Saturday, December 31, 2016

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #31 Refuted.

(31) Oswald refused a lie detector test.

Hearsay. Amusingly, Bugliosi would be the first to argue the inadmissibility of a Lie Detector test that failed to show what he wanted.

Ironically, although not quoted by the Warren Commission believer who compiled this list, Bugliosi goes on to state: "By contrast, Ruby volunteered to take one." So the argument here is that if you're provably guilty of murder, you willingly take a lie-detector test...
 
...and if you refuse to take a lie-detector test, that proves you guilty of murder.

Only Warren Commission believers can understand and believe this sort of nonsense.

Watch carefully as not a single believer will dare defend Bugliosi's silly claim listed here... remember, I'm predicting the future right now.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-31-Refuted

Limo Slowdown/Stop.

Believers get really nervous and never seem to have an explanation for the reported Limo slowdown/stop that took place in Dealey Plaza.

With dozens of eyewitnesses all reporting the slowdown/stop - and many of them highly credible (such as the motorcycle cops who were with the limo), believers really can't deny what happened.

So when it's pointed out that this IS NOT SEEN in the extant Z-Film - they all immediately jump into a chorus of "Hallelujah Alvarez"... pointing out that Alvarez found a slowdown in the film.
 
BUT IT CAN'T BE SEEN BY THE CASUAL VIEWER!!!

When debating Anthony Marsh on this topic, and I pointed this out, Tony ran screaming away - and starting talking about something else (ghost images) and refused to explain this... as no believer has been able to do. (Tony now spends his time on the censored group - evidently more comfortable for him over there)

Believers just hate the eyewitnesses - even when they are forced to imagine the eyewitnesses being correct, as in this case.

Any believers care to explain what Tony ducked?  Why is a slowdown NOT SEEN IN THE EXTANT Z-FILM TO THE CASUAL VIEWER?

I suspect that all I'll see are believers who claim that they CAN see a slowdown in the extant Z-film. (Martin, a "Defender of the Faith", and self-proclaimed CT'er, already claims that he sees a slowdown in extant Z-film, so believers won't be the first...) 

Claims that a camera will not show a slowdown that witnesses observe will need to be supported by film... (not that I expect anyone to be able to produce such a film!)

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Limo-Slowdown-Stop

Friday, December 30, 2016

Believer is a World Class Shooter...

An Anonymous Believer Wrote:The shots certainly wouldn't have been very difficult at such close range. I'm betting given 8-9 seconds I could have hit a man sized target twice in 3 tries with my bolt action rifle and scope and I had no Marine training.

Giving no indication of his actual skill level, but implying that it's not very high, this believer thinks he's better than the three NRA rated "Masters" who attempted to do exactly this. (and failed...)

Perhaps he's never studied the case well enough to know that the Warren Commission had three real experts try to duplicate the shots.

It's truly amusing to watch believers deny the facts that are right in front of them.

And since I'm quite well acquainted with the evidence in this case, believers cannot debate... they end up looking stupid.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Believer-is-a-World-Class-Shooter

Missing Citations...

Anthony Marsh Wrote:Some people say that when more than one person is arrested for a crime that is de facto a conspiracy. 

Buell Frazier was arrested for the assassination of President Kennedy and taken in for questioning, like Oswald. 

Captain Fritz typed up a confession and told him to sign it. When Frazier refused, Captain Fritz took back the piece of paper.

Where is it now? Is it still in evidence in some forgotten safe in Dallas? Or is this yet another example of destruction of evidence?

It's nonsense like this that tends to deride critics... Anthony Marsh pretends to be a critic, then claims that "Some people say that when more than one person is arrested for a crime that is de facto a conspiracy."

Sheerest nonsense!!!

That's never been a definition of conspiracy, and I quite doubt if Anthony Marsh can cite ANYONE making such a claim. 

A recent example comes to mind where a terrorist drove a car into a crowd of people, killing a number of them. The police arrested one guy, then released him. Presuming that the real terrorist is arrested, do we now have a "conspiracy?"

The definition of conspiracy has nothing whatsoever to do with how many people are detained, or even arrested for a crime.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Missing-Citations

Zapruder Fakery

What looks odd to me is the images in background appear to be a bit larger than they should be. After watching a few synchronizations with the Nix and Muchmore Films, I haven't been able to spot any blatant discrepencies.

I think one should realize when watching the apparent near-constant speed of the Limo that Zapruders line-of sight was nearly orthogonal to to direction of the Limo when it slowed down. 

Think about this.

This means that at the time the Limo was travelling at it's slowest speed, the perspective of Zapruder would naturally show the Limo passing at the fastest rate. This issue of perspective would greatly mitigate the apparent deceleration of the Limo.

We know that it slowed down, but were frames removed from the Zapruder Film to hide this?

Maybe so; maybe not.

I'll try a little sketch of the math involved:

Take a Limo moving at constant speed with an observer at a fixed point. I'll assume that the Limo's path (Elm St.) is straight for simlicity. We can lay two dimensional cartesian coordinates over the area and take the Elm St. to be the ordinate; the X-axis.

Orthogonal would be the observer on the abcissa; the Y-axis. Assuming a constant speed in the positive x direction, the apparent speed of the observer on the -Y axis would be the change in the angle. This is how humans estimate and speed with thier senses; ans the change of angle per unit time. It depends on the distance away from the moving body as well. 

The speed in an automobile is given ultimately by revolutions per minute; and hence, distance per unit time after the wheel's circumference has been accounted for.

So if we take the Greek letter Theta (θ) to represent the angle, and the dθ/dt to represent the infinitesimal change in angle per unit time, the apparent speed (dθ/dt) is equal to the Limo's speed by this:

tan(θ)=x/y

sec²(θ)dθ=dx/y [taking the derivative]

sec²(θ)dθ/dt=dx/ydt [multiplying both sides by 1/dt. If two things are equal, then they equal eachother still after being multiplied by a constant.}

dθ/dt=dx/ydtsec²(θ) [multiplying both sides by 1/sec²(θ)]

(dθ/dt)=(dx/dt)(1/ysec²(θ)) [rearranging and bracketing]

And we have the apparent speed which is the change in angle (θ) per unit time (dθ/dt) on one side and the Limo's speed via speedometer (dx/dt) on the right. The value of "y" is equal to the closest distance of Zapruder from Elm Street. The inverse of secant is cosine, so it can be rewritten as:

(dθ/dt)=(cos²(θ)/y)(dx/dt)

And where is the rate of change at the maximum? When the angle equals zero; when it is orthogonal. At this angle cos(θ)=1 and at every other angle cos(θ)&t1. If the angle is 90° then the rate of change is zero. This would be an object coming straight at you. If it weren't for enlargement you wouldnt be able to tell that it is moving.

Obviously this does not account for enlargement.

You get the idea. Even with a constant speed (dx/dt), the apparent speed by a stationary observer with a line-of-sight orthogonal to the moving path ranges from the actual speed to zero, depending on whether or not the object is coming at you or moving directly across your point of view. We have all seen a train approach, and then pass. The train is travelling at a near-constant speed but it appears to be moving faster the closer it gets and the more orthogonal it gets to our perspective.

Putting this equation into words:

(dθ/dt)=(cos²(θ)/y)(dx/dt)

(apparent speed) = (cos²(θ)/distance) x (limo's speed)

With a constant distance from Elm St. and a constant Limo Speed we basically have a cos²(θ) equation. Here is a graph:

[Image: 863565636.gif]

...to give you an idea. The Y-axis of this graph would be the apparent speed and the X-axis would be the angle. This graph is somewhat misleading since there would only be one cycle in the event we are describing, and the angle would never reach 90°. The angle starts off at about 60° or so I think.

So the upper-part of one of the humps would roughly describe the apparent speed, as defined as the change in angle per unit time (dθ/dt).

So what I am getting at is that the apparent increase in speed as the limo approaches Zapruder partially mitigates the decrease in speed as observed by numerous witnessess. In other words: the Limo slowed down, but from Zapruder's perspective, it did not appear to slow down as much as it really had.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Zapruder-Fakery

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #30 Refuted.

(30) Oswald made a clenched-fist salute to reporters. (A political gesture in support of Marxism is the argument VB is employing.)

Or he could merely have been showing that he was handcuffed. Speculation on Bugliosi's part isn't evidence of anything.

Indeed, the speculation of Warren Commission believers is often used as evidence – but would never be allowed in court. Once again, we see the weakness of Bugliosi's case when he's using nonsense like this to 'prove' guilt.

Notice that believers are completely silent now... no way to refute my refutations - so clearly Bugliosi can't be defended even by believers...

Such AMAZING cowardice!

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-30-Refuted

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Henry Sienzant Is A Coward...

Henry Sienzant Wrote:Can anyone explain Ben Holmes thinking referenced in this post from October 2014?

I can't.

This claim: "If the evidence showed Oswald to be a part of the conspiracy - no-one would have problems so indicting him. But unfortunately for you, the evidence clears him. Scientific evidence."

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

How could any scientific test clear someone of being involved in a *conspiracy*? 

It made no sense when Ben said it, which is why he never defended it. 

He never posted any evidence for his claim, he never clarified his claim, he never provided any argument for his claim. 

Instead, he kept changing the subject every time I asked him about it. 

This is just one of the kind of silly arguments Ben would make, that Heisenberg has, in the past, applauded Ben for, lauding Ben as someone I fear. 

Which is hilarious, as Ben was and is a typical conspiracy theorist who can't argue the evidence, can't debate the issues civilly, and always resorted to logical fallacies and cites he cribbed from conspiracy websites.

Just like Heisenberg. Within a short time of my rejoining this forum back in June, I warned Heisenberg (then posting as "Magus Maverik") to "don't be like Ben". He has proceeded to be exactly like Ben, but he knows even less about the assassination.

Hank

Henry's a coward and quite the despicable liar.

However, I do applaud him for posting the cite so that everyone can see that I ALREADY ANSWERED HIS QUESTION!!

Oswald could not have fired the rifle, due to the evidence of the cheek cast, which I already stated. There's ZERO evidence that he was involved in a conspiracy of any sort - the only possibility was that he was one of the shooters. If he was not one of the shooters, then he was not part of a conspiracy.

Since the evidence clears him of being a shooter - what did he "conspire" to do??? Where's the evidence of ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER on Oswald's part that would indict him as a conspirator?

Henry can't answer that - so despite knowing that I'm right here, and perfectly willing to answer ANY EVIDENTIAL QUESTION HE CAN POSSIBLY RAISE - Henry's quite content to snip and run in an arena he knows I've been forbidden from.
 
Henry cannot point to any question that he's raised
in any debate with me that I've not answered, or cannot answer.

The same is not true of Henry - he's run from dozens of questions... and will forever be branded a coward until he can step up to the plate and debate.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Henry-Sienzant-Is-A-Coward

Six Things Oliver Stone Got 999% Right.

Quote:1. Headshot from the right front.
2. Magic Bullet Theory is too stupid for words.
3. JFK was pulling out of Vietnam NSAM 263, reversed 11-25-63.
4. Fake SS Agents on the Grassy Knoll.
5. Clay Shaw lied about his relationship with Ferrie and Oswald, though not proven he was a conspirator.
6. The Tramps true identities remain a mystery.

Well stated...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Six-Things-Oliver-Stone-Got-999-Right

Cowards Among Us...

An Anonymous Believer Wrote:Since we already know that Oswald killed Kennedy alone and shot Tippit I suggest that we focus on Oswald's motive.  It is pointless to watch videos of an imaginary shot at Z-285 or discuss a fictional rogue CIA. This is an announcement.  There will be no questions. 

This is quite typical for believers... they simply cannot debate the truth or lack of truth when it comes to the Warren Commission's theory - so they want to simply announce that it's correct, and move on to speculation.

Is it surprising that I label so many believers "cowards"?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Cowards-Among-Us

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #29 Refuted.

(29) After arrest, Oswald refused to even give his name to arresting officers.

A rather damaging admission on Bugliosi's part... since this establishes that Oswald was NOT carrying ID in the name of Hidell. (note that not a single believer will dare to debate this...)

It was not until 1973 that a refusal to give your name to an arresting officer became a misdemeanor in Texas (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Do.../PE.38.htm) – and would never in a court of law be evidence of guilt in a murder case (or any other felony, for that matter)

Bugliosi goes on to state: "As a pretty consistent general rule, when a person is innocent of a crime, he cooperates with law enforcement." But that's simply nonsense... here, for example, is one lawyer's advice:
 
Quote:If I am innocent, shouldn't I make a statement and tell the police everything I know?

Answer: Absolutely not. When a person is innocent or has a valid defense such as self defense, it is common to want to explain your side of the story to police. However, even if you are innocent it is crucial that you nevertheless invoke your right to an attorney and your right to remain silent.
http://www.agnichlaw.com/yourRights.html

Bugliosi speaks as a prosecutor, and not as a defense attorney. This 'crime' on Oswald's part shows nothing at all.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-29-Refuted

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

You Don't Own A Rifle???

An Anonymous Believer Wrote:Oswald would have said that someone took his rifle out of Mrs. Paine's garage and planted it on the 6th floor of the TSBD in order to frame him. 

Oswald said that he didn't own a rifle. 

Oswald said that the backyard photos of him holding his rifle were faked. 

Oswald denied owning the rifle because he used it to kill JFK. 

Why can't you just admit it? 

This is the sort of meaningless nonsense that passes for evidence & debate in a censored forum.

No-one is going to point out that this means that everyone who doesn't own a rifle has evidence showing he/she is a murderer.

Rather silly, isn't it?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-You-Don-t-Own-A-Rifle

Experts Duplicate The Shooting???

John Paul Jones Wrote:Do all agree that it was difficult for experts to replicate Oswald's shooting of Kennedy? 

This question was posted in one of the few places on the Internet where it will NEVER draw an honest response. (alt.assassination.jfk)

It wasn't "difficult" at all - IT NEVER HAPPENED!!! The question presumes that the shots were duplicated, but it was just difficult... that's simply not true.

Nor will anyone ever get a believer to admit the major problem...

You see, even a poor shot such as Oswald provably was, might have gotten lucky enough to have fired the shots that the evidence shows were fired, presuming only that he'd used a good rifle.

But we know that three shooters, each with VASTLY superior shooting skills, were unable to duplicate what the Warren Commission said happened.

The only time that even believers will assert that the shooting sequence was duplicated - was when the Mannlicher Carcano was not used.

So they're forced to try to argue that there's no difference between the alleged murder weapon, and any other Mannlicher Carcano... despite the evidence.

In other words... they lie.

I predict right now that no-one will bring up these issues in the censored forum...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Experts-Duplicate-The-Shooting

Monday, December 26, 2016

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #28 Refuted.

(28) Oswald then fought the police and tried to pull his revolver out.

This has been disputed, and is based on one police officer, Patrolman M. N. McDonald.

But presuming it were true, it fails to support the theory that Oswald shot the President. Once again, Bugliosi is treating every single event as lending support for his theory. He would be laughed out of court if he tried to make this claim.

This incident simply has no reasonable connection with the murder of JFK. After all, he didn't pull out a 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano, did he?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-28-Refuted

Sunday, December 25, 2016

Lying About The Electoral College

Susan Haigh, Associated Press Wrote:More States Consider Working Around Electoral College
...
The compact wouldn't benefit any one party, said Patrick Rosenstiel, a consultant to National Popular Vote, the group that has been pushing for the compact since 2006. Rather, the Republican said, it will incourage candidates to campaign in every state, regardless of its politics, and make every voter relevant.

"Right now we've got a system where the battleground states have all the political influence."
...

I'm often amused at the lies told ... quite blatantly... about the Electoral College... and usually right around the time that the Democrats lose again.

The Electoral College is what forces Presidential candidates to go ANYWHERE other than California, New York, and perhaps Texas.

Clinton won close to 3 million votes more than Trump - but if you discount California & New York, Hillary Clinton LOST the popular vote by roughly 3 million.

This fact alone shows why Susan Haigh, the author of that quite misleading Associated Press article, is lying about the effects of getting rid of the Electoral College.

And if ending the Electoral College depends on lying about it...

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

Friday, December 23, 2016

Without Trial

Isn't it fascinating the way LNers can "know" Oswald is guilty without him having had a chance to go to trial? Legally, you cannot even speak about a criminal as if they're a criminal until they've been proven guilty. There's a reason for that.

Most sensible people would also regard any investigation as biased based on what the investigators want you to see or not see. Yet how strange...that LNers just...."know."

Very obviously the mock Bugliosi/Gerry Spence trial 20+ years after the fact is not what I'm talking about, and any LNer who mentions it in the same vein as any "real" trial is simply being dishonest and pretending they don't know what I mean.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Without-Trial

Unanswerable Question?

'An Anonymous Believer Wrote:There is yet another reason why Oswald’s statement that he was on the first floor eating lunch at the time of the shooting makes no sense at all. If he had been, once he heard the shots and the screaming and all the commotion outside, if he were innocent, what is the likelihood that he would have proceeded to go, as he claims, up to the second floor to get himself a Coke? How could any sensible person believe a story like that? 

Vinny Bugliosi Reclaiming History 

Sadly, this is what Bugliosi does time and time again. Presume Oswald's guilt, then use any and all actions as "proof" of that guilt.

Bugliosi is just upset that Oswald didn't rush the Grassy Knoll as so many others did.

And he's just indicted everyone who were still INSIDE the TSBD as guilty murderers... yet refuses to name them.

Believers keep quoting Bugliosi, as if he were the ultimate authority - yet each time I show how Bugliosi can be credibly and reasonably answered... all you hear from believers is crickets...

Such cowards!!!

P.S. This was also posted to the alt.assassination.jfk forum where I found the original post. Anyone care to place a bet on whether anyone will dare answer?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Unanswerable-Question

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Jack Ruby - Answered Questions...

An Anonymous Believer Wrote:Who ordered Jack Ruby to do that? [Assassinate Oswald] If Jack Ruby was ordered to do that, why was he still at home in his underwear when Oswald was scheduled to be transferred. Why was he still at the Western Union office just minutes before Oswald was actually transferred? Why did he bring his favorite dog along with him and leave her in his car? Why wasn't Jack Ruby killed to keep him quiet? 

The questions are easily answered... let's go through them one by one.

Who ordered Jack Ruby to do that? - The Mafia. His calls to major Mafia figures dramatically increased in the weeks before the assassination. The Warren Commission was so embarrassed at Jack Ruby's Mafia connections, that they chose to simply lie about it.

If Jack Ruby was ordered to do that, why was he still at home in his underwear when Oswald was scheduled to be transferred. - Because some members of the DPD were involved. This was really simple, Oswald WAS NOT GOING TO BE MOVED UNTIL RUBY SHOWED UP. I really have to laugh that believers can't understand this simple explanation...

Why was he still at the Western Union office just minutes before Oswald was actually transferred? - Same answer as above. Oswald wasn't going anywhere until Ruby arrived. Quite simple.

Why did he bring his favorite dog along with him and leave her in his car? - Sheer habit, most likely. This question presupposes that criminals commit perfect crimes all the time - carefully staging everything to perfection. Quite silly, actually... criminals are normally not the smarter members of humanity. And although it's claimed that Jack Ruby was actually a tad smarter than the average, clearly he couldn't judge the consequences of his actions.

But I'll remember to bring my dog to the next crime I commit, so that believers will accept it as evidence of innocence.

Why wasn't Jack Ruby killed to keep him quiet? - You don't need to kill someone to keep them quiet... you merely need to convince them that the consequences of talking too much will mean the death of their loved ones.

Now, real critics could easily have given all these reasonable and credible answers... but in the alt.assassination.jfk forum, where I found this - you'll never see such answers.

Believers cannot confront real critics in a non-censored forum.

That fact tells the tale, doesn't it?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Jack-Ruby-Answered-Questions

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #27 Refuted.

(27) When approached by police in the Texas Theater, Oswald said "Well, it is all over now." What else could he have possibly meant by these words other than that he knew the police had been in pursuit of him and were there to arrest him?

Sheer speculation. There are, in fact, quite reasonable explanations for such a statement, if indeed he made this exact statement. Only Patrolman M. N. McDonald heard these words, other officers fail to corroborate this statement.

I'll answer that question Bugliosi asks quite reasonably. Oswald knew that his usefulness as an informant working with U.S. intelligence was at an end. Publicity would ensure that.

Bugliosi asserts "what else could he have possibly meant"... and I just gave a perfectly valid, perfectly credible, AND PERFECTLY REASONABLE explanation.

Now, it may at first glance seem ludicrous that a 24 year old former Marine was connected with U.S. intelligence, but no less an expert than Sen. Richard Schweiker, who was a member of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and thus could be reasonably labeled an expert on this topic) said, "We do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there're fingerprints of intelligence."

So Bugliosi's challenge is easily met. A reason for such a statement on Oswald's part (if he actually did say it) that is just as credible as Bugliosi's reasoning that this showed murderous guilt on Oswald's part.

Was Bugliosi simply too stupid to come up with this explanation? Or was he acting, not as an investigator of a crime, but as a prosecutor?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-27-Refuted

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Alt.assassination.jfk - Any Honesty?

Boz Wrote:Though Oswald was probably more politically oriented than all thirteen other warehousemen at the Book Depository Building put together, if we are to believe Oswald’s story, he apparently was the only one who had no interest at all in watching the presidential motorcade go by, either from out on the street or froma window, claiming in one version that he was having lunch on the first floor of the Book Depository Building at the time of the shooting, and in another version that he was working on the sixth floor. Indeed, Oswald, the political animal, was so uninterested in the fact that the most powerful politician on earth had just been shot that he had no inclination to stick around for a few minutes and engage in conversation with his coworkers about the sensational and tragic event. Does that make any sense? 

V Bugliosi Reclaiming History       

Interestingly, although this post already has over half a dozen responses, and these include alleged critics, not a single person has pointed out Bugliosi's lie.

IT'S A LIE that Oswald ever stated that he was on the 6th floor during the shooting. There's no citation given, and none available.

So if you want the truth, alt.assassination.jfk, a censored forum run by "Professor" John McAdams, probably isn't the place you want to go...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Alt-assassination-jfk-Any-Honesty

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #26 Refuted.

(26) The cashier at the theater said that Oswald had "ducked in" to the theater without buying a ticket.

I'm amused that Bugliosi now pretends that how a witness describes someone's actions can now be used as evidence that he committed murder. Bugliosi knew better than that.

Vincent Bugliosi was an experienced prosecutor - HE KNEW BETTER THAN THAT!

The 'action' described is Oswald walking into a theater... the "ducking in" is the opinion of Julia Postal. What Julia Postal thinks of Oswald's actions (even presuming that it is Oswald), cannot possibly be used as evidence against Oswald... and Bugliosi knows this.

And, as with many of the other 53 reasons, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with guilt or innocence in a murder case.

What Bugliosi is guilty of is a circular argument... Oswald is guilty, thus all of his actions must relate and prove that 'guilt'.

Watch - as Patrick demonstrates his cowardice...

He'll absolutely REFUSE to address this issue.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-26-Refuted

Monday, December 19, 2016

Hillary Won???

Quote:Hillary won this election by almost 3 million votes...

No source needs to be cited, since far too many people have said this...

But it's quite wrong.

Elections are not determined by the popular vote - they're Constitutionally decided by the Electoral College. This should be difficult to understand, yet in many Presidential election cycles we have, the same nonsense keeps coming up.

Nor will it ever be changed - it would require the votes of the very people that the Electoral College was meant to help to eliminate it - and people are simply too smart to vote contrary to their best interests.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Hillary-Won

Warren Commission Coverup

A Believer Wrote:The CIA was not conducting the investigation. The Warren Commission was. The CIA was a source of information. The fact the CIA withheld some information from the WC does not translate to a cover up by the WC. James Hosty also destroyed a note which he believed had been written by Oswald to the FBI. That was a cover-your-ass operation, not a cover up. Again, this was not an action taken by the investigating body. The WC investigation was not a cover up. 

This is simply silly.

And completely unsupportable. Which is why you'll never see a believer in this forum debating this issue with knowledgeable critics.

The Warren Commission began from the beginning as a coverup institution... from the very beginning they started with the major premise that Oswald was the lone assassin - and evidence against that premise was most certainly covered up by the Warren Commission.

Believers cannot support their assertions in the face of knowledgeable critics.

And that fact tells the tale.

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

Saturday, December 17, 2016

Back Of The Head

A True Believer Wrote:How is it possible to see the back of JFK's head?  The doctors never turned him over. 

It takes a true believer to make such an incredibly stupid statement.

I can view at least 90% or more of the back of someone's head while both of their shoulderblades are perfectly flat on a surface.

You simply turn the head.

It swivels on something that is known in medical terminology as the "Neck".

Of course, this same nonsense that the doctors couldn't have seen what they stated that they saw simply cannot apply to the autopsy - and the doctors there SAID THE SAME THING!!!

The large head wound was Occipital-Parietal in location, and on the right side of the head.

So how did Parkland witnesses manage to come up with the same location if - as believers believe - they couldn't have seen the back of the head???

All you'll hear are crickets... eh Patrick?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Back-Of-The-Head

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #25 Refuted.

(25) A store manager saw Oswald evading police sirens in front of his store. 

Again, sheer speculation. Indeed, in court, this would have been objected to - as the store manager could not possibly have known what was in the person's mind... who needs to first be identified as Oswald.

It hardly needs pointing out that such an action - PRESUMING IT TO BE TRUE - doesn't support the crime...

People can 'look' evasive all the time... it doesn't mean that they've just murdered someone. Indeed, just last night, I walked into a Post Office, took one look, and went right back out. (very evasive behavior indeed!)

The truth, of course, is that I saw a longer line that I wanted to simply stand in without a paperback to read... so I went back to the car - and grabbed the book I was reading... 'The Enemy' by Lee Child. I managed about 10 pages or so while standing in line...

And no-one was killed in the city that day to the best of my knowledge.

Yet another bit of Bugliosi "evidence" refuted, and believers are running away as fast as they can...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-25-Refuted

Cowardice Extraordinaire!!!

It seems that Patrick, like Mark Ulrik - has decided that cowardice is the better part of valor...

Patrick has lasted much longer than Mark did... but the truth is quite simple - believers cannot face critics in an arena where ad hominem is deleted... and where only evidence & citation can make a difference.

Patrick, as all believers do - will give all sorts of different reasons why they aren't showing cowardice, yet the facts are quite clear...

I'm posting - and they are running.

No amount of explanation is going to make up for that simple fact.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Cowardice-Extraordinaire

Friday, December 16, 2016

Dead Sea Scrolls

Mark Oblazney Wrote:This is why the REAL scholars studying the Dead Sea/Nag Hammadi Scrolls wanted some time by themselves with them first, before the amateur sleuths stepped in and started telling the scholars how wrong they were.

Actually, as virtually anyone in the field of Biblical studies is aware, this has been a very famous scholarly scandal.

As BAR put it:
Biblical Archaeology Review Wrote:In 1977, Oxford don Geza Vermes declared that the failure to publish these scrolls and make them publicly available was threatening to become “the academic scandal par excellence of the 20th century.”

Real scholars took a relatively short time to decipher and comment on the scrolls... Anyone who's been in the field of early Christianity would have to laugh at Mark's apparent ignorance. The original team that controlled the Dead Sea Scrolls were still hemming & hawing over their work four decades later... even to the point of passing along "their" scrolls to their students.

Nothing less than a true academic scandal - it was broken only when a set of photographs of the scrolls was publicly released. (and not at the behest of the scholars who controlled the Dead Sea Scrolls, indeed, over their vehement objections.)

It's interesting that Mark conflated the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Nag Hamadi collection... the later were never controlled as the Dead Sea Scrolls were controlled... they didn't have the historical significance that the Dead Sea Scrolls had - and although both collections were discovered at roughly the same time (just a few years apart), the Nag Hammadi was published in English decades earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls.

There never was the scandal attached to the Nag Hammadi collection that was to the Dead Sea Scrolls... and Mark is apparently unaware of that.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Dead-Sea-Scrolls

John McAdams' Knowledge Of This Case...

Glenn Wrote:Whenever discussing the JFK assassination, it seems that Professor McAdams is the prime target of whatever criticisms there might be related to the Warren Commission. Being an outsider with many good friends far more versed in this thing (on both sides, I should add) than I am; can anyone question McAdams knowledge about this case? 

Yep... and quite easily too.

John McAdams was absolutely AFRAID to publicly admit that the 6.5mm virtually round object seen in the AP X-ray from the autopsy was the largest foreign object that could be seen.

It is, as I calculated (and no-one has even tried to refute it) 33 times larger than the next largest foreign fragment seen.

Anyone can view the AP X-ray - and instantly see this object.

[Image: HSCA_Baden_F-55-300x295.png]

Yet John McAdams - who surely knows this subject well enough to answer without even doing any research, has been quite the coward on this issue. He absolutely REFUSES to admit that it's the largest foreign object seen.

To be more precise on my answer - no-one can "question" his "knowledge" - his honesty, on the other hand, is quite easily questioned.

The "Professor" is a coward.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-John-McAdams-Knowledge-Of-This-Case

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #24 Refuted.

(24) Lee Harvey Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit. 

Sheer speculation. There's very strong evidence AGAINST such a claim. The assertion that Oswald murdered Tippit would take far more time than I can spend here to refute - but a search on the Internet will quickly show you reasons why Oswald can't be a suspect here. Briefly:

First, let's establish that Oswald's landlady stated that she'd seen Oswald waiting for a bus outside his roominghouse at 1:04:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/robertse.htm, WC VII, 439

The time that Tippit was killed can be very closely pinpointed... Helen Markham, stated it was at 1:06, and she was waiting for a bus that left at 1:12. So if the Warren Commission was correct that Tippit was killed at 1:15 - Helen Markham could not have been a witness. The only witness who stated that he actually looked at his watch, Mr. T.F. Bowley, said that the murder happened BEFORE 1:10.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/bowley.htm

Once established that the murder took place much earlier than 1:15 claimed by the Warren Commission, you will be faced with the problem that Oswald was 9/10ths of a mile away, at a bus stop, just minutes before the murder. He must have driven to the scene of the crime, (no witness reported the suspect driving), or ran the distance.

I invite you to type 1026 North Beckley into Google, and trace out for yourself how long it takes to get from where Oswald was last seen, and where Tippit was murdered. You'll discover that Google lists it as a 15 minute walk. Which means that he couldn't have been at the scene until approximately 1:19.

Now, there's quite a bit more evidence than merely this (the time issue) against the supposition that Oswald killed Tippit, but it would take pages to go through... so I'll leave it at this.

But until you can PROVE that Oswald murdered Tippit, you cannot use the presumption of guilt here to 'prove' that he murdered JFK.

Believers will, as usual, try to twist the plain facts listed and cited for here... watch for it!

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-24-Refuted

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #23 Refuted.

(23) In addition to getting a coat and his gun, Oswald changed trousers. 

Answered previously in #21. Changing clothes after leaving work means nothing at all. He wasn't a murderer who needed to remove blood-stained clothing. That Bugliosi would attempt to assert that changing clothes after work when arriving home is evidence of guilt means that most of us are suspects.

Do YOU change clothes when you get home from work? If so, you'd better turn yourself into the local police, for I'm sure there's an unsolved murder somewhere in your vicinity.

Watch as Patrick runs from this one, as he's done from most of these refutations... Not that I blame Patrick, the evidence simply isn't there... nothing you can do about that.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-23-Refuted

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Excuses...

Believers give all sorts of excuses why they refuse to debate... they'll pretend not to be interested in answering... they'll pretend that I'm too "mean"... they'll even pretend that they can't understand my clearly worded statements.

They'll even pretend it's not fair if I point out where they're blatantly lying... or running away...

But if any of these excuses were real - then surely they could not have been operating FOR THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES... right? Surely a believer can point to where these valid objections to their theory have been dealt with... Someone, somewhere, must have definitively refuted the critic's claims... right???

Yet no-where has this happened.

Before "Reclaiming History" came out, believers everywhere were asserting that this book would be the final nail in the coffin - all doubts about the Warren Commission's theory would be answered...

Now you can't get a believer to stand up and defend this "definitive" book...

Excuses...

That's all they are...

And that fact tells the tale.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Excuses

Still A Problem - Over 50 Years Later...

More than 50 years have elapsed, and believers still face the most basic of issues...

The one I'd like to focus on here is the lack of any evidence for transit. For the Warren Commission's theory to hold water, a bullet must have transited JFK's body.

Yet there's absolutely no evidence for this at all.

The strongest possible evidence would be the alleged damage seen to the apical portion of JFK's lung - yet the only photo(s) taken of this have disappeared.

Since there's no conceivable non-conspiratorial reason for this photo to go missing - one can credibly presume that the photo didn't support a transit conclusion ... (perhaps it showed damage from a frontal bullet - but no exit through the back...)

Even the idea that a bullet went through the body was only arrived at by speculation ... speculation that attempted to explain newly learned facts... (a bullet wound in JFK's throat) and this speculation occurred AFTER THE AUTOPSY WAS OVER.

Believers think that the strongest reason that a bullet must have transited (since they lack any hard evidence for this theory) is that no bullets were found in JFK.

Unfortunately, this requires that the testimony of the prosectors was honest - yet believers cannot explain the known facts... such as what JFK's body was doing between 6:40pm and 8pm.

It's inconceivable that no-one was doing anything at all with JFK during that time - yet believers must accept that this is precisely what happened... that JFK's body simply laid there with no activity whatsoever for close to an hour & a half.

This strains credulity to the breaking point.

Believers have no explanation for why the prosectors were forbidden from dissecting the track of the wound - EVEN AS THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DISSECT THE CHEST INCISIONS!!! (Which were clearly not bullet wounds.)

Patrick, or any other believer for that matter - are completely incapable of quoting this entire post, and responding point by point... and this clearly proves exactly what I've stated... that although more than 50 years have passed, there is still no evidence for even the most basic of facts required for the Warren Commission's theory to be true.

If there was no transit, then a conspiracy has been proven.

It's just that simple.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Still-A-Problem-Over-50-Years-Later

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #22 Refuted.

(22) Oswald retrieved his revolver at the rooming house. 

What was his habit in this regard? Can you give any reason that this differs from his normal routine? It's a fact that the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. Texas is a state where many people routinely carry arms. Are they all suspects when a murder takes place?

Believers such as Patrick cannot honestly admit that this is a downright silly claim that Bugliosi makes. That reflects rather poorly on the honesty of believers...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-22-Refuted

Monday, December 12, 2016

A Challenge For WCR Believers...

I've often said that critics can give credible and often corroboratively supported responses to anything a believer can say.

The same isn't true of believers... I've shown it time and time again here.

So it's time to force believers to prove I'm right yet again...
 
GIVE ME SOMETHING YOU THINK CANNOT BE CREDIBLY REFUTED.

And I'll do so right here...

I rather suspect that all anyone will hear are crickets... and for all the supposed strength of the case for a lone assassin, the following silence will prove the weakness of the Warren Commission's case.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-A-Challenge-For-WCR-Believers

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #21 Refuted.

(21) Oswald's behavior at his boarding house indicates a flight in progress.

Changing clothes when getting home from work is something that I do on a regular basis... should I now be indicted for murder? He changed clothes, then walked across the street, and was last seen waiting at a bus stop.

It's interesting to note that when District Attorney Wade, on Sunday night, held a press conference and described how Oswald had taken a bus - one incredulous reporter asked the question: "Mr. Wade, is this the first time the Dallas Transit Company has ever been used for a getaway car?" CE 2170

Think about that for a moment... you've just murdered the President, and you "flee" in public transportation... and the fact that you've taken a bus is "behavior" that tends to show that you're guilty of murder...

You can't make up stories like that!

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-21-Refuted

Friday, December 9, 2016

5 Simple Steps To Reducing Fluoride Exposure

Through your journey to enlightenment, chances are you have grown to understand the consequences of overexposure to fluoride & have become ready to make a healthier lifestyle change. 

If you wish to know more about the dangers of this chemical, you could do some reading Here

Otherwise, shift your focus & undivided attention towards learning about 5 simple proven steps that has helped me & many others to reduce fluoride consumption. 

http://www.classifiedtruth.com/single-po...e-Exposure


Reducing your exposure to these chemicals will be the best thing you have ever done. I promise you my life changed forever. 

Although, we shouldn't have to be worrying about things like fluoride.. We have to bring change.

What are your thoughts??

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-5-Simple-Steps-To-Reducing-Fluoride-Exposure

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Understanding Believers

I wanted to post the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw-AV3eS2A4

I post this video for two reasons: the first is because I believe this is how LNers view the common critic. The second is because this is how believers want others to view us as well.

They speak of conspiracy theorist with disdain. They even say "you people," like we're a race or something. Is there any doubt that when they drafted CIA Document 1035-960, the "kook" stigma was a calculated manufacture? 

Sorry, we're not the scared old guy in the video. I'm sure it's fun for believers to pretend so, all while fantasizing of a superior intellect. But it's also fun for believers to run with the Lone Nut fantasty. Believers love fantasy.

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