" on the sixth floor. Now, do we ignore the
>overwhelming 95% of earwitnesses on this crucial point? Or do
>we stretch the imagination and for some reason trust the lowly
>number of 5% of the people who claim 4 or more shots?

Please cite your source on this. Stewart Galanor in his book Cover-Up cites 216 witnesses where of the 216, 212 are documented in the WC hearings and evidence while another four are from Mark Lane's interviews. Of those 216, they break down the shot origin as follows: TSBD=47, Knoll=53, TSBD&Knoll=6, Elsewhere=5, Not asked=70, Could not determine location=35. Now how are you getting 90+%?

>10.) Oswald only ONCE made a weeknight visit to Irving. That
>just happened to be on Thursday, November 21, 1963. His rifle
>is found missing the following day.

Careful here. How long had he worked at the TSBD before the assassination? Does that lighten the blow here. Just because the rifle was found missing the following day, doesn't mean it was there on the 21st even the previous week. Can you give me a timeline on when it was last seen in the Payne garage?

>11.) Oswald left behind, presumably for wife Marina, his
>wedding ring and just about every dime he had to his name
> $100+), on the morning of 11/22. Logic dictates that he felt
>he may not return.

And this is the same man who walked away from the shooting and would have to survive on nothing after the shooting. If you were going to take on this task, wouldn't you have some finances with you for a getaway for a period? Now what you are reporting sounds stranger than ever.

>12.) Oswald was the only Depository employee to leave work
>prematurely on 11/22. Why do you suppose this was? The day
>was only half over.

Actually there were seven not accounted for and four were found to be off work that day. Still leaves us three, but Oswald became the immediate suspect anyway.

>13.) Oswald, in flight, shoots & kills DPD Office J.D. Tippit
> multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald, with very few
>variations of description). Once more, are we to accept the
>minority of people who state: "It was a larger man" or "There
>were two people", rather than believe the majority of people
>who claim, uncategorically, that OSWALD SHOT TIPPIT?! Why
>does the minority get such a benefit of the doubt in so many
>aspects of this case....while the huge, eye-popping majority
> which favor the Oswald-Did-It stance) is subject to such
>scrutiny. By sheer numbers, wouldn't the lowly 5% or 10% on
>this & that be scrutinized with a far more wary eye? I
>certainly would think so.

Dissenting witnesses leave reasonable doubt and then we add the rediculous line-up he was in, which wouldn't get into a court of law.

>14.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of
>another crime just minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza? Answer:
>He would have no such reason to do so. If the Tippit shooting
>isn't one of the biggest reasons to shout from the rooftops
>"Oswald did it!!", then I don't know what would be.

Still haven't proven by any stretch, let alone a reasonable doubt that he killed Tippet.

>15.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon,
>attempts to murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, in
>April of '63, barely missing out on killing his third victim
>during the year 1963. Marina Oswald herself testifies that
>"Lee told me...he just shot Walker." The Walker bullet is
>proven to have come from the Oswald rifle (consistent with
>being fired from a 6.5 MM Carcano). ..... Another KEY fact is
>the Walker attempt, as I think any reasonable person looking
>at the case objectively would concur. For, it displays in
>Oswald a definite tendency toward violent action on his part
>during the months leading up to November 22nd. To me, it's
>not a wild stretch of one's imagination to think that if this
>guy is willing to bump off Walker, then he might just set his
>sights a little higher when the perfect opportunity presents
>itself 7 months later. The fact that Oswald was a kind of
>loner, oddball, and rejected authority at just about every
>turn in life cannot be underestimated when talking of motive.
>He probably hated America (in general terms) for not being
>able to just come and go as he pleased to Russia and Cuba
>whenever it pleased his self-serving self in the months just
>prior to November 22. As a former Marine acquaintance of
>Oswald's once said: "He always thought he was a little better
>than everyone else." This statement speaks volumes, in my
>opinion, when gazing into Oswald's background and possible
>motive in the JFK murder.

Take another look at the Walker shooting and see how it compares on degree of difficulty with the Kennedy Assassination. It still amazes me that people are accepting this.

>16.) It was PROVEN, no matter what anybody WANTS to believe to
>the contrary, that three shots COULD be fired in the allotted
>timeframe from the Oswald rifle. The probability that Oswald
>had, in fact, 8.1 to 8.2 seconds to accomplish the shooting
>further increases the likelihood that Lee could have performed
>the deed. IF you believe the first (missed) shot hit a tree
>branch and ricocheted to strike James Tague by the underpass
>at approx. Frame 160 of the Zapruder film (as I, of course,
>do), then the total time between shots #1 and #3 increases to
>more than eight seconds, much more than the minimum required
>of 2.3 seconds (times two) to get off the three shots.

Who couldn't fire three shots in 5.4 seconds with a bolt action rifle. The problem is, doing so with accuracy. Hathcock and his crew couldn't, nor could anyone else with the same degrees of difficulty of moving target, elevation, etc.. When researchers show that this could not be done, the LNers suddenly come up with another 3 seconds to see if it will fly.

>17.) Try as the CTers might, the Single Bullet Theory has
>still not been proven to be an impossibility. The Zapruder
>film shows that the SBT is more-than-likely the correct
>scenario of events that day. Kennedy & Connally are reacting
>to their initial wounds at virtually an identical time, at
>Z-Frame 224. Unfortunately, that damn Stemmons sign is
>blocking our view during what might be a critical point on the
>film. It can therefore NEVER be determined by anybody whether
>JFK was reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame earlier
>than Z224. But, based on the available evidence, the SBT
> judging by the reactions of the two victims in the limo) most
>certainly cannot be said to be false.

But has it been proven to work? Has it ever been duplicated? The proof lies in the prosecution, and it is a joke.

>18.) While viewing the Zapruder film, I cannot see how anybody
>can say that the BACK of President Kennedy's head is blown
>away as a result of the head shot. It seems quite obvious
>while watching and freezing the film at various post-Z313
>frames, that the entire rear portion of JFK's head remains
>intact throughout the shooting. The RIGHT-FRONT portion of his
>head is blown apart. Isn't it obvious that it's the FRONTAL
>portion of his skull that is being displaced by the
>swiftly-moving projectile? And if so, doesn't this
>demonstrate the actions of an object that's just been struck
>from BEHIND, not from the front? For, if shot from the grassy
>knoll (front right), WHY isn't there evidence on the Z-Film of
>massive head damage on the President's LEFT-REAR side of the
>head? Bullets explode out the EXIT wounds, don't they?

Take another look at the breakdown GIFs of Zapruder Film and other films on the forum and the back of the head blowout is visible. I do agree that the knoll shot would result in damage to the left rear, but who says the shot from the front came from the knoll? Others do, I don't and I have explained my shot origin. In #9, I refer to Stewart Galanor's collection of witness material on shot origin. What needs to be considered is that many of the witnesses that are put into the Knoll catagory actually say the area of the knoll and overpass. Before you accept a shot from the rear, take a look at the test skulls of CE861 and CE862. These are the best of six that were shot. Note the frontal lobe damage that is inconsistent with Kennedy. Also take a look at Dr. Latimer's skull that he felt was consistent.

>19.) It was also proven that Oswald could have indeed trekked,
>in 90 seconds, the distance across the sixth floor and
>descended the 4 stories in time to have been seen on the
>building's second floor. Oswald was a thin, lean-enough sort
>of 24-year-old lad (who had by November 22nd become used to
>lifting heavy objects around all day long on a two-wheeled
>cart at his job at the Depository). To me, it doesn't seem
>like a fairy tale to say that he would have been able to hide
>the weapon quickly and then negotiate the fours flights of
>stairs within a 90-second timeframe and NOT be out of breath,
>so he could encounter Officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly on
>the second floor in a relatively composed and unrattled state
>at 12:31-12:32 PM (CST) on November 22nd. I wonder, too,
>considering what had just happened outside on Elm Street, just
>exactly how much detailed attention Mr. Baker or Mr. Truly
>might have been paying to Lee Oswald's "breathing" during that
>very brief meeting in the 2nd-floor lunchroom. I'd be willing
>to bet neither paid an ounce of attention to a detail like
>that at that exact stressful moment. Lee was just another
>employee in the lunchroom for all those two knew at 12:32 PM.

And how did Oswald make it down to the 2nd floor lunchroom. The elevators were on the fifth floor when Baker got to the elevator bank. There were SF employees on the stairs that did not see Oswald or anyone else descend them.

>I've no doubt that the many conspiracy theorists, who claim
>that Oswald had nothing whatsoever to do with the events of
>11/22, could provide a lengthy list of their own, favoring (in
>their view) theories such as: "Oswald Was Framed", "Oswald Was
>A Patsy", or "Oswald Was A Figment Of Everyone's Imagination
>And Was Never Even In Dallas During His Lifetime". I'm sure
>the CTers would have no trouble denouncing my views as "More
>Warren Commission-related B.S.!".
>
>However, while compiling your own CT list, and rejecting the
>vast array of evidence that convincingly shows that a Mr.
>Oswald pulled that trigger, I think it might be wise to just
>ask yourself ..... IS IT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE THAT OSWALD
>COULD HAVE COMMITTED THIS CRIME ALONE?! (And every bit of
>evidence that has been unearthed to this point has shown that
>it WAS indeed possible for Lee Oswald to have performed this
>task.)
>
>And if the answer to the above question is even a hesitant
>"Yes", doesn't that, by definition (at least partly in a
>CTer's mind) validate the belief of Oswald's lone
>participation in the JFK assassination?
>
>For .... aren't hard facts and evidence always more believable
>than wild speculation and conjecture? And aren't many/(most)
>conspiracy theories created out of just that -- speculation?
>
I hope you understand that if you are going to prosecute this man, you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Haven't even come close here. And I haven't mention the GSR tests on his cheek that were negative. Kind of tough to fire a rifle with a cheek weld and not get a positive test. That along says enough.

Al

In reponse to Mr. Von Pein's list, I would like to take each item, one and a time, and state the other side to his "evidence". He has certainly picked up the gauntlet from Mr. Keene in misleading, half truths and totally untruthful statements. He assumes and tries to present his assumptions as "evidence". It's almost like he and Keene were one in the same.


1.) Oswald definitely owned the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 11/22.

Gil: Not true. The serial number as a source for tracing ownership of the rifle was nullified by the fact that TEN Italian companies were making that rifle during WW II and that more than one manufacturer used the same serial number. In fact, at least one still exists in the US today with the EXACT same serial number (Owned by Dr. John Lattimer) . Hoover knew this and notified the WC about it. In addition, Oswald's prints were never found on the rifle and no SOLID evidence exists to connect the rifle allegedly found on the sixth floor with LHO.


2.) He also definitely owned the handgun that was shown to have been used in the Tippit killing.

Gil: Another falsehood. The handgun in Oswald's possession when he was arrested could not be ballistically matched (to the exclusion of all others) to the bullets removed from Tippit's body. The gun barrel had been modified and thus did not produce the same ballistic markings on all bullets travelling through it.


3.) Marina admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these weapons on his person.

Gil: Marina also said that Oswald tried to shoot Nixon at a time when Nixon was nowhere near Dallas. Her credilbility was questionable at best. Does she still believe that Oswald killed Kennedy ?


4.) Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Depository on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.

Gil: Another falsehood. Frazier never said that he saw Oswald take the package into the building. He said that Oswald took the package and headed towards the building. No one ever said that they saw Oswald enter the building with a package. And both Frazier and his sister, Linnie Mae Randal, testified that the package was no longer than 28 inches, seven inches shorter than the broken-down Carcano rifle would have been. At 35 inches, the broken-down Carcano was too long to be carried under Oswald's armpit (as demonstrated by the graphic made by Don Robideau), cupped in his hand. In support of Frazier's statement that this is the way Oswald carried the package, Jack Dougherty, the only witness to see Oswald actually enter the building, never saw any package.


5.) Oswald's claim of "curtain rods" within the package cannot be supported at all. His room needed no curtains, nor rods, and NO such rods were ever found in the TSBD or at 1026 N. Beckley. Nor was LHO seen carrying any type of package (rods or otherwise) out of the building after leaving work (unannounced to anyone) after the assassination. It can therefore be reasonably assumed that no rods ever existed.

Gil: You assume too much. On page 96 of Groden's "The Killing of a President" is the photograph of Oswald's landlady putting up curtains in his room. In addition, the FBI was instructed by the WC in March 1964 to return to the TSBD and "determine that no curtain rods were found", not IF any curtain rods had been found there.


6.) Oswald was seen working on the sixth floor that morning. Co-workers sent the elevator back up to Oswald on the 6th floor shortly before the assassination.

Gil: Another misleading statement. Mr. Von Pein would like you to believe that Oswald was on the sixth floor waiting for Kennedy to come by. But Oswald was last seen on the sixth floor at 11:55 am, some 35 minutes before the assassination ( not "shortly before the assassination" as Mr. Von Pein says). What Mr. Von Pein does not say is that Oswald was seen by Eddie Piper at noontime on the first floor (Piper's affidavit of 11/22/63 and his testimony before the WC on 4/8/64) and that Oswald was later seen in the second floor lunchroom at 12:15 pm having his lunch. Apparently Oswald's premeditation and propensity for murder would not allow him to kill the President on an empty stomach, because they included his having lunch 10 minutes before the President was scheduled to ride by (JFK was 5 minutes late at 12:30). In addition, Mr. Von Pein does not say that another depository worker, Bonnie Ray Williams, WAS admittedly on the sixth floor from Noon to about 12:20 (eating his chicken lunch) and never saw Oswald ( 3H pg. 169-170). Since Von Pein's reasoning would convict Oswald for allegedly just "being there", wouldn't it say also that Williams was the President's killer ? After all, wasn't he there long after Oswald ?


7.) Oswald's palmprint found on Carcano rifle. .... But, of course, this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in linking LHO to the weapon. For even without it, it's glaringly obvious that the weapon was Oswald's. It was proved the alias, Alek/Alex Hidell, was actually Oswald himself; and the order form from Klein's to purchase the mail-order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's handwriting, and sent to a Dallas P.O. Box that was used by him. Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the trigger. But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate (with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on 11/22. The alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason, handed over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it. Why would he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well what might be the implications of doing so?!

Gil: Another misleading statement. Did Oswald fire the rifle with his palm ? There is no record who received that rifle from the Dallas Post Office because the Post Office destroyed the record a long time ago. If I remember correctly, that rifle was ordered COD and companies don't ship COD to Post Office boxes. That weapon had to be paid for before it was released, and the name of whoever paid for it was destroyed by the Post Office. If Oswald paid for it, there would have been no need to destroy the evidence. Apparently, Mr. Von Pein has abandoned the possibility that Oswald could have sold this rifle to someone else prior to the assassination.


8.) Not ONE SPECK of any bullets/bullet fragments/bullet shells OTHER THAN OSWALD'S 6.5 MM MANNLICHER-CARCANO were discovered anywhere in Dealey Plaza, the limousine, the TSBD, Parkland Hospital, or in the victims. This one, to me, is simply impossible for conspiracy advocates to overcome, IF there had been (as some claim) up to 3 firing teams and 6 shots fired in DP on Nov. 22nd. HOW could every single scrap of ballistics evidence be completely eradicated from the 2 (or more) non-Oswald weapons almost immediately after the event?! Couldn't have been accomplished by even Kreskin!! .... Plus: This massive task of removing all non-Oswald wounds & bullets would most certainly have had to include the many doctors who worked on BOTH the President and Gov. Connally at Parkland. PLUS it would include the multitude of people who observed the body at Bethesda (unless you subscribe to the totally-implausible accounts of body-altering and all that business aboard AF1, or elsewhere before the body got to Washington. Again, even Kreskin would be amazed by such incredible sleight-of-hand). .... ALL ballistic evidence was traced back to being consistent with the weapon owned by Lee H. Oswald. The probability of this occurring IF there were multiple guns firing at the motorcade is probably so low to be considered virtually impossible.

Gil: Nothing could be further from the truth than this statement. The bullet fragments removed from Gov. Connally's wrist and JFK's skull were not made from Westren Cartridge ammunition. They did not match CE 399, which was a Western bullet. And they did not match each other. The FBI spectrographic test and the AEC Neutron Activation Analysis proved this. Hoover reported this fact to the WC. This is the reason why the FBI has maintained to this day that JFK and Connally were hit by separate shots. The bullet fragments from each victim did not match each other. More importantly, they did not match Western Cartridge ammunition (CE 399), the only ammunition alleged to have beeen used by Oswald and therefore, could not have been fired from his rifle.
As far as the bullet found at Parkland, CE 399 was not that bullet. Tomlinson was harrassed into identifying it and the Secret Service refused to identify it as the bullet they turned over to the FBI. For more on this, see my posting entitled, "CE 399: The Not-So-Magic-Bullet".


9.) Over 90% of the Dealey witnesses said shots came from behind the President, in the direction of the School Book Depository building. NINETY per cent plus! Now, HOW could THAT MANY people all be mistaken. Are we to actually believe the much-fewer number of 9%-10% of ear/eyewitnesses that claimed to hear shots from the front? That is illogical on its face. If 9 out of 10 people say it happened a certain way....WHY would the claims of the minority 10% be taken as gospel? Makes no sense! .... In addition, over 95% of this 90%+ claim there were EXACTLY three shots. No more, no less. And three spent shells (co-incidentally?) were found in the "sniper's nest" on the sixth floor. Now, do we ignore the overwhelming 95% of earwitnesses on this crucial point? Or do we stretch the imagination and for some reason trust the lowly number of 5% of the people who claim 4 or more shots?

Gil: Another misleading statement. Not only are you a liar, you have a problem with math. In his article "Fifty-One Witnesses", Harold Feldman provided an impressive analysis of eyewitness tesitmony and demonstrated that fifty-one of the witnesses represented in the Hearings and Exhibits thought that the shots had come from the grassy knoll. If one or two had said that, it would be questionable, but when fifty-one people say the same thing, ya gotta believe ! In addition, Richard C. Dodd was on the overpass and reported seeing a puff of smoke from the grassy knoll. He was never called to testify before the Warren Commission.
I would like also to add that the WC questioned a total of 126 witnesses in regard to the source of the shots. Of the 126, 38 gave no opinion, 32 said the TSBD and 51 said the grassy knoll. Of the 20 sheriff's deputies, 16 placed the shots at the triple underpass, 3 gave no opinion and one implied the TSBD. Of the Dallas policemen interviewed, 4 said the TSBD, 4 said the grassy knoll and 4 had no opinion.
Now where the hell do you find 90-95 % for the TSBD in those numbers ?


10.) Oswald only ONCE made a weeknight visit to Irving. That just happened to be on Thursday, November 21, 1963. His rifle is found missing the following day.

11.) Oswald left behind, presumably for wife Marina, his wedding ring and just about every dime he had to his name ($100+), on the morning of 11/22. Logic dictates that he felt he may not return.

Gil: (In response to both # 10 and # 11) But acording to Ruth Paine, the Oswald's had had an argument on the phone on the day before. Of course Mr. Von Pein would have us think that there was something strange about a man showing up without warning to make sure his wife was there. He fails to tell us why (since he believes that Oswald was violent and tried to kill General Walker) that unlike his "modus operandi" in the Walker shooting, Oswald left no note for his wife the night before the assassination. Nor did he remind her of the instructions he had given her back in April.
In addition, November 21st was NOT the first time that Oswald had gone to Irving on a weekday. An FBI report on Oswald's income indicated that Oswald had been in Irving on Thursday, October 31 (CE 1165, p.6) to cash a check, the check having been deposited the following day.
In light of the above, his showing up on Thursday was not suspicious and his leaving his wedding ring and money indicated that this time he may have felt that the couple had reached irreconcilable differences and that his marriage may well have been over.


12.) Oswald was the only Depository employee to leave work prematurely on 11/22. Why do you suppose this was? The day was only half over.

Gil: Not true. Charles Givens was also missing from the TSBD. According to a verbatim transcript of the Dallas Police radio log (CE 1974, pg. 83), Givens' name was broadcast by Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer to his dispatcher a few seconds after 1:46 pm ( at that point, Givens had been missing for over an hour). On April 8, 1964 Sawyer testified to the WC to this fact. ( 6H pgs. 321-322)


13.) Oswald, in flight, shoots & kills DPD Office J.D. Tippit (multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald, with very few variations of description). Once more, are we to accept the minority of people who state: "It was a larger man" or "There were two people", rather than believe the majority of people who claim, uncategorically, that OSWALD SHOT TIPPIT?! Why does the minority get such a benefit of the doubt in so many aspects of this case....while the huge, eye-popping majority (which favor the Oswald-Did-It stance) is subject to such scrutiny. By sheer numbers, wouldn't the lowly 5% or 10% on this & that be scrutinized with a far more wary eye? I certainly would think so.

14.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another crime just minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza? Answer: He would have no such reason to do so. If the Tippit shooting isn't one of the biggest reasons to shout from the rooftops "Oswald did it!!", then I don't know what would be.

Gil: (replies to # 13 & # 14) An assumption, at best. Mr. Von Pein is assuming that Oswald killed Tippit. This is despite the fact that the shells found that the scene were from an automatic pistol and Oswald had a revolver. The automatic shells were marked by Dallas Officer JM Poe. But because they did not match Oswald's handgun, they disappeared from evidence. As far as the witnesses who did not support the "Oswald did it" scenario--they weren't even scrutinized--wary eye or not. In fact, the witnesses that reported that the gunman was someone other than Oswald (Acquila Clemons and Mr. and Mrs. Wright in particular) were never called before the Warren Commission. In addition, Ms. Clemons was told to keep her "mouth shut" about what she had seen.

15.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, in April of '63, barely missing out on killing his third victim during the year 1963. Marina Oswald herself testifies that "Lee told me...he just shot Walker." The Walker bullet is proven to have come from the Oswald rifle (consistent with being fired from a 6.5 MM Carcano). ..... Another KEY fact is the Walker attempt, as I think any reasonable person looking at the case objectively would concur. For, it displays in Oswald a definite tendency toward violent action on his part during the months leading up to November 22nd. To me, it's not a wild stretch of one's imagination to think that if this guy is willing to bump off Walker, then he might just set his sights a little higher when the perfect opportunity presents itself 7 months later. The fact that Oswald was a kind of loner, oddball, and rejected authority at just about every turn in life cannot be underestimated when talking of motive. He probably hated America (in general terms) for not being able to just come and go as he pleased to Russia and Cuba whenever it pleased his self-serving self in the months just prior to November 22. As a former Marine acquaintance of Oswald's once said: "He always thought he was a little better than everyone else." This statement speaks volumes, in my opinion, when gazing into Oswald's background and possible motive in the JFK murder.

Gil: Let's look at this statement a piece at a time and tell me this doesn't sound like Michael Keene !

Von Pein: Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, in April of '63, barely missing out on killing his third victim during the year 1963.
Gil: So you're saying that he killed two people BEFORE the shot at Walker ? Who were they ?

Von Pein: The Walker bullet is proven to have come from the Oswald rifle (consistent with being fired from a 6.5 MM Carcano).
Gil: Flat-out lie. The bullet removed from Walker's wall was identified as a 30-06. In addition, you're telling us that Oswald fires his rifle in Dealey Plaza with world-class speed and precision but can't hit Walker standing still just yards away..

Von Pein: To me, it's not a wild stretch of one's imagination to think that if this guy is willing to bump off Walker, then he might just set his sights a little higher when the perfect opportunity presents itself 7 months later..
Gil: Of course if you knew something of the politics of the day and the history of JFK's administration, you'd know that Kennedy was reaching out to the Soviets and the Cubans, something that Oswald had endorsed during his radio appearance in New Orleans. Walker was anti-JFK and everything JFK stood for. To assume that Oswald would shoot at both JFK AND Walker shows how shallow your knowledge of the facts surrounding this case really is. There was no political motive for Oswald to shoot at both, especially JFK.


16.) It was PROVEN, no matter what anybody WANTS to believe to the contrary, that three shots COULD be fired in the allotted timeframe from the Oswald rifle. The probability that Oswald had, in fact, 8.1 to 8.2 seconds to accomplish the shooting further increases the likelihood that Lee could have performed the deed. IF you believe the first (missed) shot hit a tree branch and ricocheted to strike James Tague by the underpass at approx. Frame 160 of the Zapruder film (as I, of course, do), then the total time between shots #1 and #3 increases to more than eight seconds, much more than the minimum required of 2.3 seconds (times two) to get off the three shots.

Gil : LOL---Posnerism at its best. If the timeframe doesn't match the conclusion, change the timeframe. The Lone Nutters cannot get three shots into 5.6 seconds, so now they change it to 8.2 seconds. Brilliant. But there's a problem, because Tague said that he wasn't hit by the first shot. Rosemary Willis was reacting to her father calling her back at Z-160, not the gunshots. And then there's the bullet that separates from its copper jacket in contrast to the next one that goes through two men, causing seven wounds and emerging pristine without any traces of blood, bone, or clothing particles on it.


17.) Try as the CTers might, the Single Bullet Theory has still not been proven to be an impossibility. The Zapruder film shows that the SBT is more-than-likely the correct scenario of events that day. Kennedy & Connally are reacting to their initial wounds at virtually an identical time, at Z-Frame 224. Unfortunately, that damn Stemmons sign is blocking our view during what might be a critical point on the film. It can therefore NEVER be determined by anybody whether JFK was reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame earlier than Z224. But, based on the available evidence, the SBT (judging by the reactions of the two victims in the limo) most certainly cannot be said to be false.

Gil: I beg to differ. The entrance angle of the back wounds to JFK and Connally were not the same. Perhaps no one ever told you that bullets travel in straight lines unless their paths are deterred by solid objects. That bullet found no such object in JFK's back. In addition, JFK's back wound at the third thoracic vertebra was well below the "exit" wound in his throat, an impossible feat if the shot had originated from behind and above. Kennedy was sitting upright when he reacts to the shot, not slumped way over forward. The single bullet theory is just that--a theory. And although you accept it as fact based on your opinion that it has never been disproven, I prefer to disbelieve it because it has never been proven.


18.) While viewing the Zapruder film, I cannot see how anybody can say that the BACK of President Kennedy's head is blown away as a result of the head shot. It seems quite obvious while watching and freezing the film at various post-Z313 frames, that the entire rear portion of JFK's head remains intact throughout the shooting. The RIGHT-FRONT portion of his head is blown apart. Isn't it obvious that it's the FRONTAL portion of his skull that is being displaced by the swiftly-moving projectile? And if so, doesn't this demonstrate the actions of an object that's just been struck from BEHIND, not from the front? For, if shot from the grassy knoll (front right), WHY isn't there evidence on the Z-Film of massive head damage on the President's LEFT-REAR side of the head? Bullets explode out the EXIT wounds, don't they?

Gil: For someone with all the answers you sure ask a lot of questions. Have you ever heard of a "double-head shot "? Of course not, because that would prove two shooters, wouldn't it ? I have viewed many a head-shot video and I am convinced that the explosion you see out the right front IS from a shot from the rear, however, the same videos indicate that the head moves in the direction of the bullet, not towards the shooter. The violent backward head snap is definitely caused from a frontal shot, I believe tangentally fired from the storm drain, which caused the President's open skull to whip brain matter backwards into the motorcycles to his left and rear.
You have asked why the back of the skull is not shown as open in the Zapruder film. Let us not forget that the film was purchased by CD Jackson of Time-Life magazine, who was connected with military intelligence during WW II and the CIA (then OSS). Now I have a question for you. If the front of the President's head was "blown apart" as you say, why does it not show up on the autopsy photographs?

19.) It was also proven that Oswald could have indeed trekked, in 90 seconds, the distance across the sixth floor and descended the 4 stories in time to have been seen on the building's second floor. Oswald was a thin, lean-enough sort of 24-year-old lad (who had by November 22nd become used to lifting heavy objects around all day long on a two-wheeled cart at his job at the Depository). To me, it doesn't seem like a fairy tale to say that he would have been able to hide the weapon quickly and then negotiate the fours flights of stairs within a 90-second timeframe and NOT be out of breath, so he could encounter Officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly on the second floor in a relatively composed and unrattled state at 12:31-12:32 PM (CST) on November 22nd. I wonder, too, considering what had just happened outside on Elm Street, just exactly how much detailed attention Mr. Baker or Mr. Truly might have been paying to Lee Oswald's "breathing" during that very brief meeting in the 2nd-floor lunchroom. I'd be willing to bet neither paid an ounce of attention to a detail like that at that exact stressful moment. Lee was just another employee in the lunchroom for all those two knew at 12:32 PM.

Gil: I would like to know who proved that Oswald could do it. Oswald ? Except that the witnesses said that the rifleman paused in the window after the shooting. In addition, the rifle was hidden UNDER some boxes when it was found. He would have had to wipe his fingerprints completely off of the rifle and race down four flights of stairs, put the money in the coke machine, open the bottle and start drinking the coke BEFORE Baker and Truly climbed one flight of stairs. Again, you seem to assume what is possible as evidence as long as it fits your scenario.

Von Pein: For .... aren't hard facts and evidence always more believable than wild speculation and conjecture ?

Gil: Yes they are...so please stop with the wild speculation, conjecture and assumptions and stick to the facts. You're making a fool of yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude

>
>
>18.) While viewing the Zapruder film, I cannot see how anybody
>can say that the BACK of President Kennedy's head is blown
>away as a result of the head shot. It seems quite obvious
>while watching and freezing the film at various post-Z313
>frames, that the entire rear portion of JFK's head remains
>intact throughout the shooting. The RIGHT-FRONT portion of his
>head is blown apart. Isn't it obvious that it's the FRONTAL
>portion of his skull that is being displaced by the
>swiftly-moving projectile? And if so, doesn't this
>demonstrate the actions of an object that's just been struck
>from BEHIND, not from the front? For, if shot from the grassy
>knoll (front right), WHY isn't there evidence on the Z-Film of
>massive head damage on the President's LEFT-REAR side of the
>head? Bullets explode out the EXIT wounds, don't they?
>

David, not long ago there was a post showing the back of Kennedy's head is indeed missing in the Z-film. I will let you seek it out, but even the cover of MIDP by Fetzer (Z-335)shows the missing area, and rather clearly. You do poorly to appeal to photographic interpretation rather than to scores of clear testimony, both in Dallas and at Bethesda, to the fact that the back of Kennedy's head was blown off. There is this thing called a deposition, and snippets of these are readily available to you courtesy the generosity of Gary Aguilar, Michael Griffiths, and wonder of wonders, even here at JFK Lancer. Or you could go to the History Matters website, and read them for yourself. Of course you may prefer not reading these and enjoy instead to slumber in blissful ignorance. I would rather hope better of you, however.

David Von Pein wrote:
>
>For .... aren't hard facts and evidence always more
>believable than wild speculation and conjecture? And aren't
>many/(most) conspiracy theories created out of just that --
>speculation?

All theories (including the "lone nut theory") should indeed arise from speculation consistent with observable facts and nothing else, including any predetermined conclusions that the actual perpetrators of this particular crime (whether they have been identified or not) would prefer to have the general public swallow in order to divert suspicions that could be warranted by the existing facts.

I listened to Bugliosi on the radio during one of his interviews on the subject of his latest book. He was asked by his interviewer to speculate about what he thought was Oswald's motive for assassinating JFK.

His answer was that since Oswald was a deranged lunatic and had basically a scrambled egg for a brain that there was not necessarily any motive other than whatever unfathomable motives the process of randomly misfiring scrambled egg brain cells might induce.

That was it, end of story... next question!

Obligingly this in fear of losing his job, overpaid sap of an interviewer seemed quite satisfied with this answer and went on to something else!

Would not one think that in making up any list of potential suspects one should at least start with people who had an articulable motive?

BUT NOOOOO..... What we're going to do is forget about people with articulable motives! INSTEAD, we're gonna divert and deflect all such discussions for 16 pages by basically pissing on a dead guy's grave, who, even if he had something to do with the assassination has already paid the full price for whatever misdeeds in life he may have done. Not only that, we're going to waste as much of everyones time on this topic(Oswald's guilt) as possible, which will have the effect of buying even more time for those suspects who did have articulable motives!

What a great tactic you and bugliosi have come up with, David! Congratulations you have the longest thread I've ever seen in my 6 months in this forum.

Hasn't anybody had enough of this stupid topic yet?

For me, Oswald's mental acuity is summed up by one sentence:

"Can I get an attorney?"

1. Since Oswald asked for but did not get an attorney at that point his rights were thus denied, anything he said from that point on could not be used against him.

2. The JFK body and autopsy chain of evidence was broken by the act of SS agents stealing it by means of armed force at Parkland Hospital. The bullet wounds could not therefore be used as evidence. The dead body istelf being held at another Jurisdiction created jurisdictional issues that would havce to be settled before a trial of the facts. This problem by itself would have resulted in Oswald's release for lack of evidence or jurisdiction of the court.

Oswald would have walked! Bugliosi knows it and now you do too, David.

Jim Ostrowski