> On Mar 6, 10:21 pm, Robert Harris
yahoo.com> wrote:>> David, why do you only go after the WEAKEST arguments for conspiracy?
>>
>> Post your rebuttal to this:
>>
>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
>>
>> Bad theories often sound good at a glance, but they quickly fall apart
>> as you go deeper and deeper into the evidence.
>>
>> What I found out years ago, was that the deeper you go into this the
>> more solid it becomes. I first learned about that 285 shot, reading
>> Nellie's testimony although my articles back then referenced a shot at
>> frame 284.
>
>
> these frame numbers and ANY-ALL relationship[s] to same mean EXACTLY
> what, IF the Zapruder film is altered, please?
The Zapruder film was not altered.
And the ONLY people to believe otherwise are those who refuse to
seriously analyze their own accusations.
Anyone who has NOT gone to the trouble of using a CAD program to look at
the issues that were raised recently, has no business even voicing an
opinion.
You can go to a local bar and get better advice from the drunks.
Robert Harris
>
>> At that early stage, I had no clue that Alvarez placed the noise at 285,
>> or even that the huge consensus of witnesses recalled closely bunched
>> shots at the end.
>>
>> I hadn't looked at Clint Hill, Charles Brehm, Kellerman, Greer, etc.
>> etc, all of whom confirmed that shot in a multitude of ways.
>>
>> Even if you don't buy it now, you need to look at it for the simple
>> reason, that this is an explanation that you cannot even begin to
>> refute.
>>
>> And if you REALLY believe your theory is correct then there are no
>> plausible challenges that you should ever ignore.
>>
>> Robert Harris
>>
>> In article
>>
e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> David Von Pein aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 32):
>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>> SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
>>> Conspiracy" Debate.
>>
>>> FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From February 2005 and
>>> February 2007.
>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>> CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- NO ONE ever put Lee Harvey Oswald on
>>> the 6th floor at the time of the shooting. It's a lie to assert
>>> otherwise.
>>
>>> DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- Howard Brennan's existence makes the above
>>> statement a complete falsehood.
>>
>>> But the CT-Kook who wrote that nonsense doesn't WANT Brennan to be
>>> right....so we'll continue to have to contend with such stupid
>>> statements as the one quoted above.
>>
>>> But as hard as the CTers try to discredit Brennan's testimony....they
>>> can never do it. Because...based on the totality of the evidence in
>>> this case, the odds that Howard L. Brennan saw anyone other than Lee
>>> Harvey Oswald shooting from that 6th Floor are almost totally
>>> nil. .....
>>
>>
>>
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>>> CTer -- No LNT'er was willing to answer any of the posts in this
>>> series. It's funny to see dead silence from the LNT'er crowd.
>>
>>> DVP -- That CTer seems to actually think that if LNers don't crawl out
>>> of the woodwork to attempt to "debunk" each and every one of his pro-
>>> CT assertions and allegations....that must mean that a conspiracy is
>>> still alive and well.
>>
>>> The plain truth of the matter is that ANY kook can easily pick apart
>>> the Warren Report (they've had ample time, and desire, to do this of
>>> course) and then isolate some things that (on the surface) appear to
>>> lead down Conspiracy Avenue.
>>
>>> But what these CTers fail to EVER do is place those isolated items
>>> back into a COHESIVE WHOLE that adds up to a logical and reasonable
>>> and workable and DOABLE "Assassination Conspiracy Plot To Kill JFK".
>>
>>> Have we EVER seen such a COHESIVE WHOLE from the CTers? Ever? I sure
>>> haven't. Their theories are scattershot and piecemeal (at best); and
>>> utterly laughable (at worst).
>>
>>> A good case in point is a certain CTer's constant harping on Officer
>>> James Chaney of the DPD. That CTer's exact question for LNers (via his
>>> "21 Questions" series) was this:
>>
>>> "Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder, who just
>>> coincidently would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, was
>>> never questioned by the FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR?"
>>
>>> Per that conspiracist, Chaney ALONE could easily have debunked the SBT
>>> with his testimony...testimony that was never elicited by the WC, of
>>> course....so how that CTer KNOWS what Chaney would have said to the WC
>>> is anyone's guess.
>>
>>> But, in all his kooky grandeur, that CTer announces to the world that
>>> the "SBT is dead via Chaney alone!" (paraphrasing the kook there).
>>
>>> Of course, only a true kook of the First Order would make such a
>>> stupid and incorrect declaration to the masses; because Chaney's
>>> (non)-
>>> testimony does not debunk the SBT in any way, shape, or form.
>>
>>> (That is to say that what Chaney told non-WC people in interviews
>>> after the assassination does not indicate in any way that the SBT has
>>> had its legs knocked out from under it. To think that Chaney HAS, by
>>> himself, accomplished that task re. the SBT is just silly to begin
>>> with.)
>>
>>> But that's a perfect example of how these CT-Kooks will "handle" the
>>> evidence (or even the NON-evidence in Chaney's instance, since he
>>> never was called to testify). The CTers will manipulate things to the
>>> maximum degree of distortion, in order to promote their non-existent
>>> conspiracy.
>>
>>> We've learned to expect this type of CT deception and the oddball CTer
>>> skewing of CS&L by now, of course....because we're dealing with people
>>> who probably could not continue to exist without a conspiracy of some
>>> kind to latch onto daily.
>>
>>> And, of course, I myself have already dealt with a lengthy series of
>>> CT questions from that list-loving conspiracy theorist. .....
>>
>>
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>>> CTer -- How many shots do you "hear" {during} a 21-gun salute?
>>
>>> DVP -- So, you actually want to think that 13(!) shots (per the God-
>>> awful "JFK II" documentary which that CTer is referring to when he
>>> asked the above question) were melded into the THREE that all the
>>> initial broadcasts reported...and the THREE that perfectly match the
>>> number of spent bullet shells found on the 6th Floor of the Book
>>> Depository?
>>
>>> Good luck with the jury on that "13 Sounded Like Only 3" theory (if
>>> there had actually been a jury to appeal to, of course, sans the
>>> shooting of Lee Oswald).
>>
>>> Unless you've got the O.J. jury on hand there....you'll need some
>>> major help on passing that one off as anything close to reasonable (or
>>> believable).
>>
>>> Not to mention the fact that it'd be just flat-out goofy to shoot at
>>> the President THIRTEEN times within a ONE-patsy frame-up plot. That
>>> gets the biggest "LOL" of all.
>>
>>
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>>> CTer -- {James} Powell was there to capture a picture of "Oswald"
>>> firing his rifle from that window during the shooting.
>>
>>> DVP -- LOL. More "Magical" powers being exhibited by a rabid CTer I
>>> see -- a CTer who seems to know things that no JFK assassination
>>> investigator has EVER learned.
>>
>>> Go figure.
>>
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>>> CTer -- He {Powell} snapped his picture just a couple of minutes
>>> BEFORE the motorcade arrived when "Oswald" stuck his rifle out of that
>>> window.
>>
>>> DVP -- Okay, kook. Where's the rifle?
>>
>>> The Powell photo:
>>
>>
>>
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>>> CTer -- I think those particular witnesses felt that two shots came
>>> from the area of the picket fence. So when they mention shots as
>>> plural, I don't think they are saying that "all the shots" fired that
>>> day came from the fence.
>>
>>> DVP -- That might very well be what Simmons and Price meant, indeed.
>>> But that is NOT what was implied by Mark Lane in his film {"Rush To
>>> Judgment"}.
>>
>>> When asked "Where did you think the shots came from?", there was
>>> nothing to prohibit either Simmons or Price from declaring that they
>>> thought at least ONE shot (or more) had come from the Depository area.
>>> But neither man ever said this in Lane's filmed interviews with them.
>>
>>
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>>> CTer -- {Quoting Bill Newman}: "I thought the shot had come from the
>>> garden directly behind me, that it was on an elevation from where I
>>> was, as I was right on the curb. I do not recall looking toward the
>>> Depository. I looked back in the vicinity of the garden."
>>
>>> DVP -- This is very similar to the Price/Simmons "all from one
>>> direction" point I was making earlier.
>>
>>> Newman says "shot" (singular) above -- but what about the OTHER shots
>>> that WE KNOW FOR A FACT came from behind Kennedy? (We KNOW this,
>>> obviously, due to the entry wounds in the backs of both victims, JBC
>>> and JFK.)
>>
>>> Newman, via his WFAA-TV comments on 11/22/63 re. shots coming from
>>> "the garden on the mound of ground there on the Knoll", seems to be
>>> implying (just like Price and Simmons in Mark Lane's movie) that shots
>>> came from just ONE PLACE (to the front of the limo).
>>
>>> Why? And how? When we know a majority of the shots came from the rear
>>> (or at the least, even from a CT POV, an EQUAL number of shots came
>>> from the rear and not the front).
>>
>>> NOT hearing REAR shots (or shots that would be discernible from
>>> MULTIPLE directions), along with the frontal shots they've spoken
>>> about, tells me that it's very likely that Newman, Price, and Simmons
>>> (et al) were mistaken as to the origin of ALL the shots they heard.
>>
>>> For, HOW could ALL of these people have ONLY heard the frontal shots,
>>> and NOT any multiple rear shots? I would say that this is highly
>>> unlikely in a small
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more
