Not One Syllable???

David Von Pein quotes a lie:

Vincent Bugliosi Wrote:After forty-four long years, not one CREDIBLE word, not one syllable has ever surfaced about any conspiracy to kill Kennedy. .... The reason why not the slightest trace of a conspiracy has ever been uncovered, of course, is that no such conspiracy ever existed. - Pages 1441-1442 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"

Of course, the multitude of witnesses who documented in just the first two days that they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll is far more than a "syllable".

Bugliosi was a liar... and David Von Pein is a liar too - for quoting this statement, and not pointing out that it's not true.

Why do believers keep lying?

Do they honestly think that people cannot search out the evidence for themselves, and SEE these lies?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Not-One-Syllable

Over 50 Years, and Still No Answers!!!

Over 50 years have gone by, and there's still no answers from the supporters of the Warren Commission.

The questions that supporters cannot answer are legion - yet the opposite isn't true at all. Patrick, Henry, Dale, David Von Pein, or any other believer - simply cannot come up with a question on this case that doesn't have a logical, credible, and acceptable answer.

I'm still waiting for the question on this case that I cannot answer... 

Yet, if I had a nickel for every unanswered question just from Patrick alone - I'd be a much wealthier man.

This situation demonstrates that the evidence simply doesn't favor the Warren Commission supporter - yet they hang in there, desperately trying to change public opinion... and getting no-where. 

• No explanation for the 6.5mm virtually round object.
  
  
• No explanation for the blatant lies told by the Warren Commission.
  
  
• No explanation for the lack of any bank endorsements on the money order.
  
  
• No explanation for the witness intimidation by the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service.
  
  
• No explanation for why Vincent Bugliosi lied about the "ragged" throat wound.
  
  
• No explanation for why the military forbid dissection of the track of the wound, or forbid examination of the clothing.
  
  
• No explanation for the provable alteration of autopsy X-rays.
  
  
• No explanation for the fake "Secret Service" men in Dealey Plaza.
  
  
• No explanation for how the bullet entered Connally's wrist from the outside.
  
  
• No explanation for the appearance of someone impersonating Oswald in Mexico City.
  
  
• No explanation for the appearance of someone impersonating Oswald at the rifle range.
  
  
• No explanation for why the Justice Department interferred with a state court. (Shaw Trial)
  
  
• No explanation for why the bullets "discovered" on Oswald showed that they'd been held in a cartridge belt.
  
  
• No explanation for how HT/Lingual missed a rifle.
  
  
• No explanation for the condition of CE399 in comparison to test bullets fired only through a wrist.
  
  
• No explanation for the 'witness shopping' done by the Warren Commission. (Nicol)
  
  
• No explanation for the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant Z-film.
  
  
• No explanation for why the Warren Commission hide the exculpatory NAA testing results.
  
  
• No explanation for why the Warren Commission hid the fact that other unidentified prints were found in the Sniper's Nest.
  
  
• No explanation for why the Altgen's photo shows Chaney in a position never seen in the films.
  
  
• No explanation for why James Chaney isn't seen in any films moving up to speak with Chief Curry.
  

These are just a few of the many questions that remain unanswered after over 50 years... Many more could be posed, and many more have been posed... with no credible answers...

Of course, there is a simple answer... one that explains all of these evidential questions... believers just can't be honest enough to accept it.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Over-50-Years-and-Still-No-Answers

The OTHER Lee Harvey Oswald...

In both the Tampa and Dallas assassination/attempt, the police were looking for a young man in his 20's, white with a slender build.  In Dallas, that patsy turned out to be Lee Harvey Oswald...

But in the Tampa assassination attempt just four days earlier, and one that was never known by the Warren Commission, that description had a different name, it was Gilberto Policarpo Lopez.

Both were white males, twenty-three years old during most of 1963.

Both had returned to America in the summer of 1962 from a Communist country.

Both are said by various sources to have been assets or informants for some U.S. agency, and both were of interest to Naval Intelligence, who kept files on them.

In mid-1963, both men and their wives moved to another city and then became involved with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

In the summer of 1963, some of their associates saw them as being pro-Castro, while others saw them as being anti-Castro.  Both were living in a city where there was much anti-Castro activity.

In the summer of 1963, both were involved in fist-fights over "pro-Castro" statements they made.

Though both appeared at times to be "pro-Castro," neither joined the Communist Party and neither regularly associated with local Communist Party members.

Both had a Russian connection in their background.

Both were living apart from their wives as a result of marital difficulties.

Both had crossed the border at Nuevo Laredo in the fall of 1963 and made a mysterious trip to Mexico City, both were under photographic surveillance by the CIA, both were trying to get to Cuba (Lopez made it, though)

Both went by car on one leg of their Mexico City trip.  Neither was a very good driver and neither man owned a car.

In the fall of 1963, each had a job in the vicinity of JFK's route for one of his November motorcades.

The week of 11/22/63, both men were in Dallas.

Following the assassination, both men were investigated for involvement - of course, Lopez's name appears no-where in the WCR or 26 volumes.

Declassified documents indicate that both men were the subject of unusual US intelligence activity.  Declassified CIA documents confirm that Lopez was on a secret "mission" for the US involving Cuba.  Its a virtual certainty that LHO also fits into the same category, IMO.

For years after the assassination, government agencies tried to keep much of the material about both men classified, even from Congressional committees like the HSCA.  Much still remains classified today, because both were involved in highly sensitive covert US operations in 1963.

Former Senator Schweiker, who served for eighteen months on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and who chaired, along with Gary Hart, the Church Committee's subcommittee that looked into the JFK assassination (The first gave the Senator background information on intelligence, and the second gave the Senator specific, still classified information on the JFK assassination), stated: "all the fingerprints I found during my eighteen months on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence point to Oswald as being a product of, and interacting with, the intelligence community."  Of course, believers would simply label the good Senator a "kook".

If more than just two blacks, in a southern racist city, had seen LHO during the assassination in the lunchroom, believers might be calling those who think that Gilberto Policarpo Lopez is innocent "kooks" right now.

Gilberto Policarpo Lopez... the other Lee Harvey Oswald.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-The-OTHER-Lee-Harvey-Oswald

Ultimate Truth Found In The WCR.

Anonymous Believer Wrote:The WCR is the only thing anyone needs to believe. It is the one and only truth. You guys seem to the think truth is like a smorgasbord in which you can pick and choose what you like. The reality is the truth offers you just one choice and since it's one you don't like, you choose to believe in fiction instead. I will admit it's more interesting doing it your way. You can believe just about anything you want to and you prove that every day. 

ROTFLMAO!!!

This shows the true faith that believers have. The WCR is the only thing anyone needs to believe. It is the one and only truth. - everytime I think I'm conversing with real people who have intelligence, it's statements like this that slap me in the face...

The WCR is the only thing anyone needs to believe. It is the one and only truth. - these are the very same people who absolutely REFUSE to publicly admit that a tremendous amount of evidence in the JFK case directly conflicts with other evidence.

They certainly cannot admit that the Warren Commission provably lied ... as even one Warren Commission staffer admitted.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Ultimate-Truth-Found-In-The-WCR

Arlo Guthrie's Conspiracy

Anonymous WCR Supporter Wrote:For those who don't know or don't remember, Alice's Restaurant was Arlo Guthrie's iconic anti-war song from the 1960s that was later made into a movie starring Guthrie. The song begins by telling about a Thanksgiving dinner at Alice's home which was in an old church behind the restaurant. Since they had lots of room where the pews used to be, they decided they didn't need to take out the garbage for a long time. After the dinner, the guests decided to help Alice out by gathering up all that garbage and taking it to the dump only to discover it was closed on Thanksgiving. Not knowing what to do, they went driving along until they spotted a pile of garbage that had been dumped off the side of the road. They decided one big pile would be better than two little ones so rather than pick that one up they decided to dump their on top of it. The next day Sheriff Opie showed up and confronted Arlo. 

He said, "Kid, we found your name on an envelope underneath a pile of garbage.". 

Arlo replied, "Opie, I cannot tell a lie. I put that envelope underneath that pile of garbage". 

This is how conspiracy hobbyists look at the forensic evidence of Oswald's guilt. Rather than accept the ramifications of all that evidence pointing at Oswald, they opt for the most ridiculous explanations. If they aren't claiming the evidence was planted, they are denying its significance. In essence they are accepting that Oswald put the envelope underneath the pile of garbage. Whatever they have to believe in order to maintain that he was innocent of the murder of JFK, the will opt for. It doesn't matter how many pieces of evidence they have to do that for, they will do it. The think that all that evidence could point in his direction and that he could still be innocent. 

This is a silly analogy... because it would not be Oswald "putting the envelope under the garbage."

It was the conspirators, or at least those involved in the coverup, that framed Oswald. Oswald had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the failure of the banks to endorse the Money Order used to frame him.

Oswald had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the military orders during the autopsy that prevented dissection of the track of the bullet, or examination of JFK's clothing.

Oswald had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the intimidation of eyewitnesses by the FBI, CIA, and S.S.

Silly analogies like the one quoted above can only be posted in forums that don't critically examine the evidence.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Arlo-Guthrie-s-Conspiracy

Strongest Evidence Against Conspiracy???

Anonymous Believer Wrote:I began seriously doubting that there had been a conspiracy when I learned that Oswald had gotten his job in the TSBD 6 weeks earlier before anyone could have possibly known there would be a motorcade going past the TSBD. I don't believe in clairvoyance so it seemed completely implausible to me that it was anything but chance circumstance that brought JFK into rifle range of Oswald's workplace. I still believe that is one of the strongest arguments against any conspiracy theory.

This is the "strongest evidence" against a conspiracy?

That the patsy took a job overlooking the murder site before the motorcade had been determined???

The silliness of such an argument can be seen when we examine the underlying assumption that has been made:

That a shooter had to have had a job overlooking the motorcade... No matter where the motorcade took place, and no matter where the shooting occurred, does it not seem reasonable to make plans to put the patsy in an appropriate place???

There was no particular need to have the patsy working in a building where the shots came from - only the need to have the patsy credibly there. This means that any building that is reasonably open to strangers walking in would work quite well.

The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence.

It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots...

It's pretty weak evidence when compared against the provable eyewitness intimidation campaign that both the FBI and the S.S. engaged in.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the FACT that the autopsy was controlled by the military - and in a way to avoid any evidence being gathered that supported multiple shooters.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the fact that the FBI & CIA culpably hid evidence from the Warren Commission - who weren't all that much impelled to seek out the truth in any case.

I do hope someone will step up and correct this believer... and give the evidence that's stronger than this example...

Because if someone truly thinks that this is the "strongest argument" that can be made... what more needs to be said?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Strongest-Evidence-Against-Conspiracy

Secret Service Stand-down...

Anonymous WCR Defender Wrote:Nobody has ever disputed that at times SS agents rode the bumper of the Presidential limo or were close behind. There are also pictures taken elsewhere when they weren't close behind and as DVP's picture shows the Queen Mary was sometimes farther back than it was in Dallas. Those decisions were made on a case by case basis. Some of the pictures you posted show agents close by earlier in the motorcade route. They got close when the crowds got close. There was no SS stand down in Dallas. JFK got the same level of protection that he hard received in numerous other places both home and abroad. 

So the question remains - how did they manage to give the same level of protection when they left agents at the airport instead of their assigned spots?





from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Secret-Service-Stand-down

John McAdams & The Truth...

John McAdams Wrote:Several days ago, I posted a few comments on posts on Morley's JFKFacts site. 

They were not approved.  They still have not been approved.  Many more recent comments have been approved. 

So I wrote him, asking "Why are my comments not being approved?" 

And adding "perhaps there is some explanation." 

After a few days, and no response, I wrote him again, saying I deserved an explanation. 

He agreed, and then didn't provide any. 

Finally, he said:   

Quote:John, for a man with deserved reputation for rudeness and recent 
professional rebuke for uncivil behavior, you are mighty quick to 
demand respect. Excuse me for ungenerously ignoring your imperious 
tone. 

I recently suffered a serious injury to my Achilles tendon. The 
Comments Editor submitted his resignation. I have not picked a 
successor. The Comments section has suffered as a result. 

That is the explanation I owe you. 

In the first place, somehow, in spite of his injury, he has managed to approve many comments.  But none of mine. 

As for "rude:" anybody looking at JFK Facts can see that Jeff's moderators have routinely approved very nasty comments directed at lone assassin people. 

We have routinely been accused of being CIA stooges. 

It seems Morley has turned into a bitter buff.  Bitter buffs are people who not only believe in a conspiracy, they believe that everybody else *must* believe in a conspiracy.  They believe that if enough people believe in a conspiracy the evil conspirators will be discovered and virtue will return to this Republic 

Thus people who disagree with conspiracy are not merely people with a different opinion, they are evil heretics. 

This is the level that most believers have sunk to... they cannot debate the evidence, so they are forced to rant at the critics. This forum is an excellent example - forbidden from the only tool they have left, ad hominem attacks - believers are simply silent.

Patrick, for example, has often made this accusation of "differing opinions" being the cause... yet he knows quite well that I label people as liars only when they provably lie about the evidence, or about what someone stated.

There are many critics with whom I differ when it comes to this case... people can easily come to different conclusions about the weight of the evidence, or the credibility of differing bits of evidence.

What liars do is simply lie about that evidence. Patrick, for example; won't argue the relative merits of evidence credibility, he'll simply lie about the evidence itself.

Such as the recent example where he applauded Dr. Baden in saying that the large skull wound on JFK was not located in the Parietal-Occipital...

Of course, these non-stop lies concerning the evidence point thoughtful readers to the truth.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-John-McAdams-The-Truth

WC Staffer Admits Lying...

Amusingly, even one of the Warren Commission staffers admitted that they'd lied in their report.
 

David Belin Wrote:"When the drafts of our final Report were presented for the Commissioners to review, their deference to Governor Connally was so great that they directed a revision in a major conclusion of the Commission that resulted in AN OUTRIGHT MISSTATEMENT OF FACT. This revision involved the single bullet theory; you will find it on page 19 of the Report, Conclusion No. 3." - David Belin, "You Are The Jury", pg 347

Belin recognized, as many do; that the SBT is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY (Belin's words!) to the Warren Commission's theory. Without the SBT, conspiracy is PROVEN.

That the Warren Commission lied on much of the evidence is something I've shown time and time again - but here we have an actual Warren Commission Staff lawyer admitting that the Warren Commission KNOWINGLY published a lie.

And not a single believer will step forward and admit publicly that the Warren Commission lied.

(That fact tells the tale, doesn't it?!)

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-WC-Staffer-Admits-Lying

Warren Commission Omission.

From a memorandum written by Albert Jenner to Lee Rankin on April 20th, 1964:

Quote:"Delivered herewith are three preliminary memoranda prepared by John Ely at my request made in late February or early March.

My purpose was to obtain a chronology based on these existing data in our files of the background facts -- life, school, places of residence, etc -- of Mrs Oswald, her several marriages, her husbands and her three children and, in particular, Lee Harvey Oswald, from the time she married Edward John Pic, Jr., in the fall of 1929, to the time Lee Harvey Oswald entered military service in October, 1956.
...
On the whole, Mr. Ely's memoranda present a good over-all picture of the course of events involving the Oswalds up to the time of Lee Harvey Oswald's entry into the military service.  Our depositions and examination of records and other data disclose that there are details in Mr. Ely's memoranda which will require material alteration and, in some instances, omission."
...

Let me repeat that last sentence one more time... regarding the historical details of Oswald and his family: "...THERE ARE DETAILS ... WHICH WILL REQUIRE MATERIAL ALTERATION AND, IN SOME INSTANCES, OMISSION."

Now, since believers FREQUENTLY claim that Mark Lane is a "liar" based on the claim that he "omitted" something - can believers now admit that the Warren Commission lied?

(Of course, none will...)

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Warren-Commission-Omission

David Von Pein Tells A Fib!

David Von Pein Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:If you held a gun to the head of a Warren Commission believer, he'd be forced to admit that the FBI didn't see the palmprint on the rifle. They'll admit easily enough that Lt. Day saw one.

And that is undoubtedly due to the fact that there was MUCH MORE TO SEE when Lt. Day lifted the print. There was a lot more THERE to see (and lift). By the time Day had lifted Oswald's print off the barrel, very little in the way of a visible print remained (although, yes, Day said he thought enough of a remaining print was still present on the barrel for the FBI to find).

It's good that DVP admits that Lt. Day thought that there was still something to see, yet the FBI did NOT see it. This is a contradiction.

Normally, one would go with the more credible source... and the FBI's fingerprint expert is certainly far better qualified & credible than Lt. Day.

Lt. Day's statements on this palm print are contradictory, and there's still no credible explanation why Lt. Day failed to follow the ordinary procedure that he provably used on other prints, EVEN ON THAT SAME WEAPON. Photography is a standard used PRECEDING a lift, so in case the lift goes wrong, you still have the print. Lt. Day did that on other prints, yet mysteriously skipped that step on the only print that could be matched to Oswald.

David Von Pein has no answer for that incredible fact...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-David-Von-Pein-Tells-A-Fib

Special Lying Tactic Used By Believers...

Henry Sienzant Wrote:Also note who Bertrand Russell blames for all the misinformation in his Warren Report critique:
 

Bertrand Russell Wrote:I am indebted to Mr. Mark Lane, the New York criminal lawyer who was appointed counsel for Oswald by his mother, for much of the information in this article.

That effectively explains why Russell got so much wrong, doesn't it? Lane has never been known for his honesty in his treatment of the assassination evidence. 

The Special Lie: The raw accusation, with zero supporting evidence or citation.

This is a favored tactic of believers, and time and time again I point out that despite their non-stop accusations against Mark Lane - BELIEVERS CANNOT DOCUMENT OR CITE ANY EVIDENCE FOR THEIR LIES.

Henry is quite slick with these sorts of tricks... which undoubtedly explains his reticence in posting to this forum - where they will be quickly spotted and pointed out.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Special-Lying-Tactic-Used-By-Believers

Who Was This Suspect?

On June 15, 1978, William Ira Trantham from the Dallas County Sheriff's Office was interviewed by Jack Moriarty of the HSCA. The interview as follows:

Quote:Name: Ira Trantham
Date: 6/15/78
Time: 1400
Address: 10119 Newcomb Street, Dallas, Texas

INTERVIEW: Watched the motorcade pass Main and Harwood from the press room of Dallas Police Department Headquarters. Then checked out a cruiser and headed in the opposite direction not having an assignment germane to the Presidential visit.

Had not driven more than a few blocks when the police department radio blared the shooting report at Dealey Plaza. Reversing his direction he responded to that area parking in the freight yard near the rear of the TSBD. Observing uniformed men in the rear with shotguns, then seeing Inspector Sawyer at the front door, he reported for instructions. Sawyer advised they were still not certain where the gunfire came from, but the best guess at that time was the TSBD.

By this time they were joined by Jerry Hill and he and Hill went inside. Hill continued upstairs and an officer W. H. Desham (#7140 DPD) approached him with a prisoner. Advised this subject had been observed "acting suspiciously" on the third floor without a reasonable explanation for being there.

Correction: The name Desham above should read Denham.

It's interesting that no believer has been able to give a name for this suspect... and the Warren Commission is completely silent on this suspect.

This, of course, must be a "stranger" in the building, as he couldn't give a "reasonable explanation" for being in the building... believers have long denied that there were any strangers in the building.

If fingerprinted, would this suspect's prints match the unknown prints found in the Sniper's Nest?

Believer's have no answer...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Who-Was-This-Suspect

Are Believers Knowledgeable?

It's often the claim that believers are knowledgeable on the case evidence, and critics are simply ignorant. And while I've occasionally seen a 'critic' who seems quite ignorant on the case evidence, it's far more common to see believers who don't know the evidence.

(Or lie about the evidence...)

Take, for example, Bill Clarke - a very dedicated believer in this case, who admited on 10/28/2013:
 

Quote:I haven't read the WC and don't intend to. What little I have read of it I 
found one glaring mistake. I assume there are others. 

A very telling admission.

And believers such as Mr. Clarke can't post here... not because he cannot register and post, but because ad hominem is forbidden - and that is his only debating tactic.

He simply doesn't know the evidence.

This is the reason that others, such as Henry Sienzant, David Von Pein, or Dale refuse to post here, they can't call everyone names... they have to deal with the evidence.

Patrick, for example, after a great initial start, has been almost shut down by the evidence... every time he lies, it get's pointed out. He has no explanation for the real evidence in this case. He's forced to remain silent.

And that tells the tale...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Are-Believers-Knowledgeable

Another Whopper From Henry Sienzant!

Quote:Ben Holmes disease. Make a claim, see it rebutted, and then wait a few days or weeks and repeat the claim. 

Quite naturally, Henry cannot support such a claim. He's NEVER credibly and successfully rebutted any statement I've ever made about this case.

When challenged to do so, he merely slinks off again...

Patrick Collins - will you help out your fellow believer and quote even one example where Henry rebutted anything I've stated?

And if you cannot, would you have the common decency to publicly admit so?

Or will you, as an "honest man," simply allow a lie to stay on the record?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Another-Whopper-From-Henry-Sienzant

Patrick Collins Runs!!!

It's been nearly a week... Patrick Collins simply refuses to retract or support the obvious lies he tells. This is not a 'matter of opinion'... 

Dr. Baden made a statement CONTRADICTED by the Autopsy Report.

Patrick wants to have it both ways - he's unwilling to argue that the Autopsy Report is wrong, YET HE CLAIMS THAT DR. BADEN WAS RIGHT WHEN HE CONTRADICTED THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!

But Patrick's silence was not unexpected... Patrick, Henry, Anderson, Dale, David Von Pein, (and undoubtedly others I don't recall) have ALL EXHIBITED THIS SAME BEHAVIOR - when caught in a blatant lie, they have the tendency to simply disappear for long periods of time, days, weeks, even months...

But if and when Patrick dares to return, he'd better be prepared to explain why he thinks Dr. Baden is correct in stating that "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area...", yet argues that the Autopsy Report is correct in it's placement of the large wound.

Here's just one of the posts that Patrick is running from:
 

(09-17-2016, 04:45 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:Patrick - TELL US WHERE THE LARGE WOUND ON JFK'S HEAD WAS...

Use medical terminology, and be as accurate as you can.

If you DARE to use the terms Parietal or Occipital - you'll have proven yourself a liar.

The answer is clearly stated in the autopsy report

Quote:There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.

Yep... you're a liar, Patrick. You state that Dr. Baden was "Baden is quite correct of course..." when he said "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said."
 

(09-17-2016, 04:45 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:If you DARE to use the terms Parietal or Occipital - you'll have proven yourself a liar.

It is clear that I am dealing with a very strange and mixed up mind here. What kind of  absolute tripe is that. 

Those terms are in the medical report so it is impossible for me to be a liar on that matter - do you not understand that!

What a waste of time. That is about my hour up I think.

You claim it's impossible for you to be a liar - YET YOU PROVABLY DID LIE!!! You claimed that Dr. Baden was "quite correct."

Then instead of answering my last post - YOU POSTED AS IF IT DIDN'T EVEN APPEAR HERE!

Here's the post you ran from:

Ben Holmes Wrote:You're lying again, Patrick!

Dr. Baden stated that "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said."

You asserted that Dr. Baden was "Baden is quite correct of course..."

Then you contradict what he said.

Who has problems with the English language?

I'll make it real easy for you... you stated that Dr. Baden was correct...

WAS DR. BADEN CORRECT WHEN HE STATED THAT: "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said."?

Now why couldn't you answer the question?

WHY ARE YOU SUCH A COWARD, PATRICK?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Patrick-Collins-Runs

October 2017

In October of 2017, current law will force the release of all the rest of the files currently classified... Will we actually see devastating new proof of a conspiracy?

Not likely... although I've already predicted that nothing that is released will support the Warren Commission's theory. The reason why we won't see devastating new revelations is simple:

 

Quote:Mr. Goldsmith. To your knowledge, would any records at CIA Headquarters document that Oswald was a CIA agent?
Mr. Wilcott. I believe they would at one time. Whether they are there now or not is hard to say.
Mr. Goldsmith. Do you have any personal knowledge that any records at CIA Headquarters were ever destroyed?
Mr. Wilcott. No.
Mr. Goldsmith. Do you have any knowledge of any record of the CIA at the XXXXXXXX Station ever being destroyed out of the ordinary course of business, not as a matter of routine?
Mr. Wilcott. Yes.
Mr. Goldsmith. To your personal knowledge, CIA records XXXXXXXXXX were destroyed?
Mr. Wilcott. Destroyed or changed.
Mr. Goldsmith. Could you give an example of that?
Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Let us say, for instance, that there was a certain project going on, and the project was one that became known that this project was being carried out -- and we call it "flaps," -- and the Case Officer in charge might get word that somebody from headquarters was coming to review the files to investigate the flap. Well, they would go through the files and take out anything that they thought was, say, indicative of how this flap occurred and change the files.
For instance, in accounting, when we had our audits, for instance, in most of the audits, he would call up some body -- let's say in China Branch -- and say "I know you were having problems with this, would you like to look it over before the auditors come?", and they might look it over and retype the accounting for funds for their project and, you know, make changes that they might think were in their interest to do.
Mr. Goldsmith. Did you ever actually Xerox records being destroyed or changed?
Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I did.
Mr. Goldsmith. And have you just described one of those instances to us?
Mr. Wilcott. Yes.

I'm sure intelligent readers can see the obvious.

Anything that indicts the CIA directly will have long ago been scrubbed from the files.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-October-2017--184

WC Lied About The Wounds...

Quote:Much of the speculation that has persisted in one form or another since November 22-24 came from people who usually spoke in good faith. Some of the errors have resulted simply from a lack of complete knowledge at the time of the event. In this category are the statements attributed to doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital who attended the dying President and described his wounds to the press afterward. It remained for the autopsy in Washington, completed early the next morning, to ascertain the full facts concerning the wounds. The correction of earlier assertions of fact on the basis of later and fuller analysis or investigation is a normal part of the process of accumulation of evidence. But it is not often that the process is conducted in such an intense glare of worldwide publicity, and later corrections have difficulty overtaking the original sensational reports. - Warren Commission Report, pg 638.

But there are only two wounds involved here... one, an Occipital-Parietal wound - which BOTH Parkland and Bethesda (as well as the Autopsy Report) stated existed. So no "correction of earlier assertions of fact" were made on this wound...

The only wound under dispute was the throat wound - WHICH THE AUTOPSY NEVER EXAMINED - AND CLAIMED NOT TO EVEN KNOW ABOUT.

So the contention of the Warren Commission that "correction of earlier assertions of fact" on the basis of an Autopsy that DID NOT EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE DISPUTED "FACTS" - is an absolute and complete lie on their part.

It's interesting that believers continue telling lies on these issues... Patrick, for example; claiming that Dr. Baden was correct when he stated that the wound was not in the Parietal-Occipital... This is a tactic that David Von Pein is guilty of as well...

In other words, instead of trying to derive a theory from the facts, believers refuse to even acknowledge the facts... and keep pretending that the facts aren't what they are.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-WC-Lied-About-The-Wounds

McAdams sues Marquette University

http://ctka.net/2016/mcadams-update/mcadams-update.html

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-McAdams-sues-Marquette-University

Are There Any Honest Believers???

I've long been looking for an honest believer... one who'd admit that the evidence is in conflict, and be able to correctly judge what is true, and what is false.

For example, Dr. Humes, years after the autopsy, tried to move the wound location away from where he'd written that it was located... he originally wrote:
 

Quote:1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.

Now, this is clearly in the back of the head. Indeed... most eyewitnesses were quite decisive in putting the wound EXACTLY WHERE THE AUTOPSY REPORT PUT IT:




Let's take a look at the bones of the human skull:





You'll notice that the Autopsy Report put the wound in the Parietal-Occipital area, and on the right side (because temporal bone was also involved). This is EXACTLY where the vast majority of witnesses put the wound.

But every believer I know is willing to accept this as the true location:




Why can't I find anyone who will admit that Dr. Humes is contradicting HIS OWN WRITTEN ACCOUNT of where the wound was located? Why can't any believer admit that Dr. Humes is contradicted by the vast overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses, who put it in the Parietal-Occipital area? Why do believers such as David Von Pein claim that I've put it in the occipital (rather than the Parietal-occipital). Why are so many believers willing to put the wound Parietal-Frontal - WHEN THERE'S NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR SUCH A LOCATION?

Are there any honest believers willing to state publicly that Dr. Humes was contradicting his own Autopsy Report???

And if not... why not?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Are-There-Any-Honest-Believers--181

How To Lie About The Evidence... Part 3

Ben Holmes Wrote:

David Von Pein Wrote:Only a rabid conspiracy believer could possibly manage to transform this description of President Kennedy's head (exit) wound.... "...a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions..." [Warren Report, Page 540] ....into a wound that is ENTIRELY in the occipital region of JFK's head.

What part of "Occipital-Parietal" is ENTIRELY in the occipital?

These are simple questions David...

No wonder you keep blatantly lying about what I've stated... and refuse to answer them...

Now, does the Autopsy Report place the wound EVEN PARTIALLY in the back of the head?

(You can run, David - but you can't hide...)

This is a very common tactic that believers utilize... they simply lie about what critics have said. They cannot deny that the Autopsy Report put the wound in the Cccipital-Parietal area, yet they're constantly complaining that there was no large wound in the back of the head.

Patrick was recently caught lying about this very issue - claiming that Dr. Baden was correct when he stated that the wound was not in the Parietal-Occipital.

Why the constant lying?

Why isn't the truth good enough to support the position you hold?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-How-To-Lie-About-The-Evidence-Part-3

Historical Ignorance By Believers...

Dale Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Dale Wrote:You and I and even Ben Holmes are COMPLETELY ignorant about what remains classified in this case.

Untrue...

Perhaps YOU are ignorant... that, I actually don't doubt.

I gave an example of something that was classified - the medical testimony given during the HSCA.

You can't offer ANY credible explanation for why it was classified at all.

NONE!

And the fact that the HSCA LIED about what they classified is something you can't refute.

Have no idea what National Security issues were encountered and investigated - neither do you and that's the point. You don't even allow for the possibility that this classified information was a National Security concern and will, by rule, remain classified. Turn off your conspiracy filter and you'll see what I am saying. It's not complicated. Not only National Security matters are classified - if other information was classified (HSCA medical testimony) then inquire as to why - did the Kennedy family request classified status for this information for privacy reasons? How involved was Bobby Kennedy in this process? Would you want your family member's X-Rays and photographs made available to any Joe Blow requesting them, especially if your family member was an extraordinarily prominent and powerful individual. You guys have no proportion or reason in your thinking. (Original post here.)

Does it strike anyone as somewhat crazy that Robert Kennedy, murdered in 1968, could affect the decision to classify the medical testimony that the HSCA lied about in 1978 - a decade later?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Historical-Ignorance-By-Believers

How To Lie About The Evidence... Part 2.

D. Axelson Wrote:&t&t&tAnd according to Jim Garrison, Oswald passing the paraffin test alone would have exonerated him.&t&t&t

Again, an opinion by a non-witness. And in 1964, Jim Garrison knew precisely nothing about the case, and could not have qualified as an expert in the significance of the presence or absence of GSR. As you may be aware, the paraffin test (also known as a "gunshot residue" or "dermal nitrate test") has been largely discredited, because it yields both false positives and false negatives. Some courts had begun to exclude such tests as early as 1959, five years before our hypothetical trial.

A very nifty trick was employed here... presuming that readers wouldn't know that this was a statement by Jim Garrison made in 1967 - as he was investigating the case, and not made in 1964 - as Axelson blatantly lied.

This is another frequent tactic of believers - they lie about facts - desperately hoping that their readers won't catch on to how they twist things. Jim Garrison in 1964 probably knew next to nothing about the case... but Jim Garrison in 1967 knew quite a bit.

What a difference three years make!

Believers can generally get away with these sorts of lies, because most people aren't as knowledgeable about the case evidence, and don't instantly spot such obvious lies.

But they don't in this forum...

P.S. It's also interesting to note the dead silence that believers generally employ about the NAA tests... which does not have the problems that the paraffin test has...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-How-To-Lie-About-The-Evidence-Part-2

How To Lie About The Evidence...

Quote:The assassination of President Kennedy remains a mystery partly because the nature of his wounds remains a mystery. This in turn is due largely to problems with the president’s autopsy, which took place at Bethesda Naval Hospital Center, a military teaching institution near Washington:

• The autopsy was carried out by three pathologists, all of them middle–ranking military officers whose only practical experience of forensic autopsies was a one–week course taken by one of the pathologists ten years earlier.
  
• The room in which they worked was crowded with a variety of non–medical onlookers, several of whom were giving orders to the pathologists.
  
• The written records from the autopsy are incomplete, and perhaps corrupt. The original autopsy report was deliberately destroyed by Dr James Humes, the senior pathologist, after the murder of Lee Oswald. The rewritten autopsy report includes measurements and other data that do not exist in the pathologists’ surviving notes and diagrams.
  
• The photographic record is incomplete. The pathologists and photographers recalled ordering and taking photographs which appear no longer to exist.
  

(Original source located here.)

Henry Sienzant rightfully points out that the first statement in this list is wrong...
 

Quote:That site leads off with this falsehood: "The autopsy was carried out by three pathologists, all of them middle-ranking military officers whose only practical experience of forensic autopsies was a one-week course taken by one of the pathologists ten years earlier."

That's false. Dr. Finck was a experienced forensic pathologist. (See original here.)

Henry went on to document that Dr. Finck was, indeed; a fully qualified forensic pathologist. But at that point, Henry stopped... 

He even implied that this was just one of many ("Your cited website is making assertions that are untrue."), yet refused to give any other examples.

It's unfortunate that Henry isn't honest enough to tell the truth... Let's examine the others at the top of the page:

• The room in which they worked was crowded with a variety of non–medical onlookers, several of whom were giving orders to the pathologists.
  

Absolutely true - and Henry's well aware of this fact. Indeed, Henry also lied about this topic, refusing to reveal that the prosectors were ordered not to dissect the throat wound - instead misleading people into thinking that the prosectors merely didn't dissect what they saw as a tracheotomy.
 

• The written records from the autopsy are incomplete, and perhaps corrupt. The original autopsy report was deliberately destroyed by Dr James Humes, the senior pathologist, after the murder of Lee Oswald. The rewritten autopsy report includes measurements and other data that do not exist in the pathologists’ surviving notes and diagrams.
  

Again, absolutely true, and Henry knows this very well... yet made no comment.
 

• The photographic record is incomplete. The pathologists and photographers recalled ordering and taking photographs which appear no longer to exist.
  

Once again, absolutely true, and a devastating indictment on the Warren Commission... yet Henry again remains silent. (Interestingly, this very page that Henry denigrates gives proof that he lied about the reason that the prosectors didn't dissect the throat wound.)

When your 'side' of an issue requires frequent lying about the relevant evidence, isn't it time to change sides?

I'll point out that many believers are masters of this particular technique - which involves jumping on an error, and using that to avoid everything else. Henry knows full well the power of this tactic. But he'll never admit the truth of the rest of the statements - as I commented above.

The cowardice continues...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-How-To-Lie-About-The-Evidence

Lying About The Autopsy...

Henry Sienzant Wrote:And you didn't quote this, which explains why the frontal wound wasn't dissected:

Quote:Q: Now, Doctor, did you examine on the remains of the late President Kennedy a wound in the frontal neck region? 
A: At the time of the autopsy I saw in the front of the neck of President Kennedy a transversal, which means going sideways, a transversal incision which was made for the purpose of keeping the breathing of the President, and this is called a tracheotomy, t-r-a-c-h-e-o-t-o-m-y. I examined this wound made by a surgeon, it is very commonly found in unconscious patients, the incision is made to allow them to breathe. I did not see a wound of exit at that time, but the following day Dr. Humes called the surgeons of Dallas and he was told that they -- 
MR. OSER: 
I object to hearsay. 
BY MR. DYMOND: 
Q: You may not say what the surgeons in Dallas told Dr. Humes. That would be hearsay evidence. 
A: I have to base my interpretation on all the facts available and not on one fact only. When you have a wound of entry in the back of the neck and no wound of exit at the time of autopsy, when the X-rays I requested showed no bullets in the cadaver of the President, you need some other information to know where the bullet went. At the time of the autopsy there was a wound of entry in the back of the neck, no exit, no X-rays showing a bullet, that bullet has to be somewhere, so that information to me is of great importance. I insist on that point, and that telephone call to Dallas from Dr. Humes -- 
THE COURT: You may insist on the point, Doctor, but we are going to do it according to law. If it is legally objectionable, even if you insist, I am going to have to sustain the objection. Do you understand me, Mr. Dymond? 
MR. DYMOND: I do. 

It's curious you don't quote that. (original found here.)

No... what's curious is that Henry is desperate to mislead people about Finck's testimony, and why the prosectors didn't dissect the throat wound. Finck makes it very clear why he didn't, and Henry COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNAWARE OF THIS!!!

So Henry simply lied.

Here's the relevant testimony concerning why the throat wound was not dissected:

Quote:Mr Oser: Doctor, speaking of the wound to the throat area of the President as you described it, after this bullet passed through the President’s throat in the manner in which you described it, would the President have been able to talk?
Col. Finck: I don’t know.
Mr Oser: Do you have an opinion?
Col. Finck: There are many factors influencing the ability to talk or not to talk after a shot.
Mr Oser: Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table?
Col. Finck : I did not dissect the track in the neck.
Mr Oser: Why?
Col. Finck: This leads us into the disclosure of medical records.
Mr Oser: Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would ask The Court so to direct.
Judge: That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.
Col. Finck: We didn’t remove the organs of the neck.
Mr Oser: Why not, Doctor?
Col. Finck: For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the —
Mr Oser: Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?
Judge: Let him finish his answer.
Col. Finck: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and the chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn’t remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection.
Mr Oser: You have said that they did not. I want to know why didn’t you as an autopsy pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?
Col. Finck: I had the cause of death.
Mr Oser: Why did you not trace the track of the wound?
Col. Finck: As I recall I didn’t remove these organs from the neck.
Mr Oser: I didn’t hear you.
Col. Finck: I examined the wounds but I didn’t remove the organs of the neck.
Mr Oser: You said you didn’t do this; I am asking you why didn’t [you] do this as a pathologist?
Col. Finck: From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound the best I can remember, but I didn’t dissect or remove these organs.
Mr Oser: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question. I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
Col. Finck: As I recall I was told not to, but I don’t remember by whom.
Mr Oser: You were told not to but you don’t remember by whom?
Col. Finck: Right.
Mr Oser: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
Col. Finck: I don’t recall.
Mr Oser: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?
Col. Finck: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn’t include the removal of the organs of the neck.
Mr Oser: You are one of the three autopsy specialists and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
Col. Finck: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.
Mr Oser: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?
Col. Finck: From what I recall, yes, but I don’t remember by whom.

Now, it's clear here that there was a reason that the throat wound was not dissected, and it's NOT the reason that Henry attempted to mislead everyone into believing with his quote.

Henry wanted you to believe that it had to do with the prosectors thinking it was merely a tracheotomy, and not because THEY WERE ORDERED NOT TO DO SO!

Henry rather blatantly lied... and yet it was a rather simple matter to catch him at it, as long as one knows the evidence ... and this is what Henry counts on - that lurkers don't know the evidence well enough to catch him lying.

This is one reason that believers are rare in forums such as this one, where their lies will merely be pointed out.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Lying-About-The-Autopsy

Zapruder Film Invites Misrepresentation...

Patrick C Wrote:Clearly as Zapruder and his partner Irwin Schwartz had the film in their possession to the point when the first 3 copies were made - this RULES out any possible opportunity to change the film.

A hidden presumption exists here... although it's not really all that hidden.

Patrick is presuming that the copies are still authentic copies of the original film, instead of redone copies of the altered film.

Patrick is almost certainly aware of the evidence that the copies weren't original, but he says nothing.

So the nonsense that the film couldn't be altered due to this silly reasoning shows itself to be nonsense.

Of course, since Patrick accepts that there's evidence for alteration - statements like something 'RULING' out alteration is just silly as well.
 

Patrick C Wrote:And also note that the Nix film matches perfectly the Zapruder film where the capture the same time line.

Actually, I don't accept that at all. Nor is anyone in the position where they need to accept such a theory, because the Nix film was controlled by the government as well. Nor do we have the original Nix film.

Patrick C Wrote:And it goes without saying that altering the Zapruder film RISKING the chance that another film could have been taken on that day - which would then SHOW that the Z film had been altered would draw massive attention to the problem and put any conspirators under the spot light.

Had the film been released right away for public viewing, such an idea might actually hold water. But Patrick knows very well that the film was tightly controlled for a decade... during which time any other films that might have contradicted it would have had time to surface.

Surely Patrick is intelligent enough to recognize these flaws in his arguments... so why does he post them?

Could it be that he has nothing better?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Zapruder-Film-Invites-Misrepresentation

The Honesty Of Mark Lane...

Henry Sienzant Wrote:I already exposed in previous posts how Mark Lane took advantage of his readership by denying them the full context of many issues he raised. Rather than repeat all those here (you can find them easily enough), I'll ask you to defend this one sentence here, "It is the right to have facts, not hopes or thoughts or wishes or prejudicial opinions, presented", by telling us one fact you believe Mark Lane presented honestly in his book, RUSH TO JUDGMENT. Just tell us one claim pointing to conspiracy that Lane presented honestly, and be willing to defend it. (Original post found here.)

That's strange!?

I've twice posted nearly the entire book, 'Rush To Judgment' - in small paragraph chunks, over 400 posts in total - and the responses I received dealt with 2 or 3 of them.

Indicating that believers are unable to even phrase an argument about the vast majority of 'Rush to Judgment'... yet the frequent claims, as above; are that believers can easily answer Mark Lane, and can easily point to "dishonesty" in his book.

Why are believers afraid to actually do what they claim they can do?
 

WHY AREN'T THEY POSTING THIS ALLEGED "DISHONESTY" FOR ALL TO SEE?

Dead silence...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-The-Honesty-Of-Mark-Lane

Where's The Beef?

Henry Sienzant Wrote:I can provide solid evidence for the person I understand all the evidence points to as the mastermind of the assassination - Lee Harvey Oswald. I can show you his weapon. I can show you his order for the weapon. I can show you how he paid for the weapon. I can show you how he possessed the weapon. I can show you how his weapon was determined to be missing from its normal hiding place in the Paine garage shortly after the assassination. I can show you how numerous eyewitnesses outside the building saw a shooter or weapon on one of the upper floors of the Depository during the assassination. I can show you how his weapon was discovered on the sixth floor of the Depository shortly after the assassination. I can show you how the ballistics evidence implicates his weapon in the assassination - how three shells, two large fragments, and one nearly whole bullet found at Parkland implicate Oswald directly in the assassination. (Original post found here.)

Of course, when challenged to provide this very evidence, believers run.

Nothing they can provide would stand up in court against critical attack.

As just one example, the Money Order allegedly used to pay for the rifle had NO BANK ENDORSEMENTS WHATSOEVER... and thus never traveled through the banking system.

I would enjoy it if someone were to dare try to post the evidence that they think indicts a sole shooter in this case, or that they think indicts Oswald.

The contrary evidence is unexplained.

Indeed, the fact that the NAA testing of his cheek cast exonerates Oswald has never been explained, only denied.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Where-s-The-Beef

Not Explainable...

That there are many evidential points that are simply unexplainable by those who believe the Warren Commission is indisputable.

My favorite one is James Chaney - whom believers admit the evidence that he went forward of the limo and spoke with Chief Curry - yet are forced by the evidence to put this episode in a completely unbelievable context.

The scenario, as described by the witnesses, is that the Presidential limo slowed dramatically, and even came to a brief stop, during which James Chaney shot forward, and told Chief Curry that JFK had been shot. At that time, AND BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, Chief Curry ordered two things - that the convoy immediately take off for the Hospital, and a search be conducted of the area he believed the shots had come from.

Believers will admit that the Presidential limo was traveling 30-40 mph as it went under the Triple Overpass... they will admit that the evidence shows that the lead vehicle containing Chief Curry WAS NEVER COMPLETELY PASSED by the Presidential limo - then they will explain that Chaney spoke with Curry at a point when the vehicles were exceeding 40 mph. Anyone who's ever ridden a motorcycle immediately realizes the silliness of this claim.

No-one disputes that the shooting of JFK happened at 12:30... the same time to the minute, that Chaney had his conversation with Chief Curry - and Curry issued his radio orders.

Yet if you base the facts ONLY on the photographic evidence, Chaney never spoke with Curry... the only possible time he could have done so was in excess of 40 mph - which is simply not credible.

Other items that simply have no explanation from believers:

• The provable intimidation by the FBI on eyewitnesses.
  
• The stated intimidation by the CIA on a staff lawyer of the Warren Commission.
  
• The refusal by the Warren Commission to examine clearly relevant photos.
  
• The refusal by the Warren Commission to call witnesses that would have demolished their theory.
  
• The refusal by the Warren Commission to have any 'defense counsel' - with the ability to force them into an air-tight case.
  
• The frequency with which the Warren Commission intentionally misrepresented the evidence & testimony to fit their theory. (I've previously discussed numerous examples, such as the "hidden" clipboard, or the testimony of Mrs. Tice)
  
• The extremely speedy cleaning of the limo - a Secret Service Agent attempted to get a bucket of water and sponge BEFORE JFK WAS EVEN IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM.
  
• The early evidence that only two shots were fired from the TSBD.
  
• The outright lie that there was no evidence for multiple shooters.
  
• The proven impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City. (Many believers simply deny this fact)
  
• The corrosion pattern on the bullets allegedly retrieved from Oswald.
  
• The lying by the HSCA regarding the medical testimony.
  
• The refusal of the Warren Commission to keep a complete record. (Constantly rehearsing witnesses before their testimony, and going off the record)
  
• The fact that Autopsy photos have disappeared while under Government control.
  
• The pervasive evidence for unknown people who identified themselves as Secret Service Agents in Dealey Plaza.
  
• The fact that NAA testing that supported Oswald's innocence was covered up by the Warren Commission.
  
• The fact that the rifle testing conducted by the Warren Commission (indeed, all ballistics testing conducted) failed to support the Warren Commission's theory.
  
• The bullet entered Connally's wrist from the OUTSIDE to the inner ... virtually inconceivable based on the SBT. (Not even addressed by the Warren Commission - for good reason!)
  

The list could be many times longer - but in the interest of brevity, I'll stop now... since I know that Patrick, or any other believer, simply cannot address any of these issues in any credible way. Denial, lying, and ad hominem attacks seem to be the only resources available to believers... and since most forms of ad hominem are disallowed in this forum, most believers will never post here.

There will be NO ANSWERS to any of the above topics that are both credible, and provide citations to the evidence in support. A prediction that isn't risky at all, since more that 50 years worth of explanations have never touched on these issues in any credible way.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Not-Explainable

Things Believers Believe...

Things Believers believe...

• Oswald shot at Gen. Walker even though Walker was shot at using a 30.06 steel-jacketed bullet
  
• Oswald shot Officer Tippit even though Tippit was dead by 1:07 and Oswald was nearly a mile away at 1:04
  
• Oswald shot JFK even though Jesse Curry was not willing to say there was any proof of that (but DVP knows better than Curry, of course)
  
• That one bullet caused 7 wounds in two men, hit ribs and bone and came out looking virtually unscathed
  
• That JFK's anterior neck wound was an exit wound even though all medical personnel who saw it dispute that and even though it was 3-5 mm whereas WC tests showed M-C exit wounds are in the 10 mm range
  
• That Oswald picked up a pistol mailed to him even though the proper forms were not kept
  
• That Oswald picked up a rifle mailed to him even though the proper forms were not kept
  
• That the backyard photos are real even though the nose shadow remains the same and the heads from the different poses can be superimposed to show they are exactly the same photo - he believes this because a photo panel said they were not forgeries and we all know that panels of experts can never be wrong
  
• That Marina can be used to justify some bit of data even though the WC and HSCA knew her to be a serial liar whose stories changed day to day
  
• No one impersonated Oswald in Mexico City even though everyone else seems to be aware of this impersonation
  
• That no one could forge Oswald's handwriting even though experts validated the "Mr. Hunt" note which later was acknowledged a forgery
  
• That Ruth Paine was merely a kind Quaker lady even though her CIA connections seem to have been well known to many people at that time
  
• That Clay Shaw did not commit perjury when he denied in court that he was a CIA asset even though the CIA later admitted he did work for them
  
• That there was no interference from the CIA and FBI in the Garrison investigation and trial even though everyone else knows there was
  
• That the bullets "discovered" in Oswald's pocket two hours after his arrest were there all along and were not planted by the DPD even though they show bullet slide corrosion and Oswald owned no bullet slide
  
• That the DPD would file two detailed reports of the Mauser found in the TSBD if it had not been found but was a Mannlicher-Carcano instead
  
• That a person would own a rifle and a pistol and have no gun cleaning equipment
  
• That the main goal of the plotters was to frame a lone assassin even though that is merely an assumption made after the fact and used over and over as one of the lamest arguments imaginable
  
• That Capt. Fritz had a good reason for running ahead when Oswald was being taken through the basement instead of remaining as a protective shield, which was the point of his being in front
  
• That the autopsy photos are genuine even though the autopsy photographer said they aren't
  
• That the X-rays are genuine even though we have proof of forgery
  
• That the autopsy report is genuine even though Humes destroyed not only his notes but the first report
  

This was a list compiled by someone on the Amazon Forums, and I could add an equal number to this list... believers really do believe many things not supported by the evidence.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Things-Believers-Believe

Debate Tactics In Evolution...

It's interesting to see other areas where the shady debate tactics frequently seen in the JFK case are also used.

Really, I suppose any highly controversial area is going to have this problem - but in the Evolution vs Intelligent Design arguments, you can see the same misrepresentations, cherry-picking, cowardice, and outright lying that is so prevalent in the JFK case.

Rather interesting, that.

Since it demonstrates the same sort of faith-based debate that we find in this forum... much of the defense of Evolution isn't based on evidence, but based on misrepresentation and ad hominem attacks.

Interestingly, one of the early posters on the JFK case... Michael Griffith, has also written against Evolution.

There are similarities beyond debate tactics... faith in the Warren Commission is mirrored by faith in Darwinian Evolution, both are subjects that are beyond dispute, in the eyes of supporters.

In both topics, believers in the Warren Commission, and believers in Evolution: proclaim critics of their faith to be ignorant or stupid... 

Come to think of it, Climate Change is another controversial topic where the faithful misrepresent and lie to defend their faith...

The point is really a simple one... when you don't have the facts & truth on your side, you will literally do anything, no matter how despicable, to maintain your faith.

And if you find yourself lying to support your "side"... perhaps you're on the wrong side...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Debate-Tactics-In-Evolution

Common Tactics of Believers...

Henry Sienzant Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Getting back to the evidence... a thing that believers HATE:

Quote:No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)

Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying.

Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.

You're lying again, Henry.

More importantly, you KNOW you're lying.

Tell us, why do you think that you can support your belief with lies?

---

This is an EXTREMELY common tactic that WCR Supporter's use... they simply twist and lie about what critics say. Henry knows I said no such thing - yet what I did say is indisputable...

This is merely one of a number of quite dishonest debate tactics that believers utilize to avoid the truth.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Common-Tactics-of-Believers

CIA Intimidation of the Warren Commission.

John Titus had several interviews with David Slawson, who served on the Warren Commission. It's interesting for this tidbit, which shows that it wasn't only the FBI who intimidated people ... the CIA got in on the intimidation game as well.

John Titus Wrote:After the conclusion of the Warren Commission a researcher had discovered a memo that states that someone was using Oswald’s name and identification while he was in Russia. Howard Willens took a poll of the investigators as to how many of them thought this aspect should be re-investigated. Slawson said he was the only one that said yes, we should look into it. On a Sunday morning Slawson received a phone call at his house.

It was none other than James Angleton, the creepy head of CIA counterintelligence. Angleton began with a pleasant greeting and asked Slawson to please say hello for him to the President of USC, where Slawson taught law. That man had been CIA station chief in India, and Angleton knew him.

Then Angleton got to the point; He said "Are you still loyal to us?" I asked Slawson what he thought Angleton meant by "us". Slawson said "The CIA. Am I still loyal to the CIA."

He told Angleton – Yes. It scared Slawson’s wife to death. Slawson said he was too cocky to think they would try and kill him, but he knew that if he had crossed them they would destroy his reputation and career. (original article here.)

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-CIA-Intimidation-of-the-Warren-Commission

Trained Investigators?

Dale Wrote:What's amusing and revealing is that the WC staffers, many of whom were trained investigators, encountered some of the same theories Ben Holmes preaches as the gospel truth and after REALLY investigating these theories, determined there was no substance to them. (original post here.)

There was, of course, NO-ONE who was a "trained investigator" on the Warren Commission. Dale cited a few lawyers, but of course, law schools offer no courses on investigations. Indeed, many of the staff lawyers were just a few years out of schooling, and had virtually no experience in such matters.

Despite the fact that Dale simply lied, not a single believer stepped up to the plate to correct him.

Lies are consistently told by one side in this issue... that is all you really need to know to determine the truth.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Trained-Investigators

Wrone Lies About Zapruder Film Alteration.

It's long been my contention that when people find it necessary to lie to 'prove' their theory, that perhaps their time would be better spent finding a better theory that doesn't need lies to support it.

An excellent example can be found in David Wrone's book on the Zapruder film. An otherwise excellent book, Wrone's misrepresentations of those he disagrees with are rather obvious and mind-boggling.  I'll illustrate with just four paragraphs below, interspersed with my comments:

David Wrone Wrote:Twyman provides five primary conclusions concerning the Zapruder film.  First, he says, it was altered, or forged in his terminology, by having frames spliced out. He fails to explain precisely which frames were removed and how removal would have been detected. The reader is left to accept his assertion as fact. Nor does he explain exactly what evidence the conspirators removed, which is also left to the reader to surmise.

Twyman gives precise examples of where frames were removed... see page 165, as merely one example, where he specifies that frames were removed between frame 302 and 303... along with how it was detected.
 

David Wrone Wrote:Second, he contradicts himself. At one point, he states he could not decide whether 'JFK was first hit either just before or after he passed behind the freeway sign.' But he also states, 'When he emerged from behind the sign, he had already been hit.'

This is just silly.  Twyman clearly states that he cannot decide whether JFK was first hit either just before, or just after he passed behind the sign. The Warren Commission believed that JFK was hit after he was hidden by the sign, there's persuasive evidence that he was hit before that point. It matters rather little at which point you believe he was hit ... For neither is contradicted by his statement of fact that when JFK emerged from behind the sign, he had already been hit. Wrone finds contradictions where there simply are none. This doesn't bode well for Wrone's ability to reason from the evidence.
 

David Wrone Wrote:Third, he draws upon the 'sworn testimony' of allegedly credible eyewitnesses to back up his claim that the Zapruder film shows JFK's limousine came to a 'virtually complete stop.' Those witnesses, however, are never identified, and the film does not support his claim.

An outright lie here... at no point does Twyman state that eyewitnesses state that the Zapruder Film shows a limousine stop – quite the opposite, in fact. He quite clearly states on page 118: "The Zapruder film, when projected on a screen, does not show the limousine slowing down or stopping, contrary to the sworn statements of credible eyewitnesses."

Wrone also claims that these "witnesses, however, are never identified" – but anyone who reads pages 129-132, conveniently titled "EYEWITNESSES: LIMOUSINE SLOWS ALMOST TO A STOP", would perhaps wonder at Wrone's accuracy here. Wrone simply lied. Not only were a number of credible eyewitnesses specifically named, their applicable WC testimony was QUOTED!

Note also that Twyman called them "credible" eyewitnesses... let's examine who he quoted:

• Roy Truly – TBSD manager 
  
• Marion Baker – Dallas Policeman 
  
• Earle Brown – Dallas Policeman 
  
• D.V. Harkness – Dallas Policeman 
  
• Bobby Hargis – Dallas Policeman 
  
• Ralph Yarborough – United States Senator 
  

Sounds like Twyman was merely telling the truth when he stated that "credible eyewitnesses" gave the sworn testimony that he quoted.
 

David Wrone Wrote:Fourth, he charges that the allegedly altered film hides the blowout at the rear of JFK's head described by doctors and nurses. In fact, there was no rear-side blowout, as I note elsewhere. Medical authorities mistook for a gunshot hole a flap of skin with bone and bloody matter attached that was thrown back over the head on a hinge of skin.

No "rear-side blowout"? While Parkland medical authorities might be argued to have not accurately described what they saw, the same cannot be said for an autopsy lasting in excess of four hours... and they describe a wound that certainly can be described as a "rear-side blowout". (interestingly, a topic that Patrick has recently been caught lying about...)

("The Zapruder Film" by David R. Wrone, pg 129) 

Does anyone want to defend Wrone?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Wrone-Lies-About-Zapruder-Film-Alteration

Believers Are Invariably Liars...

Ben Holmes Wrote:You're lying again, Patrick!

Dr. Baden stated that "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said."

You asserted that Dr. Baden was "Baden is quite correct of course..."

Then you contradict what he said.

Who has problems with the English language?

I'll make it real easy for you... you stated that Dr. Baden was correct...

WAS DR. BADEN CORRECT WHEN HE STATED THAT: "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said."?

Now why couldn't you answer the question?

WHY ARE YOU SUCH A COWARD, PATRICK?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Believers-Are-Invariably-Liars

James Chaney & Believers' Lying...

Dale Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidentally would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?

Wrong, David - Chaney and the officer riding in tandem with him BOTH were interviewed by the FBI and they BOTH stated that the three sounds came from above and behind and NO shots came from the side or the front. Chaney only reinforced the WC's official conclusion - the sounds came "from over my right shoulder" - spoken by Chaney on the afternoon of the shooting.

You're a liar, Dale.

When was the WCR released?

When was this FBI interview?

My crystal ball predicts you'll NEVER answer those two questions, then retract the lie you just told.

It's quite interesting that you can't force a believer to ACCURATELY quote what James Chaney said. They always leave words out. I leave it to lurkers to watch the video and determine what James Chaney ACTUALLY said...





I wonder if there's any believer who can ACCURATELY state publicly what James Chaney said about the location of the shots?
 

'Dale Wrote:Chaney's interview with the FBI is dated 9/8/75. Jackson's was around the same time.

Dale admits that the claim he made is based on an interview conducted 12 years later... during which Chaney CONTRADICTS his televised statement made just hours after the murder.

This is a common tactic among believers... they will cry that the earliest testimony & statements is far preferable to later statements made a decade later... unless, of course, they NEED the later statement. EVERY believer does this.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-James-Chaney-Believers-Lying

'Human Error'... or Blatant Coverup?

Garry Puffer Wrote:Let's list a few cases where the LNers claim that mistakes made in the JFK case were nothing but "human error":
 

• Greer slowing the limo when protocol requires acceleration without thinking about it first.
  
  
• The DPD announcing a Mauser had been found, officers submitting two official reports to that effect, and the "mistake" not acknowledged for quite some time.
  
  
• The "sniper's nest" not being found for over thirty minutes after the DPD being informed exactly where it was by two witnesses.
  
  
• Capt. Fritz's behavior in Jack Ruby's shooting of Oswald.
  
  
• The several shells not bearing the initials needed to establish a chain of custody.
  
  
• The many medical professionals who saw a large, gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head.
  
  
• The initial police reports that state TWO shells were found in the TSBD along with a whole bullet.
  
  
• The lack of rear bumper and side motorcycle protection for JFK's limo.
  
  
• The several conflicting stories told by Officer McDonald concerning Oswald's arrest in the theater.
  
  
• The arrest report that states Oswald was found in the balcony of the theater.
  
  
• An autopsy that would not have served a bum found dead on the street much less a national leader.
  
  
• The entire Warren Report.
  
  
• The lies told by Vincent Bugliosi.
  
  
• The Secret Service destruction of documents concerning JFK motorcades in the months prior to Dallas, and the destruction occurring AFTER the ARRB sought those records.
  
  
• The CIA identification of Oswald in Mexico City.
  
  
• The switching of the order of Zapruder frames published in LIFE magazine.
  
  
• The determination, after a viewing of the Zapruder film, that JFK had turned so that his throat was exposed to the 6th floor window.
  
  
• The many different locations of the head wound, as determined by several official panels, each of which disagreed with the others.
  
  
• The medical personnel's determination of the location of JFK's back wound, fortunately corrected by medical expert Gerald Ford.
  
  
• The lack of provenance for CE399.
  
  And this is just for starters. This case was apparently nothing BUT "human error." One wonders if humans can do anything right after looking at this case through the human error prism.
  

Garry's absolutely correct... this is a demonstration of the faith that believers have.

There comes a point when "human error" becomes a very silly excuse for not accepting the fact that there was a provable coverup in this case.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Human-Error-or-Blatant-Coverup

Vincent Bugliosi, Subjectivity, And Patrick Collins

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:If Bugliosi spent over 20 years studying the evidence, yet was unaware of one of the most critical and devastating facts that tends to show a conspiracy, how can he be trusted for anything he says about the case?

I think that is a very subjective view.

I listed two facts.

#1 - Bugliosi spent over 20 years studying the evidence.

#2 - Bugliosi failed to understand a very basic bit of medical evidence.

Which one was "subjective," Patrick?

I stated that "I predict that NO believer will specifically address this question." - looks like I was perfectly correct.

And despite asking Patrick what was "subjective" - he has avoided this question for years...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-Subjectivity-And-Patrick-Collins

20 Forensic Experts - What Did They Know?

Dale Wrote:20 Forensic experts (Independent experts) agree with Kevin and disagree with Ben.

Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that the Autopsy did not dissect, and DID NOT KNOW about the bullet wound in JFK's throat.

Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that the bullet wound *LOOKED* like an entry.

Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that the prosectors were ORDERED not to dissect the track of the bullet.

Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" even knew that the HSCA had intentionally lied about the testimony of the Bethesda witnesses - indeed, THEY NEVER HEARD THAT TESTIMONY. The HSCA kept the very evidence needed by the "experts" to make an honest appraisal.

Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that the Parkland staff *CHANGED* their "opinion" *AFTER* that weekend...

Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that the *ONLY* medically trained personnel to examine, however briefly, the bullet wound in JFK's throat were at Parkland.

Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that "ragged" holds no place in the description of the original bullet wound in the skin of JFK's throat.

Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that they've never seen the photograph showing bruising of the apical portion of the lung.

Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that the executive session of the Warren Commission on Jan. 27 mentioned an autopsy report in which the throat wound was described as being caused by a fragment of bone.

You can't cite even ONE of these anonymous "experts" contradicting anything I've stated in this post - nor will you even try.

Such AMAZING cowardice!

So the question remains... just what would these anonymous "experts" agree with Kevin on? Or disagree with me on?

Can you show that they knew what I know, and THEN cite their "expert" opinion?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-20-Forensic-Experts-What-Did-They-Know

Lest We Forget...

One of the frequent posters who support the Warren Commission's theory is someone who uses the name "Barton Paul Levenson".

In April of last year, he posted this:

Barton Paul Levenson Wrote:California, which produces 25% of American produce, will be uninhabitable in one year. Two years at the most. The rest of the US will have to resettle 39 million people. (original post here.)

Living in California, naturally this "prediction" is of great interest to me. Sadly, I've seen no efforts getting started to resettle any Californians...

Nor have I seen any other believer castigating Mr. Levenson for this absolutely kooky statement...

This is common among believers - they won't correct fellow believers.

Critics, on the other hand; rarely have any problems correcting other critics - because we are dealing with facts - not speculation and opinion.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Lest-We-Forget