Proof that the SBT is Sheer Nonsense.

Dr. Gregory worked on Connally's wrist, and gave five reasons that the bullet that went through Connally's wrist did so from the outside to the palm side.

1. The general ragged appearance of the dorsal wound is typical of an entrance wound.

2. Bits of thread and cloth were carried into the wound on the dorsal side and these corresponded with a tear in the jacket sleeve.

3. Two or three fragments were shed after the bullet had hit the radius. The three fragments taken from the wrist were more volar and caused by the radius flaking them off.

4. The distortion of the soft tissues shows the pathway to be dorsal to volar.

5. Air in the wound is more visible on the dorsal side of the X-ray which is typical of entrance wound.

It's not a surprise that believers absolutely REFUSE to debate this issue, or to explain it away...

But it demonstrates that the SBT is just a bunch of hooey...

(Watch as believers assert that they can't understand this, or simply refuse to answer...)

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Proof-that-the-SBT-is-Sheer-Nonsense

Teaching Children Religion...

In a post apparently arguing against parents teaching their children religion, this statement was made:

Bud Wrote:Another thing, scaring children with unsupportable tales of eternal punishment is child abuse.

Unfortunately for atheists, the strongest evidence today for the fact of a theistic universe is science itself.

But even if it could be proven beyond all doubt that there is no God - the teaching of religious values is still in society's best interests - those raised in religious homes are far less likely to rob you, or murder you. Teaching values is the major task facing parents... when character is taught, then society benefits.

Atheism doesn't teach moral values - that can only come from God.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Teaching-Children-Religion

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #36 Refuted.

(36) A handmade paper bag large enough to carry Oswald's rifle was found in the sniper's nest.

No photograph exists of the paper bag in situ. Ironically, if you *look* at the paper bag, it's quite clear that it was originally simply folded around a book... this was, after all the Texas School BOOK Depository... 



Here's another view of the bag - again note the folding:


And, as has been pointed out, when a Mannlicher Carcano has been broken down (AS WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY), and placed in a bag - "the first seven or eight inches of the [wooden] stock show obvious signs of severe scoring and scratching. This is caused by the protruding parts of the barrel assembly - principally the trigger - rubbing against it as the bag is moved or carried."

As Ian Griggs continues to point out, "So what is the significance of these facts? Quite simply, no such scratches have ever been reported on the CE 139 rifle. Furthermore, they are not evident in any photographs taken of that rifle. To me, this provides irrefutable physical proof that the rifle was never transported in a disassembled state in a long paper bag as has been claimed by the investigative agencies and the Warren Commission." - No Case to Answer, Ian Griggs - page 200.

And, even if we accept, for the purpose of argument, that a paper bag was found – it fails to support any guilt on Oswald's part – the paper bag he was carrying was too short to carry the rifle. Observations that were corroborated by the nature of the observation – that the bag was carried in the palm of the hand, and tucked under Oswald's armpit. Simply impossible were it a rifle in the bag.

Indeed, the fact that a paper bag was found in the mail, addressed to Oswald at a non-existent Dallas address, with metered postage (not stamps), yet short by 12 cents. Then, on Nov 23, a postage due card for 12 cents arrives at Ruth Paine's house – despite this not being the non-existent address found on the package to Oswald. This just absolutely SCREAMS frame-up... and Warren Commission believers have to just scratch their head... no explanation in sight.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-36-Refuted

Example of Poor Logic...

Bud Wrote:The fact is that most of the people who have appointed themselves to look into this matter display precious little skill in doing so. It is a simple thing to determine that Oswald killed Kennedy, it is a conclusion that is both obvious and on firm ground. When someone not only can't determine that Oswald killed Kennedy, but spends all their time concocting ways to try to undermine that firm ground it becomes apparent very quickly that they are only playing silly games. 

This is the sort of nonsensical claptrap that defines Warren Commission believers nowadays. Just for the sheer enjoyment, I'll take it apart:

"The fact is that most of the people who have appointed themselves to look into this matter display precious little skill in doing so."

As, of course, you're demonstrating. No citations, no examples, no evidence - merely speculative opinion based on nothing whatsoever.

"It is a simple thing to determine that Oswald killed Kennedy, it is a conclusion that is both obvious and on firm ground."

If it actually were a simple thing - then believers wouldn't be so deathly afraid of knowledgeable critics. For example, right here in this forum I've been taking apart Vincent Bugliosi's best evidence for the Warren Commission's theory - and there aren't any believers around to defend Bugliosi.

Not because they simply don't care - they cannot defend Bugliosi because his assertions are simply indefensible. So where's this "firm ground" that "Bud" asserts - yet can't demonstrate? Why is it that believers such as "Bud" are constantly making claims that they cannot support?

It's no surprise that I'm constantly labeling believers as dishonest and cowardly - they keep proving this on a daily basis. While I can answer, and CREDIBLY so, any question posed on the evidence by a believer - the opposite simply isn't true. Even when they promise to answer (as Patrick Collins did) - they end up running away.

"When someone not only can't determine that Oswald killed Kennedy, but spends all their time concocting ways to try to undermine that firm ground it becomes apparent very quickly that they are only playing silly games."

What "Bud" fails to acknowledge, is that there's no particular reason on the part of critics to label Oswald innocent. It would matter NOT AT ALL to hold that he's guilty as sin, and pulled the trigger. If he pulled the trigger while others were also pulling their triggers - IT'S STILL A CONSPIRACY.

So why do so many critics defend Oswald?

It's not the critics doing so... it's the EVIDENCE that shows him to be innocent. It's the EVIDENCE that shows he was framed.

If this were such a simple case as "Bud" implies, then there's no reason for the classification of so much of the evidence... take, for example; the medical testimony that was classified by the HSCA - "Bud" can't supply any possible and credible non-conspiratorial reason for its classification.

He will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to offer any reason, since he's well aware that anything he might offer will be quickly shown to be nothing but nonsense.

So in addition to being an example of poor logic, "Bud's" statement shows him to be a coward as well - since he'll absolutely refuse to defend it.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Example-of-Poor-Logic

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #35 Refuted.

(35) The three expended shells on the sixth floor were "fired in and ejected from" Oswald's rifle.

This is simply not true. As Thompson pointed out long ago, and anyone can eyeball for themselves, CE543 doesn't have the characteristic 'chamber mark' that all other cartridges known to have been fired from CE2766 had.

You can view CE543 on the left here:


For anyone interested, you can also locate online photos of shells fired from the Mannlicher Carcano by the FBI after the assassination - which also have the same 'chamber mark'.

Note again the dead silence coming from Warren Commission believers - who don't have any way to refute my refutation of Bugliosi's "evidence".

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-35-Refuted

All Believers Are Dishonest... (Mark Ulrik Example)

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Wow, Ben finally banned me! He and his pals are probably having a small victory dance right now. Although I had requested an opportunity to delete the profile myself, it was kind of a relief. All the childish insults, hypocrisy, Bizarro World logic, etc., were beginning to get to me. 

Although Mark admits to requesting that his profile be deleted - he then asserts that I "banned" him when I simply did as he requested.

Mark, as any other believer - is certainly welcome to post here. But it seems that all the believers have run away. They can't survive in a forum that doesn't allow ad hominem attacks.

It would be truly amusing if I could find an honest and knowledgeable believer - but so far, I never have.

Can anyone point me to such a critter?

Does any knowledgeable and honest person exist, that believes the Warren Commission? Anywhere?

(Of course, much like my question concerning any eyewitness whom believers accept, this question too will never be answered...)

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-All-Believers-Are-Dishonest-Mark-Ulrik-Example

Anthony Marsh Is A Liar...

Anthony Marsh Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:As an example: In another forum, the claim was made that the Mannlicher Carcano could be recycled in 1.6 seconds... this is in conflict with the known evidence, and is an example of a lie. Anyone making that claim would merely be quoted, then the citation to the FBI testing of CE-139 showing the actual cycling time - then, and only then, may the offending poster be labeled a liar.

That is not true. That is a lie. 

The known evidence does not rule out 1.6 seconds. People have done it. 

It has NEVER been done. Tony will be completely unable to cite any such demonstration of CE-139 cycling that fast.

Tony is a cowardly liar...

Quite despicable of him to label me a liar when I'm telling the truth, and HE'S lying...

I challenge him to tell the truth.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Anthony-Marsh-Is-A-Liar

All The Eyewitnesses Were Lying...

Dave Reitzes Wrote:JFK researchers sometimes allude to the Randall Dale Adams case publicized in Errol Morris' documentary, THE THIN BLUE LINE, as an example of Dallas injustice. (In fairness to the Dallas authorities, the tendency of police officers or prosecutors to rush to judgment or rely on poor evidence is hardly exclusive to Dallas.) 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_B...1988_film) 

Something that particularly strikes me in the film is the interview with Adams prosecution witness Emily Miller, who comes across as an almost too perfect example of the sort of over-imaginative, over-eager busybody who likes to inject oneself into a criminal case -- talking about how she always wanted to be a detective, how murders seemed to happen around her all the time, and how she loves to solve crimes before the police do. Her testimony against Adams was a crucial factor in Adams' murder conviction, and it was later discredited. (An acquaintance tried to tell the authorities what a liar Miller was, and was ignored.) 

Most eyewitnesses are sincere and sober enough (regardless of how accurate their perceptions and memories may be), but these kinds of attention seekers really do exist, and, as James Phelan noted, high profile cases bring them forth in droves. When people allude to such bogus witnesses as Beverly Oliver, Gordon Arnold, Rose Cherami, Nancy Perrin Rich, Jack S. Martin, Richard Case Nagell, et al, and ask "Could all these people be lying?" -- the answer is YES. 

I have, on more occasions than I can count, challenged believers to name even a single witness they believe entirely in their 1963-1964 statements & testimony.

Nothing but dead silence... and I predict, that there will continue to be dead silence in any forum that cannot control my responses...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-All-The-Eyewitnesses-Were-Lying

FBI Involvement In The Conspiracy...

David Emerling Wrote:

Anonymous Believer Wrote:... Custer's bullshit story about a bullet falling out of JFK's back ...

Plus, there were two FBI agents in attendance at the autopsy. One of their primary responsibilities was to gather any evidence - in particular, A BULLET! It's hard to imagine that Agents Sibert and O'Neill wouldn't be interested in a bullet that fell to the floor. 

But, of course, this is where the CTs claim that the FBI was in on the conspiracy. There really is no winning this argument. The more proof you give, the larger the conspiracy becomes. They never once pause to consider how absolutely unwieldy (and implausible) their conspiracy has become. And yet, they will never articulate the specific nature of this "conspiracy". All they do is stand on the rooftops and yell "Conspiracy!" - then they call that research.

No matter how many times it's pointed out, believers run away... there were quite conceivably less than a dozen people in the actual conspiracy.

And, it's been articulated many times. Entire books have been written on the topic.

The only truth to be found is that believers are cowards... they are afraid to debate knowledgeable critics.

And that truth is demonstrated daily as believers refuse to debate.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-FBI-Involvement-In-The-Conspiracy

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #34 Refuted.

(34) The mostly intact bullet (CE 399) and two of the fragments (CE567 and CE569) were fired from this rifle.

I would expect that whichever rifle was used, would be tied to the Patsy. The chain of custody on all these bullets & fragments is shaky indeed... CE399 probably would not have survived any decent defense attorney's challenges to it.

This also presumes two "facts" not in evidence … that the Mannlicher Carcano belonged to Oswald, and that it was him who was firing it.

Once again, be sure to note the dead silence coming from believers...

Bugliosi simply cannot be defended from reasonable refutation...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-34-Refuted

Politics & the Assassination - Dishonest Critics.

Ramon F. Herrera Wrote:There are 4 clearly aligned positions in the case of JFK's murder.

Each group has a well defined motivation.

(1) Liberal Conspiracy Theorists

This group is still grieving by the horrible crime. They feel robbed of a demigod who reached mythic proportions. Their source of frustration is the breach of the trust between the government and The People, an injustice that has been unresolved for too long.

Oliver Stone, John Kerry (best friend of Teddy), all the Kennedys, Obama, Clintons, Gore, Jim DiEugenio, Jeff Morley, Gary Aguilar, Cyril Wecht, Ramon F. Herrera.


(2) Liberal Lone Nutters

These folks are terrified about the real possibility that LBJ had something to do with it:

Chris Mathews, Jimmy Carter, Larry Sabato, Robert Allbritton, who is the Founder of Politico and Member of the Trustees of the LBJ Library, Jean Davison, etc.

I am convinced that Rachel Maddow is a closeted CT (she is too intelligent to be LN) but must follow MSNBC policy.

The position of the right is more interesting. Per their nature, it is rooted on abhorrence. It hinges on what they despise the most. See groups No. 3 and No. 4 below.


Conservative/Republicans:

(3) Conservative Lone Nutters:

They hate the Democratic Party the most. Schadenfreude is a factor:

"It was a freakin' commie!! One of your own!!! Oswald did it to impress Fidel!!"

Prof. John McAdams, Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump, Steve Logan and most Conservatives


(4) Conservative Conspiracy Theorists

These folks have never met a conspiracy they didn't like. First and foremost, they hate the US government with a blind fury.

.See Birthers, Truthers, InfoWars, Breitbart, etc.

Note: We can include CT Libertarians in Group No. 4. See the reason below:

http://www.dealey-plaza.org/~ramon/polit...rnment.png

Well, it's not hard to place Ramon in the political spectrum... he's clearly a lefty.

I challenge him to correctly place me in his list...

It can't be done. I'm to the right of Rush Limbaugh, and laugh at the Moon Landing, 9/11, Birthers, and other wacky conspiracy theories.

Polls would suggest that there are a lot of people similar to me - yet Ramon can't put us into a category.

Clearly, dishonesty isn't limited to the believer's side of the aisle...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Politics-the-Assassination-Dishonest-Critics

Cheap service system

There are many writing service online due to the great demand from the customers. Also many spam sites are arising in addition with the good one. Most of them are ultimately aimed to seeking money from customers, also they not able to write quality paper for the customers. So be careful on choosing custom essay writing service. You have to ensure the quality and experience of the service. Also you should check the service writing standards, pricing structure, customer support and offered guarantees from the company.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Cheap-service-system

Another Single Bullet "Fact"...

Frank Warner Wrote:What was the “single-bullet theory”?

It was Arlen Specter’s deductive guess, since proven fact, that one 6.5-millimeter rifle bullet fired by Lee Harvey Oswald on Nov. 22, 1963, caused a non-fatal wound to President John F. Kennedy’s neck, then passed through Texas Gov. John Connally’s chest and right wrist, and finally lodged loosely in Connally’s left thigh.

Ever notice how believers keep asserting that it's now "proven fact" - yet never seem to show just how it was "proven?"

Frank Warner is another coward who cannot debate in a forum where knowledgeable critics would point out his nonsense.

The evidence didn't support the SBT back in November of 1963 - and nothing changed ... it's still a theory developed to avoid the only other possibility - that there was a conspiracy... multiple shooters.

No transit was ever found during the autopsy - that's a fact that's unavoidable.

Connally's wrist wound alone shows that there was no SBT.

The "elliptical" back wound of Connally demonstrates that there was no SBT.

But you can't find any believers willing to stand up and defend their nonsense.

Why is that?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Another-Single-Bullet-Fact

The Cowardice of Believers...

David Emerling Wrote:

Anonymous Critic Wrote:The second bullet missed JFK completely and struck Connally under his right armpit. That is the scenario that is supported by all of the evidence. 

Then why was the entry wound in Connally's black so elliptical? It's hard to construct a trajectory of a bullet that is fired from behind the limousine and manages to COMPLETELY misses Kennedy and hits Governor Connally. I'd like to see a graphic depiction of that trajectory. I'll bet THAT bullet will have to do more zigging and zagging than what the conspiracy theorists contend with the Single Bullet Theory. 

Where did the bullet go that exited Kennedy's throat if it did not continue on and hit neither the limousine nor Connally? 

It's too bad that David is too much a coward to face knowledgeable critics... (as are most other believers).

I'd simply ask him why the "elliptical" wound of Connally matches so well in measurements with the elliptical wounds of JFK.

Nor is the trajectory difficult at all... once you eliminate the hidden assumption that David is making... that shots only came from the Sniper's Nest.

The fact that believers can be so easily and credibly answered explains their cowardice - they simply cannot face a knowledgeable critic without running away.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-The-Cowardice-of-Believers

Single Bullet "Fact?"

'Vincent Bugliosi Wrote:"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of "Reclaiming History" 

If the SBT is a "Fact" - why is it that no believer dares to try to defend it against a knowledgeable critic?

It's a FACT that the prosectors could not trace ANY PATH AT ALL through the body.

It's a FACT that this theory didn't even come into existence until Tague forced a revision of the "Three shots, three hits" theory.

It's a FACT that without the SBT, conspiracy is the only other explanation... one that explains other facts as well...

Why aren't their any believers brave enough to dispute these facts?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Single-Bullet-Fact

Gerrymandering?

Quote:If the election were based on vote count, Trump lost.  The Gerrymandering of the Republicans won the election.

And if the election were based on those who cast mail-in ballots while wearing a red hat - perhaps Santa Claus would have won.

I find it truly amusing the despair felt by Democrats - who are willing to blame anything and everything other than the policies they work toward.

Wouldn't it make more sense to turn introspective, and figure out what policies they are championing that voters don't want?

And does it make sense to any honest person that President Obama was elected twice by those same "Republican Gerrymandered" voting districts?

Truth is often the first victim when people search for someone or something to blame...

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

David Emerling's Cowardice...

David Emerling Wrote:I'm simply pointing out the importance of reading documents for yourself instead of having a biased organization interpret it for you. 

It's sort of like reading Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgment" that came out in 1966, less that two years after the Warren Commission Report became public. Most Americans had no ready access to the 26 volumes and relied heavily on Mark Lane's selective and misleading interpretations. Of course, many years later, when a simple Google search gives you access to just about everything - we now know how deceptive that book was. 

It happens so regularly that it's predictable.

Believers make uncited assertions about 'Rush to Judgment' ... and virtually never even make the slightest attempt to support their claim.

On the other hand, when I point out the lies told by Vincent Bugliosi - I do so fully capable of citing page numbers, and quoting his exact lies.

As just one example:

Vincent Bugliosi Wrote:"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)

Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually say this anywhere?

What does the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?

Bugliosi claimed to have spent over 20 years studying this case, and could not POSSIBLY have been unaware of the actual description of the throat wound.

So he lied.

It's just as simple as that.

Now David... do the same thing as I just did... make your assertion about Mark Lane's 'Rush to Judgment' again, then cite and quote an example that supports your claim.

Or run like the coward you are...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-David-Emerling-s-Cowardice

David Emerling's Smoking Gun...

David Emerling Wrote:This brings us back to the Kennedy assassination and the commonly held view by conspiracy theorists that our government should release all the documents. They still hold on to the silly notion that there is a "smoking gun" within some buried document that would reveal the nature of the conspiracy.

I always find it amusing to see believers asserting what critics say...

David cannot cite even a single critic who states that they believe the documents (which will be released in October of this year) will contain the "smoking gun".

Believers cannot refute what knowledgeable critics ACTUALLY state... so they hide in censored forums - and when they do exert the effort to post here - they quickly end up running away.

Why is that?

Simple... the evidence doesn't support their faith.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-David-Emerling-s-Smoking-Gun

Warren Commission Honest???

Steve Wrote:The main author of the Warren Report - the person who actually put pen to paper - was Norman Redlich. Mr. Redlich was a progressive/liberal who defended the rights of radical left groups and people. Ford wanted him removed from the investigation because he thought he, Redlich, was too leftwing. Warren refused to remove him. 

When the conspiracy people claim the WC was a whitewash and that it covered up for a rightwing type coup they are accusing people like Redlich of the act. 

Why would a progressive like Redlich work with rightwinger to stage a coup? Then keep it quiet all of his life? 

When you accuse the WC of being a coverup you're not just accusing the CIA or Hoover or LBJ of being involved. You are accusing people like Redlich and Warren and John Hart Ely (google his name) of doing so. 

No they didn't. And wouldn't. 

It's truly amusing to note that the very same people who loudly complain that the Warren Commission was honest - absolutely REFUSE to defend the Warren Commission when knowledgeable critics point out the lies and misrepresentations contained in the Warren Commission Report.

I'm not afraid to label a "leftwing" a liar...

Nor am I afraid to label a conservative a liar...

It's the truth at stake here... not political affiliation.

The Warren Commission repeatedly lied about their own evidence & testimony... and true believers such as Steve can only run from this fact.

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

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #33 Refuted.

(33) Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

It's never been established by credible evidence that this rifle belonged to Oswald. Now, I know that this will bring howls of complaint from Warren Commission Believers – but it's merely a fact.

Even if one were to assume, for the sake of argument, that this were Oswald's rifle – this is not ironclad evidence of Oswald's guilt. Since he was murdered before he could mount a defense, we have no idea what the circumstances were.

Once again, we have the presumption of guilt, and only then, looking at the evidence... rather than the other way around.

Anyone noticing the sound of crickets coming from Warren Commission believers on my refutations of Vincent Bugliosi?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-33-Refuted

Book Review: "JFK and the Unspeakable"

I found a review for James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable", written by our old friend Garry Puffer.....

http://www.valentinetti.com/thoughts-on-...ry-puffer/

******
 The ideas herein are not all ideas put forth by Mr. Douglass in his book.  He makes no mention of the connection to 9/11, for example.  His is the best book I have ever read about the assassination, and it should be read by everyone, not just those of us still interested in this question.
 President Eisenhower warned us as he was leaving office about the “Military-Industrial Complex” that was shaping up.  He told us in so many words that we needed to do something about it before it was too late.  We didn’t listen and here we are today, with those very people in control of our nation.
But maybe it was always too late.  A few years later, John F. Kennedy was killed by order of this cabal, and they successfully fooled a lot of people for many years with the lone gunman/magic bullet theory.  Most Americans now believe that JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy, but unfortunately most of those still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the important part of that conspiracy along with “rogue” intelligence people.  That’s how well these cover stories stick in the American mind.
The truth is far different.  Douglass makes a compelling case for the “Oswald as patsy” idea, which to my mind is the only conclusion one can draw. You have to make what’s known about Oswald twist and turn like the magic bullet to even place a rifle in his hands.  Something Douglass brings out that I don’t recall ever reading anywhere else is the story of the aborted Chicago assassination plot in early November of 1963.  The plot was blown when the FBI received a tip from an informant named “Lee.”  Two of the people were arrested, two others were not found.  Kennedy’s trip was cancelled at the last minute because of this information.  The most interesting thing about this story is a fifth person allegedly involved, a man named Thomas Arthur Vallee.  If you look at the highlights of Vallee’s biography you might think that you were reading that of Lee Harvey Oswald.  U-2 base in Japan, work with the CIA to train anti-Castro rebels in preparation for a Castro assassination (Oswald worked both sides of the fence at different times on the Castro question),  and even a job in a building along the Presidential parade route in Chicago.  If this plot had gone off, Douglass contends, then we would be reviling Thomas Arthur Vallee, not Lee Harvey Oswald.
 The subtitle of Douglass’ book is “Why He Died and Why it Matters.”  See, here’s the really sad thing.  In the first part of the book, Douglass convincingly shows Kennedy’s change from a Cold Warrior to a man of peace.  The Cuban Missile Crisis had hit him hard, and he had learned to distrust the CIA (can you say “Bay of Pigs?”) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (he thought the JCS was insane for having presented him with “Project Northwoods,” for example, and he could see that they did not want any kind of peaceful resolution to the Cold War).  He looked into a future where nuclear power was unleashed on one’s enemies, and it scared the shit out of him.  He engaged in a secret backdoor dialogue with Premier Khrushchev and both leaders were heading toward disarmament and collisions with their military leaders over the use of nuclear weapons.  He was also well on his way to opening up a dialogue with Castro, and in both instances he went well outside the military/intelligence circles to do it.  But you can’t hide from these people forever.  The military men saw the President as a traitor, wanting to deal with our sworn enemies, the “Communists.”  Therefore he had to die.  He died because he wanted peace instead of war.  That is indeed sad.
 The scenario Douglass envisions is pretty much the same one Jim Garrison came up with for his novel, A Heritage of Stone (and used in Oliver Stone’s “JFK”), a scenario that’s always seemed very reasonable to me, especially given the military and intelligence role in the cover-up.
The military/intelligence/industrial complex has more control now than ever before.  We let them get away with assassinating a president who wanted us to be able to live our lives without fear, and this gave them the knowledge that they could get away with anything they wanted.  And they’re right.  The major thing they want now is for us to live in fear.  Fear of Muslims, fear of Iranians, fear of terrorism in general, and fear of each other.
 If our own military would present a plan to the President calling for fake attacks blamed on the Cubans, attacks in which some Americans might have to lose their lives for the greater good, allowing us then to righteously attack Castro in retaliation for something he did not do (“Project Northwoods”), and if they would set in motion a plan to assassinate the President because they thought he was committing treason by wanting to engage in diplomatic dialogue with communist countries, then is it so far fetched to think that they were also responsible for 9/11, especially since none of the evidence really points to 19 Muslims with box cutters? The FBI has admitted that they never had any “hard evidence” linking Al Qaeda to the attack, yet we send in Navy Seals to assassinate bin Laden for something he was alleged to have done.  This is justice in our world today, and the fake cover story, full of holes as it is, goes on and on.
 This is why it matters that we understand the reasons John Kennedy was assassinated and who was responsible.  They have never been stopped and they are making your life, and the world, more miserable each day.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Book-Review-JFK-and-the-Unspeakable

Image of Dal-Tex Snipers?

Tom Wilson presents an image of what appears to be a two-man sniper team in one of the windows of the Dal-Tex building: 


https://www.google.com/search?q=dal-tex+...Z3ZWNbM%3A

It's a somewhat cool image, but to me they look a bit much like Badge Man, which was established to be a bit of pareidolia. What are people's thoughts on this image?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Image-of-Dal-Tex-Snipers

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing - Dean Abramson

Dean Abramson Wrote:I am currently wavering between LN and CT. I am not vested in either side. 

But if you were at a scene where shooting broke out, would you run TOWARD the gunman? Would most people? I think not. Cops might, some very brave reporters, perhaps a would-be hero or two, but not most people. Not me. 

Maybe people thought they could take cover up there, rather than be out in the open, after JFK was shot out in the open. 

I've NEVER seen someone who claimed to be on the fence that didn't ultimately prove themselves to be true believers in the Warren Commission.

And judging from the polling numbers of the general population - one would expect to see a large MAJORITY of such people to end up being critics of the Warren Commission.

So this tells me that people who claim to be on the fence, are simply dishonest and lying right from the very beginning.  Yes Dean, I need nothing other than history to predict that as you post more, it will come out that you're really a Warren Commission believer...

These "fence-sitting" claims are, no doubt, an attempt to cover themselves with the cloak of honesty.

It's simply a fact that cops did indeed run toward the Grassy Knoll - this is indisputable.

It's also a fact that a great number of civilians were attracted and went to that area - and Dean fails to acknowledge or explain that fact. It's completely explainable in the critic's theory of the case...

P.S. Buildings on one side, wide open space parking lot on the other - which way would you run to evade a shooter?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Wolves-in-Sheep-s-Clothing-Dean-Abramson

David Von Pein Fails Again...

David Von Pein Wrote:This also puts me in mind of CTers who insist that Oswald couldn't possibly have left the sixth floor of the Depository after the assassination without being seen by Adams, Styles, Garner, Dougherty, etc. And yet those same CTers don't raise an eyebrow of concern whenever I ask: 

***Well, then, how did the real killers manage to exit the sixth floor 
without anybody seeing them leave?*** 

Apparently the rules for solving things are completely different for Lee Oswald than they are for those "other assassins" -- whether it be when buying bullets or being able to vacate the sixth floor. 

Once again, we see another believer who commits a logical fallacy, and doesn't even realize it.

The argument about Oswald coming down the stairs is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT from the assassins who came down the stairs.

Oswald ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE come down those stairs in a very narrow window of time... within one minute from the last shot.

The real assassins had no need for such a fast getaway - they were no doubt quite prepared for their 'getaway' and knew that they'd have no problems... the easiest way might well have been to stick around long enough to mingle with the police, and pretend to be detectives. We have a witness who testified to seeing two people come down the stairs as he was first arriving at the scene - and he presumed them to be police, yet didn't know who they were. So this isn't a far-fetched idea.

David Von Pein hasn't taken the timing into account - and simply pretends that both scenarios ... Oswald coming down the stairs, or assassins coming down the stairs... are equivalent... yet we know for a fact that any scenario involving Oswald had a very tight constraint on the time. So the "rules" ARE different... But DVP cannot acknowledge this.

David Von Pein cannot defend his assertions against any knowledgeable critic - so you'll never see him here in this forum. As I've pointed out, believers are cowards.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-David-Von-Pein-Fails-Again

Logical Fallacy From A Believer

An Anonymous Believer Wrote:There were as many as 600 people in Dealey Plaza ON NOVEMBER 22 1963.  THERE IS NOT ONE CREDIBLE WITNESS WHO SAW A GRASSY KNOLL GUNMAN. NOT EVEN ONE. 

This is a typical logical fallacy that believers employ. They confuse the lack of the SPECIFIC evidence they are searching for - for a lack of evidence.

Sorta like saying "THERE IS NOT ONE CREDIBLE WITNESS WHO REPORTED SEEING A MANNLICHER CARCANO SHOOTING FROM THE SNIPER'S NEST".

And indeed it's true. But a very poor way to judge whether or not a Mannlicher Carcano was firing from the Sniper's Nest. That's why I'd feel quite stupid indeed to offer this analogous argument as a serious point to raise...

We do know that the majority of eyewitnesses who were documented in print in the first few days - before the official story could start to take hold - put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll.

Not seeing a shooter doesn't mean that there isn't one.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Logical-Fallacy-From-A-Believer

Are Believers Blind?

An Anonymous Believer Wrote:The JFK assassination has been the most researched crime in the history of the world. If there were any evidence that someone other than Oswald was a party to the crime it would have been discovered by now.

The majority of the witnesses who were documented in print in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots. This is so damaging to the Warren Commission believers, that Patrick Collins has repeatedly lied about this fact.

And it is, of course, the "evidence" that the anonymous believer pretends does not exist.

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

SBT - "Proven Fact?"

Frank Warner Wrote:It was Arlen Specter’s deductive guess, since proven fact, that one 6.5-millimeter rifle bullet fired by Lee Harvey Oswald on Nov. 22, 1963, caused a non-fatal wound to President John F. Kennedy’s neck, then passed through Texas Gov. John Connally’s chest and right wrist, and finally lodged loosely in Connally’s left thigh.

I'm frequently amused by this assertion by believers that the Single Bullet Theory is a "proven fact."

If it actually were a proven fact, I'd be inundated by believers on this forum smashing me repeatedly in debate.

Instead, all we see is dead silence.

It's quite easy to prove this "proven fact" incorrect. Simply hold your right hand next to your right chest, with the palm pointed outward.

Then ask yourself, how likely is it that Gov Connally was holding his hand palm outward.

The medical testimony clearly places the entry of the bullet into his wrist on the outside of his hand - and the exit on the palm side - yet believers simply refuse to address this issue.

They can't.

So they simply avoid the issue, and go around lying that something not supported by the evidence is "proven fact."

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-SBT-Proven-Fact

Believers Are Invariably Cowards...

Since the founding of this forum, we've had precisely three believers post.

The average posting time has been several months, but the latest believer lasted just a week or so...

They ALWAYS end up running away - despite the fact that no ad hominem attacks are allowed. While it would be amusing to think that it's some inbuilt cowardice on the part of those who believe the Warren Commission, the truth is probably more mundane.

They can't refute what I post.

And their own posts in support of the Warren Commission are invariably demolished in short order.

Believers come up with all sorts of reasons why they refuse to debate with knowledgeable critics - but it all boils down to one fact: The evidence doesn't support their faith.

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

Orest Pena

Jeff Morley Wrote:Orest Pena’s story is particularly compelling because he was trusted by the FBI agents in New Orleans. As a bar owner of Cuban descent, he saw and heard a lot of interest to law enforcement. Oswald had visited his bar in the summer of 1963 in the company of a man Pena described as Mexican. Pena also said he saw Oswald with FBI agent Warren DeBreuys on several occasions. DeBreuys denied this and denigrated Pena as unreliable.

In fact, Pena was able to prove that he had been a confidential source for the FBI and still his testimony was ignored, no doubt in part due to the everyday racism which infected even the liberal lawyers of theWarren Commission who could not imagine a Cuban coujld be as credible as a white FBI agent.

The HSCA took him more seriously and was able to incorporate his testimony into their account of the assassination but no one else has been able to read his testimony ever since.

Such is one of the uses of classification. It prevents people from asking follow up questions. Pena is now dead. His testimony will shed new light on the FBI’s interest in and relationship with Oswald.

It's facts like these that prove beyond all doubt that believers are both cowards and liars. You see, an honest man would question why the testimony of a bar owner would need to be classified. There's absolutely ZERO chance that a New Orleans bar owner is capable of testifying to something that would harm National Security interests... There's absolutely NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that he's a spy for a foreign government, or would know anything that, on any rational basis, needs to be classified.

A believer, on the other hand, absolutely refuses even to acknowledge that there's any problem here with classifying Orest Pena's testimony.

I predict, right here and now - that in October of this year - when his testimony is likely to be released - that it will contain nothing at all that would justify being classified - that it will only contain evidence that Oswald was far more known by, and used by the FBI than the FBI ever let on. Orest Pena's testimony will contradict elements of the Warren Commission's grand theory (just as his Warren Commission testimony did.)

And by the questions asked by the HSCA, and not asked by the Warren Commission - his testimony will show a willful refusal to address the real evidence in this case by the Warren Commission.

God willing, I'll still be here 10 months from now to see these predictions come true.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Orest-Pena

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #32 Refuted.

(32) After visiting him on Saturday, Marina came away convinced of Oswald's guilt.

What Bugliosi WON'T tell you is the testimony... here it is:

Quote:Mr. RANKIN. When you saw your husband on November 23d, at the police station, did you ask him if he had killed President Kennedy?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask him at that time if he had killed Officer Tippit?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. I said. "I don't believe that you did that, and everything will turn out well."
After all, I couldn't accuse him--after all, he was my husband.
Mr. RANKIN. And what did he say to that?
Mrs. OSWALD. He said that I should not worry, that everything would turn out well. But I could see by his eyes that he was guilty. Rather, he tried t appear to be brave. However, by his eyes I could tell that he was afraid. This was just a feeling. It is hard to describe.
Mr. RANKIN. Would you help us a little bit by telling us what you saw i his eyes that caused you to think that?
Mrs. OSWALD. He said goodbye to me with his eyes. I knew that. He said that everything would turn out well, but he did not believe it himself.
Mr. RANKIN. How could you tell that?
Mrs. OSWALD. I saw it in his eyes. 

Now, this is wonderful nonsense... just the sort of stuff that would never be allowed into court. This is, at it's essence, merely Marina's OPINION. Based on nothing that she can pinpoint.

It's hardly the sort of evidence that Bugliosi would put forth if he actually had a strong case...

And the fact that believers absolutely REFUSE to defend all of these nonsensical bits of "evidence" after I refute them isn't a demonstration of some sort of genius on my part, but merely a demonstration of just how weak a case Bugliosi put together.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-32-Refuted