UPDATE 10/31/16 -- A Coup in Camelot

update: I received this from David Mantik this morning...
--David

 



    A Coup in Camelot Award-Winning JFK Assassination Documentary Available on November 4, 2016 on iTunes and Other     Digital Platforms

Quote:October 31, 2016 -- Los Angeles, CA -- A Coup in Camelot the award-winning documentary on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy will be available on November 4, 2016 on iTunes, Amazon Video Direct, Google Play and Vimeo OnDemand.
 
On November 4th, the DVD and Blu-ray can be purchased exclusively on the film’s website at http://acoupincamelot.com/.
 
Narrated by Emmy award-winning actor Peter Coyote, directed/produced by Stephen Goetsch and written/produced by Art Van Kampen, A Coup in Camelot is a powerful examination of compelling new research, exclusive interviews and critical analysis by the top medical, forensic and research experts in the country.
 
“November 22, 2016 marks the 53rd anniversary of the assassination of the country’s 35th president,” said Stephen Goetsch, director/producer. “We are pleased to offer audiences this unbiased and impassioned addition to the historical record of this tragic event.”
 
Five decades later crucial questions remain about President Kennedy’s assassination.  The film provides extensive evidence of botched Secret Service protocols, Zapruder film analysis with 6k digital scans, shocking medical evidence revelations, and expert Oswald analysis, to uncover the dramatic tale of A Coup In Camelot.
 
The following JFK assassination experts who appear in the film are available for interviews:
 
·         Douglas Horne – Assassination Records Review Board, Author
·         Vince Palamara – Secret Service Expert, Author
·         Sherry Fiester – Forensics Expert, Author
.         Dr. David Mantik - Radiologist
·         Dick Russell – Oswald Expert, Author

·         Barry Ernest – Oswald Expert, Author
·         Jerry Dealey – Historian, Author
 
For the film experts’ biographies visit: http://acoupincamelot.com/bios.html
 
To view the trailer visit: http://acoupincamelot.com/trailer.html
 
For complete information on A Coup in Camelot visit: http://acoupincamelot.com/
 
Press Contact:
Susan Kaplan
susanlkaplan@sbcglobal.net

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-UPDATE-10-31-16-A-Coup-in-Camelot

The SBT by David Von Pein... Refuted.

Quote:Based on the official evidence in the John F. Kennedy murder case, all of the following things are true:

1.) President John F. Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally were shot by rifle bullets in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on Friday, November 22, 1963.

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial Number C2766) was located inside a building which overlooked the assassination site (the Texas School Book Depository) when JFK and JBC were being wounded by gunfire.

3.) A nearly-whole bullet (Warren Commission Exhibit #399) was found inside the hospital where JFK and JBC were taken after the shooting. And CE399 was found in a location within the hospital where President Kennedy was never located prior to the bullet being found by Darrell Tomlinson. (Nor was JFK's stretcher ever in the area of the hospital where Tomlinson discovered the bullet.)

4.) Bullet CE399 was positively fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.

5.) Bullet CE399, based on the above points in total, HAD to have been inside Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63.

6.) A man who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald was seen firing a rifle at the President's limousine from a southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository Building. No other gunmen were seen firing any weapons in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.

7.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found in the upper back or neck of John Kennedy's body. And no significant damage was found inside these areas of JFK's body either.

8.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found inside the body of Governor Connally after the shooting. The only bullet, anywhere, that can possibly be connected with Connally's wounds is Bullet CE399.

9.) Given the point in time when both JFK and JBC were first hit by rifle fire (based on the Abraham Zapruder Film), and given the known location of Governor Connally's back (entrance) wound, and also taking into account the individual points made above -- Bullet CE399 had no choice but to have gone through the body of President Kennedy prior to entering the back of John B. Connally.

David Von Pein doesn't like to defend his claims against critical review in public, so he posts them on a website where no-one can refute him. Patrick has claimed to be willing to defend these claims, so it's worthwhile to refute each claim to see just how truthful Patrick will be...

I predict in advance that Patrick will decide that this isn't worthwhile trying to defend...

So, one by one:

Quote:1.) President John F. Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally were shot by rifle bullets in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on Friday, November 22, 1963.

Indeed, probably the only thing that I will agree with, based on the evidence and logic. The possibility of accurate pistol fire over the distances involved would be astronomically small... It's interesting to note that of DVP's nine points, this is the only one that is logical and reasonable.
 

Quote:2.) Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial Number C2766) was located inside a building which overlooked the assassination site (the Texas School Book Depository) when JFK and JBC were being wounded by gunfire.

Nope. Mere speculation that isn't supported by the evidence. DVP made a desperate attempt to refute the fact that there are no bank endorsements on the alleged money order that was presumed to have been used to pay for the rifle. Yet he failed miserably in that attempt. If Oswald didn't pay for the rifle - then the only other logical way to account for the known evidence IS THAT HE WAS FRAMED WITH FALSIFIED EVIDENCE.

There's truly no other credible explanation for that money order.

And until that money order can be explained in terms of the Warren Commission's theory, then it's simply dishonest to claim that the rifle belonged to Oswald.

And if the rifle cannot be connected to Oswald - then 99% of the case simply dissolves...

I've demonstrated quite conclusively in my posts on Bugliosi's 53 bits of evidence that there simply isn't the evidence that believers are wont to believe. So this attempt to merely presume what needs to be shown is a common tactic among believers.

 

Quote:3.) A nearly-whole bullet (Warren Commission Exhibit #399) was found inside the hospital where JFK and JBC were taken after the shooting. And CE399 was found in a location within the hospital where President Kennedy was never located prior to the bullet being found by Darrell Tomlinson. (Nor was JFK's stretcher ever in the area of the hospital where Tomlinson discovered the bullet.)

Once again, we are looking at a wee bit of dishonesty on DVP's part. There was no chain of custody on this bullet that could have stood up in court, and DVP is well aware of that fact. It doesn't matter WHERE CE399 was found... if there's no valid chain of custody, then it's simply inadmissible evidence. DVP is also undoubtedly aware of the threatening phone call that Tomlinson described... and yet has no explanation for... Once again, the facts fit a frameup quite nicely - and is a very ill fit indeed for the Warren Commission's theory.

 

Quote:4.) Bullet CE399 was positively fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.

Nope. CE399 has been established with valid testimony to have been fired from the Mannlicher Carcano, C2766 - that's ALL THAT CAN BE LEGITIMATELY AND HONESTLY STATED. DVP wishes to go beyond what the evidence shows in order to defend the Warren Commission's theory.

I predict that Patrick will absolutely REFUSE to refute my statement here... and defend DVP's quite misleading assertion.

 

Quote:5.) Bullet CE399, based on the above points in total, HAD to have been inside Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63.

Again... nope.

There's been no evidence presented to show that CE399 was even fired on 11/22/63. Indeed, the weight of the testimony tends to indicate that this was part of a frameup, rather than legitimate evidence.

As well, DVP certainly knows that the ballistics tests conducted on behalf of the Warren Commission was completely unable to duplicate the pristine nature of CE399. At a velocity low enough to retain the bullet's shape - no bones will be broken... and at a velocity high enough to break bone, the bullet is also severely deformed.

 

Quote:6.) A man who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald was seen firing a rifle at the President's limousine from a southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository Building. No other gunmen were seen firing any weapons in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.

Nope... indeed, Brennan; whom everyone will agree got the best look at the assassin, ABSOLUTELY REFUSED TO IDENTIFY HIM AS LEE HARVEY OSWALD in lineups conducted that day. As well, all of the witnesses described the assassin's clothing as different from Oswald's. The nonsense about no other gunmen being seen firing a weapon is sheer nonsense... and disguises the fact that DVP knows that other rifles were seen that day close to, or in Dealey Plaza.

This same argument can be used to show that Nicole Brown is really still alive, since no-one saw anyone using a knife on June 12, 1994. It's a nonsensical argument that can only be used by the faithful to help other believers.

 

Quote:7.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found in the upper back or neck of John Kennedy's body. And no significant damage was found inside these areas of JFK's body either.

Simply untrue. DVP knows quite well that the prosectors WERE FORBIDDEN from dissecting the track of the wound - so there's simply no cause for him to assert that no "significant damage" was not found there - they never looked.

Indeed, it's rather silly for DVP to claim that a bullet went through a body, yet no "significant damage" attended that transit. Surely he's trying to make some other point, because his statement as is - is simply nonsense.

Presumably, DVP is trying to account for the nearly pristine nature of CE399 - yet avoiding the real place that severe damage would accrue - Connally's wrist.

 

Quote:8.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found inside the body of Governor Connally after the shooting. The only bullet, anywhere, that can possibly be connected with Connally's wounds is Bullet CE399.

Untrue. DVP is well aware of the disappearing bullet fragments found in Connally's wrist. Nor is it true that CE399 is the only bullet that can be connected to Connally's wounds... the attending doctor testified that up to THREE bullets could have caused Connally's wounds.

And since the limo was immediately hustled out of Dallas, and never searched by impartial investigators - there's no telling what might have been found in the way of bullets or bullet fragments.

Indeed, Secret Service Agent Kinney claims that he found CE399 in the limo. And since Patrick is fond of statements made decades later - he can't refute this on any logical grounds.

 

Quote:9.) Given the point in time when both JFK and JBC were first hit by rifle fire (based on the Abraham Zapruder Film), and given the known location of Governor Connally's back (entrance) wound, and also taking into account the individual points made above -- Bullet CE399 had no choice but to have gone through the body of President Kennedy prior to entering the back of John B. Connally.

Nope. The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK. DVP knows this - and glosses over it.

Nor is it true that a bullet striking Connally had to have gone through JFK first. This is a quite misleading lie. It presumes 'facts' not shown to be true, and simply presumes that the Warren Commission's theory of the shooting sequence is correct.

Yet the evidence doesn't support this - and DVP knows quite well that it doesn't. Indeed, for many years, believers used to argue a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally for the express purpose of explaining the extant Zapruder film. They no longer make that argument, deciding that they can move a presumed "reaction" on the part of Connally to a point earlier than the Warren Commission did.

Also note that DVP has repeatedly asserted a role for CE399 that he cannot demonstrate using the evidence. There's a reason that the United States Judicial system requires a chain of custody for evidence.
 

---

So in conclusion - what we see here is speculation piled on speculation, and presumptions given the status of evidence.

It's worth noting the evidence... I say again, the EVIDENCE that the theory of a single bullet transiting and striking both JFK & Connally is far more credible ... and rather completely avoided by Patrick (and all other believers, for that matter). Here it is again:

1. The depth of the wound.
2. The location of the wound.
3. The missing interior chest photo.
4. The original description of the throat wound.
5. The original autopsy describing a different explanation for the throat wound. (Rankin)
6. The size of the wound in comparison to it's supposed "exit".
7. The complete lack of any metal found on the front of the shirt & tie.
8. The missing report & testimony of Stombaugh.
9. The earliest attempts to explain the frontal shot (Life Magazine, Mandel's article)

It would be truly amusing to see if DVP could address my 9 points the way I've so easily dismissed his 9 points... we already know that Patrick cannot.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-The-SBT-by-David-Von-Pein-Refuted

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #11 Refuted.

(11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President. 

This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part. Bugliosi knows quite well that Howard Brennen refused to identify Oswald, and indeed, described an assassin that CANNOT match Oswald.

It's true that months later, Brennan claimed that he really HAD identified Oswald, but was afraid for his family that other conspirators would harm them if he identified Oswald - but this really makes no sense... because Brennan made the effort to come forward. He also described the assassin wearing light colored clothing - Oswald, of course, wore dark clothing.

It's more reasonable to accept that Brennan was pressured in the intervening months to identify Oswald.

And Warren Commission Believers would have you accept that Brennan could accurately identify a face, yet completely miss the COLOR of the clothing.

Once again, we have the presumption of guilt over-riding the actual facts.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-11-Refuted

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #10 Refuted.

(10) Oswald's pretense with a co-worker that he didn't know JFK's route

Sheer speculation on Bugliosi's part. Before you can label this a 'pretense', you must show that Oswald knew for a fact that JFK would be passing in front of the building. Bugliosi has been unable to do this.

This is another example of presuming guilt, then taking any action or speech to 'prove' that guilt.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-10-Refuted

The Two Henrys

Another typically amusing non-response by The Coward, Henry Sienzant, in relation to the Henry Marshall murder:


https://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref...EGQD4NZJ7E


This is the third time everyone's favorite disinformationalist absolutely refused to address the topic of Henry Marshall's "suicide", and how it relates to Estes and Mac Wallace and its subsequent cover-up. This reminds me a lot of the example of the Alyea photo, and the believers' refusal to acknowledge there are two weapons. Denial is eternal.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-The-Two-Henrys

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #9 Refuted.

(9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD domino room. 

You have to go to the endnotes to find out where Bugliosi pulled this "fact" from... here's the relevant testimony:

Quote:Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.

Now, Bugliosi wants us to believe that because Givens didn't recall Oswald reading a newspaper on a specific day 5 months earlier – that he was guilty of murder.

But we KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY that he was eating lunch. Bugliosi wants to imply that Oswald was busy constructing the 'snipers lair' – but he dare not assert it, because he KNOWS that there's testimony putting Oswald downstairs eating lunch.

But let's look at a statement from the FBI report of Griffin & Odum, from 11/23/63: "On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed LEE reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M."

Givens testifies that he saw Oswald at 11:55 on the 6th floor, and never saw him again... technically true, he'd earlier reported seeing Oswald 5 minutes EARLIER reading the paper.

I daresay that there were quite a few employees at that building that never saw Oswald reading a newpaper that day... but not seeing Oswald after 11:55 – and claiming therefore that he wasn't reading a newspaper, is something only a Warren Commission Believer can accept.

And another excellent example of presuming guilt, then taking any action or speech to 'prove' that guilt.

P.S. It's also a very good barometer of honesty that you'll never find a believer willing to publicly state that Bugliosi was wrong here... let alone that he was clearly off his rocker for this particular attempt...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-9-Refuted

Patrick Collins Blatantly Lies!!!

Patrick has repeatedly claimed that Malcolm Kilduff got his information about JFK's wounds from Dr. Perry... despite the fact that WHEN HE DESCRIBED THOSE WOUNDS, he also said who he got the information from.

Here it is again, at the 2:39 mark:





Despite the fact that Patrick has seen this video many times - he's still willing to lie about it.

Why the lies, Patrick???

What do you think it gains you?

Why is it so impossible for either you or Henry Sienzant to publicly state that Kilduff got his information from Dr. Burkley???

And if you'll lie about something so easily checked, how can anyone trust anything you say on things that are more difficult to validate?

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

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #8 Refuted.

(8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever. 

Silly! Since when does "walking fast" have anything at all to do with indicting someone??? Sometimes Bugliosi really stretches to try to find something to 'prove' Oswald's guilt, this is a good example of his tendency to do this.

Again we see the theme of presuming guilt on Oswald's part, then pretending that everything he did and said shows that guilt. Since when does "walking fast" show guilt of anything at all???
 

Quote:Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together. 
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did. 
Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you? 
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did. 

I'll leave it to the reader to analyze this testimony... because if I pointed out the obvious, Patrick wouldn't be able to refute it anyway...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-8-Refuted

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #7 Refuted.

(7) Frazier noticed that for the first time on a return trip from Irving, Oswald brought no lunch. 

Most statements from Frazier can be credibly debated... he was a suspect in the case, and had his rifle confiscated, and was ran through a lie detector test that night. (CE 2003 pg. 183) Oswald said he ate lunch, and others saw him eating lunch.

So where did the lunch come from?

Frazier was certainly in a quandary – he couldn't claim he saw Oswald with a paper bag (that was too short to have a rifle), and a SECOND paper bag containing his lunch. A choice had to be made.

But we KNOW that Oswald ate lunch. Now, he could conceivably have purchased it, but as Frazier admits, Oswald ALWAYS brought his lunch – at least to his knowledge:

Quote:Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - He did?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.

Here's a perfect example of where Warren Commission Believers – faced with competing 'facts' – will always choose the one that supports their theory. We know that Oswald ate lunch, we know he is known to have regularly BROUGHT his lunch... but you need the rifle to come into the building somehow (despite the fact that there were a couple of rifles in the building just a few days earlier... not very difficult to bring rifles in!) - so you had to co-opt Oswald's lunch bag to serve as a rifle case.

Now, the obvious question – where did Oswald get his lunch – can be reasonably answered, perhaps he bought it from the 10 am catering service... but here we have speculation instead of evidence.

And speculation isn't evidence of ANYONE'S guilt.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-7-Refuted

What Happens When A Believer Is Caught Lying...

I've predicted it many times before, and have almost always been proven correct... when a believer is caught in a particularly outrageous lie, they simply disappear from forum posting for days or weeks...

Patrick was caught lying about where Malcolm Kilduff stated he'd gotten the wound location information - claiming it was Dr. Perry when he's quite well aware that it was Dr. Burkley.

This is the sort of lie that simply doesn't make any sense...

But Patrick has indeed simply disappeared...

Too bad we can't have an HONEST debate about the evidence.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-What-Happens-When-A-Believer-Is-Caught-Lying

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #6 Refuted.

(6) On Friday morning, Oswald placed a long paper-wrapped package in the back seat of Frazier's car. 

Until you can put a rifle in that package, it does nothing to indict Oswald. It's also worth noting that every witness who saw that package, and testified about it, stated that it was too short to contain a rifle. Their testimony is quite compelling, because of the way that they stated Oswald had carried the package, with his palm under the package, and the top of the package was UNDER his armpit.

Now, either Oswald had the arms of an Orangutan, or the package wasn't long enough for the Mannlicher Carcano that Bugliosi believes it contained.

Since Bugliosi already lied about curtain rods not having turned up in this case - one can legitimately wonder if Oswald would have stopped to tie his shoelaces, it would have ended up in Bugliosi's list of evidence...

Again, the theme of presuming Oswald's guilt – THEN using everything he did and said as evidence of that 'guilt'. We're seeing this theme over and over again.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-6-Refuted

Henry Sienzant Lies On Malcolm Kilduff...

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:

Henry Sienzant Wrote:Patrick, 

Regarding the unfathomable logic, Ben is simply assuming what he needs to prove regarding Kilduff's knowledge (that Kilduff saw the body, which is a claim not in evidence)... and he's ignoring the fact that Kilduff, even if he saw a large wound in the temple area of the President's head, couldn't make the determination whether it was an entrance or an exit wound (as I pointed out to a previous poster, not only is Kilduff not qualified to make that determination - he's a assistant press secretary, not a forensic pathologist - but there's no evidence Kilduff or Dr. Burkley examined the head to the degree necessary to make that determination. That's why we have autopsies, I said. Ben prefers not to discuss what the autopsy found, and what Humes testified to - a small entry wound in the back of the head [determined by the beveling on the skull]). Instead he want to focus on the large wound and simply assume it's an entrance (which is what the prior poster was doing as well). So telling someone to watch the video doesn't establish anything other than where the large wound was (above the ear), which we already knew from the eyewitness testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza like Bill Newman, Abraham Zapruder, and Ike Altgens, as well as from the Zapruder film, the autopsy, the autopsy x-rays and the autopsy photographs. Kilduff's locating the large wound above the ear merely confirms the other evidence is correct. (Original found here.)

Patty whimpers: "Hank, Thanks for the post, Mr Holmes is clearly a gulf away from Ms Bates' excellent advice!"

You lied, Henry lied, and it's clear that neither one of you is capable of addressing your lies...

How embarrassing that you're now attributing false statements that Henry made to ME...

REALLY embarrassing that Henry is doing the same...

Both of you have been schooled on where Kilduff got the information about the head wound - and now you can't admit that you were wrong...

But ANYONE can view Malcolm Kilduff's Press Conference on Youtube, and he TELLS YOU where he got the information... from Dr. Burkley.

That both of you need to lie on this issue simply goes to show that you understand the weakness of your case...

Truly amusing that even though Patrick PROVABLY knew that Dr. Burkley was the source of Malcolm Kilduff's description of the wound, that he turns around and lies about it.

Claiming now that it was Dr. Perry...

The truth simply cannot be found on the side of believers... they lie at the drop of a hat.

Then absolutely REFUSE to take responsibility for their lies, and publicly defend or retract them.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Henry-Sienzant-Lies-On-Malcolm-Kilduff

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #5 Refuted.

(5) Friday morning, Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving.

This is by no means a certain issue. We don't even know who found the ring ... the earliest report stated that the police had found it. 22H764 (CE 1401) - Then we have both Marina finding it 23H399 (CE 1787) and 23H475-476 (CE 1820), and Ruth Paine finding it 3H111-112

Marina had testified that Oswald didn't like wearing his ring when he went to work, due to the width of the ring:

Quote:Mr. RANKIN. Had your husband ever left his wedding ring at home that way before?
Mrs. OSWALD. At one time while he was still at Fort Worth, it was inconvenient for him to work with his wedding ring on and he would remove it, but at work--he would not leave it at home. His wedding ring was rather wide, and it bothered him. I don't know now. He would take it off at work.

Another major problem here is that you can see him wearing a ring on his 'ring finger' of his left hand when arrested. Although records state that this was a Marine Corps ring - the fact that such a ring is not in the National Archives, and the fact that he was wearing it where a wedding ring should go - cause problems for this case. It's not at all certain that the story told by the Warren Commission is a truthful one.

As for the cash he left, it's sheer speculation that this was "almost all his cash". As anyone married knows, his wife and children needed more money than he did. I find it particularly amusing that financially caring for his family is turned into evidence that he murdered the President.

I can't even recall how many times I've left my ring at home... but I've not been charged with shooting the President yet... (One day last week I left my ring on the kitchen table... no police at my door yet...)

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-5-Refuted

Malcolm Kilduff interview from 1991

Mac Kilduff interview in which he talks about the shots.

As the shots were fired Kilduff heard them and turned back to the TSBD......he states clearly that he did not at any time think the shots came from the front.

So in effect he confirms that the gesture he made in the press gathering when he announced the death and pointed to his right temple was merely just that - a gesture. This finally wraps up all that silliness around Kilduff supposedly pointing to the front of his head because that is where JFK was hit.

Kilduff also states he does not think that Oswald intended to shoot John F. Kennedy, rather Connally.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSpw9w5GGYk

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Malcolm-Kilduff-interview-from-1991

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #4 Refuted.

(4) That night Oswald avoided Kennedy talk with Marina, a subject it was their custom to discuss.

How silly! I ask readers - how many times do you FAIL to bring up, or discuss a topic? I'd be sentenced to multiple death sentences if this is all it took as evidence of crime. Bugliosi is clearly stretching in order to find "evidence" that Oswald was guilty.

Again, the same theme as I've mentioned before – presuming a person's guilt, then looking at all actions or statements as 'proof' of that guilt.

There are MILLIONS of people worldwide who last night did not discuss a favorite topic... should we expect to see a few million murders today? Yet this is the logic that Bugliosi employs.

And since Patrick has refused to speak of President Obama the last few WEEKS, we should hope for Patrick's sake for President Obama's good health.

For otherwise, Patrick would be indicted by Vincent Bugliosi for the crime.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-4-Refuted

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #3 Refuted.

Quote:(3) Oswald told Frazier he would NOT be coming back to Irving on Friday night.

First point... this is hearsay. It's also interesting to note that Frazier was very nearly arrested for the murder of JFK... his rifle was confiscated, and he was subjected to a forced lie detector test. 
 
As well, Why would this be strange??? When Oswald got a ride with Frazier to go to Irving on a Thursday, it didn't mean that he was required then to also come back on Friday and stay the weekend.
 

What Bugliosi is doing here is starting with the presumption that Oswald is guilty,
then defining everything he did and said as evidence of the guilt he's already started with.

Bugliosi knows very well that Oswald, while frequently visiting Marina on the weekends, did not ALWAYS visit on the weekends. (And he lied on that point...)

Interestingly, it seems that Oswald had intended to visit on the weekend, just not Friday night... from Marina's testimony:

Mr. RANKIN. When he said he would not be home that Friday evening, did you ask him why?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say?
Mrs. OSWALD. He said that since he was home on Thursday, that it wouldn't make any sense to come again on Friday, that he would come for the weekend. 

"that he would come for the weekend." - this one little snippet belies the notion that Oswald had some sort of nefarious plan that would prevent him from visiting Marina – HE WAS PLANNING ON DOING SO.

This is a common theme among Warren Commission Believers – presuming Oswald's guilt, then going back and looking at everything he did or was presumed to have done in light of that guilt – portraying all actions as 'proving' the presumed guilt. But nothing Oswald did or said is contrary to his innocence, although no Believer would admit this fact.

Attempting to use hearsay of a man's future actions that have nothing whatsoever to do with murdering someone to 'prove' that he murdered the President is just another example of this reoccurring theme of presuming first the guilt, then examining all actions and statements to "prove" that guilt.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-3-Refuted

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #2 Refuted.

Vincent Bugliosi Wrote: (2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie. 

No, it wasn't. We know now that chances are quite good that there were no curtains up in Oswald's apartment, as we now know of photos taken Saturday morning showing curtain rods being put up.

As well, Dallas Police archives have now shown photographs of curtain rods that have been dusted for fingerprints... So the claim that there were no curtain rods ever found in this case is simply not true. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/

Bugliosi in fact lied at this point, when he stated that no curtain rods had been found. Once again, Bugliosi is simply lying about the evidence in order to fabricate his case.

We also don't know that Oswald made this claim. Since his statements under questioning were never recorded, all we have is testimony from a few who questioned Oswald, and a few notes that have surfaced many years later. We also have testimony from Frazier, whom we now know had his rifle confiscated, and who was run through a lie detector test late that evening. I suspect that someone who was clearly on the edges of being labeled a suspect in this case was willing to say whatever needed to be said to avoid that.

Be careful to note that believers will absolutely refuse to defend Bugliosi as I go through his '53 Reasons' and show them to be the nonsense that they are.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-2-Refuted

CIA's Coverup

George Joannides is all the proof needed that the CIA had a need to coverup the facts in the assassination of JFK. Joannides was called out of retirement by the CIA to act as the CIA's liason with the HSCA.

There was an excellent reason for this action by the CIA - Joannides knew "where the bodies were buried"... he was heavily involved in the Anti-Castro movement. Joannides directed and financed Directio Revolucionario Estudantil (DRE), translated as the Student Revolutionary Directorate, that consisted of a group of Cuban exiles whose officers had contact with Oswald in the months before the assassination.

Yet Joannides hid these very pertinent facts from the HSCA.

Believers have no refutation for these facts. Nor can they explain how these facts can be related to their favorite scenario - where simply a lone nut assassinates the President.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-CIA-s-Coverup

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #1 Refuted.

Vincent Bugliosi, famed prosecutor who put away Charles Manson for the Tate-LaBianca murders, has written what is indisputably the longest book defending the Warren Commission's conclusion that a lone nut, Lee Harvey Oswald, shot JFK. Weighing in at 1,612 pages, and a CD that has an additional 1,159 pages of footnotes, Mr. Bugliosi makes a strong case.

That is, if you don't know the evidence.

Mr. Bugliosi lists 53 reasons that "proved Oswald's guilt," and I'd like to go through them one by one, and show that they do no such thing. Please keep in mind that I've abbreviated most of Bugliosi's points, and lest I be accused of being misleading, I've actually taken the abbreviated list from McAdam's Forum - a Warren Commission Believer compiled this list. I've been careful to expand the point Bugliosi was making on occasion for more accuracy - but I've not shortened any of these...

---

(1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the first Thursday visit ever.

Background: Oswald and Marina were married, but living apart at the time. Oswald almost always spent the weekends with Marina, but didn't usually visit midweek.

On the day before President Kennedy was assassinated, Oswald went to Irving Texas to visit Marina.

The Warren Commission and Vincent Bugliosi wish to argue that because this was an unique event, it had to be related to Oswald picking up a rifle to kill the President with. (this is, in fact, exactly what Bugliosi asserts.) If Oswald had visited midweek before, this argument loses much of it's force.

And, in fact, Bugliosi is lying about Nov 21st being the 'first Thursday visit ever.' Nor is it the first midweek visit. It's true that such midweek visits weren't common - but it's a lie to state that they never occurred.

Let's examine the evidence that Bugliosi surely knew of:

Quote:Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night, October 31, 1963  LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and presented the above check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE 1165 pg 6)

While this is certainly short of absolute proof of a prior Thursday visit, it's also certainly evidence of one. Evidence that Bugliosi surely knew of, and has not refuted. So he knew he was lying when he tried to make the claim that Nov 21st was the 'first Thursday visit ever.'

Oswald is also known to have gone back to Irving on a Monday, Oct 21, after the birth of his second child. Bugliosi surely knew this from the testimony of witnesses before the Warren Commission.

Lying about the known evidence in order to 'create' evidence for your belief isn't very convincing.

It's CERTAINLY not proof that Oswald murdered JFK.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-1-Refuted

Henry Sienzant Demonstrates How To Lie...

Henry Sienzant Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

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?

Henry has never admitted his lie, nor retracted it. Notice how subtle the lie is... with the addition of only a single word, "all" - Henry has transformed a perfectly accurate and correct statement into something he can "refute".

Patrick goes further than Henry... Patrick will simply make things up... not with the addition of a mere word, but entire sentences...

This is what believers need to do to argue the evidence.

Lie about it.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Henry-Sienzant-Demonstrates-How-To-Lie

Stombaugh's Missing Report...

The Warren Commission claimed that the nick on the tie, and the slit in the shirt of JFK was caused by a bullet.

The FBI examined the margins of the bullet hole in the BACK, and found traces of copper, quite consistent with a bullet... but NO METAL WHATSOEVER on the front of the shirt & tie.

More interestingly, FBI Agent Frazier was deposed in a FOIA lawsuit brought by Weisberg, and admitted under oath that not only had FBI's expert on hair & fiber - SA Paul M. Stombaugh, examined the shirt & tie, BUT THAT HE HAD SUBMITTED A REPORT OF THAT EXAMINATION.

Nowhere to be found among the Warren Commission Report or it's 26 volumes.

And although Stombaugh was questioned by the Warren Commission - they somehow managed to forget to ask any questions related to Stombaugh's examination of JFK's shirt & tie.

Believers in this forum have NO explanation for these facts... none whatsoever.

Any believer spouting the SBT will need to explain these facts, or forever be known for their lack of character...

(As if they have ever demonstrated any!)

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Stombaugh-s-Missing-Report

Government Supplied Evidence

Jeff Wrote:There is no reliable government supplied evidence for this murder.

Actually, there is... 

The 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray that causes Warren Commission believers to shut their mouths and run ... is one good example.

Another is CE 748. 

As Mark Lane pointed out: 

Mark Lane Wrote:In preparation for his appearance before the Commission on April 23, 1964, Shaneyfelt photographed an FBI employee standing on the roof of the Justice Department building in Washington and holding the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. This picture was published as Commission Exhibit 748, but it cannot be said to have resolved the issue, for the FBI had removed the employee's head from the photograph before submitting it to the Commission. When the picture was offered in evidence to Commission counsel, this colloquy ensued: 

Q. I see the head of the individual in the photograph is blacked out. Can you explain the reason for that? 

Shaneyfelt: I blanked out the head because it was one of the employees of the FBI, and I felt it was desirable to blank out the head since it was not pertinent. 

One can sympathize with the desire of police agents for anonymity and still wish that some non-secret individual might have been chosen to pose with the rifle, since nothing was more pertinent than a comparison of the nose and body shadows. 

Shaneyfelt testified that he had prepared Commission Exhibit 748 in an attempt to depict 'the rifle held in approximately the same position' as in the controversial photograph. It would seem that he had an additional, if unmentioned, objective as well. The position of the feet of the FBI employee, his posture and the length and orientation of the shadow from his body suggest that Shaneyfelt sought to simulate all the conditions that existed when the disputed photograph was made. The fact that he left the FBI laboratory to prepare the photograph on the roof of the building appears to confirm the suspicion that he was aware of the non-conformity of the shadows and was trying to simulate them. The fact that the photograph was altered before it was submitted to the Commission would tend to indicate that the effort failed. 

And thus the evidence came full cycle: a photograph doctored by the FBI was admitted in evidence ostensibly to demonstrate that another photograph, discovered by the Dallas police, was genuine.

So there IS government evidence that shows ... not what they wanted it to show - but that efforts were being made to frame a patsy. And believers can do nothing about these facts... they refuse to debate such topics... and then complain that critics won't engage in debate.

Quite funny, actually!

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Government-Supplied-Evidence

Where's The Evidence For The SBT?

An ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT for non-conspiracy is that the SBT is true. The SBT requires that a bullet went completely through JFK's body, ie; 'transit'.

The evidence suggests the opposite.

1. The depth of the wound.
2. The location of the wound.
3. The missing interior chest photo.
4. The original description of the throat wound.
5. The original autopsy describing a different explanation for the throat wound. (Rankin)
6. The size of the wound in comparison to it's supposed "exit".
7. The complete lack of any metal found on the front of the shirt & tie.
8. The missing report & testimony of Stombaugh.
9. The earliest attempts to explain the frontal shot (Life Magazine, Mandel's article)

As Wendy's used to say with their "Where's the beef?" advertising campaign... I'd like to quiz: "Where's the EVIDENCE?"

And demonstrating that they have none - watch for the dead silence following this post...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Where-s-The-Evidence-For-The-SBT

Lee Harvey Oswald Was A CIA Asset.

Quote:Three years before the Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald was being investigated by the CIA's Special Investigations Group (SIG), a branch of the agency's Counter-Intelligence (CI) division, headed by James Angleton between 1954 and 1974. This was confirmed in the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) questioning of Ann Egerter, a member of Angleton's staff who opened the CIA file on Lee Harvey Oswald (a "201 file" in US intel lingo) in December of 1960.

The kicker is that the CI/SIG division is only tasked with investigating current CIA agents who are potential security risks. Egerter said her office was known within the CIA as "the office that spied on spies." She further elaborated on SIG as the entity that undertook "investigations of agency employees where there was an indication of espionage."

Because CIA agents are forbidden to disclose the identity of any other agents, Oswald's true occupation could only be discerned through indirect questions directed at Egerter. One HSCA interviewer asked her what the purpose of the CI/SIG was within the agency. Through this line of questioning, it can be discerned that Lee Harvey Oswald was seen in 1960 as a security risk, making him easy to burn, for example, as a patsy in the Kennedy assassination.

Interviewer: "Please correct me if I'm wrong ... it seems that the purpose of CI/SIG was very limited and that limited purpose was to investigate agency employees who for some reason were under suspicion." 

Egerter: "That is correct." 

Interviewer: "When a 201 file is opened, does that mean that whoever opens the file has either an intelligence interest in the individual, or, if not an intelligence interest, he thinks that the individual may present a counterintelligence risk?" 

Egerter: "Well, in general, I would say that would be correct." 

Interviewer: "Would there be any other reason for opening up a file?" 

Egerter: "No, I can't think of one."

(Taken from here.)

Absolutely devastating to the Warren Commission believers...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Was-A-CIA-Asset--202

Where's the Wound, Patrick?

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:You still haven't answered my question: If the doctors were wrong that the Harper's fragment was a piece of JFK's occipital bone, then which part of his head did it come from and why isn't the wound seen on any photos from Bethesda?

er...oh dear....the bone is a segment of the skull that is missing from the exit wound which is largely parietal (above the ear) "extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital areas". This wound is visible in the Zapruder film, but more importantly is apparent in the autopsy picture on the internet although these pictures are not especially clear.

Yet Patrick claims that Dr. Baden was correct when he stated "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said."

As any intelligent reader can determine, these two statements by Patrick CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER.

Either the wound existed in the occipital-parietal area, or it didn't.

And Patrick cannot answer this without retracting one or the other of his contradicting statements...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Where-s-the-Wound-Patrick